“Operation Branchform is a Police Scotland investigation into possible fundraising fraud in the Scottish National Party (SNP) that was launched in 2021 and is ongoing as of December 2024. The investigation concerns allegations that £666,953 raised by the SNP since 2017 specifically to campaign for independence in a proposed second Scottish independence referendum was in part improperly spent on other activities. The investigation has expanded to cover allegations of embezzlement, signature forgery, and misreporting of loans made to the party to the Electoral Commission…
In December 2022, Wings Over Scotland reported that a loan of £107,620 made to the SNP in June 2021 had come from the party’s then-CEO Peter Murrell, and that the Electoral Commission had not been informed until over a year later, in August 2022, despite this being a breach of the commission’s reporting rules..
By the end of February 2024, it was reported that Police Scotland had requested to re-interview SNP staff as part of the investigation, including those who were not in place when the inquiry began. …the move was directed by the crown Office…”:
What will come first the end of Operation Branchform or the SNP position on Independence?
We were told its only weeks away from being concluded and that was 1 last year and 2 months ago. I just don’t know who to trust.
I just want everyone to know unlike the SNP after ten years my posistion hasn’t changed on Indyref2, sorry Nic I still call it that.
Socrates MacSporran
1 month ago
Queen of the New Year on BBC Shortbread on Hogmanay was, as usual with 21st century “comedy” from that channel a bit hit and miss (and more miss than hit).
I did, however, quietly chuckle at their sketch on the Murrells, in their campervan, with a tattered saltire, confessing their love, before departing, pursued by the polis.
And a Guid New Year to you, Chris. Spot on as usual, I’m afraid.
sarah
1 month ago
A Guid New Year to you, Rev. Thank you for your dedication.
And you chose your cartoonist well. 🙂
TURABDIN
1 month ago
Ramsay Mac Donald in Socialism: critical and constructive, published in 1921, wrote: «The Anglification of Scotland has been proceeding apace to the damage of its education, its music, its literature, its genius, and the generation that is growing up under this influence is uprooted from its past»
a voice from 100+ years ago worth mulling over in this «new year», especially by those who style themselves «politicians» LOL!
Neoliberalism is the fail. It’s sold all the family silver & it’s assets to foreigners & has fck all income now. The days of just printing money & exorbitant privilege of living off the plunder are over too as colonisers are told to pack their bags & fck off…so they need a war..gotta keep the grift going..
Cuba like Nicaragua, are doing a remarkable job – considering the huge amount of sanctions against the countries.
These illegal sanctions by the US – and its ever obedient minions is war by other means.
Cuban socialism would be exemplary (for me it still is) if there sanctions against the country.
I recall years ago – Michael Moore taking Americans to get free health care in Cuba, which has an excellent universal health care system, because they couldn’t afford treatment in the USA.
Socialism works – that’s why capitalism has to destroy it – it fears it.
It works fine in countries such as Venezuela – it was Henry Kissinger who said (or words to that effect) with Chile in mind, that we can’t allow socialism to flourish in Chile – even if Chileans vote for it – which they did, so the US and its allies couped Chile – killing its leader Allende – they then proceeded via proxy fighter – to carry out mass murders and installed, Thatcher’s great friend the dictator General Pinochet.
Chile then became a experimental country for the rampant capitalist Friedmanism – which Thatcher introduced to the UK – and now the UK is is in a terrible state.
The US and its allies have been regime changing socialist countries for decades – not because it doesn’t work, but because they fear it.
Kissinger’s exact quote.
“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”
The best proof that Socialism is an utter failure is the fact that ordinary people are fleeing Socialist/Communist nations like Cuba and Venezuela in order to settle in the U.S.
People risked their lives to flee Communist East Berlin to go to free West Berlin. Communist regimes have border guards to shoot people trying to get out. Free market countries don’t.
We know all about Juan Guaidó – and the Washington backed Voluntad Popular in Venezuela.
You see what happens is the US places wide ranging sanctions on a country – lets say Venezuela – for not complying with US wishes – as I’ve said before, these illegal sanctions are war by other means – the well to do sections of society – then complain that their businesses, lifestyles are suffering – not because of the illegal US sanctions, but because the democratically elected president, isn’t complying with a foreign countries demands.
The democratically elected president – wants to make the lives of his citizens, more fairer and equal with a better standard of living etc – this is not conducive with the rich in societies goals.
They then turn against the incumbent government – and do the the USA bidding – this a basic but effect principle of regime changing.
More laughable excuses for Socialism’s failures.
But the true believers will keep worshipping at the alter of Karl Marx, and keep pretending that Maduro of Venezuela isn’t a dictator.
They have to keep pretending, because otherwise they would have to admit that their statist religion has failed.
Utter nonsense as usual – though you can take comfort in – that Trump has said he’ll “sort out” Central and South American countries – when he take office.
Look out Venezuela and Nicaragua.
Trump has already as POTUS tried to coup Venezuela – though he seemed more interested in Guaido’s wife than Guaido himself.
I can’t confirm this, but – its been touted around – that Trump has already purchased the land for his new golf course – beachfront land in gGa-z-za–a
He wants Canada & Greenland too. All those untapped resources going to waste & obviously the very strategic location to the Arctic now that it’s all melting.
Look out Canada & Greenland – you’ll now be sanctioned & tariffd tae fck given an offer you cannot refuse or I see a regime change in yer not too distant future…
Yes I knew that – the US had the premier of Bangladesh couped – (though she didn’t help herself with legacy employment laws) – because she wouldn’t give the USA the Saint Martin’s island – to use as a staging post.
The island which lies North of the Strait of Malacca – would be an excellent staging post to interfere in China’s sea route trading – along with allowing the US to hold sway in a vast part of Southern Asia.
His son in law was all over American telly celebrating Palestine being cleared cause it was valuable real estate for his plans to build luxury high-rises looking out over the Med..
Obviously Palestinians were just cluttering the view.
Id give that a 1 for remaining high rise for very long lol. Same with Trumps golf course. That’d just be fcking evil.
No. They’re fleeing crippling ILLEGAL SANCTIONS imposed on them by colonisers.
Cuba has the most Sanctions imposed on it for fck all.
Venezuela are mega rich in natural resources but the colonisers block investment & infrastructure so they can rob the country blind by paying peanuts for raw goods rather than the going rate of refined. Even Trump bragged he was stealing their oil for nothing.
The USA is the cluster fuck ruling over everyone else’s economy like they own the world but that’s about to burst..
Who has erected walls to keep people from fleeing their country? Communist East Berlin, for one.
The Soviet Union, for another. Ever hear of the “Iron Curtain?”
What about the recent ones in those free market countries? You know, like the ones America has? Are they just a mirage? A figment of our immigration?
How about the ones in Isr too?
Operation Unthinkable, Churchill’s plan to invade R00ssh-ai after WII – because the West didn’t want R00s-hhia to have any control in Central/East Germany – even though many East Germans were okay with it.
Lets not forget that it was R00sshhia, that all but won the Second World War, losing over 20 million people in the process.
Next you’ll be citing the great Wall of China, or Hadrian’s Wall – or the Antonine Wall.
Aye, that was a bastard thing to try do to an ally who’d won the war & paid the highest cost. He tried to get it going cause rather than say thanks he wanted to strike them while they were weakened through the heavy losses they’d suffered for yrs.
Just shows how fckn devious they’ve always been. It’s inherent. Perfidious Albion right enough.
Shows too that it was fck all to do with the dews (credit to Main for the mod proof version) either. Of course we knew that anyway cause the Brits refused to take refugees, & was more to do with trying to hold onto it’s dying Empire & land grab. They lost it anyway to the yanks who’ve tallied up more deaths worldwide since…
Yes, language (and culture) which is what determines our identity is a key determinant of independence, not that the daeless SNP elite has ever figured this oot; which explains why oor ain braw Scots langage is nivver taucht tae Scots bairns and despite indigenous language being a human right.
Scots is taught in schools though not perhaps at a level you would wish.
Under Salmond’s stewardship the approach to languages was to open the door and make the early learning of languages normal. It is happening and being monitored..
There has been an increase in the numbers learning Scots. Gaelic is the third most popular language behind French and German.
Gaelic language is not the Scots language. The British state offers Gaelic language degrees and Highers, but not degrees or Highers in Scots langauge. The linguistic discrimination against Scots speakers is rather obvious, and a core colonial procedure, as is divide and rule, i.e. favouring one group.
Well, Alf, research finds Scots is presently flourishing in Scotland, being spoken by most people (though not read or written much). Few speakers of Scots may regard it as a language but just their way of speaking.
There ” is widespread and strong recognition of the role of Scots in contributing to the culture, history and identity of Scotland.”
If colonialism is at work it seems not to be very effective in expressing Scots which I hear around me every day.
Most of those who do not connect with Scots language are not Scots
It is not taught in the schools that are in the area where I live. Not in a single one. Scots and Gaelic languages should be mandatory in all Scottish Schools. Scots and Gaelic together with English should be official languages in Scotland. Our MPs should be able to speak in any of the three languages in the so called parliament of the UK.
Have a read at the Springer link just upthread, Mia?
Also, according to the 2011 Census 1.5 million of Scots identified as Scots speakers. That makes the language the second most used after English not only in Scotland but in the UK.
Young people will pick up Scots from around them as well as in school.
There are barriers to learning Scots as well, one being that many do not see it as a language in its own right.
And the “cringe” still hangs around Scottish culture. “Language attitudes and Scottish Inferiority” by Jim Miller
Do you know how the Scots Language Bill is progressing? I don’t.
robertkknight
1 month ago
A guid Ne’er tae ane an aa, an mony may ye see.
Bliadhna mhath ùr.
Happy New Year.
(Thank you Mr Cairns – keep ’em coming)
Alf Baird
1 month ago
As the cartoon implies, and as postcolonial theory confirms: a colonized people are ‘out of the game; they are mere ‘bystanders’ in their own land. Another people and culture make decisions for them, including deciding on their fate. A colonized people are essentially a plaything, they are of no consequence to the colonizer. Such is the ‘dependency complex’ nature of colonial rule.
Critical perception of this reality, which is obscured, cannot be imposed on the oppressed group. Not that the dominant national party has ever undertaken ‘a reasoned study of colonial society’; this remains arguably their major weakness, leading to their co-option by the oppressor power and thwarting of liberation.
In order to ‘penetrate the totality’ of their situation, an oppressed peoples educational pursuit via ‘thematic investigation’ is necessary, which is a cultural action. For this to occur an applied theoretical framework may be necessary, setting out the relevant themes of analysis:
& yet here you are trying to insist we cannie huv a referendum while at the same time claiming we’re not colonised.
Which one is it?
It must be taxing being a Yoon. Full of so many contradictions & hypocrisies 24/7. Go give yerself a wee lie down. Do you even know what colonialism is?
The UN has a list of colonies. Scotland is not on the list.
Here’s the link. Admittedly, it requires you to be able to read and comprehend things: link to un.org
Richt-thinkin Scots ken fine we’re a colonized fowk; we dinna hiv tae be on a list sanctioned by imperial pouers tae ken we’re doun-hauden. The ‘colonial condition’ is aye the same nae maitter whaur:
By your own definition, Scotland ISN’T a colony.
Not a colony in 1708. Not a colony for the last 317 years. Not a colony according to the UN. Not a colony by any definition.
Please keep commenting. I need something to laugh at.
Scotland is not a colony. Scotland is the equal partner of the Kingdom of England with whom it voluntarily entered into an international treaty.
But Scotland is being treated as a colony. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The Kingdom of England has abused the treaty and has continuously used it as an excuse to exploit Scotland as a colony.
Actions speak louder than words.There are far too many examples to prove this to list here, but, if I may, I will mention a few.
One example is the relentless attempts by England MPs and English judges using English law and English law convention in English courts to assume for the UK parliament “parliamentary sovereignty”. When the parliament of Scotland ratified the treaty, it did not own parliamentary sovereignty. The sovereignty of Scotland lies with its people. The parliament of Scotland could not transfer to the new parliament of Great Britain what it did not have. England MPs simply self assumed that they could rule over Scotland at will, therefore they are currently encroaching on the Scottish people’s sovereignty. This would not happen if Scotland was not seen as a colony.
Another example is the presence of an unelected representative of the crown of England in the middle of what should have been a democratically elected government cabinet. This unelected representative of the crown otherwise known as “Lord Advocate”, is actively stealing control over the executive and legislative powers from the people of Scotland and handing them to the English crown. This is effectively imposing on Scotland absolute rule. This would have never happen if Scotland was not seen as a colony.
Another example is the presence of that entity known as “crown office” and that figure known as “crown agent” that are attached to the jugular of Scotland’s prosecution service. There is no equivalent to that “crown office” nor “crown agent” foisted on England’s prosecution service. Scotland has been lumbered with this so called “crown office” and “crown agent” because it is seen as a colony.
Another example is the presence in Scotland of a so called “Secretary of State”. What is the supposed role of this figure? Scotland already has a colonial administrative unit, otherwise known as “Scottish government” or “Scottish parliament”. Why do we need that figure? And where is the counterpart of that figure in England? We have this representative of England’s government in Scotland (effectively a viceroy) because Scotland is seen as a colony.
Another example is the systematic frustration of Scotland’s democratic will for the best part of 10 years. Examples of this are the result of the EU referendum. Scotland never voted for Brexit. Actually, Scotland never gave consent for Great Britain to be taken out of the EU. Yet, the Kingdom of England, with the collusion with our useless so called “representatives” dragged Scotland out of the EU. Another example is the systematic frustration for the last 8 years of Scotland’s democratic mandateS, because there are several of them, to hold an independence referendum. But this systematic frustration of Scotland’s expressed democratic will has been seen for centuries, like the disgraceful and appalling way the result of the referendum of 1979 was frustrated by the English government and parliament. This only happens because Scotland is seen as if it was the property of England of its colony.
Another example is the way the kingdom of England is ransacking Scotland’s resources as if they were its own, exploiting them for its own profit and benefit. Examples of this is how the KIngdom of England is taking for free the electricity produced in Scotland, the oil extracted from Scotland’s territorial waters and the gas extracted from Scotland’s territory including territorial waters. What is beyond outrageous, is that despite the Kingdom of England taking all that for free without paying us a single penny for it, the people in Scotland are forced to pay for the electricity produced in their own effing country, MORE than what the English people pay in England for the electricity produced in Scotland and that the kIngdom of Scotland takes for free. Yet, our useless so called “representatives” either look the other way or clap in approval. This only happens because Scotland is being treated as a colony, even, disgracefully, by Scotland’s own so called “representatives”.
Another example is the way England (as the UK)’s government feels entitled to sell large pieces of Scotland’s land for the so called “freeports”. When exactly were the people of Scotland consulted and asked permission for the selling of massive chunks of their own effing country? That would not happen if Scotland was not treated as a colony.
Another example is how Scotland has been reduced to the status of Wales, which entered the treaty of union as a dominion of the Kingdom of England. A wonderful example of this is how Scotland, the same as Wales, has a devolved “administration”, a colonial administration more like. Yet, England has nothing of the sort and instead, uses and abuses the parliament of Great Britain as if it was its own effing parliament. This asymmetric devolution is, in my opinion, unlawful under the treaty of union. This would not have happened if Scotland was not seen as a colony.
Another example is how the Kingdom of England has constantly its hand on Great Britain’s taxpayers’ purse and uses it as if it owned the whole lot. Scotland, Wales and NI had to make do with some crumbs that England throws at them, whilst England’s expenditure is not constrained by anything. This only happens because the Kingdom of England sees itself as above Scotland and is if owned Scotland.
Another example is how the Kingdom of England quickly reclaims ownership of all its own assets and the assets of everybody else. When it comes to debts though, England’s debts are the debts of everybody, so effectively we have the Kingdom of England sucking the resources and assets from everybody else whilst it foist on them a portion of its own debt. This only happens because Scotland is seen under an imperialist prism.
Another example is how, due to Westminster’s distribution of the HoC, the only country of England, Wales, Scotland or NI for which there is actually a functional democracy and the only country who controls what is passed in that parliament, is England. This only happens because Scotland’s opinion is seen as irrelevant and that can only happen because Scotland is treated as a colony within this political union.
Another example is how the warmongers of the kingdom of England consider themselves entitled to use and dispose of Scotland’s territory as if it was their own backyard. Scotland is being used as the graveyard of nuclear waste and the playground or rich English aristocrats. Again, this only happens because Scotland is being treated as a colony.
Another example is the interference of England’s political parties, England’s MPs, England’s actors and actresses, etc, etc, etc, in Scotland’s referendum in 2014. How much money raised outwith Scotland was poured into the “Better Together” campaign? In any other country, interference from other country and pouring money raised on other countries to force the result of a referendum would be seen as illegal. It was not the case here because Scotland is treated as if it was a colony.
Another example is how the language of another country has been imposed on Scotland as its main language, despite Scotland having its own languages. A dramatic example of this is the way some self-entitled arsehole England MPs, who speak as if they were chewing wasps, had the brass neck to laugh at Scottish MPs accents or demand them to speak English because the ignoramus England MPs could not possibly understand those who do not speak as if they were chewing wasps. One wonders how on earth these wasp chewers actually communicate with their own constituents. Only in a situation where Scotland is seen as a colony can explain that the people of Scotland is expected to ditch their own native language and adopt the language and culture of their neighbour country as the official language and culture.
Another example is how the kingdom of England’s representatives and even its own crown have been systematically and relentlessly violating the fundamental conditions of the treaty of union and yet, they expect us to continue to abide by the treaty. This can only happen because the treaty was only seen as the means to take control over Scotland as a colony.
I could go on, and on, and on and on some more. The Bottom line is that Scotland is not, by definition, a colony. It is England’s equal partner and has the legitimate right under international law to revoke the treaty of union at any time of its own choosing. But the treaty of union has been used for the last 300 years by the representatives of the Kingdom of England and by the crown of England as an excuse to treat Scotland as if it was England’s property or colony.
Considering that support for independence in Scotland is increasing, If I was a colonially minded “unionist”, I would not consider what I wrote above and the growing sentiment among the people of Scotland that their country is being treated, abused and exploited as if it was England’s colony, a laughing matter.
A magnificent example of how Scotland is seen as a colony is the McCrone Report. As soon as you read it you immediately notice the strong whiff that both, the person writing it and the entity that commissioned it, and that was suppose to be the first reading it, saw Scotland as a colony.
The way the author speaks of the oil and the ways it suggests to the reader ways on how to steal that oil from Scotland speaks volumes. One of those recommendations to rob Scotland of its oil fields was to redraw the territorial waters boundaries, which of course the war criminal Blair did right before Holyrood was opened.
The author of that report speaks of the people of Scotland as “natives”. Clearly not seeing the Scottish people as being the same level as the English people, but at least recognising them as a different people.
The way that report was deliberately hidden with the disgusting purpose of hiding from the people of Scotland the wealth of their own country is a clear testament to the fact that the author of that report, the entity that commissioned and the entity who proceeded to hide it to deny the people of Scotland the knowledge of how much wealth their own country had, did indeed see Scotland as a colony whose assets, in this case the oil, was ripe for them to steal for the benefit of England.
This enterprise of hiding from the people of Scotland the wealth of their own country was rife during the 2014 referendum and it continues relentlessly today.
The late John Jappy was a great source of info too regarding the mindset of the UK government at the time oil came ashore. Their tactic was to ridicule the Scots that their estimates were ridiculous & the oil was worthless whilst they lavishly spent money refurbishing London.
It still continues to this day even by eejit yoons on here who probably had Heinz beans for tea tonight & sit with their Union Jack blankie watching BBC Englandshire tell them that Scotland is shite & besides, huge corporations deserve our oil & pay no windfall taxes cause they deserve it more than they do… they’ve a hell of a time of it…
Question they never seem to ask themselves – how can they have a windfall on profits if the oil is running out & the stuff they do manage to extract is shit anyway? It’s one of life’s mysteries so it is…
Can you advise how one might connect to this apparent free supply electricity in England? I don’t know if you’ve been to England (or know where it is) but I think it would come as a surprise to the people of England that electricity is free there.
So why aren’t you writing this pseudo-academic gibberish in “Scots” then ?
Geri
1 month ago
Happy New Year everyone!
Another year scored off the *generation* countdown – whoooo hooo!
I think we can all safely predict that Bungleform has no intention of calling it a wrap. It’ll go on & on & on & on….the keystone cops will be raking it in watching tumbleweed roll on by. It’s farcical & embarrassing but we all know why..
Last edited 1 month ago by Geri
Jon Drummond
1 month ago
The sooner we can get the rug munching alpha-betties into a male prison, including Chief Mammy, the better. 😉
Then Scotland can move on.
James Gardner
1 month ago
The plan is to keep the ball in the long grass for years. Then the litigants can claim to have auld timers disease and as such they cannae recollect…….case over !!!!
Has that ‘I canny recollect ‘excuse no been used before??? Canny mind who used it but I’m sure I heard it with a fair bit o’ frequency somewhere.
sarah
1 month ago
Hamish will not fall for it this time. But will SNP voters?
sarah
1 month ago
Perhaps there is a solution in plain sight. If the entire legal establishment of Scotland boycotted the current police, COPFS and court system. It is just as with Westminster – if you take part in their farce you are endorsing it. But if you ignore it then the establishment is in real trouble.
Ball, road, down, or is the toon an invite for another kick in a ba’s
One thing for sure t’s April the 1st again today. as it is evdry other day in Jock land.
That’s the way it is. A joke rule of law police, prosecution and political democracy. And a new year of it has just once again begun.
But, and this is the big but. Do the donkeys care. I don’t think they do. Cold houses, declining living standards, kept in the dark, it’s a pit pony existence for many, far too many, and a fill your boots time for the few.
Ah well, keep your noses clean folks whilst you crawl on your hands and kness under the establishment boot. And then, turn up the heating and dance.
Aye Willie, in any colonial society we can be pretty sure the governing institutions will be colonial in nature and in terms of their values.
As Albert Memmi wrote:
“Every colonial nation carries the seeds of fascist temptation in its bosom. What is fascism if not a regime of oppression for the benefit of a few? The entire administrative and political machinery of a colony has no other goal.”
Hogmanay in Scotland is a time to both look back on the old year, as well as look forward to the New Year. It’s A time for both reflection and optimism. It has added poignancy this year as it would have been the 70th birthday of Alex Salmond. A man who moulded the modern Scotland, dominating it’s political scene for almost the last 50 years and whose legacy is seen all around us.
His life was dedicated to Scottish Independence, believing that Scotland can do so much better. That the tragedy in our land was not how bad things were but how much better they should be, when our country is blessed with so much natural resource and with so many talented people.
Sadly, other Nations with far less have been achieving so much more. It was that which he sought to change. Believing that it was simply wrong to suggest that our country was too small, too poor or our people were incapable of running a country themselves and doing it better. Some countries discovered oil and made the desert bloom, Scotland discovered oil and saw areas turned into industrial deserts. And now the perversity of an energy rich land, where turbines turn on land and sea, and yet folk in Scotland can’t afford to turn their heating on.
There’s now even a push to expand oil production in war ravaged Syria to stabilise the economy and society there. Meanwhile, the North Sea faces shutdowns and layoffs for workers with all the damage to our cities and communities. Even more perversely Syria has a refinery that’s been operating and will continue to do so. Yet Grangemouth is to cease production. Both UK and Scottish Governments are failing to protect not just our workers but our industrial base.
During the referendum in 2014 Scotland was assured that our EU membership would be secured; that the pound would be strong; that Britain would be stable and even internationally a force for good. Instead, a hard Brexit has been imposed damaging our society and economy. The pound has dropped and the cost of living increased. Britain has become deeply unstable and aspects of political discourse repugnant. Internationally, the UK has been craven as a genocide has unfolded in Gaza.
The Britain that Alex Salmond grew up in, where things improved for each coming generation, has passed. The Scottish NHS which he was born in is now threatened. The jobs and work available for young and old are absent as manufacturing and even farming are sacrificed for the interest of the city of London or big corporations. The better Nation that all had hoped for, replaced by a deeply troubled land.
Scotland simply to become a resource where its energy is exploited, its environment trashed and yet revenue, jobs or even affordable energy are absent. It’s why his dream of independence is even more necessary now than in 2014. Scotland can do so much better than this. The resource and talent are there. It’s the political leadership that is missing.
It’s why Alex was campaigning for independence until his final breath. His dream of Scottish independence is alive and its now time to deliver it. ALBA Party will work with all democratic forces to deliver that dream and make Scotland the land it can and should be. It’s time for independence.
All good words but when you invite the foxes into the henhouse and give them votes on the future of your country don’t be surprised when their sense of entitlement and their belief that Scotland is inferior to and has been subsumed into THEIR beloved engerland means that you will NEVER see an independent Scotland
Our politicians love to talk the talk BUT when it comes to the gloves off fight they will continue to live in the maisters hoose , how long has Kenny MacAskill been a MP and yet we are still hog tied to this vile union
Salmond was an undoubted fighter for independence but his generosity with our nationality and country enabled our continued oppression
Martin
1 month ago
Kicked into the long grass for another year. Time goes on and people start to forget.
Vivian O’Blivion
1 month ago
Perhaps 2025 will be the year, the curtain is pulled aside and the Spookocracy is revealed.
A widnae haud ma breath.
We were granted a tantalising glimpse, with the revelation that Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff, Sue Gray was running a pub in Newry in the 1980’s.
The issue is of course an effective blackout in MSM when it comes to these matters.
Similarly, the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021, remains unknown beyond political anoraks.
This Act passed by Boris Johnson’s “Get Brexit Done” supermajority facilitates the legal authorisation of all manner of crimes, up to and including r@pe, torture and murder.
All things considered, we’re not living in a functional democracy.
What would need to alter before the Spookocracy was exposed?
Well, the much vaunted new age of Internet freedom and citizen journalism would have to actually appear, having ‘till now been an ever illusive glow just beyond the horizon.
Will 2025 be a year of breakthrough? Perhaps.
If we consider the current conflict in Ga$a, excluding don’t knows, 65% of Americans believe that the ironically titled IDF are committing war crimes. That figure would not be possible if American citizens were relying on their MSM for information. The spectrum of coverage on MSM on these matters runs from apologists (CNN, et al) to outright cheerleaders (Fox).
The same metric in the UK has a 90% uptake, and the same observation applies here.
Of course, emboldened by recent events in Germany, Moldova and Romania, the Permanent State may just decide to nullify democracy entirely.
Agree. I think they’ll get AI to restrict the internet next, lawfare on alternative media & rewrite history for Google search…
WEF also wants control of bank accounts to shut down dissenters immediately & to restrict our spending.
Tony Blair Institute for Global Change: Central Bank Digital Currencies…:
“CBDCs act as government-issued digital cash–still in its infancy, this technology could take many forms, and central banks worldwide are currently evaluating their potential and even experimenting with implementation…
For governments, CBDCs can help cut costs and improve efficiency (compared to money printing and distribution), increase the tax base, combat illegal activities, and optimize government services, such as disbursements and benefits.”:
« Faced with the unstoppable progression of what has been called a “global civil war”, the state of exception tends increasingly to appear as the dominant paradigm of government in contemporary politics.This transformation of a provisional and exceptional measure into a technique of government threatens radically to alter—in fact, has already palpably altered—the structure and meaning of the traditional distinction between constitutional forms. Indeed, from this perspective, the state of exception appears as a threshold of indeterminacy between democracy and absolutism.
(Giorgio Agamben, STATE OF EXCEPTION, University of Chicago Press, 2005, p 2, / STATO DI ECCEZIONE, Bollati Boringhieri, 2003, pp 10,11)
robertkknight
1 month ago
Here’s hoping the next decade is kinder than the last…
52.7% of Scots voting in IndyRef1 voted Yes. The ‘others’ from elsewhere who also had a vote swung it to No.
62% of Scottish residents voted Remain. The ‘others’ from elsewhere who also had a vote swung it to Leave.
As of the 31st December 2024, Sturgeon, Murrell, the alphabets and their enablers were all still at liberty and the SNP hadn’t gone bust, despite only 9 MPs and a membership shrunk to 50,000 feeble minded and myopic souls.
And to add insult to injury, AS is no longer with us.
Not much to celebrate it must be said, but let’s try making up for it in the coming decade.
Here’s tae us, an them whas like us… Happy Ne’er Wingers!
Real world, Actual referendum: 44.7% for Indy.
You can blather all you want about how Left-handed men named David, or some other similar made-up category, allegedly voted 52.7% “yes.” Such blathering only embarrasses your cause–and shows how deep is your contempt for “the will of the people” when the vote doesn’t go your way.
The rules of Purdah were clearly violated by three ENGLISH politicians travelling to Scotland to punt us The Vow & promises of Super Devo Max & later the Smith Commission,
Let’s see how they faired…
1. More powers?
Nope! They actually removed over 80..so not exactly the most devolved parliament on the planet as punted during indyref eh?
2. Devo max?
Nope! In what universe was power over Road signs devolution max?
3. Near federalism?
Hahahaha!
4. Stay. Be a valued equal partner in this ‘family of Nations’? *Sniff* Please stay! *Sniff* Lead don’t leave us!! We love you Scotland *sniff*
Nope, quick, the Scots are coming to OUR parliament! To the barricades! Fckn Jocks! They’ll steal OUR parliament & Salmond is a pickpocket too! Let’s all exercise the Bain principle!
5. Remain in the EU?
Nope! Despite voting remain. Piss off, Scots. The only nation in the UK, & it’s equal partner to the Union, got sweet fck all. NI, a Provence, got to remain FFS!
6. More say in Westminster?
Aye, ‘shut it!’ As every single thing was voted against including the shit they promised during indyref.
7. The oil is running out!
Nope, it’s still there & Cameron sold record licences less than a month later & Shetland kicked up a storm to discover more..
8. On the 19th of September 2014 Cameron took to the steps of Dowdy street to put the boot into No voters. They were actually getting fuck all for their loyalty. Englandshire was now first & Westminster was THEIR parliament. They’d now introduce EVEL.
Cheers, MUGS!
9. Smith Commission – Scots can have an independence referendum if that’s what the Scots vote for..
Nope! Five mandates (Westminster & Holyrood elections) & an EU referendum & they still refuse the legal & legitimate power of the ballot box.
No wonder they don’t want a rerun.
They’d lose & they’d lose HUGE…
So do you really, really think that 55% still exists today despite all those bullshit lies?
More Scots voted for the European UNION than they did for the one with England. Let that sink in…
The Union is dead. The SNP is dead.
Independence never will.
It’s NORMAL for a country to be in charge of its own affairs. Stop being a parasite.
Scotland is moving on. Especially amongst the young who don’t much care for warmongering genocidal maniacs burning weans alive & donating £billions to a Nazi regime & terrorists when there’s far better uses for that money at home & their grandparents have no heating.
I strongly suspect that any “Yes” campaign would fail time, after time, after time, to convince those +70% RUK, and particularly those +80% CofE, to vote “Yes” under any circumstances.
Therefore, as was demonstrated by IndyRef1, in the event a “Yes” campaign persuades a majority of Scots, (granted 52.7% in 2014 was not a huge majority, but nonetheless a bigger majority than the 51.9% secured by the Leave campaign in 2016), to vote “Yes”, the will of that majority can be trumped by the will of those non-Scots who just happen to be domiciled in Scotland at the time of any referendum.
Imagine the outcry had the Brexit referendum resulted in 51.9% of UK citizens voting to Leave, but EU citizens domiciled in the UK at the time of the referendum, and who had been permitted to vote, (Which, except for Irish citizens, they were not), switched that result to 55.3% Remain?
Enoch Powell might have finally got his “rivers of blood” prediction realised.
Here in Scotland, to suggest that Scots should determine the future of Scotland is to be labelled a heretic to the democratic process. When the same principle is applied to the UK however, it suddenly becomes common sense.
You have to be careful with statistics. You correctly quote “+80% CofE”, which sounds impressive but may in fact be only a small number.
You also refer patronisingly to “non-Scots who just happen to be domiciled in Scotland…”; most non-Scots I know have made a decision to work and pay taxes in Scotland for many years. Their taxes help to support the many Scots who require social benefits. It seems to me they have earned the right to a vote.
You do not define what you mean by a “Scot” in the sense of those qualified to vote; this is important, as there is currently no definition of a Scottish citizen, as Scotland is not an independent state.
The fact remains that the “Yes” campaign failed to convince those living in Scotland that Independence was a desirable option.
What happened to ALL those EU citizens who lived , worked and paid taxes in the uk but were then deliberately EXCLUDED from the Brexit vote, surely THEIR taxes helped to support those unfortunates in engerland or is it ONLY SCOTS who are to be demonised when it comes to referendum franchises
To those down ticking: you cannot logically accept the data on voting without also accepting the data on the effect of “The Vow”. they are from the same source.
The vow may not have but project fear certainly did along with Devo max, super Devo max, the EU scares of deporting ppl bullshit & lest we forget – terrifying wee pensioners their money would be stopped immediately & organ transplant patients wouldn’t get a donor like, y’know, organs had a No vote & a preference on where they lived.
Even Blair Hooligan admitted Better Together would never have won without the tissue of lies they told.
The whole referendum was a farce & a fraud & especially the Vow, whether it played a part or not is up for debate but the fact it broke purdah rules is not. They’d no business changing the offer & the rules of the game 10 days from the vote.
& Neither was bussing in ppl from England to threaten wee grannies & grandpa’s on their doorsteps.
“The whole referendum was a farce & a fraud & especially the Vow, whether it played a part or not is up for debate”
I agree 100% with what you say. The vow did indeed have an impact on the people around me at the time.
The vow convinced some of the soft no that, even if the overall vote was no, Scotland would get devo max which would be a safer progression towards independence from their perspective. Those people were happier and more convinced to vote “no” after the vow was released.
They were however furious when they realised it was nothing more than another disgusting con trick by the British state to steal their vote and get them to vote for what they did not want, which was business as usual.
Evidence of threats of deportation, lack of donors for organ transplants, pensions stopped immediately, grannies & grandpas threatened on doorsteps, please.
“Today former Prime Minister Gordon Brown resurrected claims that an independent Scotland would face cross-border problems if patients needed life saving organ transplants or blood transfusions.
According to the former Labour leader, patients north of the border would be “at risk” in the event of a Yes vote”
The quote above was taken from
“Gordon Brown targets chronically ill in latest attack on independence”Newsnet, 21 July 2014
“More than 1200 Scots a year facing life-threatening illnesses are securing transplants or blood transfusions from donors elsewhere in the UK, former prime minister Gordon Brown has said. Almost 45,000 Scots now get help every year from NHS in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but Mr Brown suggests these links could be put “at risk” after a Yes vote”
Quote taken from the article “Cross-border organ transplant network ‘at risk’”, The Scotsman, 21 July 2014
“Gordon Brown’s latest intervention in the referendum debate, raising fears that organ transplants and blood donations may be at risk after independence, is deeply offensive and totally without foundation”
The quote above was taken from “Brown Offensive”, by The Newsroom The Scotsman, 22 July 2014
“I do not know that I am best placed to advise project fear on how it should lead its campaign, although its attempt to raise fears around the idea that in an independent Scotland people would have difficulty accessing organs for transplantation has taken that campaign to a new low”
The quote above was from Mr Michael Matheson, on the debate “Independence (Cross-border Transplantation of organs), in the Scottish Parliament on 12 March 2014
“MORE than 1,200 Scots a year facing life-threatening illnesses or surgery are securing transplants or blood transfusions from English or Welsh donors, new figures published by Gordon Brown will reveal.
The former Labour Prime Minister said the statistics, compiled from previously unpublished data, show nearly 45,000 Scots now get help every year from the NHS in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
According to information on organ donations from NHS Blood and Transport, and figures from the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, an average of 200 at risk Scots secure transplants from English or Welsh donors and a further 1,000 benefit from transfusions of blood donated in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
A further 43,500 Scots receive NHS in-patient or outpatient treatments in the rest of the UK every year.
Publishing the figures, Brown, MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, said the details were evidence of the value of nations working together: “It makes the SNP’s proposal to break all constitutional links with the rest of the UK out of sync with our more interdependent world,” he said.”
The quote above is from the article “Brown highlights the Scots getting crucial medical help from England”, published in The Herald on 21 July 2014.
It stands to the obvious what the ridiculous Brown was attempting to do. He was attempting to seed the fear that independence would lead to a shortage of organs for transplant and blood transfusions in Scotland. What the cretin Brown did not provide were the figures of how many people in England were receiving organs and blood transfusions from people in Scotland.
Good information. Despite your use of neutral words such as “ridiculous” and “cretin” to describe Brown, his figures were apparently not rebutted. Your last sentence is otherwise fair comment.
The problem was never the figures, but rather his bottom of the barrel attempt to use those one-sided figures to seed the fear that people in Scotland would not be able to have transplants or blood transfusions after independence when that was clearly never the case.
As I said above, he only presented the figures from Scotland. He never presented the figures from England, aka how many transfusions and organ transplants they have got thanks to donors being in Scotland. I suspect the numbers are much larger.
But that was always Brown’s modus operandi: to turn over the omelette so he would always present an England problem as if it was Scotland’s problem. Another wonderful example of this was border control. If Scotland had declared independence, Brown claimed that Scotland would impose a border control. Well, at that point England was part of the EU. If anybody had to put a border control it would have to be England itself because its own boundary would become the boundary of the EU zone. Obviously Brown was trying to scare the bejesus out of people living in Scotland who had relatives in England, making them think they would need a passport to cross over.
Another wonderful example was his mentioning of the number of exports from Scotland to England. But he was always very careful to never mentioning the number of exports from England to Scotland, which were far more than the ones in the opposite direction. In other words, the greatest beneficiary of Scotland being in the UK is and has always been England, which gets to use Scotland and Wales as if they were an extension of its own internal market. But of course Brown never mentioned a word about that.
Brown was behaving, at all practical effects, as the Defoe version of the 21st century: a crown tool relentlessly churning propaganda in Scotland to promote the union.
It depends how you define “seeding fear”. Is that the same as “giving a warning”? Of course transfusions/transplants etc would have continued in Scotland – but supplies from rUK might not have been as readily available, if at all.
England has never been part of the EU. rUK would have been the successor state in the EU at that time, and until a putative accession to the EU by Scotland, a passport would presumably have been a requirement.
“The Scottish Government’s export figures show again that the rest of the UK remains by far Scotland’s most important market. England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined buy more than 60 per cent of our exports.” – 29 Nov 2023
I doubt that the c.6 million population of Scotland buy more than 60% of rUK exports – but that’s just my opinion.
No. Seeding fear is to deliberately present only one side of the picture with the purpose of manipulating public opinion as the propagandist Gordon Brown did in 2014 and Defoe before him in 1706.
“England has never been part of the EU”
That is factually incorrect. England’s territory was part of the EU until brexit.
“I doubt that the c.6 million population of Scotland buy more than 60% of rUK exports”
I do not appreciate having my intelligence insulted, thank you. We are talking from the perspective of Scotland here. The perspective of England does not enter the equation when considering Scotland’s independence and the viability of Scotland’s independence. The amount Scotland imports from England surpasses the amount Scotland exports to England, therefore there is a net benefit for England. This is what Gordon Brown carefully omitted in his propaganda. How much those imports represent in terms of percentages for England matter not one iota to the independence of Scotland subject.
Take a look at the products in display in our supermarkets if you do not believe me. Actually, the number of English produce in display since brexit has increased, therefore the net benefit for England is significantly more since 2014.
There was nothing stopping Scotland moving its exports and imports from England to the rest of the EU. England is not the only country that can buy Scotland’s produce or that can sell Scotland things. Every country’s money has the same value if they are prepared to pay the right price for those exports.
Scotland can import from wherever it likes as long as they sell products at the right price. Again, this is something Gordon Brown carefully omitted in his pro-union propaganda.
“England has never been part of the EU” That is factually incorrect. England’s territory was part of the EU until brexit.
Fair point in a limited way. I should have said England has never been a member of the EU.
Regarding amount of exports: if Scotland exports a higher %age of its exports to rUK than vice versa, it ‘needs’ rUK more than rUK ‘needs’ Scotland. No intention to insult your intelligence – that’s what I was trying to say.
Regarding markets for exports: of course an independent Scotland could export wherever it can find a market. Until it entered the EU (the average time for an already-independent country is around five years) we would have trade barriers with both the EU and (probably) rUK, a tough position to be. Once in the EU, we would have free trade with it – as we’ve had since 1973 – but not with rUK. Why would our companies suddenly get trade deals in the EU that they haven’t got in the last fifty years with the same free trade situation?
You say There was nothing stopping Scotland moving its exports and imports from England to the rest of the EU. That’s true – but there hasn’t been for fifty years. So obviously Scottish exporters must have found it better/easier/more profitable to trade with rUK. That would no longer be possible.
“If Scotland exports a higher %age of its exports to rUK than vice versa, it ‘needs’ rUK more than rUK ‘needs’ Scotland”
That is a false reasoning, actually. If the percentage of Scotland’s imports from England surpasses the percentage of Scotland’s exports to England the Scottish market becomes a much more attractive prospect for other potential trade partners because they stand to have a bigger footprint in Scotland’s market and they stand to make a positive profit from a trade agreement.
You are deflecting from the main point: the amount that Scotland imports from England surpasses the amount that it exports to England therefore there is currently a net benefit for England and not for Scotland if Scotland remains in this union and with the present trade arrangements.
It is precisely that net profit that England makes out of trading with Scotland what would make trading with Scotland an attractive prospect for other potential trade partners. How much or how little “England needs Scotland” is completely irrelevant here and besides the point. As I said above, this needs to be seen from the perspective of Scotland. England does not even enter the equation.
That Scotland need the Kingdom of England more than the Kingdom of England needs Scotland is a nonsense. This is all about trade and trade profits. As I said in my comment above, the value of the money of every country is the exact same as long as they pay the right price. England is not the only country with money that can buy things from Scotland. Also, with its own money, Scotland can go and buy from wherever it likes. England is not the only country selling things.
“there hasn’t been for fifty years”
So what? There is nothing stopping Scotland changing it now.
“That would no longer be possible”
Excellent news. That would be therefore a great opportunity for Scotland to start exploring other markets and other trade partners and to leave England to its own crap trade deals with New Zealand, Australia and the USA. Maybe Scotland is currently being shortchanged and may improve its prospects negotiating with other trade partners.
By the way, an independent Scotland would not have to abide by the toxic trade deals arranged by England (as the UK) government with New Zealand, Australia and the upcoming one with USA. This means that Scotland’s supermarket shelves do not need to be flooded with New Zealand lamb, USA’s hormone injected beef and chlorinated chickens infesting our supermarket shelves and taking over the share of Scottish produce within Scotland’s own market.
I see many positives for an independent Scotland compared to the current situation, where the share of Scotland’s own produce in its own market is being forcefully squeezed beyond the limit by the successive toxic trade agreements arranged by the clowns England keeps electing to represent it.
As I said in my comment above, the value of the money of every country is the exact same as long as they pay the right price.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean. In 1707, at the time of the Act of Union, there was a pound Sterling (English), and a pound Scots. The pound Sterling was worth 12 pounds Scots.
If the price Scotland sets for a particular bottle of whisky is £100, and you want to buy it online, you will have to pay Scotland the equivalent to £100 independently if you buy it from Scotland paying in pounds, from France paying in Euros, from USA paying in dollars or from China paying in Yuan. The money Scotland will receive for that bottle is still the equivalent to £100 pounds independently of what currency was used to pay for it or what country placed the order.
I am not referring to the difference on value between currencies. I am referring to the money value paid to Scotland for the product independently of which currency is initially used to pay for it.
What this means is that, in practice, Scotland does not care if that bottle of whisky is sold to England or to Timbuktu as long as Scotland is paid the equivalent of £100 pounds for it.
Lindsey Jarred – threatened her organ donation if Scotland voted Independence.Also the brave lady who scaled Edinburgh Castle to pin a massive YES banner on the front. Also a speaker at indy rallies.
Deportation – Better Together twitter ads & lest we forget the infamous letter that if Scotland voted YES Scotland would have to wait yrs for membership (Funny that NI had no such bullshit over Brexshit) & EU citizens would be stripped of their status & sent packing & the massive intro ads taken out at cinemas up & down the country that Scots would be abandoned abroad & not entitled to an embassy. Funny that! We helped fund them!
Pensions – go look plenty of YouTube videos of Brown threatening pensioners on their doorsteps armed with a posse of English activists bussed in for the occasion..
Go do some fact checking eh or change yer ID back to the other ones you have…
Proof positive you weren’t in Scotland during indyref & obviously don’t live here..
Scotland would have had to wait years to join the EU. By definition, there would have been no Scottish embassies abroad until established by an independent Scotland. You obviously have your own definition of “threatening”.
You are wrong again on both your last claims.
Finland joined the EU from ground zero in 24 months. It’s vanishingly unlikely an independent Scotland would take longer and probably it would be faster as the EU has absolutely no reason to make it a complicated process. At the time of #indyref1 it would have been even easier, as (unlike Finland) Scotland was alrready part of the “acquis communitaire” having been part of the EU for decades as part of the UK.
Factchecking doesn’t really seem to be your forte irrespective of your user name.
One of the requirements is that an aspirant state has had its own currency and a stable economy for several years. Finland did. Scotland did (and has) not.
Neither would take long as the Slovaks demonstrated when their currency union with the Czechs was abandoned in a matter of weeks as I seem to recall. The idea that Scotland is (or would have been in 2014) uniquely incapable of establishing its own central bank or having it’s own currency is simply risible.
The EU has every reason to welcome and accelerate Scottish membership, not put obstacles in its path. Anyone arguing otherwise patently doesn’t understand the EU and/or wasn’t listening to what EU insiders were saying before 2014.
I note that Slovakia applied to join in 1995 and achieved membership in 2004.
Of course Scotland can establish a central bank and have its own currency (paying only lip service to the requirement to join the euro, like many other countries). But it will have no track record on which to be judged.
I personally think it is highly likely that Scotland would be offered membership, despite GDP issues, etc, but I think the average time of c. 5 years is far more likely. During the intervening period, however long, we would be separate from our biggest trading partner and with no free access to EU.
Scotland has a lot more going for it than Slovakia in 1995. What most British nationalists refuse to engage with in their Project Fear narratives is that there can be few countries in history which have ever become independent with Scotland’s many inherent advantages.
None of those which have achieved independence facing far greater social, economic, cultural and security obstacles than Scotland does have ever just given up, or asked to return to the fold and rejoin the entity they became independent from.
In the event of independence, it still seems overwhelmingly likely a super majority of Scots will support EU membership, and that the EU will bend over backwards to make it happen and ensure it is as straightforward and rapid a process as possible. The EU is – whatever its detractors think – prepared to be pragmatic as its responses to German re-unification and the accession of newly independent states in central and eastern Europe amply demonstrates.
Joining EFTA and cutting a deal with the EU will be far simpler than the UK’s bungled brexit debacle. Rump UK will be in no fit state post independence to try to call the shots or scupper a deal between Scotland and the EU: they’ll be having a hard enough time keeping themselves afloat without Scotland.
However, it’s equally true that many countries with all of Scotland’s advantages have never wished to regain their independence. They see advantages in being part of a bigger, unitary state. I think Scotland’s situation is more akin to theirs than to many former colonies etc of the European powers that wished for independence.
I agree that the EU would be pragmatic – which means that if France/Germany wanted Scotland in, it would happen.
I don’t share your assumption of a simple process. The EU will indeed be pragmatic. They will know that we need to join, and they will play hardball. Additionally, rUK will still be a major world economy, albeit weaker, probably bitter towards us, and will make things as hard as possible in any negotiations pre- and post- independence.
I think Brexit showed how messy a divorce can be after even a short Union. I think Scexit would be infinitely messier.
I don’t think there are in fact many countries which are or were in the situation Scotland finds itself. Generally in current international relations the cases of Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland are seen as pretty distinct from other historical or recent self determination situations.
All are (at least relative to most other cases) reasonably prosperous parts of liberal democracies. They don’t “fit” with the general run of post-colonial or post Cold War self determination. Where else do you think is analogous…? Bavaria? Hmmnnn.
The EU is capable of playing hardball as their response to the Greeks showed, but in other ways it can be extraordinarily dilatory and slow to take action. Its response to Polish and Hungarian populism and the Spanish violent suppression of Catalans being cases in point.
I think you overestimate the negatives. Rump UK will be much weakened, not just economically but especially politically: the impact on its “soft power”, top table pretensions and overall international position will be pretty profound.
The rump UK’s hand in negotiations with Scotland won’t be that strong, particularly vis a vis what to do about WMDs, Faslane and how they cope without Scottish shipyards on the Clyde and Rosyth building their naval vessels and servicing/dismantling submarines. They can’t just snap their fingers and replace the facilities and workforce.
You rightly mention Bavaria. Actually, most of Western Europe is made up of unions of previously independent states. Germany has over twenty; Italy, Spain, France, Netherlands, etc many more. In fact, there is a case to be made that in Europe, at least, independence (whatever that means in the 21st century) is not normal in historical terms. In all these unions, the smaller components are always outvoted on a population basis by the larger ones. The EU Parliament works the same way.
Scotland is most certainly one of what what you describe as “reasonably prosperous parts of liberal democracies”, and I think fits comfortably in that category.
Resource rich Scots are made the poorest people in NW Europe by the UK union colonial hoax. Lack of access to our own resources means Scotland’s GDP per capita is closer to that of East European states than to the Nordic/NW Europe norm.
A colonized people do not live in a democracy.
German Lander/states in their federal system have far more extensive powers than colonial/devolved Scots, such as treaty making powers, foreign representation, and control over media regulation law including TV channels at individual state level.
The UK isn’t a major world economy. It’s hegemony is over. It’s about to go the exact same way as France & Germany. Straight down the toilet.
& Neither is the EU. It will implode. It’s discovered it’s up shit creek without a paddle. It’s found itself with no energy security & completely out the tech loop across all advances & controlled by silicon valley. They didn’t invest in the future & now find their car industry fckd, their energy security fckd & their tech & internet services colonised by Google & Amazon ect.
It’s now looking increasing likely there’ll be more exiting to try save themselves & their Sovereignty from the rampant takeover of not only being told who they can & cannot trade with but that the EU is now a massive war room & they must send weapons, money & ammo to Americas latest invented enemy. One big military complex grift in warring & arms sales..
& Don’t make me laugh about Scotland being questionable at joining the EU & stable currency. Have you seen the fucking state of U? Neo nazi outfit. The most corrupt, undemocratic, human rights abuser in Eastern Europe & they’re receiving the red carpet treatment, obscene amounts of cash, everyone’s weapons & being fastracked up the greasy ladder & starting Gas wars threatening other EU member states energy security & they’re NOT even a member! I think we can rest easy on that box ticking scorecard & pass with flying colours.
Irrelevant anyway. The EU isn’t what it was & has allowed itself to become Americas next colony – pay up & buy our weapons or we’ll switch off Google/Apple /Cloud & Windows – plunging all yer Hospitals & services intae the stone age & be sanctioned.
“Scotland would have had to wait years to join the EU”
That is questionable to say the least. At that point in time, Scotland aligned perfectly with the EU on every single policy, standards and procedures.
It is NOW, after the Kingdom of England, in collusion with the useless so called Scotland’s “representatives”, succeeded in undemocratically dragging Scotland out of the EU against its will and then proceeded to destroy every policy and procedure in Scotland that ensured that alignment with the EU that it will take years for Scotland to join back the EU. Undoubtedly this has been deliberate and by design.
A wonderful example of how the alignment has changed are the food quality standards, the labelling of products and, of course, the transparency laws.
And it is all of course because it is not in the interests of the Kingdom of England for Scotland to rejoin the EU. This would make England lose a good chunk of what it perceives as “its internal market”, the control over Scotland’s assets, the control over Scotland’s geographical position and also would leave the Kingdom of England completely isolated and surrounded by EU borders. But of course that bag of hot air Brown never told us about that.
Funny how FARTCHECKER has drawn out the big guns franchise fanny to explainerise how the rest of the wurld thinks , methinks franchise fanny has lots of new names
Even the Welsh had their vote skewed by the blow-ins, so the reality is that Brexit is an English project and the Celtic fringe got dragged along despite being opposed.
“United Kingdom”?
Total misnomer… “Kingdom of Greater England” be more accurate.
Maybe the trial is on going and has reporting restrictions imposed upon it.
Aye right! When will this end so you can expel Sturgeon and her toxic minions and focus on improving the competence and ability of the Scottish Government and increase support for the independence movement and the welfare of Scotland.
As I have mentioned on other articles after seeing other media reports can anybody legally tell her to improve her attendance.
I think it’s only the party leader who can whip their MSPs into shape & there’s not much chance of that from Swinney. He’d go & hide along with her if he could..
Garrion
1 month ago
Oo. That’s a good one. Happy New Year all.
sarah
1 month ago
Putting pressure on our politicians ahead of the 2026 election. Tell them that you won’t vote for them UNLESS they include the Manifesto for Independence in their manifesto.
There is a petition to this effect on New Scotland Party facebook and a link to it in Peter A Bell’s article today “A tentative New Year greeting” – see Voices for Independence.
Please, please, WoS Indy supporters, follow Peter Bell’s and Sarah’s advice.
You’re an irrelevant 1% now. By refusing to vote you’ll make yourself MORE irrelevant.
So far, 68 people have signed Peter Bell’s petition. 68, out of 5 million Scots.
I suppose “Geri” and the other tin-foil-hat fanatics will soon claim that 5 million tried to sign it, but that some mysterious foreign power erased their signatures.
You need to stop this obsession you have with indy groups, indy sites, Independence supporters. The crud you post on here isn’t going to change anyone’s mind.
It’s ABNORMAL for a country to give all of its income & it’s resources to its neighbour & get beads in return.
Stop being so fckn needy & dependent. Yer like one of those middle aged twats that’s still in Uni & living with Mum & Dad. Fck off & take back control of England & grow up. You may actually benefit from the change & get yer own shit together..
Scotland pays 8.1% of the UK’s taxes, and receives 9.1% of the UK’s spending.
As usual, easily ascertainable facts contradict everything you write about Scotland “giving all its income… and getting beads in return.”
And how much does Scotland “pay” in the form of the free electricity, free gas, free oil etc that is being sent to England on a daily basis? How has that been accounted for in your 8.1% calculation?
Does your 8.1% include the taxes paid by companies with HQ in England for the work carried out in Scotland?
For instance, how do they compute the VAT paid by Scottish consumers to those companies with HQ in England? Do they pay to HMRC separate lots to distinguish between the two groups of population or they pay everything as a whole, so it is all assumed to come from England’s customers?
How is the VAT paid by Scottish consumers who buy online from an English company or from a foreign company with HQ in England, computed?
And how is the corporation tax for work carried out with Scotland’s customers, for example via insurance companies, delivery service, etc, etc, etc? accounted for? Is it all considered as “England contribution” just because the HQ of those companies are in England?
And how much have Scotland’s taxpayers been paying for infrastructure vanity work carried out in England and to which Scotland has no access therefore no benefit? Because that has not been reflected in the Barnet formula. So how does your “8.1%” account for that?
Does your 8.1% include the excess we in Scotland have to paid for having items delivered home compared with England? Because not only we have to pay more to have things delivered here, actually, the payment for transport has its own VAT. The higher the price of the transport, the higher the VAT. In other words, the Scottish people are paying more than their fair share in terms of transport of items and VAT for that transport. So, how is that computed in your 8.1%?
Does your 8.1% include the excess we have to pay for our electricity here in Scotland compared with England, despite Scotland producing an excess of electricity that gets sent to England for free?
Does your 8.1% actually include the extra that we have to pay here for putting electricity on to the “national” grid?
Because of the difference in temperature and the difference in hours of day light in the winter, the people of Scotland must use proportionally more electricity to put the lights on and more gas or electricity to heat their homes and to heat the water we use to wash things or to shower. We are having to pay VAT in that electricity and gas that we use. Despite producing an excess of the electricity Scotland consumes and an excess of the gas used in Scotland, here, we are forced to pay higher tariffs than in England because England MPs decided so. Because VAT is a percentage of the value of the product, what this means is that, because we have to use more electricity and gas to light and heat our homes and water, we are having to pay also more VAT. In other words, in terms of electricity and gas
Scotland is paying more VAT than what it would correspond it for proportion of population. So, how is this accounted for in your 8.1%?
All the revenue raised by the BBC tax is invested back into England. However, a significant proportion of the BBC tax raised from Scotland’s homes is also invested in England instead of Scotland. How is that extra amount that England pockets at Scotland’s expense accounted for in your 8.1%
England is seriously overrepresented in that graveyard of political rejects, patronage, favours, ex MI5s, roasters and crooks speaking with posh accents, otherwise known as “House of Lords” . How has that been accounted for in the amount of Scottish taxpayers that England is pocketing to cover the costs of running that entity?
The royal family all lives in England. The majority of their mansions are in England. The taxpayer has to pay for the maintenance and security of those benefit scroungers and also for the maintenance of those palaces and mansions. How is the disproportion in the number and size of properties between Scotland and England and the fact that the royals live in England accounted for when it comes for Scottish taxpayers having to pay for the costs? How has that been accounted for in that 8.1% you calculated?
Scotland is being deliberately kept as a consumer in this toxic union. All our means to act as producers are being deliberately taken away from us. Scotland is being asset-stripped. An example is the Grangemouth refinery, that is closed down in Scotland whilst the jobs are taken down to England. Every job is a wealth creator: a salary pays for essentials like rent, electricity, food, clothes, etc, etc. Each one of them includes taxes. So, how does the fact that England is basically annihilating Scotland’s jobs and taking them down for itself computed in that 8.1% of yours?
What about the exports from Scotland that have to use an English port to exit the UK because England has deliberately put more ports in England than in Scotland despite Scotland having a larger coastline? How are the taxes in those exports being computed? Are they all included as England’s taxes because they depart the UK from an English port? How is that computed in your 8.1%?
Considering all the above, I would be grateful if you could present here how you arrived to that 8.1% figure. Thank you.
You might add to that the deaths of 20,000 Scots attributed to austerity politics. England, of course, suffered more deaths by comparison, around 320,000. So many more than Scotland because, despite total incompetence in some areas, the Scottish government mitigated the worst effects of (English) UK policies.
In that line, a horse battle of mine has been the fact that the political fraud Sturgeon, despite being in control of an absolute majority of anti-union MPs at Westminster and controlling a pro-independence majority at Holryood, did her uttermost to keep the boundaries with England open during COVID.
It is a matter of fact that the first two cases of COVID were detected in England on the 29 January 2020. The first case in Scotland was confirmed on the 2 March 2020. That gave the political fraud a WHOLE MONTH to put measures in place to close the boundary with England and reduce the entry of the virus into Scotland as much as possible.
In her true anti-Scotland and British State useful idiot fashion, the political fraud Sturgeon did not close those boundaries by playing her favourite sport of fabricating excuses. She even had the audacity, with that other paragon of efficiency and effectiveness Humza Yousaf, to insult yes supporters by suggesting they were racist for demanding the boundary with England to be temporarily closed to slow down the entry of the virus into Scotland and protect the lives of the people of Scotland.
Clearly, the political fraud Sturgeon and the useless Yousaf did not give a shit for the lives of the people of Scotland and rather kept the boundaries open so plenty of virus could be imported via England into Scotland.
I hold them both responsible for the deaths of Scots during that time which could have been avoided if those effing boundaries were closed.
Again, the behaviours of those two colonial administrators would be unthinkable if Scotland was not treated and seen by its own so called “representatives” like those two useless tools as a colony that belongs to England and the people of Scotland as inferior beings whose lives are subordinated to the needs, wants and whims of England, its crown, its aristocracy and its representatives.
There is another fact that demonstrates Scotland and Wales are treated as colonies: their demographics.
the proportion of English natives in Scotland and Wales surpasses by one order of magnitude that of Scottish or Welsh natives in England. And this is despite Scotland and Wales ability to offer jobs to their own natives being systematically savaged and destroyed by England’s representatives.
The native population of both Scotland and Wales is not increasing. It is quickly reducing. This is not what is happening in England at all. In other words, Scotland’s and Wales’ native populations are being systematically and relentlessly replaced by English natives – this is the fundaments of the “plantations” strategy deployed during the peak of the imperialistic enterprises deployed during the 18 and 19th centuries. Young natives from Scotland and Wales are forced out of their own country due to the lack of opportunities whilst rich English natives take over vast plots of land and inflate the prices of houses here to price out the natives.
Yes. And I thought you made an excellent point that should be looked into further.
One example is the removal of the energy subsidies by Starmer, in the name if his fabricated austerity.
The removal of those subsidies will disproportionally affect Scotland because of both, the lower temperatures we have here and a rapidly aging population, so in proportion, we have more elderly people here.
Scotland gets, therefore, a calculated double impact from Starmer’s fabricated austerity.
I am sure he and Reeves know that, but they do not give a shit, because it is Scotland after all. If all our elderly die of cold and hunger, then there is more opportunity for English settlers to purchase houses here and interfere with our elections and communities to stall progression towards independence.
Should the death of those people be considered social manslaughter because it is unconceivable that Starmer and Reeves did not spot that as an imminent risk and yet did not put any mitigating measures in place ? I think this should be looked into much further to really extract the reasons as to why Starmer and Reeves consider our early as disposable.
Another example is the number of suicides we have here in Scotland and how they relate to the deliberate destruction of Scotland’s culture, the deliberate undermining of Scots and Gaelic language and the impact on mental health that the deliberate destruction of jobs in Scotland and the absorption of those jobs by England has on our folk. I also this should be looked into further.
In the same vein is the number of people hooked on drugs in Scotland. Were does it all come from? What drives people to get hooked into drugs? It is clear that it is linked to areas and nuclei of deprivation within the population. So , how does that deprivation relate to the deliberate destruction of our communities, culture and jobs by England (as the UK)’s government policies?
It is a fascinating topic, Sam. And it has many ramifications.
The points in my previous comment were less focused on social impact from the imposition of austerity on Scotland by Westminster, and more related to the deliberate social damage caused by forcing our young to emigrate because of the systematic destruction of their job opportunities and being priced out of the house market by buyers from down south, accelerating the recycling of our native population with England’s born.
The comment regarding Covid was another aspect that, in my view, points towards deliberate social manslaughter by refusing to temporarily close the boundaries of Scotland to protect those more vulnerable from the virus.
Yes. And I thought you made an excellent point that should be looked into further.
One example is the removal of the energy subsidies by Starmer, in the name if his fabricated austerity.
The removal of those subsidies will disproportionally affect Scotland because of both, the lower temperatures we have here and a rapidly aging population, so in proportion, we have more elderly people here.
Scotland gets, therefore, a calculated double impact from Starmer’s fabricated austerity.
I am sure he and Reeves know that, but they do not give a shit, because it is Scotland after all. If all our elderly die of cold and hunger, then there is more opportunity for English migrants to purchase houses here and interfere with our elections and communities to stall progression towards independence.
Should the death of those people be considered social manslaughter because it is unconceivable that Starmer and Reeves did not spot that as an imminent risk and yet did not put any mitigating measures in place ? I think this should be looked into much further to really extract the reasons as to why Starmer and Reeves consider our early as disposable.
Another example is the number of suicides we have here in Scotland and how they relate to the deliberate destruction of Scotland’s culture, the deliberate undermining of Scots and Gaelic language and the impact on mental health that the deliberate destruction of jobs in Scotland and the absorption of those jobs by England has on our folk. I also this should be looked into further.
In the same vein is the number of people hooked on drugs in Scotland. Were does it all come from? What drives people to get hooked into drugs? It is clear that it is linked to areas and nuclei of deprivation within the population. So , how does that deprivation relate to the deliberate destruction of our communities, culture and jobs by England (as the UK)’s government policies?
It is a fascinating topic, Sam. And it has many ramifications.
The points in my previous comment were less focused on social impact from the imposition of austerity on Scotland by Westminster, and more related to the deliberate social damage caused by forcing our young to emigrate because of the systematic destruction of their job opportunities and being priced out of the house market by buyers from down south, accelerating the recycling of our native population by exchanging it with people born in England.
The comment regarding Covid was another aspect that, in my view, points towards social manslaughter by refusing to temporarily close the boundaries of Scotland to protect those more vulnerable from the virus.
Mia, I doubt if anyone will ever face manslaughter charges for austerity policies
“Social murder is a concept used to describe an unnatural death that is believed to occur due to social, political, or economic oppression, instead of direct violence.”
Public health researchers are astonished and appalled that for the poorest 20% of people in the UK life expectancy (as well as children’s height) is decreasing.
This has never happened except in the flu epidemic of 2018 and the two World Wars.
“Social Murder? Life expectancy and Austerity” is a book by Walsh and McCartney.
It is where the estimate of 340,000 deaths due to austerity comes from.
More deaths are associated with the policies of Thatcher and all subsequent UK governments.
“Mia,” if you bothered to spend 10 seconds looking up the official statistics, you’d find that Scotland pays 8.1% of the UK taxes but received 9.1% of government spending.
To quote:
“During 2023-24 tax revenue generated in Scotland, including North Sea oil revenues, amounted to £88.5 billion (8.1% of UK total). During the same period, Scotland benefited from about £111.2 billion in public spending (9.1% of UK total). These were both more than Scotland’s 8.1% population share of the UK.”
These aren’t statistics I “arrived at.” They are from the ONS.
Further:
“The collective economic strength of the UK means higher spending on public services in Scotland, with £2,417 more per head of additional spending to the UK average.”
How do you get to the 8.1% figure and what does that entail?
How is VAT paid to companies with HQ in England factored in?
How is the corporation tax due to work carried out in Scotland or with Scottish customers factored in for companies with HQ in England?
How are the vanity projects in England, to which Scotland’s taxpayers are forced to contribute to factored in?
How are the subsidies that Scotland’s taxpayers are forced to pay for those living and working in London factored in?
How is the fact that the cost of living in Scotland is lower than in England factored in?
How is the disproportion of people in Scotland receiving larger salaries compared to England and therefore paying less income tax factored in?
How is the amount of electricity, gas and oil produced or extracted in Scotland and to which England helps itself for free factored in?
How are the taxes from the oil extracted from Scotland but called “extra regio” factored in?
How are the tax cuts England (as the UK)’s government gives to oil companies on the oil and gas extracted from Scotland’s territory computed into that 8.1% figure?
The figure “8.1%” on its own means absolutely nothing unless you qualify it properly by indicating exactly what it its that it encompasses and what has left out.
Actually, how much oil and gas has been extracted from the fields located in the chunk of Scottish territorial waters stolen from Scotland by the war criminal Blair right before Holyrood was open?
And how has that been accounted for in that 8.1% figure?
How much of the so called “UK” expenditure, for example in military interventions or renewal of Trident, have been inflicted on us unilaterally by England because the majority of Scotland’s MPs voted against it? That must be considered England’s expenditure, not Scotland’s expenditure if Scotland did not agree to it.
How much of the so called “UK” expenditure has been to build infrastructure things in England or to aid England’s business, ports, tenants, etc, etc, etc and therefore has no counterpart in Scotland and Scotland gets no direct benefit from it? That should also been categorised as England’s expenditure, not “UK” expenditure.
Why on earth should Scotland pay for England’s debt and expenditure?
How high are England’s salaries compared with those in Scotland? What is the proportion of people in England on higher salaries compared with Scotland? The higher the salaries, the higher income tax. If the number of people with higher salaries in England is disproportionately high compared with Scotland, to expect the same level of income taxes from Scotland is abusive.
How about the proportion of the wealthy living in Scotland or England? How does the difference fair? Again, if a larger number of very high earners or very wealthy people live in England compared with Scotland, that would skew the percentage of taxes paid in one country or the other. Expecting Scotland to pay the same level of taxes in that scenario is also abusive.
How does the living cost in England compare with Scotland? Take London, for example. The cost of living is exorbitant there. The higher the cost of living, the higher the VAT. Again, expecting Scotland to match that level of VAT when the living cost in Scotland is much lower is abusive.
Let’s go now to the deficit of trade.
Why on earth should Scotland pay for a portion of the billions in deficit of trade of goods England generates year after year? That is not “UK” deficit. That is England deficit. If this was a union of equals, England would be allocated pocket money like Scotland is and would have to make do with it instead of having its hand constantly on the till and somewhat transforming England’s debt and deficit into “UK” debt and deficit.
Let’s now go to administrative and government costs. Why on earth should Scotland have to pay for the running of England’s government and administration just because England chose to hijack UK administration structures so it could treat them as if they were its own?
Scotland should only pay for its own expenditure. Therefore that 8.1% figure is completely meaningless if England’s government is the one generating the most expenditure and then attributed it as “UK” expenditure.
An independent Scotland would not necessarily reproduce the level of astronomic expenditure England is incurring at present. Therefore, to explore the economic viability of Scotland we have to ONLY look at Scotland’s expenditure versus taxes (including income tax, NI, VAT and corporation tax) raised by economic activity in Scotland independently if this is paid via England because the company processing that VAT or paying that corporation tax has its HQ in England.
Then we have to look at all the assets and resources Scotland has and ask why so little revenue of all those has found its way into Scotland’s purse, despite the enormous amounts of oil, gas, electricity extracted from Scotland and sent to England for free or sold to oil companies with ridiculous cuts in taxes.
Again, an independence Scotland would not necessarily follow the current policy of the UK where Scotland’s assets and resources are either seen as disposable or as “unowned” so England pockets the lot.
Then we will have to question why is it that Scotland, despite having the largest coastline in of the UK countries, it has a ridiculously low number of ports compared with England, so much so that Scotland’s exports have to make their way out of the UK from an English port, creating wealth in England rather than Scotland.
Then we have to tackle the poor growth Scotland has experienced due to the toxic policies inflicted by successive English governments who treat Scotland as if it was an appendage of England. Growth may mean the increase in living standards, the increase in salaries and therefore the increase in taxes paid.
The question here that needs to be answered is not what proportion of UK taxes Scotland has been paying. Frankly, who gives a shit about what proportion of UK taxes Scotland has been paying, when the bulk of expense and debt is created by England.
What is important here is the life standards in Scotland, the average Salary in Scotland, the stalled growth of Scotland, the lack of job creators and the average cost of living in Scotland.
As it is, giving the difference in living standards, expecting Scotland to pay taxes at the same level of England is like expecting England to pay taxes at the same level of Finland. Ridiculous, isn’t it? Well, then, the same level of ridiculous applies to the expectation for Scotland to pay at the same level of England when its living standards are not a la par with England, when the revenue of Scotland’s resources is systematically being robbed by the Kingdom of England, when Scotland’s jobs are systematically being dismantled and taken down to England and when Scotland’s markets are being flooded with produce from England which is pushing out of the market Scotland’s own produce.
Then we will have to question why is it that Scotland, despite having the largest coastline in of the UK countries, it has a ridiculously low number of ports compared with England, so much so that Scotland’s exports have to make their way out of the UK from an English port, creating wealth in England rather than Scotland
Where exactly would you like to locate all the extra ports round our coastline?
In terms of exports, if companies use English ports, it’s because of their location – not because we don’t have enough up here. If a Highland distillery currently road freights its produce past Aberdeen, Dundee, Leith and Glasgow docks for export, why would another Scottish port change anything?
“Where exactly would you like to locate all the extra ports round our coastline?”
I am not an expert, but I am sure those with more knowledge than me commenting here will be able to respond to your question.
“In terms of exports, if companies use English ports, it’s because of their location”
I am not sure if that is the case, to be honest. But if you are right, then this goes to support my point even more: why are English companies operating from England and not Scotland ones operating from Scotland the ones exporting Scottish produce?
“If a Highland distillery currently road freights its produce past Aberdeen, Dundee, Leith and Glasgow docks for export, why would another Scottish port change anything?”
Again, you bring my attention to another important point: why is it more attractive for Scottish companies to take by road their produce all the way to down to England instead of shipping it from Scotland saving the transport additional costs and risks? What exactly is what makes England’s ports so much more attractive and why there isn’t a real equivalent to those ports in Scotland despite Scotland having plenty of coastline and space for it? What is the real problem with Scotland’s ports?
And from the above: how much investment from the UK purse and how much revenues has Scotland been missing compared to England because it does not have suitable ports to ship its own product?
Port wise, dinnae forget the massive warmongering bastard tourism boost to Scotland’s economy of aw the weapons of mass destruction adulating wankers visiting Rosyth and Faslane ports to see a load of old rusting and useless nuclear powered submarines hulls.
It’s like probably worth a 1000% of our GDP according to GERs…
Yes & another would be to ask to see England’s GER report & why they don’t have one?
& why they don’t have a devolved parliament yet so we can impose an English Act on it & pollute it with Scottish civil servants.
They’re currently squatting RENT FREE in a GB parliament the rest of us are paying for..
Aye Breeks, the trolling distracting and disruption is clearly the name of the btl game.
CC was posting GERS pish a couple of days ago but just repeats posting the same shite because it allowed to.
I think with the new year rolling in I’ve reached the point I have better more productive things to do than hang about here in groundhog day mode pissing away time, energy, and motivation endlessly scrolling through trolling shite, and folks’ efforts to rebut the low grade crud they post.
It’s a total waste of intelligent folks’ time and effort having to repeatedly deal with this sort of thing, when far more focus could be put on developing more beneficial matters and policies pertaining to returning Scotland to self-governing status.
Send me yer address & I’ll send you some estimates to pay.
I won’t show you how I arrived at the figures I send you but you can take it from me that they’ll be correct, honest guv! You just try & figure it out. Yer forbidden from looking or keeping yer own accounts.
Is Deloitte a fanatic now too?
Deloitte:
“GERS data is produced for Scotland as part of the UK – it doesnot model scenarios for an independent Scotland in which the Scottish government would be enabled to make its own fiscal choices”
in other words, it’s produced for us & it contains a whole lot of bills for shit that would be completely irrelevant in an independent Scotland.
we wouldn’t be paying shit for the HoL, WM, Trident, Royals, OTT defense spending, vanity projects & all manner of other shite they deduct from us.
10 yrs this GERS pish has been debunked but yoons just keep on & on like they’ve found the holy grail. Zzzzzzz..
Yeah, from aggregated figures from the Treasury, based on geusstimates, assumptions and obfuscations. No raw data is provided to justify these aggregations, and the GERS methodology has been thoroughly discredited by any number of economists.
The SNP never challenge them, god forbid the Scots being provided with the truth!
Aye, but you’re not really painting the whole picture with that obvious unionist trying to be a smart arse line of attempting to validate GERs figures.
Because Holyrood is not a real Government; It’s merely a mickey mouse Administration of Devolved Powers resulting from the UK Government Scotland Act, and Holyrood Parliament and Scotland lack all the major powers and infrastructures that are required to properly govern a country and adequately cater for the wonts and needs of the natives of said area.
I’ve provided links to this site’s past explanations on GERs so feel free to address your pathetic low grade trolling shite to Stu and see how you get on.
If he can waste a thousand words writing the previous article because he’s bored then it shouldn’t take that many to proffer an update on GERs seeing as the subject is still being allowed to regurgitate itself and fester btl.
The so-called Scottish ‘Government’ is a UK Government spending department whose allegiance/oath and that of its MSPs, Ministers and civil servants is not to Scotland but to the UK/Crown..
GERS was discredited by its own inventor. We know it was designed as a disingenuous political “device”, from correspondence leaked from the then Secretary of State, arch Tory Ian Lang, that he wanted GERS to “undermine the other parties”, saying “this initiative could score against all of them”.
They’ve been desperate to get the genie back in the bottle ever since.
Same is true with the McCrone Report.
GERS and the McCrone Report are damning enough, but we may never know about further chicanery designed to hold Scotland in check, but which has been kept out of the headlines.
I refer you back to John Jappy’s testimony above. To quote, “…the machinery of Westminster, aided and abetted by the media, did an excellent job of keeping the myth about “subsidised” Scotland alive”.
No change there, but I’m intensely curious about what form the “machinery of Westminster” actually took, and what skullduggery it got up to, in detail.
We may never know the actual truth of course, and while it’s a poor second, we may have to content ourselves that the Westminster Establishment has been proven to be rotten to the core, deceitful and dishonest about Scotland, and bereft of integrity in all it says and does.
Over to you trolls. Convince me Perfidious Albion has been, ahem, “misunderstood”.
I`ll say this again. Scotland with a pop of 5m has had nearly fifty years of oil and gas revenues from the north sea within its territorial waters and should be a rich as Norway but it is not. So where has all the money???
It’s basically been totally squandered in terms of benefit to the people due to mismanagement under London Rule, and that’s an absolute travesty when you consider what could have been compared to the situation Scotland finds itself in now.
And it will be the same for renewables too, unless some serious attention is given to highlighting this ongoing situation.
There’s huge potential to make political capital out of this, but bar occasional points being made by Kenny McAskill, and Robin McAlpine and Craig Dalzell at Commonweal I see very little focus and effort being made to properly educate the Scottish public on past and present energy matters.
This is likely because the political class and commenters don’t have any significant background in energy related industries to understand the ins and outs of it.
I’ve tried over the years to post a lot of content on here regarding Scotland’s fossil fuel and renewable energy generation within the UK construct. But I get the feeling some of what I post is a bit technical in engineering terms for some to understand.
I get that, as I know I have limits to comprehension in other areas that I’m not too interested in and up the curve on.
But who do you listen too. Some no mark like me that’s actually worked in the industry during the development processes of huge gas producing fields such as Britannia in North Sea.
(Scroll through to the 4th pic to see the subsea engineering development with multiple wells and tie ins back to the fixed platform. I was on a semi-submersible rig working adjacent to the fixed platform, piloting the ROV when some of the 8 wells of the Britannia Manifold were being drilled, and later when remote control of some of those well systems was being tested and commissioned back to the main Britannia platform)
Or there was also the first of the new West of Shetland oil fields such as Foinavon and Schiehallion, where we were putting the first of the subsea infrastructure on the seabed for the pioneering BP DMac system to operate a complex system of managing various wells with flexible flow line connections to a manifold so oil could flow up to the permanently dynamically positioned FPSO vessel.
But fuck it, SNP made their choice by basically ousting anybody with a degree of sense. Instead Scotland’s political and media class chooses to go with some virtue-signalling airheads and you end up with the likes of this.
America own everything in the UK.
England has obviously squandered most of the oil revenues & has shares in all the rest for their private offshore accounts no doubt.
& The USA control all of the worlds oil. They need to control everyone’s oil in order to maintain the world currency/petrol dollar status.
Ben Norton/Geopolitical economy report is a great journalist & commentator on the greed of insatiable appetite the USA has in controlling everys energy. Control that & you control everyone.
I believe they were the arsewipes behind the Scotwind giveaway too.
Holyrood was only ever going to be a glorified administration. Not a word player on the international stage.
Tbh most of the engineering stuff does go over my head lol That’s not your fault but mine. But once you discover who the real players are, geopolitically, a lot of the shit coming out of Holyrood starts to make sense. It’s directives – do as yer told & STFU or we’ll cut either yer funding/investment or, even better, we’ll start a regime change or a good old fashioned sex scandal & have the public turn on you…
Nothing, absolutely nothing, is to threaten their hegemony & their world currency. Whether yer diddy we Scotland or not…
“Follow the column and follow the fire
It’s an honest song from the mouth of a liar
In the eye of the storm, He’ll make saints of us all
When the thunder rolls and the lightning calls
All the king’s horses, all the king’s men
Were buried beneath the water again
And on the other side of that shore
We didn’t know the way anymore…
Listen, son, and listen, daughter
The Promised Land’s just over that water
The tragedy became the key
To loose the chains and set us free
I see the National is high fiving SHE whose name shall not be uttered’s favourite books of the year..
Ripping yarns like;
– How to have a beard without wearing one.
– A life spent rug munching
– Stamp licking for beginners
– Crazy looking veg that double as phallus’s
– Me and Val, a no holds barred history
– Doring Kindersleys guide to coercing a popular political movement
– Get the door Frank; riding a pisstake.
– Burner phones for dummies
– Campervan annual; 2020 edition
– Sharp elbows; getting to the top in politics
– Stonewall saucy calendar (recurring)
– 10 years of achieving nothing; a personal recollection
– An insiders insight into what ACTUALLY went on in the blue tent.
– It’s oppressive to expect married women to wear wedding rings.
– Why I am British and proud of it.
– The pressures of writing readable memoirs.
– Caligraphy volume 12; faking signatures
– Memory loss; top tips to help this
– MacBeths three witches; a feminists reappraisal
– Politics; a guide to earning when you can’t cut it in your chosen profession.
– Husbands; who needs them?
– Management; how to select that winning team (no longer in print)
– French fancies and laptops (Mills and Boon)
– Finances for dummies
– Social Engineering; A deviants guidebook
– Why Branchform will come to nothing
– Learning to drive during the menopause; WHY?
Fiction seems to be the woke ‘thing’. Better that than having to face reality, such as ‘Doun-Hauden: The Socio-Political Determinants of Scottish Independence’.
“This is an astonishing book: it is also a difficult one. Difficult, because it requires us to be honest with ourselves. Astonishing, because it comes at a time when its message is utterly crucial to our collective future, as a society and as a nation.
Its message is perfectly exemplified by the west coast community that recently decided not to take control of its land, its destiny, its self. Even when the cage door is open, we fear freedom…’Doun-Hauden’ identifies the phenomenon, and explains why. It therefore indicates how we might address our own shortcomings-“:
I am very wary of buying back bits of your own country. I thought that it might be called reset the property having been nicked in the first place. If a thief stole an item belonging to you would you pay the thief to have your item returned.
And just because the thief has held your item for a long period of time this does not convey ownership.
“Dear Ms Sturgeon
We are groups based in Scotland concerned about threats to women’s rights, as protected in domestic and international law. This time two years ago, many of us were sitting in the public gallery of the Scottish Parliament as MSPs voted for the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill…..
….If you believe that there are groups or individuals with an agenda to ‘push back rights generally’ who are ‘muscling in’ on Scottish politics, you have a duty to state who or what you believe they are, and how you believe they are operating in Scotland, as precisely as possible. Then, the influence of any such groups or individuals can be properly investigated and challenged, as necessary.
As it stands, regardless of your intentions, a person might reasonably believe you are referring to those groups or individuals who played a leading part in criticising the Scottish Government’s proposals.
We therefore invite you to move away from dropping broad hints of potential wide application, and to take the more responsible step of making clear who you do, and do not, mean in the comments above, and to put the evidence on which your comments are based into the public domain without delay.
Yours,
“You know what we do, you know where we from, you know how we get shit in
So without further ado, I proudly introduce to all: THE THINKING CAP…
Memories that kept time frozen, that one-eye codin’
Kept it opend as I lay low
They in fear of what can happen if we gain any form of control
Unlockin’ the soul, this shit, it forms, the ink gold
Distinct codes, stealth mode triple on go…
All I know: get to it, express it inside the music, a testament
To my own legacy, you real if you correctin’ me and came correctly when you stepped to me, ayo (What?)
Out the vortex fresh like a half moon
Out in the Q, on a sunny afternoon like we up
This more than just new tunes (This more than just new tunes, man)
To find out, you gotta tap in with me soon…”:
Aye, time to ditch the ‘old thinking’ or ‘auld sang’ that represents the ‘colonial hoax’, and replace it with the ‘new thinking’ reflecting better understanding of the reality of our situation and the necessity for liberation.This may be framed in three terms: ‘unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)’; ‘colony’; and ‘liberation’:
“We’re not the same
Yet we still pretend we are
Living in this cage
Raging inside these iron bars…
Hold on Hold on
Savior from above is on the way…
Come on up Come on up
You have been through enough of this
Scream it out, scream it out
You deserve a better say in the way you
Breathe in, Breathe out…”:
“It must be concluded therefore that large revenues and balance of payments gains would indeed accrue to a Scottish Government in the event of independence…Undoubtedly this would banish any anxieties the Government might have had about its budgetary position or its balance of payments. The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian kroner.”(The McCrone Report, 1975)
“The amount of potential oil in the North Sea is always an educated guess, with different reports giving vastly different estimations – and of course debate over proven, probable and possible reserves. In a report published in March this year, the industry body the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) gave a projection of 11.7billion boe over the period 2016-2050. In November this year the OGA published a report on the reserves and resources of the UK continental shelf (UKCS) which estimated recoverable petroleum resources in the range of 10-20 billion boe, including discovered and undiscovered resources.”
Aye maybe Scotland should have it’s own authority for a change & play with wee charts & estimates all day long.
An even better idea would be to obtain the full accounts & see for ourselves.
The Tories, & Hunt especially, could celebrate the loot they were plundering from the North Sea at Westminster & it was in the hundreds of £billions while practically mocking the SNP eejits sitting across from them as it sailed on over their heads. They’d an irrelevant question & farm more important, about genders instead.
Yoda
1 month ago
I would be interested to know what Operation Branchfarce has cost the tax payer so far
Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh
1 month ago
Article from The Times
February 14, 2009
SECRET PLAN TO DEPRIVE INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND OF NORTH SEA OIL FIELDS
Magnus Linklater and George Rosie
Documents detailing secret government plans in the 1970s to prevent Scotland laying claim to North Sea oil have been seen by The Times. They show the extraordinary lengths to which civil servants were prepared to go to head off devolution, which was seen then as inevitably leading to independence.
The proposals included suggesting to Labour ministers, for whom devolution was a manifesto commitment, that progress towards a referendum should be delayed, in the hope that enthusiasm north of the Border would wane.
Treasury officials also advised that the boundaries of Scotland’s coastal waters should be redrawn and a new sector created to “neutralise” Scotland’s claim to North Sea oil – a step that was taken.
One Treasury official even proposed that a local campaign for independence in Orkney and Shetland should be encouraged so that Scotland would be denied access to more than half the North Sea oil. The idea was that the islands would prefer to throw in their lot with London rather than Edinburgh.
Among those advising Labour ministers was Sir David Walker, who is investigating the banking crisis for the present Government. As assistant secretary at the Treasury, he wrote in May 1975 that “progress toward devolution should be delayed for as long as possible consistently with honouring the government commitment to move down the devolution road and containing the SNP lobby in Parliament”.
Sir David’s advice was heeded. It was another four years before the Scots were allowed to vote on whether or not they wanted an assembly in Edinburgh.
The documents – letters, memorandums and briefing papers from the Public Record Offices at Kew and in Edinburgh – show that some civil servants were alarmed by the threat that devolution posed to North Sea oil revenues, which were servicing Britain’s external debt.
One paper, by Graham Kear, under-secretary at the Department of Energy, suggested that the Northern Isles might be hived off from Scotland. He wrote: “If Scotland and the Orkney and Shetland Islands are both regarded as states, separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, median lines can be drawn to divide the United Kingdom Continental Shelf between Orkney & Shetland/Scotland and between Scotland/England.”
One way of doing this, according to civil servants advising Anthony Crosland, the Environment Secretary, would be to realign the subsea border between Scotland and England, so that it ran northeast instead of east.
Mr Kear’s doubts were shared by his political boss, Tony Benn, the Energy Secretary, who wrote to Ted Short, the deputy leader: “There is general agreement that energy policy – its formulation and execution – should be a function reserved to the UK Government.”
Mr Benn told The Times yesterday that he had favoured Scottish devolution. “I have always taken the view that power was too centralised,” he said. “I think you have to determine what it’s appropriate to devolve. On the question of ownership of natural resources, that has to be seen as an integral part of the country.”
When Scotland is independent, I think we should unilaterally realign the subsea border between Scotland and England so that it runs south-east instead of east and terminates somewhere off the coast of Sunderland or perhaps even Grimsby. That would be no less fair and England would have no grounds for complaint, surely?
Young Lochinvar
1 month ago
Loopy Lorna has let slip and the National has gone to print with it that the Khmer Vert are up for BHA v.2 after the 2016 elections!
Rumour is they’d meant to keep this secret and referred to the plan as codename “Patrick’s Polycule”..
I think I’m right in saying that comments can now be edited and errors corrected after they’ve been posted. I forget which symbol it is, but there should be one in the vicinity of your comment which allows you to do this.
In 1999, the very evening before the devolved Scottish Parliament first opened, the UK establishment reclassified 6,000 square miles of Scottish sea as English waters.
SCOTLAND’S STOLEN SEAS:
The Technical Explanation
by Craig Murray (10 Jan 2016)
« I do not think that any work I have done has brought me as much abuse as that on the transfer of 6,000 square miles of Scottish sea to England in 1999, effected by New Labour by Order in Council literally the day before the Scottish Parliament came into being.
« Some of this criticism has been utterly bizarre, including a strange contention that the whole thing did not happen and the legislation does not exist. A marginally more rational criticism has been the contention that the new boundary – which at its extreme limit eastwards runs north of Carnoustie – reflects a genuine median line influenced by the shape of the coastline.
« With thanks to this map kindly sent by Dave Philip, I wish to explain why the new boundary is not legitimate […] »
I read fairly recently on a Neale Hanvey comment [on Twitter?] that there was a Holyrood vote on the transfer and he was the only one who voted against.
Might be worth checking that – it should be in Scot Parl records.
Thanks Sarah. The ‘Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order’ came into force on 13 April 1999. As I understand it, Neale Hanvey was never an MSP. He became an MP in 2019. His Twitter remark was surely referring to a Westminster event. Holyrood views on the boundaries issue would have no power to change such matters. Nonetheless, a brief online search shows that there were at least two relevant Holyrood debates in 2000. Here for interest is a contribution from Winnie Ewing to the second one:
Dr Winnie Ewing Scottish National Party (26 April 2000) « The boundary issue is a great fishing mystery. It has the fascination of a detective story. As Murray Tosh has just said, we still do not know why the change happened. We are not given an explanation, so we are left with two possibilities—that it was a mistake or that there is something more sinister behind it.
« My party is accused of looking for the sinister, but many members have asked whether it could be admitted that the transfer was just an error and whether, if that is the case, it can be put right. There is much dignity in politicians or parties admitting that they have made an error, and then correcting it. We have all had to do that—certainly, in my long span, I have had to do it.
« Why can the Executive not admit that the order was a mistake? The minister’s speech today was pathetic because he is as much involved in the mystery as we are and does not know the answers. Should he have been the person to address the chamber, given that he does not even attempt to know the answers?
« We have reduced our territory. Has anyone ever heard of a Parliament in its early days taking a decision to reduce its territory? I think that a Conservative member made that point.
« It is said that Scottish fishermen still have the right to fish in the area that is under discussion, and that the change makes no economic difference. Are we just materialists in the chamber? Are we concerned only with material considerations? I have an interest in the matter as I was a criminal lawyer—I should perhaps say that I practised in the criminal court extensively for many years, and after I lost my seat at Hamilton, I practised criminal law again. I was also an academic Scots lawyer. I am proud of Scots law because the world respects our criminal legal system. It is one of the jewels of the world’s jurisprudence—I do not speak lightly about that and can quote chapter and verse the people who have said that.
« There is now doubt about which court a criminal matter in the disputed area would go to. The answer is not clear from what has been said so far—the truth is that nobody knows. It seems that oil will go to Scotland and fish to England. However, are we not concerned with rights in law as well as rights to fish?
« Cases that arise might not be concerned only with a fisherman disregarding the law on fishing, and could relate to tanker negligence—there have been incidents such as collisions in my time. If one goes to an English court in such situations, one gets a lesser system of criminal prosecution. I dare any jurisprudence expert to deny that.
« Apart from anything else, the transfer is a breach of the Treaty of Union, but nobody cares about that. Obviously, the nationalists care about it—we keep being told that we do, but we do not apologise for caring about the Treaty of Union, which was meant to protect all manner of things in Scotland. It is obviously not protecting Scotland’s territory, but one would think that it would protect the jewel in the crown of our law, which is the criminal legal system.
« As John Farquhar Munro said, it is not logical to have two boundaries. Having two boundaries is messy and will cause difficulties. It has been said that there has not yet been a criminal incident in the disputed waters, but there will be. Are we going to wait until all the horror and outrage that an incident will cause makes the Executive admit its error? That is what I foresee will happen.
« I asked the same questions in the previous debate: why did the change happen? Was it a show of ignorance? Members on the Westminster delegated legislation committee admitted that they were puzzled and did not know the impact that it would have. It was obviously a mistake. However, if it was not a mistake, and there was a conspiracy, it was a pretty disgusting conspiracy of thieves in the night on the eve of the establishment of our distinguished Parliament. What on earth can the motive have been for that? Was it to increase the English tonnage in the quota at the expense of the Scottish tonnage?
« In my presence, during a visit by the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, Henry McLeish admitted that because fishing in the UK was predominantly a Scottish matter, the Scottish minister would represent the UK in Europe. Was the transfer something to do with that, as if the English and Scottish tonnages were equalised, there would not be the problem of the Scottish minister representing the UK?
« Was the motive fear that we were going to win our independence? Was it a warning light? Was it to say, “You have got your Parliament, but we are still the masters, so we will dish you out a dirty trick on the eve of your creation”? That may sound enormously stupid, but as I cannot get an answer to the question whether it was a mistake—the Executive does not seem prepared to admit that and to put it right—one is left with the conspiracy theory.
« There is a lot of confusion. We are told that the issue has nothing to do with oil, but we have already heard many members tell us from experience that many fishing boats serve the oil industry. The two industries are not totally separate; there is a mix, as we all know. I know that many of my fishermen friends are out there in boats that serve the oil industry, and a dangerous job it is too.
« Mr Johnstone, in his very able speech, mentioned other matters that it is now agreed will be affected. There is confusion, and there certainly was not consultation. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation was in St Andrew’s House and found out about this matter by accident. I would add that, at that time, I was the only United Kingdom vice- president of the European Parliament Committee on Fisheries. Would not members think that, as a matter of courtesy, there might have been some intimation sent to that committee, which was obviously involved in the matter as well?
« We all seem to agree that there was some kind of cock-up. Or was it a conspiracy? I do not know—but let us get the answer and put the matter right. »
_____
Read full Holyrood debate transcript here: Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999
– in the Scottish Parliament on 26 April 2000
It is very interesting that Winnie Ewing talked in terms of the transfer being a breach of the Treaty of Union. No-one in the SNP gov or parliamentary ranks since 2014 ever seem to think that the Treaty is of any relevance. What a shower they are.
It’s a total red herring of an issue though. It has no practical impact and will signify nothing at the time of independence because the maritime boundary between Scotland and the rump UK will be decided using accepted international legal principles and UNCLOS conventions.
Useful summaries of the issue can easily be found on line such as:
The difference between the straight line Civil Jurisdiction (Offshore Activities) line of 1987 and the more northerly Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order of 1999 will have to be resolved in post independence negotiations. Neither line is likely to represent the final EEZ boundary as neither conforms to internationally accepted norms or precedents: it’s actually likely to fall somewhere between the two.
Campbell Clansman
1 month ago
The latest poll, released Dec. 31st, has the following for the next Holyrood election:
Not exactly the “plebiscite” results the Indy fanatics are hoping for. And if one excludes the SNP as being pro-Indy (as many here do) the pro-Indy vote share is laughably small.
This poll was commissioned by the pro-Indy “National” and thus, if anything, is pro-Indy weighted.
Doubtless the tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists on WoS will label this poll result a part of some vast anti-Indy conspiracy.
I notice you (intentionally?) omitted the Green share of the vote above, so the figures wouldn’t appear to be much different in general from recent polls within standard margin of error.
I note you also omitted to mention the same poll found a 4% lead for independence using the standard referendum question. That doesn’t really fit with your narrative either, huh?
Andy, the actual numbers are findable on that website. You are citing their “summary”, not the actual numbers.
BTW the actual poll results showed 42.4% would vote for Indy. The rest, “no” or don’t know. That doesn’t really fit with your narrative either huh? Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Indy, is it?
The SNP ceased to be a pro-independence party on the 14 November 2014, the day the political fraud Sturgeon took over from Mr Salmond.
“This poll was commissioned by the pro-Indy “National””
The National is not a pro-indy newspaper. It is an SNP and Nicola Sturgeon fanzine.
Just out of curiosity, how big is the subscription of the National and how representative of Scotland’s pro-independence movement, never mind Scotland’s electorate, it actually is?
How many single voters accessed the poll? Some of them may have cast more than one vote.
The company who carried out the polling (Find Out Now) say it was a representative sample and from their website are members of the British Polling Council. Without seeing the detailed breakdown of polling figures – which The National may not release, or which may not be released until later – it’s hard to say what kind of polling was carried out.
Unless they’re using some particularly dodgy methodology there’s no instant reason to think the poll itself is any more inaccurate than any other similar polling: indeed the fact the results seem broadly in line with others suggests the opposite.
As the Rev Stu – who after all has quite a bit of experience commissioning polls, which isn’t something most folk can say – it’s pretty dumb to attack polling just because you dislike who has commissioned it, or even worse because the result isn’t the one you’d prefer.
From memory during #indyref1, polling companies tend to take a dim view of randoms off the internet casting aspersions about how they conduct their business.
I appreciate and understand all what you say, but, currently, to comment in the National or to vote in some of their polls, as far as I know, you have to be subscribed, so the pool is quite limited.
That is why I ask how many people are currently subscribed to the newspaper.
Regarding my asking how many people actually voted, rather than the number of votes, the question was asked because I do not know if you remember that infamous poll about who was going to win the leadership of the SNP when Yousaf was candidate.
At that time, tens of thousands of votes appeared overnight to put Yousaf in the lead position when was far back before. The figure added overnight greatly surpassed the readership, never mind the subscriptions of that newspaper at the time.
At the time, I actually tested it and you just had to refresh the pay and could vote as may times as you wished. The only limit being the length of time it took to refresh the page.
The company may say that the polling was representative, the question is representative of what. If the poll appeared in the National and somewhat they were not restricting the vote so each person could only vote once, or it was restricted to their subscribers, I am not really sure we can trust the results as representative.
Again, without knowing the total number of votes it is difficult to estimate the relevance of those percentages. If the number of voters/votes is very low, they will be meaningless.
You’re assuming (without any evidence I can see) that the poll was just some online poll in The National. From what I can see from the polling companies website it seems more likely to have been a properly commissioned poll. They actually say:
The National newspaper in Scotland commissioned Find Out Now to conduct a nationally representative survey of Scottish voting intention for both a hypothetical Holyrood and a hypothetical Westminster election. In addition to voting intention, we also asked for voting likelihood and adjusted the results for a 66.6% turnout for Holyrood, and 65.7% turnout for Westminster. In addition, we also asked for voting intention and likelihood for a hypothetical Independence Referendum. After turnout adjustment (to 72.8%) we found a 4 point lead for Yes (to Independence), which is consistent with our past ‘Indyref2’ polls.
Unless you have any evidence that the sample size was particularly small, or it wasn’t carried out properly I don’t see any reason to doubt the general accuracy.
Once more indeed – Happy New Year.
Out-stand-ing.
Wikipedia: Operation Branchform:
“Operation Branchform is a Police Scotland investigation into possible fundraising fraud in the Scottish National Party (SNP) that was launched in 2021 and is ongoing as of December 2024. The investigation concerns allegations that £666,953 raised by the SNP since 2017 specifically to campaign for independence in a proposed second Scottish independence referendum was in part improperly spent on other activities. The investigation has expanded to cover allegations of embezzlement, signature forgery, and misreporting of loans made to the party to the Electoral Commission…
In December 2022, Wings Over Scotland reported that a loan of £107,620 made to the SNP in June 2021 had come from the party’s then-CEO Peter Murrell, and that the Electoral Commission had not been informed until over a year later, in August 2022, despite this being a breach of the commission’s reporting rules..
By the end of February 2024, it was reported that Police Scotland had requested to re-interview SNP staff as part of the investigation, including those who were not in place when the inquiry began. …the move was directed by the crown Office…”:
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to archive.ph
Well there it is. Wings Over Scotland is given a credit?!!!
& some Yoon hasn’t quickly edited it to link to a Yoon rag instead?
Fck me..
*Faints*
Reality is the undisputed champion (editing will achieve nothing:) –
Long live Wings…
Kick it into touch
Incredible.
Facts are chiels that winna ding.’
But can be buried.
Air day or late day, the foxes hide finds aye the slaying knife.’
A Happy new Year to Rev Stu, and all of your commenters! Even you, Hatey!
Prosperity to Scotland and no union!
Excellent image, Chris! 😀
Branchform is to be renamed The Lesbian Sagas.
Paton Place msir like. That went on for ever..
What will come first the end of Operation Branchform or the SNP position on Independence?
We were told its only weeks away from being concluded and that was 1 last year and 2 months ago. I just don’t know who to trust.
I just want everyone to know unlike the SNP after ten years my posistion hasn’t changed on Indyref2, sorry Nic I still call it that.
Queen of the New Year on BBC Shortbread on Hogmanay was, as usual with 21st century “comedy” from that channel a bit hit and miss (and more miss than hit).
I did, however, quietly chuckle at their sketch on the Murrells, in their campervan, with a tattered saltire, confessing their love, before departing, pursued by the polis.
T’was the best bit o’ telly last night. However, I have to admit to squirming in my seat and screwing my coupon up at the kissing scene.
“You never seen us.”
“How? Who are you.”
LOL!!!
That was classic…
And a Guid New Year to you, Chris. Spot on as usual, I’m afraid.
A Guid New Year to you, Rev. Thank you for your dedication.
And you chose your cartoonist well. 🙂
Ramsay Mac Donald in Socialism: critical and constructive, published in 1921, wrote: «The Anglification of Scotland has been proceeding apace to the damage of its education, its music, its literature, its genius, and the generation that is growing up under this influence is uprooted from its past»
a voice from 100+ years ago worth mulling over in this «new year», especially by those who style themselves «politicians» LOL!
Socialism has been around for 150+ years, and has a 100% failure rate.
Wrong.
Neoliberalism is the fail. It’s sold all the family silver & it’s assets to foreigners & has fck all income now. The days of just printing money & exorbitant privilege of living off the plunder are over too as colonisers are told to pack their bags & fck off…so they need a war..gotta keep the grift going..
Well said, Geri.
The most current example of Socialism failing is Cuba running out of sugar. It’s as if Saudi Arabia ran out of sand.
Cuba like Nicaragua, are doing a remarkable job – considering the huge amount of sanctions against the countries.
These illegal sanctions by the US – and its ever obedient minions is war by other means.
Cuban socialism would be exemplary (for me it still is) if there sanctions against the country.
I recall years ago – Michael Moore taking Americans to get free health care in Cuba, which has an excellent universal health care system, because they couldn’t afford treatment in the USA.
Socialism works – that’s why capitalism has to destroy it – it fears it.
It works fine in countries such as Venezuela – it was Henry Kissinger who said (or words to that effect) with Chile in mind, that we can’t allow socialism to flourish in Chile – even if Chileans vote for it – which they did, so the US and its allies couped Chile – killing its leader Allende – they then proceeded via proxy fighter – to carry out mass murders and installed, Thatcher’s great friend the dictator General Pinochet.
Chile then became a experimental country for the rampant capitalist Friedmanism – which Thatcher introduced to the UK – and now the UK is is in a terrible state.
The US and its allies have been regime changing socialist countries for decades – not because it doesn’t work, but because they fear it.
Kissinger’s exact quote.
“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”
The best proof that Socialism is an utter failure is the fact that ordinary people are fleeing Socialist/Communist nations like Cuba and Venezuela in order to settle in the U.S.
People risked their lives to flee Communist East Berlin to go to free West Berlin. Communist regimes have border guards to shoot people trying to get out. Free market countries don’t.
We know all about Juan Guaidó – and the Washington backed Voluntad Popular in Venezuela.
You see what happens is the US places wide ranging sanctions on a country – lets say Venezuela – for not complying with US wishes – as I’ve said before, these illegal sanctions are war by other means – the well to do sections of society – then complain that their businesses, lifestyles are suffering – not because of the illegal US sanctions, but because the democratically elected president, isn’t complying with a foreign countries demands.
The democratically elected president – wants to make the lives of his citizens, more fairer and equal with a better standard of living etc – this is not conducive with the rich in societies goals.
They then turn against the incumbent government – and do the the USA bidding – this a basic but effect principle of regime changing.
More laughable excuses for Socialism’s failures.
But the true believers will keep worshipping at the alter of Karl Marx, and keep pretending that Maduro of Venezuela isn’t a dictator.
They have to keep pretending, because otherwise they would have to admit that their statist religion has failed.
Utter nonsense as usual – though you can take comfort in – that Trump has said he’ll “sort out” Central and South American countries – when he take office.
Look out Venezuela and Nicaragua.
Trump has already as POTUS tried to coup Venezuela – though he seemed more interested in Guaido’s wife than Guaido himself.
I can’t confirm this, but – its been touted around – that Trump has already purchased the land for his new golf course – beachfront land in gGa-z-za–a
He wants Canada & Greenland too. All those untapped resources going to waste & obviously the very strategic location to the Arctic now that it’s all melting.
Look out Canada & Greenland – you’ll now be
sanctioned & tariffd tae fckgiven an offer you cannot refuse or I see a regime change in yer not too distant future…Yes I knew that – the US had the premier of Bangladesh couped – (though she didn’t help herself with legacy employment laws) – because she wouldn’t give the USA the Saint Martin’s island – to use as a staging post.
The island which lies North of the Strait of Malacca – would be an excellent staging post to interfere in China’s sea route trading – along with allowing the US to hold sway in a vast part of Southern Asia.
Re the golf course. That wouldn’t surprise me.
His son in law was all over American telly celebrating Palestine being cleared cause it was valuable real estate for his plans to build luxury high-rises looking out over the Med..
Obviously Palestinians were just cluttering the view.
Id give that a 1 for remaining high rise for very long lol. Same with Trumps golf course. That’d just be fcking evil.
No. They’re fleeing crippling ILLEGAL SANCTIONS imposed on them by colonisers.
Cuba has the most Sanctions imposed on it for fck all.
Venezuela are mega rich in natural resources but the colonisers block investment & infrastructure so they can rob the country blind by paying peanuts for raw goods rather than the going rate of refined. Even Trump bragged he was stealing their oil for nothing.
The USA is the cluster fuck ruling over everyone else’s economy like they own the world but that’s about to burst..
“Communist regimes have border guards to shoot people trying to get out. Free market countries don’t.”
LOL!
Who has erected walls?
Who has erected walls to keep people from fleeing their country? Communist East Berlin, for one.
The Soviet Union, for another. Ever hear of the “Iron Curtain?”
LOL!
What about the recent ones in those free market countries? You know, like the ones America has? Are they just a mirage? A figment of our immigration?
How about the ones in Isr too?
Possibly here’s why.
Operation Unthinkable, Churchill’s plan to invade R00ssh-ai after WII – because the West didn’t want R00s-hhia to have any control in Central/East Germany – even though many East Germans were okay with it.
Lets not forget that it was R00sshhia, that all but won the Second World War, losing over 20 million people in the process.
Next you’ll be citing the great Wall of China, or Hadrian’s Wall – or the Antonine Wall.
Aye, that was a bastard thing to try do to an ally who’d won the war & paid the highest cost. He tried to get it going cause rather than say thanks he wanted to strike them while they were weakened through the heavy losses they’d suffered for yrs.
Just shows how fckn devious they’ve always been. It’s inherent. Perfidious Albion right enough.
Shows too that it was fck all to do with the dews (credit to Main for the mod proof version) either. Of course we knew that anyway cause the Brits refused to take refugees, & was more to do with trying to hold onto it’s dying Empire & land grab. They lost it anyway to the yanks who’ve tallied up more deaths worldwide since…
Socialists don’t love the poor they just love hating the rich.
How do they get rich?
Well they start by pretending to care about poverty then when in power they milk the lot for themselves.
Yes, language (and culture) which is what determines our identity is a key determinant of independence, not that the daeless SNP elite has ever figured this oot; which explains why oor ain braw Scots langage is nivver taucht tae Scots bairns and despite indigenous language being a human right.
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
Alf -“Scots langage is nivver taucht”.
That bold assertion is wrong.
Scots is taught in schools though not perhaps at a level you would wish.
Under Salmond’s stewardship the approach to languages was to open the door and make the early learning of languages normal. It is happening and being monitored..
There has been an increase in the numbers learning Scots. Gaelic is the third most popular language behind French and German.
link to gov.scot
Gaelic language is not the Scots language. The British state offers Gaelic language degrees and Highers, but not degrees or Highers in Scots langauge. The linguistic discrimination against Scots speakers is rather obvious, and a core colonial procedure, as is divide and rule, i.e. favouring one group.
link to uhi.ac.uk
Highers: “This curriculum area includes literacy and English, literacy and Gàidhlig, Gaelic (Learners), modern languages and classical languages.”
link to education.gov.scot
Even the Scottish Government offer policy summaries in 17 languages EXCLUDING SCOTS!
Well, Alf, research finds Scots is presently flourishing in Scotland, being spoken by most people (though not read or written much). Few speakers of Scots may regard it as a language but just their way of speaking.
There ” is widespread and strong recognition of the role of Scots in contributing to the culture, history and identity of Scotland.”
If colonialism is at work it seems not to be very effective in expressing Scots which I hear around me every day.
Most of those who do not connect with Scots language are not Scots
Don’t take my word for it.
.https://www.open.edu/openlearncreate/55/d7/55d7d4a3f67e73c4a2e412bda67f0248b32aa70e?response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D%22Public%20Attitudes%20Towards%20the%20Scots%20Language.pdf%22&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&Expires=1735767300&Signature=WxyIgb9GcmrzbglmlaHvsw~5TkUukX~jeJfrbwMkAjw~eCXwtQiO1B5lpknKKwWsYPu8xOJpagDlOPVcCcxcWYY0n0jITkdKevlH58sy2ga~ntcK3qL70ueK36o9LoH-juNBtsoKlgg4SQ2f-6Q3BgMstWsAc-lkNdd~7NQcYIWq0Wgjp1keeXdIj-zrHbfwYhaAl3V~zzFojr20ewZHOTVd-1X4WPsBLg6Ip7~JPCrqZIWepGMX46MihAHmgf2DGmBPSMg5WL2P185TAVgx5YJvkob–JbS1BdDgn-gHT0-5EQwdftMpbH4EFVmSfyaEl4Hiya2KiQu7wpZ5PEVEw__&Key-Pair-Id=K19YM1UI0NPZI1
And this?
Named into being? Language questions and the politics of Scots in the 2011 census in Scotland
link to link.springer.com
It’s Public Attitudes towards Scots language.
No link
“Scots is taught in schools”
It is not taught in the schools that are in the area where I live. Not in a single one. Scots and Gaelic languages should be mandatory in all Scottish Schools. Scots and Gaelic together with English should be official languages in Scotland. Our MPs should be able to speak in any of the three languages in the so called parliament of the UK.
Have a read at the Springer link just upthread, Mia?
Also, according to the 2011 Census 1.5 million of Scots identified as Scots speakers. That makes the language the second most used after English not only in Scotland but in the UK.
Young people will pick up Scots from around them as well as in school.
There are barriers to learning Scots as well, one being that many do not see it as a language in its own right.
See here.
link to scottishbooktrust.com
And the “cringe” still hangs around Scottish culture. “Language attitudes and Scottish Inferiority” by Jim Miller
Do you know how the Scots Language Bill is progressing? I don’t.
A guid Ne’er tae ane an aa, an mony may ye see.
Bliadhna mhath ùr.
Happy New Year.
(Thank you Mr Cairns – keep ’em coming)
As the cartoon implies, and as postcolonial theory confirms: a colonized people are ‘out of the game; they are mere ‘bystanders’ in their own land. Another people and culture make decisions for them, including deciding on their fate. A colonized people are essentially a plaything, they are of no consequence to the colonizer. Such is the ‘dependency complex’ nature of colonial rule.
Critical perception of this reality, which is obscured, cannot be imposed on the oppressed group. Not that the dominant national party has ever undertaken ‘a reasoned study of colonial society’; this remains arguably their major weakness, leading to their co-option by the oppressor power and thwarting of liberation.
In order to ‘penetrate the totality’ of their situation, an oppressed peoples educational pursuit via ‘thematic investigation’ is necessary, which is a cultural action. For this to occur an applied theoretical framework may be necessary, setting out the relevant themes of analysis:
link to salvo-cor.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com
Once again, the lugubrious Alf Baird cites–himself–as authority for his laughable assertions.
& yet here you are trying to insist we cannie huv a referendum while at the same time claiming we’re not colonised.
Which one is it?
It must be taxing being a Yoon. Full of so many contradictions & hypocrisies 24/7. Go give yerself a wee lie down. Do you even know what colonialism is?
The UN has a list of colonies. Scotland is not on the list.
Here’s the link. Admittedly, it requires you to be able to read and comprehend things: link to un.org
You seem unable to ‘read and comprehend’ Geri’s question:
‘ Do you even know what colonialism is?’
We are not taken in by your faux erudition but good luck with your rite of passage anyway.
Richt-thinkin Scots ken fine we’re a colonized fowk; we dinna hiv tae be on a list sanctioned by imperial pouers tae ken we’re doun-hauden. The ‘colonial condition’ is aye the same nae maitter whaur:
link to salvo.scot
Because Scotland hasn’t lodged a case ….yet.
Do you own a dictionary?
Colony:
“A country or area under the full or partial political control of another country”
Scotland: Can we have a referendum & be in charge of our own resources & money?
England: NAW!! Fck off Jock.. we’re in charge.
That sounds awfully like full political control fae where I’m sitting.
How’s about the yoons dictionary? I suppose it’ll have a fab new, just this minute invented, definition all of its own cause yous are special…
By your own definition, Scotland ISN’T a colony.
Not a colony in 1708. Not a colony for the last 317 years. Not a colony according to the UN. Not a colony by any definition.
Please keep commenting. I need something to laugh at.
Scotland is not a colony. Scotland is the equal partner of the Kingdom of England with whom it voluntarily entered into an international treaty.
But Scotland is being treated as a colony. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The Kingdom of England has abused the treaty and has continuously used it as an excuse to exploit Scotland as a colony.
Actions speak louder than words.There are far too many examples to prove this to list here, but, if I may, I will mention a few.
One example is the relentless attempts by England MPs and English judges using English law and English law convention in English courts to assume for the UK parliament “parliamentary sovereignty”. When the parliament of Scotland ratified the treaty, it did not own parliamentary sovereignty. The sovereignty of Scotland lies with its people. The parliament of Scotland could not transfer to the new parliament of Great Britain what it did not have. England MPs simply self assumed that they could rule over Scotland at will, therefore they are currently encroaching on the Scottish people’s sovereignty. This would not happen if Scotland was not seen as a colony.
Another example is the presence of an unelected representative of the crown of England in the middle of what should have been a democratically elected government cabinet. This unelected representative of the crown otherwise known as “Lord Advocate”, is actively stealing control over the executive and legislative powers from the people of Scotland and handing them to the English crown. This is effectively imposing on Scotland absolute rule. This would have never happen if Scotland was not seen as a colony.
Another example is the presence of that entity known as “crown office” and that figure known as “crown agent” that are attached to the jugular of Scotland’s prosecution service. There is no equivalent to that “crown office” nor “crown agent” foisted on England’s prosecution service. Scotland has been lumbered with this so called “crown office” and “crown agent” because it is seen as a colony.
Another example is the presence in Scotland of a so called “Secretary of State”. What is the supposed role of this figure? Scotland already has a colonial administrative unit, otherwise known as “Scottish government” or “Scottish parliament”. Why do we need that figure? And where is the counterpart of that figure in England? We have this representative of England’s government in Scotland (effectively a viceroy) because Scotland is seen as a colony.
Another example is the systematic frustration of Scotland’s democratic will for the best part of 10 years. Examples of this are the result of the EU referendum. Scotland never voted for Brexit. Actually, Scotland never gave consent for Great Britain to be taken out of the EU. Yet, the Kingdom of England, with the collusion with our useless so called “representatives” dragged Scotland out of the EU. Another example is the systematic frustration for the last 8 years of Scotland’s democratic mandateS, because there are several of them, to hold an independence referendum. But this systematic frustration of Scotland’s expressed democratic will has been seen for centuries, like the disgraceful and appalling way the result of the referendum of 1979 was frustrated by the English government and parliament. This only happens because Scotland is seen as if it was the property of England of its colony.
Another example is the way the kingdom of England is ransacking Scotland’s resources as if they were its own, exploiting them for its own profit and benefit. Examples of this is how the KIngdom of England is taking for free the electricity produced in Scotland, the oil extracted from Scotland’s territorial waters and the gas extracted from Scotland’s territory including territorial waters. What is beyond outrageous, is that despite the Kingdom of England taking all that for free without paying us a single penny for it, the people in Scotland are forced to pay for the electricity produced in their own effing country, MORE than what the English people pay in England for the electricity produced in Scotland and that the kIngdom of Scotland takes for free. Yet, our useless so called “representatives” either look the other way or clap in approval. This only happens because Scotland is being treated as a colony, even, disgracefully, by Scotland’s own so called “representatives”.
Another example is the way England (as the UK)’s government feels entitled to sell large pieces of Scotland’s land for the so called “freeports”. When exactly were the people of Scotland consulted and asked permission for the selling of massive chunks of their own effing country? That would not happen if Scotland was not treated as a colony.
Another example is how Scotland has been reduced to the status of Wales, which entered the treaty of union as a dominion of the Kingdom of England. A wonderful example of this is how Scotland, the same as Wales, has a devolved “administration”, a colonial administration more like. Yet, England has nothing of the sort and instead, uses and abuses the parliament of Great Britain as if it was its own effing parliament. This asymmetric devolution is, in my opinion, unlawful under the treaty of union. This would not have happened if Scotland was not seen as a colony.
Another example is how the Kingdom of England has constantly its hand on Great Britain’s taxpayers’ purse and uses it as if it owned the whole lot. Scotland, Wales and NI had to make do with some crumbs that England throws at them, whilst England’s expenditure is not constrained by anything. This only happens because the Kingdom of England sees itself as above Scotland and is if owned Scotland.
Another example is how the Kingdom of England quickly reclaims ownership of all its own assets and the assets of everybody else. When it comes to debts though, England’s debts are the debts of everybody, so effectively we have the Kingdom of England sucking the resources and assets from everybody else whilst it foist on them a portion of its own debt. This only happens because Scotland is seen under an imperialist prism.
Another example is how, due to Westminster’s distribution of the HoC, the only country of England, Wales, Scotland or NI for which there is actually a functional democracy and the only country who controls what is passed in that parliament, is England. This only happens because Scotland’s opinion is seen as irrelevant and that can only happen because Scotland is treated as a colony within this political union.
Another example is how the warmongers of the kingdom of England consider themselves entitled to use and dispose of Scotland’s territory as if it was their own backyard. Scotland is being used as the graveyard of nuclear waste and the playground or rich English aristocrats. Again, this only happens because Scotland is being treated as a colony.
Another example is the interference of England’s political parties, England’s MPs, England’s actors and actresses, etc, etc, etc, in Scotland’s referendum in 2014. How much money raised outwith Scotland was poured into the “Better Together” campaign? In any other country, interference from other country and pouring money raised on other countries to force the result of a referendum would be seen as illegal. It was not the case here because Scotland is treated as if it was a colony.
Another example is how the language of another country has been imposed on Scotland as its main language, despite Scotland having its own languages. A dramatic example of this is the way some self-entitled arsehole England MPs, who speak as if they were chewing wasps, had the brass neck to laugh at Scottish MPs accents or demand them to speak English because the ignoramus England MPs could not possibly understand those who do not speak as if they were chewing wasps. One wonders how on earth these wasp chewers actually communicate with their own constituents. Only in a situation where Scotland is seen as a colony can explain that the people of Scotland is expected to ditch their own native language and adopt the language and culture of their neighbour country as the official language and culture.
Another example is how the kingdom of England’s representatives and even its own crown have been systematically and relentlessly violating the fundamental conditions of the treaty of union and yet, they expect us to continue to abide by the treaty. This can only happen because the treaty was only seen as the means to take control over Scotland as a colony.
I could go on, and on, and on and on some more. The Bottom line is that Scotland is not, by definition, a colony. It is England’s equal partner and has the legitimate right under international law to revoke the treaty of union at any time of its own choosing. But the treaty of union has been used for the last 300 years by the representatives of the Kingdom of England and by the crown of England as an excuse to treat Scotland as if it was England’s property or colony.
Considering that support for independence in Scotland is increasing, If I was a colonially minded “unionist”, I would not consider what I wrote above and the growing sentiment among the people of Scotland that their country is being treated, abused and exploited as if it was England’s colony, a laughing matter.
A magnificent example of how Scotland is seen as a colony is the McCrone Report. As soon as you read it you immediately notice the strong whiff that both, the person writing it and the entity that commissioned it, and that was suppose to be the first reading it, saw Scotland as a colony.
The way the author speaks of the oil and the ways it suggests to the reader ways on how to steal that oil from Scotland speaks volumes. One of those recommendations to rob Scotland of its oil fields was to redraw the territorial waters boundaries, which of course the war criminal Blair did right before Holyrood was opened.
The author of that report speaks of the people of Scotland as “natives”. Clearly not seeing the Scottish people as being the same level as the English people, but at least recognising them as a different people.
The way that report was deliberately hidden with the disgusting purpose of hiding from the people of Scotland the wealth of their own country is a clear testament to the fact that the author of that report, the entity that commissioned and the entity who proceeded to hide it to deny the people of Scotland the knowledge of how much wealth their own country had, did indeed see Scotland as a colony whose assets, in this case the oil, was ripe for them to steal for the benefit of England.
This enterprise of hiding from the people of Scotland the wealth of their own country was rife during the 2014 referendum and it continues relentlessly today.
Well said Mia.
The late John Jappy was a great source of info too regarding the mindset of the UK government at the time oil came ashore. Their tactic was to ridicule the Scots that their estimates were ridiculous & the oil was worthless whilst they lavishly spent money refurbishing London.
It still continues to this day even by eejit yoons on here who probably had Heinz beans for tea tonight & sit with their Union Jack blankie watching BBC Englandshire tell them that Scotland is shite & besides, huge corporations deserve our oil & pay no windfall taxes cause they deserve it more than they do… they’ve a hell of a time of it…
Question they never seem to ask themselves – how can they have a windfall on profits if the oil is running out & the stuff they do manage to extract is shit anyway? It’s one of life’s mysteries so it is…
Excellent response Mia!
I hope you’re signed up & a member to Salvo/Liberation?
That’s another thing that gets Clangers knickers in a twist!
Yes, “Mia,” please become a member of Salvo/Liberation!
Your signing up will double their membership.
I have been a member of Salvo and Liberation for a while now.
Fantastic @Mia
Can you advise how one might connect to this apparent free supply electricity in England? I don’t know if you’ve been to England (or know where it is) but I think it would come as a surprise to the people of England that electricity is free there.
“Scotland is not on the list”
Then we will have to include it in the list, don’t we?
We are Scotland.
So why aren’t you writing this pseudo-academic gibberish in “Scots” then ?
Happy New Year everyone!
Another year scored off the *generation* countdown – whoooo hooo!
I think we can all safely predict that Bungleform has no intention of calling it a wrap. It’ll go on & on & on & on….the keystone cops will be raking it in watching tumbleweed roll on by. It’s farcical & embarrassing but we all know why..
The sooner we can get the rug munching alpha-betties into a male prison, including Chief Mammy, the better. 😉
Then Scotland can move on.
The plan is to keep the ball in the long grass for years. Then the litigants can claim to have auld timers disease and as such they cannae recollect…….case over !!!!
Has that ‘I canny recollect ‘excuse no been used before??? Canny mind who used it but I’m sure I heard it with a fair bit o’ frequency somewhere.
Hamish will not fall for it this time. But will SNP voters?
Perhaps there is a solution in plain sight. If the entire legal establishment of Scotland boycotted the current police, COPFS and court system. It is just as with Westminster – if you take part in their farce you are endorsing it. But if you ignore it then the establishment is in real trouble.
How about it, Roddy Dunlop?
Ball, road, down, or is the toon an invite for another kick in a ba’s
One thing for sure t’s April the 1st again today. as it is evdry other day in Jock land.
That’s the way it is. A joke rule of law police, prosecution and political democracy. And a new year of it has just once again begun.
But, and this is the big but. Do the donkeys care. I don’t think they do. Cold houses, declining living standards, kept in the dark, it’s a pit pony existence for many, far too many, and a fill your boots time for the few.
Ah well, keep your noses clean folks whilst you crawl on your hands and kness under the establishment boot. And then, turn up the heating and dance.
Happy new year.
Aye Willie, in any colonial society we can be pretty sure the governing institutions will be colonial in nature and in terms of their values.
As Albert Memmi wrote:
“Every colonial nation carries the seeds of fascist temptation in its bosom. What is fascism if not a regime of oppression for the benefit of a few? The entire administrative and political machinery of a colony has no other goal.”
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
From Kenny MacAskill;
Hogmanay in Scotland is a time to both look back on the old year, as well as look forward to the New Year. It’s A time for both reflection and optimism. It has added poignancy this year as it would have been the 70th birthday of Alex Salmond. A man who moulded the modern Scotland, dominating it’s political scene for almost the last 50 years and whose legacy is seen all around us.
His life was dedicated to Scottish Independence, believing that Scotland can do so much better. That the tragedy in our land was not how bad things were but how much better they should be, when our country is blessed with so much natural resource and with so many talented people.
Sadly, other Nations with far less have been achieving so much more. It was that which he sought to change. Believing that it was simply wrong to suggest that our country was too small, too poor or our people were incapable of running a country themselves and doing it better. Some countries discovered oil and made the desert bloom, Scotland discovered oil and saw areas turned into industrial deserts. And now the perversity of an energy rich land, where turbines turn on land and sea, and yet folk in Scotland can’t afford to turn their heating on.
There’s now even a push to expand oil production in war ravaged Syria to stabilise the economy and society there. Meanwhile, the North Sea faces shutdowns and layoffs for workers with all the damage to our cities and communities. Even more perversely Syria has a refinery that’s been operating and will continue to do so. Yet Grangemouth is to cease production. Both UK and Scottish Governments are failing to protect not just our workers but our industrial base.
During the referendum in 2014 Scotland was assured that our EU membership would be secured; that the pound would be strong; that Britain would be stable and even internationally a force for good. Instead, a hard Brexit has been imposed damaging our society and economy. The pound has dropped and the cost of living increased. Britain has become deeply unstable and aspects of political discourse repugnant. Internationally, the UK has been craven as a genocide has unfolded in Gaza.
The Britain that Alex Salmond grew up in, where things improved for each coming generation, has passed. The Scottish NHS which he was born in is now threatened. The jobs and work available for young and old are absent as manufacturing and even farming are sacrificed for the interest of the city of London or big corporations. The better Nation that all had hoped for, replaced by a deeply troubled land.
Scotland simply to become a resource where its energy is exploited, its environment trashed and yet revenue, jobs or even affordable energy are absent. It’s why his dream of independence is even more necessary now than in 2014. Scotland can do so much better than this. The resource and talent are there. It’s the political leadership that is missing.
It’s why Alex was campaigning for independence until his final breath. His dream of Scottish independence is alive and its now time to deliver it. ALBA Party will work with all democratic forces to deliver that dream and make Scotland the land it can and should be. It’s time for independence.
A Guid New Year to one and all.
All good words but when you invite the foxes into the henhouse and give them votes on the future of your country don’t be surprised when their sense of entitlement and their belief that Scotland is inferior to and has been subsumed into THEIR beloved engerland means that you will NEVER see an independent Scotland
Our politicians love to talk the talk BUT when it comes to the gloves off fight they will continue to live in the maisters hoose , how long has Kenny MacAskill been a MP and yet we are still hog tied to this vile union
Salmond was an undoubted fighter for independence but his generosity with our nationality and country enabled our continued oppression
Kicked into the long grass for another year. Time goes on and people start to forget.
Perhaps 2025 will be the year, the curtain is pulled aside and the Spookocracy is revealed.
A widnae haud ma breath.
We were granted a tantalising glimpse, with the revelation that Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff, Sue Gray was running a pub in Newry in the 1980’s.
The issue is of course an effective blackout in MSM when it comes to these matters.
Similarly, the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021, remains unknown beyond political anoraks.
This Act passed by Boris Johnson’s “Get Brexit Done” supermajority facilitates the legal authorisation of all manner of crimes, up to and including r@pe, torture and murder.
All things considered, we’re not living in a functional democracy.
What would need to alter before the Spookocracy was exposed?
Well, the much vaunted new age of Internet freedom and citizen journalism would have to actually appear, having ‘till now been an ever illusive glow just beyond the horizon.
Will 2025 be a year of breakthrough? Perhaps.
If we consider the current conflict in Ga$a, excluding don’t knows, 65% of Americans believe that the ironically titled IDF are committing war crimes. That figure would not be possible if American citizens were relying on their MSM for information. The spectrum of coverage on MSM on these matters runs from apologists (CNN, et al) to outright cheerleaders (Fox).
The same metric in the UK has a 90% uptake, and the same observation applies here.
Of course, emboldened by recent events in Germany, Moldova and Romania, the Permanent State may just decide to nullify democracy entirely.
Agree. I think they’ll get AI to restrict the internet next, lawfare on alternative media & rewrite history for Google search…
WEF also wants control of bank accounts to shut down dissenters immediately & to restrict our spending.
Tony Blair Institute for Global Change: Central Bank Digital Currencies…:
“CBDCs act as government-issued digital cash–still in its infancy, this technology could take many forms, and central banks worldwide are currently evaluating their potential and even experimenting with implementation…
For governments, CBDCs can help cut costs and improve efficiency (compared to money printing and distribution), increase the tax base, combat illegal activities, and optimize government services, such as disbursements and benefits.”:
link to institute.global
World Economic Forum: Partners:
Tony Blair Institute for Global Change
link to archive.ph
World Economic Forum: Agenda Contributor:
Tony Blair:
link to archive.ph
« Faced with the unstoppable progression of what has been called a “global civil war”, the state of exception tends increasingly to appear as the dominant paradigm of government in contemporary politics.This transformation of a provisional and exceptional measure into a technique of government threatens radically to alter—in fact, has already palpably altered—the structure and meaning of the traditional distinction between constitutional forms. Indeed, from this perspective, the state of exception appears as a threshold of indeterminacy between democracy and absolutism.
(Giorgio Agamben, STATE OF EXCEPTION, University of Chicago Press, 2005, p 2, / STATO DI ECCEZIONE, Bollati Boringhieri, 2003, pp 10,11)
Here’s hoping the next decade is kinder than the last…
52.7% of Scots voting in IndyRef1 voted Yes. The ‘others’ from elsewhere who also had a vote swung it to No.
62% of Scottish residents voted Remain. The ‘others’ from elsewhere who also had a vote swung it to Leave.
As of the 31st December 2024, Sturgeon, Murrell, the alphabets and their enablers were all still at liberty and the SNP hadn’t gone bust, despite only 9 MPs and a membership shrunk to 50,000 feeble minded and myopic souls.
And to add insult to injury, AS is no longer with us.
Not much to celebrate it must be said, but let’s try making up for it in the coming decade.
Here’s tae us, an them whas like us… Happy Ne’er Wingers!
Real world, Actual referendum: 44.7% for Indy.
You can blather all you want about how Left-handed men named David, or some other similar made-up category, allegedly voted 52.7% “yes.” Such blathering only embarrasses your cause–and shows how deep is your contempt for “the will of the people” when the vote doesn’t go your way.
Let’s discuss the No vote shall we….
The rules of Purdah were clearly violated by three ENGLISH politicians travelling to Scotland to punt us The Vow & promises of Super Devo Max & later the Smith Commission,
Let’s see how they faired…
1. More powers?
Nope! They actually removed over 80..so not exactly the most devolved parliament on the planet as punted during indyref eh?
2. Devo max?
Nope! In what universe was power over Road signs devolution max?
3. Near federalism?
Hahahaha!
4. Stay. Be a valued equal partner in this ‘family of Nations’? *Sniff* Please stay! *Sniff* Lead don’t leave us!! We love you Scotland *sniff*
Nope, quick, the Scots are coming to OUR parliament! To the barricades! Fckn Jocks! They’ll steal OUR parliament & Salmond is a pickpocket too! Let’s all exercise the Bain principle!
5. Remain in the EU?
Nope! Despite voting remain. Piss off, Scots. The only nation in the UK, & it’s equal partner to the Union, got sweet fck all. NI, a Provence, got to remain FFS!
6. More say in Westminster?
Aye, ‘shut it!’ As every single thing was voted against including the shit they promised during indyref.
7. The oil is running out!
Nope, it’s still there & Cameron sold record licences less than a month later & Shetland kicked up a storm to discover more..
8. On the 19th of September 2014 Cameron took to the steps of Dowdy street to put the boot into No voters. They were actually getting fuck all for their loyalty. Englandshire was now first & Westminster was THEIR parliament. They’d now introduce EVEL.
Cheers, MUGS!
9. Smith Commission – Scots can have an independence referendum if that’s what the Scots vote for..
Nope! Five mandates (Westminster & Holyrood elections) & an EU referendum & they still refuse the legal & legitimate power of the ballot box.
No wonder they don’t want a rerun.
They’d lose & they’d lose HUGE…
So do you really, really think that 55% still exists today despite all those bullshit lies?
More Scots voted for the European UNION than they did for the one with England. Let that sink in…
The Union is dead. The SNP is dead.
Independence never will.
It’s NORMAL for a country to be in charge of its own affairs. Stop being a parasite.
Scotland is moving on. Especially amongst the young who don’t much care for warmongering genocidal maniacs burning weans alive & donating £billions to a Nazi regime & terrorists when there’s far better uses for that money at home & their grandparents have no heating.
Tick tock..
Back to school ya dobber. Term starts tomorrow and Remedial has a seat with your name on it and a cone-shaped hat just for you….
Read all about it…
Correct. The same source also shows that “The Vow” had little or no effect on the result. The “Yes” campaign simply failed to convince enough people.
I strongly suspect that any “Yes” campaign would fail time, after time, after time, to convince those +70% RUK, and particularly those +80% CofE, to vote “Yes” under any circumstances.
Therefore, as was demonstrated by IndyRef1, in the event a “Yes” campaign persuades a majority of Scots, (granted 52.7% in 2014 was not a huge majority, but nonetheless a bigger majority than the 51.9% secured by the Leave campaign in 2016), to vote “Yes”, the will of that majority can be trumped by the will of those non-Scots who just happen to be domiciled in Scotland at the time of any referendum.
Imagine the outcry had the Brexit referendum resulted in 51.9% of UK citizens voting to Leave, but EU citizens domiciled in the UK at the time of the referendum, and who had been permitted to vote, (Which, except for Irish citizens, they were not), switched that result to 55.3% Remain?
Enoch Powell might have finally got his “rivers of blood” prediction realised.
Here in Scotland, to suggest that Scots should determine the future of Scotland is to be labelled a heretic to the democratic process. When the same principle is applied to the UK however, it suddenly becomes common sense.
Funny that…
You have to be careful with statistics. You correctly quote “+80% CofE”, which sounds impressive but may in fact be only a small number.
You also refer patronisingly to “non-Scots who just happen to be domiciled in Scotland…”; most non-Scots I know have made a decision to work and pay taxes in Scotland for many years. Their taxes help to support the many Scots who require social benefits. It seems to me they have earned the right to a vote.
You do not define what you mean by a “Scot” in the sense of those qualified to vote; this is important, as there is currently no definition of a Scottish citizen, as Scotland is not an independent state.
The fact remains that the “Yes” campaign failed to convince those living in Scotland that Independence was a desirable option.
What happened to ALL those EU citizens who lived , worked and paid taxes in the uk but were then deliberately EXCLUDED from the Brexit vote, surely THEIR taxes helped to support those unfortunates in engerland or is it ONLY SCOTS who are to be demonised when it comes to referendum franchises
I agree – they should have had a vote.
Re those unfortunates in engerland: I’m glad you can make yourself happy by being needlessly patronising about our neighbours south of the border.
To those down ticking: you cannot logically accept the data on voting without also accepting the data on the effect of “The Vow”. they are from the same source.
The vow may not have but project fear certainly did along with Devo max, super Devo max, the EU scares of deporting ppl bullshit & lest we forget – terrifying wee pensioners their money would be stopped immediately & organ transplant patients wouldn’t get a donor like, y’know, organs had a No vote & a preference on where they lived.
Even Blair Hooligan admitted Better Together would never have won without the tissue of lies they told.
The whole referendum was a farce & a fraud & especially the Vow, whether it played a part or not is up for debate but the fact it broke purdah rules is not. They’d no business changing the offer & the rules of the game 10 days from the vote.
& Neither was bussing in ppl from England to threaten wee grannies & grandpa’s on their doorsteps.
“The whole referendum was a farce & a fraud & especially the Vow, whether it played a part or not is up for debate”
I agree 100% with what you say. The vow did indeed have an impact on the people around me at the time.
The vow convinced some of the soft no that, even if the overall vote was no, Scotland would get devo max which would be a safer progression towards independence from their perspective. Those people were happier and more convinced to vote “no” after the vow was released.
They were however furious when they realised it was nothing more than another disgusting con trick by the British state to steal their vote and get them to vote for what they did not want, which was business as usual.
Evidence of threats of deportation, lack of donors for organ transplants, pensions stopped immediately, grannies & grandpas threatened on doorsteps, please.
“Today former Prime Minister Gordon Brown resurrected claims that an independent Scotland would face cross-border problems if patients needed life saving organ transplants or blood transfusions.
According to the former Labour leader, patients north of the border would be “at risk” in the event of a Yes vote”
The quote above was taken from
“Gordon Brown targets chronically ill in latest attack on independence”Newsnet, 21 July 2014
“More than 1200 Scots a year facing life-threatening illnesses are securing transplants or blood transfusions from donors elsewhere in the UK, former prime minister Gordon Brown has said. Almost 45,000 Scots now get help every year from NHS in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but Mr Brown suggests these links could be put “at risk” after a Yes vote”
Quote taken from the article “Cross-border organ transplant network ‘at risk’”, The Scotsman, 21 July 2014
“Gordon Brown’s latest intervention in the referendum debate, raising fears that organ transplants and blood donations may be at risk after independence, is deeply offensive and totally without foundation”
The quote above was taken from
“Brown Offensive”, by The Newsroom
The Scotsman, 22 July 2014
“I do not know that I am best placed to advise project fear on how it should lead its campaign, although its attempt to raise fears around the idea that in an independent Scotland people would have difficulty accessing organs for transplantation has taken that campaign to a new low”
The quote above was from Mr Michael Matheson, on the debate “Independence (Cross-border Transplantation of organs), in the Scottish Parliament on 12 March 2014
“MORE than 1,200 Scots a year facing life-threatening illnesses or surgery are securing transplants or blood transfusions from English or Welsh donors, new figures published by Gordon Brown will reveal.
The former Labour Prime Minister said the statistics, compiled from previously unpublished data, show nearly 45,000 Scots now get help every year from the NHS in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
According to information on organ donations from NHS Blood and Transport, and figures from the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, an average of 200 at risk Scots secure transplants from English or Welsh donors and a further 1,000 benefit from transfusions of blood donated in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
A further 43,500 Scots receive NHS in-patient or outpatient treatments in the rest of the UK every year.
Publishing the figures, Brown, MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, said the details were evidence of the value of nations working together: “It makes the SNP’s proposal to break all constitutional links with the rest of the UK out of sync with our more interdependent world,” he said.”
The quote above is from the article “Brown highlights the Scots getting crucial medical help from England”, published in The Herald on 21 July 2014.
It stands to the obvious what the ridiculous Brown was attempting to do. He was attempting to seed the fear that independence would lead to a shortage of organs for transplant and blood transfusions in Scotland. What the cretin Brown did not provide were the figures of how many people in England were receiving organs and blood transfusions from people in Scotland.
Good information. Despite your use of neutral words such as “ridiculous” and “cretin” to describe Brown, his figures were apparently not rebutted. Your last sentence is otherwise fair comment.
The problem was never the figures, but rather his bottom of the barrel attempt to use those one-sided figures to seed the fear that people in Scotland would not be able to have transplants or blood transfusions after independence when that was clearly never the case.
As I said above, he only presented the figures from Scotland. He never presented the figures from England, aka how many transfusions and organ transplants they have got thanks to donors being in Scotland. I suspect the numbers are much larger.
But that was always Brown’s modus operandi: to turn over the omelette so he would always present an England problem as if it was Scotland’s problem. Another wonderful example of this was border control. If Scotland had declared independence, Brown claimed that Scotland would impose a border control. Well, at that point England was part of the EU. If anybody had to put a border control it would have to be England itself because its own boundary would become the boundary of the EU zone. Obviously Brown was trying to scare the bejesus out of people living in Scotland who had relatives in England, making them think they would need a passport to cross over.
Another wonderful example was his mentioning of the number of exports from Scotland to England. But he was always very careful to never mentioning the number of exports from England to Scotland, which were far more than the ones in the opposite direction. In other words, the greatest beneficiary of Scotland being in the UK is and has always been England, which gets to use Scotland and Wales as if they were an extension of its own internal market. But of course Brown never mentioned a word about that.
Brown was behaving, at all practical effects, as the Defoe version of the 21st century: a crown tool relentlessly churning propaganda in Scotland to promote the union.
It depends how you define “seeding fear”. Is that the same as “giving a warning”? Of course transfusions/transplants etc would have continued in Scotland – but supplies from rUK might not have been as readily available, if at all.
England has never been part of the EU. rUK would have been the successor state in the EU at that time, and until a putative accession to the EU by Scotland, a passport would presumably have been a requirement.
“The Scottish Government’s export figures show again that the rest of the UK remains by far Scotland’s most important market. England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined buy more than 60 per cent of our exports.” – 29 Nov 2023
I doubt that the c.6 million population of Scotland buy more than 60% of rUK exports – but that’s just my opinion.
“Is that the same as “giving a warning”?”
No. Seeding fear is to deliberately present only one side of the picture with the purpose of manipulating public opinion as the propagandist Gordon Brown did in 2014 and Defoe before him in 1706.
“England has never been part of the EU”
That is factually incorrect. England’s territory was part of the EU until brexit.
“I doubt that the c.6 million population of Scotland buy more than 60% of rUK exports”
I do not appreciate having my intelligence insulted, thank you. We are talking from the perspective of Scotland here. The perspective of England does not enter the equation when considering Scotland’s independence and the viability of Scotland’s independence. The amount Scotland imports from England surpasses the amount Scotland exports to England, therefore there is a net benefit for England. This is what Gordon Brown carefully omitted in his propaganda. How much those imports represent in terms of percentages for England matter not one iota to the independence of Scotland subject.
Take a look at the products in display in our supermarkets if you do not believe me. Actually, the number of English produce in display since brexit has increased, therefore the net benefit for England is significantly more since 2014.
There was nothing stopping Scotland moving its exports and imports from England to the rest of the EU. England is not the only country that can buy Scotland’s produce or that can sell Scotland things. Every country’s money has the same value if they are prepared to pay the right price for those exports.
Scotland can import from wherever it likes as long as they sell products at the right price. Again, this is something Gordon Brown carefully omitted in his pro-union propaganda.
“England has never been part of the EU”
That is factually incorrect. England’s territory was part of the EU until brexit.
Fair point in a limited way. I should have said England has never been a member of the EU.
Regarding amount of exports: if Scotland exports a higher %age of its exports to rUK than vice versa, it ‘needs’ rUK more than rUK ‘needs’ Scotland. No intention to insult your intelligence – that’s what I was trying to say.
Regarding markets for exports: of course an independent Scotland could export wherever it can find a market. Until it entered the EU (the average time for an already-independent country is around five years) we would have trade barriers with both the EU and (probably) rUK, a tough position to be. Once in the EU, we would have free trade with it – as we’ve had since 1973 – but not with rUK. Why would our companies suddenly get trade deals in the EU that they haven’t got in the last fifty years with the same free trade situation?
You say There was nothing stopping Scotland moving its exports and imports from England to the rest of the EU. That’s true – but there hasn’t been for fifty years. So obviously Scottish exporters must have found it better/easier/more profitable to trade with rUK.
That would no longer be possible.
“If Scotland exports a higher %age of its exports to rUK than vice versa, it ‘needs’ rUK more than rUK ‘needs’ Scotland”
That is a false reasoning, actually. If the percentage of Scotland’s imports from England surpasses the percentage of Scotland’s exports to England the Scottish market becomes a much more attractive prospect for other potential trade partners because they stand to have a bigger footprint in Scotland’s market and they stand to make a positive profit from a trade agreement.
You are deflecting from the main point: the amount that Scotland imports from England surpasses the amount that it exports to England therefore there is currently a net benefit for England and not for Scotland if Scotland remains in this union and with the present trade arrangements.
It is precisely that net profit that England makes out of trading with Scotland what would make trading with Scotland an attractive prospect for other potential trade partners. How much or how little “England needs Scotland” is completely irrelevant here and besides the point. As I said above, this needs to be seen from the perspective of Scotland. England does not even enter the equation.
That Scotland need the Kingdom of England more than the Kingdom of England needs Scotland is a nonsense. This is all about trade and trade profits. As I said in my comment above, the value of the money of every country is the exact same as long as they pay the right price. England is not the only country with money that can buy things from Scotland. Also, with its own money, Scotland can go and buy from wherever it likes. England is not the only country selling things.
“there hasn’t been for fifty years”
So what? There is nothing stopping Scotland changing it now.
“That would no longer be possible”
Excellent news. That would be therefore a great opportunity for Scotland to start exploring other markets and other trade partners and to leave England to its own crap trade deals with New Zealand, Australia and the USA. Maybe Scotland is currently being shortchanged and may improve its prospects negotiating with other trade partners.
By the way, an independent Scotland would not have to abide by the toxic trade deals arranged by England (as the UK) government with New Zealand, Australia and the upcoming one with USA. This means that Scotland’s supermarket shelves do not need to be flooded with New Zealand lamb, USA’s hormone injected beef and chlorinated chickens infesting our supermarket shelves and taking over the share of Scottish produce within Scotland’s own market.
I see many positives for an independent Scotland compared to the current situation, where the share of Scotland’s own produce in its own market is being forcefully squeezed beyond the limit by the successive toxic trade agreements arranged by the clowns England keeps electing to represent it.
As I said in my comment above, the value of the money of every country is the exact same as long as they pay the right price.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean. In 1707, at the time of the Act of Union, there was a pound Sterling (English), and a pound Scots. The pound Sterling was worth 12 pounds Scots.
How was the value of the money the same?
“How is the value of the money the same?”
If the price Scotland sets for a particular bottle of whisky is £100, and you want to buy it online, you will have to pay Scotland the equivalent to £100 independently if you buy it from Scotland paying in pounds, from France paying in Euros, from USA paying in dollars or from China paying in Yuan. The money Scotland will receive for that bottle is still the equivalent to £100 pounds independently of what currency was used to pay for it or what country placed the order.
I am not referring to the difference on value between currencies. I am referring to the money value paid to Scotland for the product independently of which currency is initially used to pay for it.
What this means is that, in practice, Scotland does not care if that bottle of whisky is sold to England or to Timbuktu as long as Scotland is paid the equivalent of £100 pounds for it.
Yer kidding – right?!
Aren’t you a fact checker? LMAO!
That’s a FAIL right away eh?..
Lindsey Jarred – threatened her organ donation if Scotland voted Independence.Also the brave lady who scaled Edinburgh Castle to pin a massive YES banner on the front. Also a speaker at indy rallies.
Deportation – Better Together twitter ads & lest we forget the infamous letter that if Scotland voted YES Scotland would have to wait yrs for membership (Funny that NI had no such bullshit over Brexshit) & EU citizens would be stripped of their status & sent packing & the massive intro ads taken out at cinemas up & down the country that Scots would be abandoned abroad & not entitled to an embassy. Funny that! We helped fund them!
Pensions – go look plenty of YouTube videos of Brown threatening pensioners on their doorsteps armed with a posse of English activists bussed in for the occasion..
Go do some fact checking eh or change yer ID back to the other ones you have…
Proof positive you weren’t in Scotland during indyref & obviously don’t live here..
Scotland would have had to wait years to join the EU. By definition, there would have been no Scottish embassies abroad until established by an independent Scotland. You obviously have your own definition of “threatening”.
You are wrong again on both your last claims.
Finland joined the EU from ground zero in 24 months. It’s vanishingly unlikely an independent Scotland would take longer and probably it would be faster as the EU has absolutely no reason to make it a complicated process. At the time of #indyref1 it would have been even easier, as (unlike Finland) Scotland was alrready part of the “acquis communitaire” having been part of the EU for decades as part of the UK.
Factchecking doesn’t really seem to be your forte irrespective of your user name.
Odd that.
One of the requirements is that an aspirant state has had its own currency and a stable economy for several years. Finland did. Scotland did (and has) not.
Neither would take long as the Slovaks demonstrated when their currency union with the Czechs was abandoned in a matter of weeks as I seem to recall. The idea that Scotland is (or would have been in 2014) uniquely incapable of establishing its own central bank or having it’s own currency is simply risible.
The EU has every reason to welcome and accelerate Scottish membership, not put obstacles in its path. Anyone arguing otherwise patently doesn’t understand the EU and/or wasn’t listening to what EU insiders were saying before 2014.
I note that Slovakia applied to join in 1995 and achieved membership in 2004.
Of course Scotland can establish a central bank and have its own currency (paying only lip service to the requirement to join the euro, like many other countries). But it will have no track record on which to be judged.
I personally think it is highly likely that Scotland would be offered membership, despite GDP issues, etc, but I think the average time of c. 5 years is far more likely. During the intervening period, however long, we would be separate from our biggest trading partner and with no free access to EU.
Of course, we can do it. If we want to.
Scotland has a lot more going for it than Slovakia in 1995. What most British nationalists refuse to engage with in their Project Fear narratives is that there can be few countries in history which have ever become independent with Scotland’s many inherent advantages.
None of those which have achieved independence facing far greater social, economic, cultural and security obstacles than Scotland does have ever just given up, or asked to return to the fold and rejoin the entity they became independent from.
In the event of independence, it still seems overwhelmingly likely a super majority of Scots will support EU membership, and that the EU will bend over backwards to make it happen and ensure it is as straightforward and rapid a process as possible. The EU is – whatever its detractors think – prepared to be pragmatic as its responses to German re-unification and the accession of newly independent states in central and eastern Europe amply demonstrates.
Joining EFTA and cutting a deal with the EU will be far simpler than the UK’s bungled brexit debacle. Rump UK will be in no fit state post independence to try to call the shots or scupper a deal between Scotland and the EU: they’ll be having a hard enough time keeping themselves afloat without Scotland.
I agree with a lot of what you say.
However, it’s equally true that many countries with all of Scotland’s advantages have never wished to regain their independence. They see advantages in being part of a bigger, unitary state. I think Scotland’s situation is more akin to theirs than to many former colonies etc of the European powers that wished for independence.
I agree that the EU would be pragmatic – which means that if France/Germany wanted Scotland in, it would happen.
I don’t share your assumption of a simple process. The EU will indeed be pragmatic. They will know that we need to join, and they will play hardball. Additionally, rUK will still be a major world economy, albeit weaker, probably bitter towards us, and will make things as hard as possible in any negotiations pre- and post- independence.
I think Brexit showed how messy a divorce can be after even a short Union. I think Scexit would be infinitely messier.
I don’t think there are in fact many countries which are or were in the situation Scotland finds itself. Generally in current international relations the cases of Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland are seen as pretty distinct from other historical or recent self determination situations.
All are (at least relative to most other cases) reasonably prosperous parts of liberal democracies. They don’t “fit” with the general run of post-colonial or post Cold War self determination. Where else do you think is analogous…? Bavaria? Hmmnnn.
The EU is capable of playing hardball as their response to the Greeks showed, but in other ways it can be extraordinarily dilatory and slow to take action. Its response to Polish and Hungarian populism and the Spanish violent suppression of Catalans being cases in point.
I think you overestimate the negatives. Rump UK will be much weakened, not just economically but especially politically: the impact on its “soft power”, top table pretensions and overall international position will be pretty profound.
The rump UK’s hand in negotiations with Scotland won’t be that strong, particularly vis a vis what to do about WMDs, Faslane and how they cope without Scottish shipyards on the Clyde and Rosyth building their naval vessels and servicing/dismantling submarines. They can’t just snap their fingers and replace the facilities and workforce.
You rightly mention Bavaria. Actually, most of Western Europe is made up of unions of previously independent states. Germany has over twenty; Italy, Spain, France, Netherlands, etc many more. In fact, there is a case to be made that in Europe, at least, independence (whatever that means in the 21st century) is not normal in historical terms. In all these unions, the smaller components are always outvoted on a population basis by the larger ones. The EU Parliament works the same way.
Scotland is most certainly one of what what you describe as “reasonably prosperous parts of liberal democracies”, and I think fits comfortably in that category.
Resource rich Scots are made the poorest people in NW Europe by the UK union colonial hoax. Lack of access to our own resources means Scotland’s GDP per capita is closer to that of East European states than to the Nordic/NW Europe norm.
A colonized people do not live in a democracy.
German Lander/states in their federal system have far more extensive powers than colonial/devolved Scots, such as treaty making powers, foreign representation, and control over media regulation law including TV channels at individual state level.
Jeez, the propaganda is strong in you…
Scotland doesn’t need to join anything.
The UK isn’t a major world economy. It’s hegemony is over. It’s about to go the exact same way as France & Germany. Straight down the toilet.
& Neither is the EU. It will implode. It’s discovered it’s up shit creek without a paddle. It’s found itself with no energy security & completely out the tech loop across all advances & controlled by silicon valley. They didn’t invest in the future & now find their car industry fckd, their energy security fckd & their tech & internet services colonised by Google & Amazon ect.
It’s now looking increasing likely there’ll be more exiting to try save themselves & their Sovereignty from the rampant takeover of not only being told who they can & cannot trade with but that the EU is now a massive war room & they must send weapons, money & ammo to Americas latest invented enemy. One big military complex grift in warring & arms sales..
& Don’t make me laugh about Scotland being questionable at joining the EU & stable currency. Have you seen the fucking state of U? Neo nazi outfit. The most corrupt, undemocratic, human rights abuser in Eastern Europe & they’re receiving the red carpet treatment, obscene amounts of cash, everyone’s weapons & being fastracked up the greasy ladder & starting Gas wars threatening other EU member states energy security & they’re NOT even a member! I think we can rest easy on that box ticking scorecard & pass with flying colours.
Irrelevant anyway. The EU isn’t what it was & has allowed itself to become Americas next colony – pay up & buy our weapons or we’ll switch off Google/Apple /Cloud & Windows – plunging all yer Hospitals & services intae the stone age & be sanctioned.
“Scotland would have had to wait years to join the EU”
That is questionable to say the least. At that point in time, Scotland aligned perfectly with the EU on every single policy, standards and procedures.
It is NOW, after the Kingdom of England, in collusion with the useless so called Scotland’s “representatives”, succeeded in undemocratically dragging Scotland out of the EU against its will and then proceeded to destroy every policy and procedure in Scotland that ensured that alignment with the EU that it will take years for Scotland to join back the EU. Undoubtedly this has been deliberate and by design.
A wonderful example of how the alignment has changed are the food quality standards, the labelling of products and, of course, the transparency laws.
And it is all of course because it is not in the interests of the Kingdom of England for Scotland to rejoin the EU. This would make England lose a good chunk of what it perceives as “its internal market”, the control over Scotland’s assets, the control over Scotland’s geographical position and also would leave the Kingdom of England completely isolated and surrounded by EU borders. But of course that bag of hot air Brown never told us about that.
Funny how FARTCHECKER has drawn out the big guns franchise fanny to explainerise how the rest of the wurld thinks , methinks franchise fanny has lots of new names
Even the Welsh had their vote skewed by the blow-ins, so the reality is that Brexit is an English project and the Celtic fringe got dragged along despite being opposed.
“United Kingdom”?
Total misnomer… “Kingdom of Greater England” be more accurate.
link to beta.ukdataservice.ac.uk
Careful of the full thing – they use big words!
If the big words get too much, there’s always the video…
link to media.ed.ac.uk
LMAO at blow-ins!
I’m stealing that!
Chillax, Clansman –
We are Scotland and this is the real world (yawn)…
zerO One: reAlity:
link to tinyurl.com
zerO One: consciOusness:
link to tinyurl.com
Maybe the trial is on going and has reporting restrictions imposed upon it.
Aye right! When will this end so you can expel Sturgeon and her toxic minions and focus on improving the competence and ability of the Scottish Government and increase support for the independence movement and the welfare of Scotland.
As I have mentioned on other articles after seeing other media reports can anybody legally tell her to improve her attendance.
I think it’s only the party leader who can whip their MSPs into shape & there’s not much chance of that from Swinney. He’d go & hide along with her if he could..
Oo. That’s a good one. Happy New Year all.
Putting pressure on our politicians ahead of the 2026 election. Tell them that you won’t vote for them UNLESS they include the Manifesto for Independence in their manifesto.
There is a petition to this effect on New Scotland Party facebook and a link to it in Peter A Bell’s article today “A tentative New Year greeting” – see Voices for Independence.
Please, please, WoS Indy supporters, follow Peter Bell’s and Sarah’s advice.
You’re an irrelevant 1% now. By refusing to vote you’ll make yourself MORE irrelevant.
Aww bless, do you think your vote is relevant to the crud that calls itself the UK government?
It isn’t.
So far, 68 people have signed Peter Bell’s petition. 68, out of 5 million Scots.
I suppose “Geri” and the other tin-foil-hat fanatics will soon claim that 5 million tried to sign it, but that some mysterious foreign power erased their signatures.
You need to stop this obsession you have with indy groups, indy sites, Independence supporters. The crud you post on here isn’t going to change anyone’s mind.
It’s ABNORMAL for a country to give all of its income & it’s resources to its neighbour & get beads in return.
Stop being so fckn needy & dependent. Yer like one of those middle aged twats that’s still in Uni & living with Mum & Dad. Fck off & take back control of England & grow up. You may actually benefit from the change & get yer own shit together..
Scotland pays 8.1% of the UK’s taxes, and receives 9.1% of the UK’s spending.
As usual, easily ascertainable facts contradict everything you write about Scotland “giving all its income… and getting beads in return.”
“Scotland pays 8.1% of the UK’s taxes”
And how much does Scotland “pay” in the form of the free electricity, free gas, free oil etc that is being sent to England on a daily basis? How has that been accounted for in your 8.1% calculation?
Does your 8.1% include the taxes paid by companies with HQ in England for the work carried out in Scotland?
For instance, how do they compute the VAT paid by Scottish consumers to those companies with HQ in England? Do they pay to HMRC separate lots to distinguish between the two groups of population or they pay everything as a whole, so it is all assumed to come from England’s customers?
How is the VAT paid by Scottish consumers who buy online from an English company or from a foreign company with HQ in England, computed?
And how is the corporation tax for work carried out with Scotland’s customers, for example via insurance companies, delivery service, etc, etc, etc? accounted for? Is it all considered as “England contribution” just because the HQ of those companies are in England?
And how much have Scotland’s taxpayers been paying for infrastructure vanity work carried out in England and to which Scotland has no access therefore no benefit? Because that has not been reflected in the Barnet formula. So how does your “8.1%” account for that?
Does your 8.1% include the excess we in Scotland have to paid for having items delivered home compared with England? Because not only we have to pay more to have things delivered here, actually, the payment for transport has its own VAT. The higher the price of the transport, the higher the VAT. In other words, the Scottish people are paying more than their fair share in terms of transport of items and VAT for that transport. So, how is that computed in your 8.1%?
Does your 8.1% include the excess we have to pay for our electricity here in Scotland compared with England, despite Scotland producing an excess of electricity that gets sent to England for free?
Does your 8.1% actually include the extra that we have to pay here for putting electricity on to the “national” grid?
Because of the difference in temperature and the difference in hours of day light in the winter, the people of Scotland must use proportionally more electricity to put the lights on and more gas or electricity to heat their homes and to heat the water we use to wash things or to shower. We are having to pay VAT in that electricity and gas that we use. Despite producing an excess of the electricity Scotland consumes and an excess of the gas used in Scotland, here, we are forced to pay higher tariffs than in England because England MPs decided so. Because VAT is a percentage of the value of the product, what this means is that, because we have to use more electricity and gas to light and heat our homes and water, we are having to pay also more VAT. In other words, in terms of electricity and gas
Scotland is paying more VAT than what it would correspond it for proportion of population. So, how is this accounted for in your 8.1%?
All the revenue raised by the BBC tax is invested back into England. However, a significant proportion of the BBC tax raised from Scotland’s homes is also invested in England instead of Scotland. How is that extra amount that England pockets at Scotland’s expense accounted for in your 8.1%
England is seriously overrepresented in that graveyard of political rejects, patronage, favours, ex MI5s, roasters and crooks speaking with posh accents, otherwise known as “House of Lords” . How has that been accounted for in the amount of Scottish taxpayers that England is pocketing to cover the costs of running that entity?
The royal family all lives in England. The majority of their mansions are in England. The taxpayer has to pay for the maintenance and security of those benefit scroungers and also for the maintenance of those palaces and mansions. How is the disproportion in the number and size of properties between Scotland and England and the fact that the royals live in England accounted for when it comes for Scottish taxpayers having to pay for the costs? How has that been accounted for in that 8.1% you calculated?
Scotland is being deliberately kept as a consumer in this toxic union. All our means to act as producers are being deliberately taken away from us. Scotland is being asset-stripped. An example is the Grangemouth refinery, that is closed down in Scotland whilst the jobs are taken down to England. Every job is a wealth creator: a salary pays for essentials like rent, electricity, food, clothes, etc, etc. Each one of them includes taxes. So, how does the fact that England is basically annihilating Scotland’s jobs and taking them down for itself computed in that 8.1% of yours?
What about the exports from Scotland that have to use an English port to exit the UK because England has deliberately put more ports in England than in Scotland despite Scotland having a larger coastline? How are the taxes in those exports being computed? Are they all included as England’s taxes because they depart the UK from an English port? How is that computed in your 8.1%?
Considering all the above, I would be grateful if you could present here how you arrived to that 8.1% figure. Thank you.
You might add to that the deaths of 20,000 Scots attributed to austerity politics. England, of course, suffered more deaths by comparison, around 320,000. So many more than Scotland because, despite total incompetence in some areas, the Scottish government mitigated the worst effects of (English) UK policies.
Absolutely, you make a very good point.
In that line, a horse battle of mine has been the fact that the political fraud Sturgeon, despite being in control of an absolute majority of anti-union MPs at Westminster and controlling a pro-independence majority at Holryood, did her uttermost to keep the boundaries with England open during COVID.
It is a matter of fact that the first two cases of COVID were detected in England on the 29 January 2020. The first case in Scotland was confirmed on the 2 March 2020. That gave the political fraud a WHOLE MONTH to put measures in place to close the boundary with England and reduce the entry of the virus into Scotland as much as possible.
In her true anti-Scotland and British State useful idiot fashion, the political fraud Sturgeon did not close those boundaries by playing her favourite sport of fabricating excuses. She even had the audacity, with that other paragon of efficiency and effectiveness Humza Yousaf, to insult yes supporters by suggesting they were racist for demanding the boundary with England to be temporarily closed to slow down the entry of the virus into Scotland and protect the lives of the people of Scotland.
Clearly, the political fraud Sturgeon and the useless Yousaf did not give a shit for the lives of the people of Scotland and rather kept the boundaries open so plenty of virus could be imported via England into Scotland.
I hold them both responsible for the deaths of Scots during that time which could have been avoided if those effing boundaries were closed.
Again, the behaviours of those two colonial administrators would be unthinkable if Scotland was not treated and seen by its own so called “representatives” like those two useless tools as a colony that belongs to England and the people of Scotland as inferior beings whose lives are subordinated to the needs, wants and whims of England, its crown, its aristocracy and its representatives.
There is another fact that demonstrates Scotland and Wales are treated as colonies: their demographics.
I ken well that you know I was talking about social murder by austerity, not covid.
Yes. And I thought you made an excellent point that should be looked into further.
One example is the removal of the energy subsidies by Starmer, in the name if his fabricated austerity.
The removal of those subsidies will disproportionally affect Scotland because of both, the lower temperatures we have here and a rapidly aging population, so in proportion, we have more elderly people here.
Scotland gets, therefore, a calculated double impact from Starmer’s fabricated austerity.
I am sure he and Reeves know that, but they do not give a shit, because it is Scotland after all. If all our elderly die of cold and hunger, then there is more opportunity for English settlers to purchase houses here and interfere with our elections and communities to stall progression towards independence.
Should the death of those people be considered social manslaughter because it is unconceivable that Starmer and Reeves did not spot that as an imminent risk and yet did not put any mitigating measures in place ? I think this should be looked into much further to really extract the reasons as to why Starmer and Reeves consider our early as disposable.
Another example is the number of suicides we have here in Scotland and how they relate to the deliberate destruction of Scotland’s culture, the deliberate undermining of Scots and Gaelic language and the impact on mental health that the deliberate destruction of jobs in Scotland and the absorption of those jobs by England has on our folk. I also this should be looked into further.
In the same vein is the number of people hooked on drugs in Scotland. Were does it all come from? What drives people to get hooked into drugs? It is clear that it is linked to areas and nuclei of deprivation within the population. So , how does that deprivation relate to the deliberate destruction of our communities, culture and jobs by England (as the UK)’s government policies?
It is a fascinating topic, Sam. And it has many ramifications.
The points in my previous comment were less focused on social impact from the imposition of austerity on Scotland by Westminster, and more related to the deliberate social damage caused by forcing our young to emigrate because of the systematic destruction of their job opportunities and being priced out of the house market by buyers from down south, accelerating the recycling of our native population with England’s born.
The comment regarding Covid was another aspect that, in my view, points towards deliberate social manslaughter by refusing to temporarily close the boundaries of Scotland to protect those more vulnerable from the virus.
Yes. And I thought you made an excellent point that should be looked into further.
One example is the removal of the energy subsidies by Starmer, in the name if his fabricated austerity.
The removal of those subsidies will disproportionally affect Scotland because of both, the lower temperatures we have here and a rapidly aging population, so in proportion, we have more elderly people here.
Scotland gets, therefore, a calculated double impact from Starmer’s fabricated austerity.
I am sure he and Reeves know that, but they do not give a shit, because it is Scotland after all. If all our elderly die of cold and hunger, then there is more opportunity for English migrants to purchase houses here and interfere with our elections and communities to stall progression towards independence.
Should the death of those people be considered social manslaughter because it is unconceivable that Starmer and Reeves did not spot that as an imminent risk and yet did not put any mitigating measures in place ? I think this should be looked into much further to really extract the reasons as to why Starmer and Reeves consider our early as disposable.
Another example is the number of suicides we have here in Scotland and how they relate to the deliberate destruction of Scotland’s culture, the deliberate undermining of Scots and Gaelic language and the impact on mental health that the deliberate destruction of jobs in Scotland and the absorption of those jobs by England has on our folk. I also this should be looked into further.
In the same vein is the number of people hooked on drugs in Scotland. Were does it all come from? What drives people to get hooked into drugs? It is clear that it is linked to areas and nuclei of deprivation within the population. So , how does that deprivation relate to the deliberate destruction of our communities, culture and jobs by England (as the UK)’s government policies?
It is a fascinating topic, Sam. And it has many ramifications.
The points in my previous comment were less focused on social impact from the imposition of austerity on Scotland by Westminster, and more related to the deliberate social damage caused by forcing our young to emigrate because of the systematic destruction of their job opportunities and being priced out of the house market by buyers from down south, accelerating the recycling of our native population by exchanging it with people born in England.
The comment regarding Covid was another aspect that, in my view, points towards social manslaughter by refusing to temporarily close the boundaries of Scotland to protect those more vulnerable from the virus.
A hard border between England and Scotland would help prevent viruses flooding into Auld Scotia likewise drugs traffic, aye an’ royal parasites !
Mia, I doubt if anyone will ever face manslaughter charges for austerity policies
“Social murder is a concept used to describe an unnatural death that is believed to occur due to social, political, or economic oppression, instead of direct violence.”
Public health researchers are astonished and appalled that for the poorest 20% of people in the UK life expectancy (as well as children’s height) is decreasing.
This has never happened except in the flu epidemic of 2018 and the two World Wars.
“Social Murder? Life expectancy and Austerity” is a book by Walsh and McCartney.
It is where the estimate of 340,000 deaths due to austerity comes from.
More deaths are associated with the policies of Thatcher and all subsequent UK governments.
“Mia,” if you bothered to spend 10 seconds looking up the official statistics, you’d find that Scotland pays 8.1% of the UK taxes but received 9.1% of government spending.
To quote:
“During 2023-24 tax revenue generated in Scotland, including North Sea oil revenues, amounted to £88.5 billion (8.1% of UK total). During the same period, Scotland benefited from about £111.2 billion in public spending (9.1% of UK total). These were both more than Scotland’s 8.1% population share of the UK.”
These aren’t statistics I “arrived at.” They are from the ONS.
Further:
“The collective economic strength of the UK means higher spending on public services in Scotland, with £2,417 more per head of additional spending to the UK average.”
Statistics. “Mia” et al., you ought to try them some time. It only takes a person, even a laughably ignorant person, 10 seconds online to find these statistics.
See link to deliveringforscotland.gov.uk and link to scottishfinancialnews.com for more.
You have not answered any of the questions.
How do you get to the 8.1% figure and what does that entail?
How is VAT paid to companies with HQ in England factored in?
How is the corporation tax due to work carried out in Scotland or with Scottish customers factored in for companies with HQ in England?
How are the vanity projects in England, to which Scotland’s taxpayers are forced to contribute to factored in?
How are the subsidies that Scotland’s taxpayers are forced to pay for those living and working in London factored in?
How is the fact that the cost of living in Scotland is lower than in England factored in?
How is the disproportion of people in Scotland receiving larger salaries compared to England and therefore paying less income tax factored in?
How is the amount of electricity, gas and oil produced or extracted in Scotland and to which England helps itself for free factored in?
How are the taxes from the oil extracted from Scotland but called “extra regio” factored in?
How are the tax cuts England (as the UK)’s government gives to oil companies on the oil and gas extracted from Scotland’s territory computed into that 8.1% figure?
The figure “8.1%” on its own means absolutely nothing unless you qualify it properly by indicating exactly what it its that it encompasses and what has left out.
Actually, how much oil and gas has been extracted from the fields located in the chunk of Scottish territorial waters stolen from Scotland by the war criminal Blair right before Holyrood was open?
And how has that been accounted for in that 8.1% figure?
How much is the debt England produces?
How much is England’s expenditure?
How much of the so called “UK” expenditure, for example in military interventions or renewal of Trident, have been inflicted on us unilaterally by England because the majority of Scotland’s MPs voted against it? That must be considered England’s expenditure, not Scotland’s expenditure if Scotland did not agree to it.
How much of the so called “UK” expenditure has been to build infrastructure things in England or to aid England’s business, ports, tenants, etc, etc, etc and therefore has no counterpart in Scotland and Scotland gets no direct benefit from it? That should also been categorised as England’s expenditure, not “UK” expenditure.
Why on earth should Scotland pay for England’s debt and expenditure?
How high are England’s salaries compared with those in Scotland? What is the proportion of people in England on higher salaries compared with Scotland? The higher the salaries, the higher income tax. If the number of people with higher salaries in England is disproportionately high compared with Scotland, to expect the same level of income taxes from Scotland is abusive.
How about the proportion of the wealthy living in Scotland or England? How does the difference fair? Again, if a larger number of very high earners or very wealthy people live in England compared with Scotland, that would skew the percentage of taxes paid in one country or the other. Expecting Scotland to pay the same level of taxes in that scenario is also abusive.
How does the living cost in England compare with Scotland? Take London, for example. The cost of living is exorbitant there. The higher the cost of living, the higher the VAT. Again, expecting Scotland to match that level of VAT when the living cost in Scotland is much lower is abusive.
Let’s go now to the deficit of trade.
Why on earth should Scotland pay for a portion of the billions in deficit of trade of goods England generates year after year? That is not “UK” deficit. That is England deficit. If this was a union of equals, England would be allocated pocket money like Scotland is and would have to make do with it instead of having its hand constantly on the till and somewhat transforming England’s debt and deficit into “UK” debt and deficit.
Let’s now go to administrative and government costs. Why on earth should Scotland have to pay for the running of England’s government and administration just because England chose to hijack UK administration structures so it could treat them as if they were its own?
Scotland should only pay for its own expenditure. Therefore that 8.1% figure is completely meaningless if England’s government is the one generating the most expenditure and then attributed it as “UK” expenditure.
An independent Scotland would not necessarily reproduce the level of astronomic expenditure England is incurring at present. Therefore, to explore the economic viability of Scotland we have to ONLY look at Scotland’s expenditure versus taxes (including income tax, NI, VAT and corporation tax) raised by economic activity in Scotland independently if this is paid via England because the company processing that VAT or paying that corporation tax has its HQ in England.
Then we have to look at all the assets and resources Scotland has and ask why so little revenue of all those has found its way into Scotland’s purse, despite the enormous amounts of oil, gas, electricity extracted from Scotland and sent to England for free or sold to oil companies with ridiculous cuts in taxes.
Again, an independence Scotland would not necessarily follow the current policy of the UK where Scotland’s assets and resources are either seen as disposable or as “unowned” so England pockets the lot.
Then we will have to question why is it that Scotland, despite having the largest coastline in of the UK countries, it has a ridiculously low number of ports compared with England, so much so that Scotland’s exports have to make their way out of the UK from an English port, creating wealth in England rather than Scotland.
Then we have to tackle the poor growth Scotland has experienced due to the toxic policies inflicted by successive English governments who treat Scotland as if it was an appendage of England. Growth may mean the increase in living standards, the increase in salaries and therefore the increase in taxes paid.
The question here that needs to be answered is not what proportion of UK taxes Scotland has been paying. Frankly, who gives a shit about what proportion of UK taxes Scotland has been paying, when the bulk of expense and debt is created by England.
What is important here is the life standards in Scotland, the average Salary in Scotland, the stalled growth of Scotland, the lack of job creators and the average cost of living in Scotland.
As it is, giving the difference in living standards, expecting Scotland to pay taxes at the same level of England is like expecting England to pay taxes at the same level of Finland. Ridiculous, isn’t it? Well, then, the same level of ridiculous applies to the expectation for Scotland to pay at the same level of England when its living standards are not a la par with England, when the revenue of Scotland’s resources is systematically being robbed by the Kingdom of England, when Scotland’s jobs are systematically being dismantled and taken down to England and when Scotland’s markets are being flooded with produce from England which is pushing out of the market Scotland’s own produce.
Then we will have to question why is it that Scotland, despite having the largest coastline in of the UK countries, it has a ridiculously low number of ports compared with England, so much so that Scotland’s exports have to make their way out of the UK from an English port, creating wealth in England rather than Scotland
Where exactly would you like to locate all the extra ports round our coastline?
In terms of exports, if companies use English ports, it’s because of their location – not because we don’t have enough up here. If a Highland distillery currently road freights its produce past Aberdeen, Dundee, Leith and Glasgow docks for export, why would another Scottish port change anything?
“Where exactly would you like to locate all the extra ports round our coastline?”
I am not an expert, but I am sure those with more knowledge than me commenting here will be able to respond to your question.
“In terms of exports, if companies use English ports, it’s because of their location”
I am not sure if that is the case, to be honest. But if you are right, then this goes to support my point even more: why are English companies operating from England and not Scotland ones operating from Scotland the ones exporting Scottish produce?
“If a Highland distillery currently road freights its produce past Aberdeen, Dundee, Leith and Glasgow docks for export, why would another Scottish port change anything?”
Again, you bring my attention to another important point: why is it more attractive for Scottish companies to take by road their produce all the way to down to England instead of shipping it from Scotland saving the transport additional costs and risks? What exactly is what makes England’s ports so much more attractive and why there isn’t a real equivalent to those ports in Scotland despite Scotland having plenty of coastline and space for it? What is the real problem with Scotland’s ports?
And from the above: how much investment from the UK purse and how much revenues has Scotland been missing compared to England because it does not have suitable ports to ship its own product?
Port wise, dinnae forget the massive warmongering bastard tourism boost to Scotland’s economy of aw the weapons of mass destruction adulating wankers visiting Rosyth and Faslane ports to see a load of old rusting and useless nuclear powered submarines hulls.
It’s like probably worth a 1000% of our GDP according to GERs…
Yes & another would be to ask to see England’s GER report & why they don’t have one?
& why they don’t have a devolved parliament yet so we can impose an English Act on it & pollute it with Scottish civil servants.
They’re currently squatting RENT FREE in a GB parliament the rest of us are paying for..
As usual, you talk from the wrong orifice.
link to wingsoverscotland.com
Mind, what else should we expect from a Unionist troll? They’ve been spouting the same malignant disinformation about Scotland for decades.
Rest in peace Mr Jappy, and thank you.
Aye Breeks, the trolling distracting and disruption is clearly the name of the btl game.
CC was posting GERS pish a couple of days ago but just repeats posting the same shite because it allowed to.
link to wingsoverscotland.com
I think with the new year rolling in I’ve reached the point I have better more productive things to do than hang about here in groundhog day mode pissing away time, energy, and motivation endlessly scrolling through trolling shite, and folks’ efforts to rebut the low grade crud they post.
It’s a total waste of intelligent folks’ time and effort having to repeatedly deal with this sort of thing, when far more focus could be put on developing more beneficial matters and policies pertaining to returning Scotland to self-governing status.
Please correct me if you think I am wrong, but isn’t GERS a report published by the Scottish Government?
You are correct about GERS being from the Scottish government.
But the fanatics reject any fact that challenges their biases.
Send me yer address & I’ll send you some estimates to pay.
I won’t show you how I arrived at the figures I send you but you can take it from me that they’ll be correct, honest guv! You just try & figure it out. Yer forbidden from looking or keeping yer own accounts.
Is Deloitte a fanatic now too?
Deloitte:
“GERS data is produced for Scotland as part of the UK – it does not model scenarios for an independent Scotland in which the Scottish government would be enabled to make its own fiscal choices”
in other words, it’s produced for us & it contains a whole lot of bills for shit that would be completely irrelevant in an independent Scotland.
we wouldn’t be paying shit for the HoL, WM, Trident, Royals, OTT defense spending, vanity projects & all manner of other shite they deduct from us.
10 yrs this GERS pish has been debunked but yoons just keep on & on like they’ve found the holy grail. Zzzzzzz..
Yeah, from aggregated figures from the Treasury, based on geusstimates, assumptions and obfuscations. No raw data is provided to justify these aggregations, and the GERS methodology has been thoroughly discredited by any number of economists.
The SNP never challenge them, god forbid the Scots being provided with the truth!
Right on cue, the fanatics reject statistics and facts.
Thanks for confirming what I wrote!
Aye, but you’re not really painting the whole picture with that obvious unionist trying to be a smart arse line of attempting to validate GERs figures.
Because Holyrood is not a real Government; It’s merely a mickey mouse Administration of Devolved Powers resulting from the UK Government Scotland Act, and Holyrood Parliament and Scotland lack all the major powers and infrastructures that are required to properly govern a country and adequately cater for the wonts and needs of the natives of said area.
I’ve provided links to this site’s past explanations on GERs so feel free to address your pathetic low grade trolling shite to Stu and see how you get on.
If he can waste a thousand words writing the previous article because he’s bored then it shouldn’t take that many to proffer an update on GERs seeing as the subject is still being allowed to regurgitate itself and fester btl.
link to wingsoverscotland.com
link to taxresearch.org.uk
The so-called Scottish ‘Government’ is a UK Government spending department whose allegiance/oath and that of its MSPs, Ministers and civil servants is not to Scotland but to the UK/Crown..
GERS was discredited by its own inventor. We know it was designed as a disingenuous political “device”, from correspondence leaked from the then Secretary of State, arch Tory Ian Lang, that he wanted GERS to “undermine the other parties”, saying “this initiative could score against all of them”.
They’ve been desperate to get the genie back in the bottle ever since.
Same is true with the McCrone Report.
GERS and the McCrone Report are damning enough, but we may never know about further chicanery designed to hold Scotland in check, but which has been kept out of the headlines.
I refer you back to John Jappy’s testimony above. To quote, “…the machinery of Westminster, aided and abetted by the media, did an excellent job of keeping the myth about “subsidised” Scotland alive”.
No change there, but I’m intensely curious about what form the “machinery of Westminster” actually took, and what skullduggery it got up to, in detail.
We may never know the actual truth of course, and while it’s a poor second, we may have to content ourselves that the Westminster Establishment has been proven to be rotten to the core, deceitful and dishonest about Scotland, and bereft of integrity in all it says and does.
Over to you trolls. Convince me Perfidious Albion has been, ahem, “misunderstood”.
Good Luck.
I`ll say this again. Scotland with a pop of 5m has had nearly fifty years of oil and gas revenues from the north sea within its territorial waters and should be a rich as Norway but it is not. So where has all the money???
It’s basically been totally squandered in terms of benefit to the people due to mismanagement under London Rule, and that’s an absolute travesty when you consider what could have been compared to the situation Scotland finds itself in now.
And it will be the same for renewables too, unless some serious attention is given to highlighting this ongoing situation.
There’s huge potential to make political capital out of this, but bar occasional points being made by Kenny McAskill, and Robin McAlpine and Craig Dalzell at Commonweal I see very little focus and effort being made to properly educate the Scottish public on past and present energy matters.
This is likely because the political class and commenters don’t have any significant background in energy related industries to understand the ins and outs of it.
I’ve tried over the years to post a lot of content on here regarding Scotland’s fossil fuel and renewable energy generation within the UK construct. But I get the feeling some of what I post is a bit technical in engineering terms for some to understand.
I get that, as I know I have limits to comprehension in other areas that I’m not too interested in and up the curve on.
But who do you listen too. Some no mark like me that’s actually worked in the industry during the development processes of huge gas producing fields such as Britannia in North Sea.
(Scroll through to the 4th pic to see the subsea engineering development with multiple wells and tie ins back to the fixed platform. I was on a semi-submersible rig working adjacent to the fixed platform, piloting the ROV when some of the 8 wells of the Britannia Manifold were being drilled, and later when remote control of some of those well systems was being tested and commissioned back to the main Britannia platform)
link to harbourenergy.com
Or there was also the first of the new West of Shetland oil fields such as Foinavon and Schiehallion, where we were putting the first of the subsea infrastructure on the seabed for the pioneering BP DMac system to operate a complex system of managing various wells with flexible flow line connections to a manifold so oil could flow up to the permanently dynamically positioned FPSO vessel.
But fuck it, SNP made their choice by basically ousting anybody with a degree of sense. Instead Scotland’s political and media class chooses to go with some virtue-signalling airheads and you end up with the likes of this.
link to wingsoverscotland.com
link to wingsoverscotland.com
Dan
America own everything in the UK.
England has obviously squandered most of the oil revenues & has shares in all the rest for their private offshore accounts no doubt.
& The USA control all of the worlds oil. They need to control everyone’s oil in order to maintain the world currency/petrol dollar status.
Ben Norton/Geopolitical economy report is a great journalist & commentator on the greed of insatiable appetite the USA has in controlling everys energy. Control that & you control everyone.
I believe they were the arsewipes behind the Scotwind giveaway too.
Holyrood was only ever going to be a glorified administration. Not a word player on the international stage.
Tbh most of the engineering stuff does go over my head lol That’s not your fault but mine. But once you discover who the real players are, geopolitically, a lot of the shit coming out of Holyrood starts to make sense. It’s directives – do as yer told & STFU or we’ll cut either yer funding/investment or, even better, we’ll start a regime change or a good old fashioned sex scandal & have the public turn on you…
Nothing, absolutely nothing, is to threaten their hegemony & their world currency. Whether yer diddy we Scotland or not…
Of course we know where North Sea revenues have gone Dan and it’s a question unionists don’t like to answer .
Came across this and its on the money.
Clem Fandango (@ColonyScotland): “Just incase you didn’t see it….” | nitter.poast.org
Superb cartoon . Thank you Chris and thank you Stu for your efforts on behalf of Scotland.
A very Happy New Year to one and all .
Poor Marcie. Peppermint Patti only has eyes for Charlie Brown.
Is Branchform a Royal Commission?
nah, we’re The Commission…
Branches: White Flag: Wall:
“There’s still something left between us
Though our tears make up the walls
And the storm’s about to break now
And the water’s gonna fall
It’s seeping through the cracks now
And filling up our shoes
We’ve nothing left to say now
And we’ve nothing left to lose
Let it fall, let it fall, let it fall…
And the walls come tumbling down
And the walls come tumbling down…”:
link to tinyurl.com
Branches: White Flag: All the King’s Horses:
“Follow the column and follow the fire
It’s an honest song from the mouth of a liar
In the eye of the storm, He’ll make saints of us all
When the thunder rolls and the lightning calls
All the king’s horses, all the king’s men
Were buried beneath the water again
And on the other side of that shore
We didn’t know the way anymore…
Listen, son, and listen, daughter
The Promised Land’s just over that water
The tragedy became the key
To loose the chains and set us free
Oh, the glorious unknown, oh…”:
link to tinyurl.com
I see the National is high fiving SHE whose name shall not be uttered’s favourite books of the year..
Ripping yarns like;
– How to have a beard without wearing one.
– A life spent rug munching
– Stamp licking for beginners
– Crazy looking veg that double as phallus’s
– Me and Val, a no holds barred history
– Doring Kindersleys guide to coercing a popular political movement
– Get the door Frank; riding a pisstake.
– Burner phones for dummies
– Campervan annual; 2020 edition
– Sharp elbows; getting to the top in politics
– Stonewall saucy calendar (recurring)
– 10 years of achieving nothing; a personal recollection
– An insiders insight into what ACTUALLY went on in the blue tent.
– It’s oppressive to expect married women to wear wedding rings.
– Why I am British and proud of it.
– The pressures of writing readable memoirs.
– Caligraphy volume 12; faking signatures
– Memory loss; top tips to help this
– MacBeths three witches; a feminists reappraisal
– Politics; a guide to earning when you can’t cut it in your chosen profession.
– Husbands; who needs them?
– Management; how to select that winning team (no longer in print)
– French fancies and laptops (Mills and Boon)
– Finances for dummies
– Social Engineering; A deviants guidebook
– Why Branchform will come to nothing
– Learning to drive during the menopause; WHY?
Fiction seems to be the woke ‘thing’. Better that than having to face reality, such as ‘Doun-Hauden: The Socio-Political Determinants of Scottish Independence’.
Yeah, let’s face it…
“This is an astonishing book: it is also a difficult one. Difficult, because it requires us to be honest with ourselves. Astonishing, because it comes at a time when its message is utterly crucial to our collective future, as a society and as a nation.
Its message is perfectly exemplified by the west coast community that recently decided not to take control of its land, its destiny, its self. Even when the cage door is open, we fear freedom…’Doun-Hauden’ identifies the phenomenon, and explains why. It therefore indicates how we might address our own shortcomings-“:
link to archive.ph
The Beloved: Conscience: Sweet Harmony:
“Is it right or wrong
Try to find a place
We can all belong?
Be as one
Try to get on by
If we unify?
We should really try…
All this time
Spinning round and round
Made the same mistakes
That we’ve always found…
Let’s come together
Right now
Oh yeah
In sweet harmony…”:
link to tinyurl.com
Beloved (adj.):
“Greatly loved, dear to the heart,”
“This truth came borne with bier and pall, I felt it, when I sorrow’d most, ‘Tis better to have loved and lost, Than never to have loved at all”:
link to etymonline.com
HistoryThoughtFiction: Alfred Lord Tennyson:
link to historythroughfiction.com
Keep down-voting if you hate the notion of unification/being as one –
Keep showing Scotland/humanity the enemy…
Wow, 2 nasty anti-social-human fu**s are lurking in the shadows (like a glowing nuclear powered Neon Red sign – stuck up a demons a**:) –
Team-Reality will duly assist you – in smashing your integrity into oblivion (while you continue murdering your soul)…
#Dumbdemons
I am very wary of buying back bits of your own country. I thought that it might be called reset the property having been nicked in the first place. If a thief stole an item belonging to you would you pay the thief to have your item returned.
And just because the thief has held your item for a long period of time this does not convey ownership.
Good points Wullie –
Being our self cannot be bought.
What is Scotland waiting for…
The same applies to Theft by Democracy. That is, thieves cannot legitimise their theft of something by outvoting its owner.
I’m glowering at you and your MPs, England!
“thieves cannot legitimise their theft of something by outvoting its owner…”
“Theft by Democracy” describes Socialism very accurately.
“Dear Ms Sturgeon
We are groups based in Scotland concerned about threats to women’s rights, as protected in domestic and international law. This time two years ago, many of us were sitting in the public gallery of the Scottish Parliament as MSPs voted for the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill…..
….If you believe that there are groups or individuals with an agenda to ‘push back rights generally’ who are ‘muscling in’ on Scottish politics, you have a duty to state who or what you believe they are, and how you believe they are operating in Scotland, as precisely as possible. Then, the influence of any such groups or individuals can be properly investigated and challenged, as necessary.
As it stands, regardless of your intentions, a person might reasonably believe you are referring to those groups or individuals who played a leading part in criticising the Scottish Government’s proposals.
We therefore invite you to move away from dropping broad hints of potential wide application, and to take the more responsible step of making clear who you do, and do not, mean in the comments above, and to put the evidence on which your comments are based into the public domain without delay.
Yours,
For Women Scotland
MurrayBlackburnMackenzie
Scottish Feminist Network
Scottish Lesbians
Women’s Rights Network Scotland
Women Voting With Our Feet
Women Won’t Wheesht “
Belter
Put your thinking cap on Hamish…
Do you really wanna kick a prime year like 2025 into the long grass.?
It’s time..
Let’s go.
Cise Greeny: THE THINKING CAP:THE NEXT EPISODE:
“You know what we do, you know where we from, you know how we get shit in
So without further ado, I proudly introduce to all: THE THINKING CAP…
Memories that kept time frozen, that one-eye codin’
Kept it opend as I lay low
They in fear of what can happen if we gain any form of control
Unlockin’ the soul, this shit, it forms, the ink gold
Distinct codes, stealth mode triple on go…
All I know: get to it, express it inside the music, a testament
To my own legacy, you real if you correctin’ me and came correctly when you stepped to me, ayo (What?)
Out the vortex fresh like a half moon
Out in the Q, on a sunny afternoon like we up
This more than just new tunes (This more than just new tunes, man)
To find out, you gotta tap in with me soon…”:
link to tinyurl.com
Aye, time to ditch the ‘old thinking’ or ‘auld sang’ that represents the ‘colonial hoax’, and replace it with the ‘new thinking’ reflecting better understanding of the reality of our situation and the necessity for liberation.This may be framed in three terms: ‘unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)’; ‘colony’; and ‘liberation’:
link to peterabell.scot
NOTHING TO DECLARE: Louder Than Words: Savior:
“We’re not the same
Yet we still pretend we are
Living in this cage
Raging inside these iron bars…
Hold on Hold on
Savior from above is on the way…
Come on up Come on up
You have been through enough of this
Scream it out, scream it out
You deserve a better say in the way you
Breathe in, Breathe out…”:
link to tinyurl.com
link to ibb.co
#FreedomTime
“It must be concluded therefore that large revenues and balance of payments gains would indeed accrue to a Scottish Government in the event of independence…Undoubtedly this would banish any anxieties the Government might have had about its budgetary position or its balance of payments. The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian kroner.”(The McCrone Report, 1975)
MORE INFO ON MCCRONE REPORT ETC
Thanks Fearghas. I’ll add a little to that.
“The amount of potential oil in the North Sea is always an educated guess, with different reports giving vastly different estimations – and of course debate over proven, probable and possible reserves. In a report published in March this year, the industry body the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) gave a projection of 11.7billion boe over the period 2016-2050. In November this year the OGA published a report on the reserves and resources of the UK continental shelf (UKCS) which estimated recoverable petroleum resources in the range of 10-20 billion boe, including discovered and undiscovered resources.”
link to peoplewithenergy.co.uk
Aye maybe Scotland should have it’s own authority for a change & play with wee charts & estimates all day long.
An even better idea would be to obtain the full accounts & see for ourselves.
The Tories, & Hunt especially, could celebrate the loot they were plundering from the North Sea at Westminster & it was in the hundreds of £billions while practically mocking the SNP eejits sitting across from them as it sailed on over their heads. They’d an irrelevant question & farm more important, about genders instead.
I would be interested to know what Operation Branchfarce has cost the tax payer so far
Article from The Times
February 14, 2009
SECRET PLAN TO DEPRIVE INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND OF NORTH SEA OIL FIELDS
Magnus Linklater and George Rosie
Documents detailing secret government plans in the 1970s to prevent Scotland laying claim to North Sea oil have been seen by The Times. They show the extraordinary lengths to which civil servants were prepared to go to head off devolution, which was seen then as inevitably leading to independence.
The proposals included suggesting to Labour ministers, for whom devolution was a manifesto commitment, that progress towards a referendum should be delayed, in the hope that enthusiasm north of the Border would wane.
Treasury officials also advised that the boundaries of Scotland’s coastal waters should be redrawn and a new sector created to “neutralise” Scotland’s claim to North Sea oil – a step that was taken.
One Treasury official even proposed that a local campaign for independence in Orkney and Shetland should be encouraged so that Scotland would be denied access to more than half the North Sea oil. The idea was that the islands would prefer to throw in their lot with London rather than Edinburgh.
Among those advising Labour ministers was Sir David Walker, who is investigating the banking crisis for the present Government. As assistant secretary at the Treasury, he wrote in May 1975 that “progress toward devolution should be delayed for as long as possible consistently with honouring the government commitment to move down the devolution road and containing the SNP lobby in Parliament”.
Sir David’s advice was heeded. It was another four years before the Scots were allowed to vote on whether or not they wanted an assembly in Edinburgh.
The documents – letters, memorandums and briefing papers from the Public Record Offices at Kew and in Edinburgh – show that some civil servants were alarmed by the threat that devolution posed to North Sea oil revenues, which were servicing Britain’s external debt.
One paper, by Graham Kear, under-secretary at the Department of Energy, suggested that the Northern Isles might be hived off from Scotland. He wrote: “If Scotland and the Orkney and Shetland Islands are both regarded as states, separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, median lines can be drawn to divide the United Kingdom Continental Shelf between Orkney & Shetland/Scotland and between Scotland/England.”
One way of doing this, according to civil servants advising Anthony Crosland, the Environment Secretary, would be to realign the subsea border between Scotland and England, so that it ran northeast instead of east.
Mr Kear’s doubts were shared by his political boss, Tony Benn, the Energy Secretary, who wrote to Ted Short, the deputy leader: “There is general agreement that energy policy – its formulation and execution – should be a function reserved to the UK Government.”
Mr Benn told The Times yesterday that he had favoured Scottish devolution. “I have always taken the view that power was too centralised,” he said. “I think you have to determine what it’s appropriate to devolve. On the question of ownership of natural resources, that has to be seen as an integral part of the country.”
(From The Times, February 14, 2009)
When Scotland is independent, I think we should unilaterally realign the subsea border between Scotland and England so that it runs south-east instead of east and terminates somewhere off the coast of Sunderland or perhaps even Grimsby. That would be no less fair and England would have no grounds for complaint, surely?
Loopy Lorna has let slip and the National has gone to print with it that the Khmer Vert are up for BHA v.2 after the 2016 elections!
Rumour is they’d meant to keep this secret and referred to the plan as codename “Patrick’s Polycule”..
Eratta: 2026
I think I’m right in saying that comments can now be edited and errors corrected after they’ve been posted. I forget which symbol it is, but there should be one in the vicinity of your comment which allows you to do this.
Bottom right corner. You have to click the small wheel & wait for edit to show.
Why would anyone down vote this??
They are paid to, perhaps?
In 1999, the very evening before the devolved Scottish Parliament first opened, the UK establishment reclassified 6,000 square miles of Scottish sea as English waters.
SCOTLAND’S STOLEN SEAS:
The Technical Explanation
by Craig Murray (10 Jan 2016)
« I do not think that any work I have done has brought me as much abuse as that on the transfer of 6,000 square miles of Scottish sea to England in 1999, effected by New Labour by Order in Council literally the day before the Scottish Parliament came into being.
« Some of this criticism has been utterly bizarre, including a strange contention that the whole thing did not happen and the legislation does not exist. A marginally more rational criticism has been the contention that the new boundary – which at its extreme limit eastwards runs north of Carnoustie – reflects a genuine median line influenced by the shape of the coastline.
« With thanks to this map kindly sent by Dave Philip, I wish to explain why the new boundary is not legitimate […] »
READ FULL ARTICLE
I read fairly recently on a Neale Hanvey comment [on Twitter?] that there was a Holyrood vote on the transfer and he was the only one who voted against.
Might be worth checking that – it should be in Scot Parl records.
Thanks Sarah. The ‘Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order’ came into force on 13 April 1999. As I understand it, Neale Hanvey was never an MSP. He became an MP in 2019. His Twitter remark was surely referring to a Westminster event. Holyrood views on the boundaries issue would have no power to change such matters. Nonetheless, a brief online search shows that there were at least two relevant Holyrood debates in 2000. Here for interest is a contribution from Winnie Ewing to the second one:
Dr Winnie Ewing Scottish National Party (26 April 2000)
« The boundary issue is a great fishing mystery. It has the fascination of a detective story. As Murray Tosh has just said, we still do not know why the change happened. We are not given an explanation, so we are left with two possibilities—that it was a mistake or that there is something more sinister behind it.
« My party is accused of looking for the sinister, but many members have asked whether it could be admitted that the transfer was just an error and whether, if that is the case, it can be put right. There is much dignity in politicians or parties admitting that they have made an error, and then correcting it. We have all had to do that—certainly, in my long span, I have had to do it.
« Why can the Executive not admit that the order was a mistake? The minister’s speech today was pathetic because he is as much involved in the mystery as we are and does not know the answers. Should he have been the person to address the chamber, given that he does not even attempt to know the answers?
« We have reduced our territory. Has anyone ever heard of a Parliament in its early days taking a decision to reduce its territory? I think that a Conservative member made that point.
« It is said that Scottish fishermen still have the right to fish in the area that is under discussion, and that the change makes no economic difference. Are we just materialists in the chamber? Are we concerned only with material considerations? I have an interest in the matter as I was a criminal lawyer—I should perhaps say that I practised in the criminal court extensively for many years, and after I lost my seat at Hamilton, I practised criminal law again. I was also an academic Scots lawyer. I am proud of Scots law because the world respects our criminal legal system. It is one of the jewels of the world’s jurisprudence—I do not speak lightly about that and can quote chapter and verse the people who have said that.
« There is now doubt about which court a criminal matter in the disputed area would go to. The answer is not clear from what has been said so far—the truth is that nobody knows. It seems that oil will go to Scotland and fish to England. However, are we not concerned with rights in law as well as rights to fish?
« Cases that arise might not be concerned only with a fisherman disregarding the law on fishing, and could relate to tanker negligence—there have been incidents such as collisions in my time. If one goes to an English court in such situations, one gets a lesser system of criminal prosecution. I dare any jurisprudence expert to deny that.
« Apart from anything else, the transfer is a breach of the Treaty of Union, but nobody cares about that. Obviously, the nationalists care about it—we keep being told that we do, but we do not apologise for caring about the Treaty of Union, which was meant to protect all manner of things in Scotland. It is obviously not protecting Scotland’s territory, but one would think that it would protect the jewel in the crown of our law, which is the criminal legal system.
« As John Farquhar Munro said, it is not logical to have two boundaries. Having two boundaries is messy and will cause difficulties. It has been said that there has not yet been a criminal incident in the disputed waters, but there will be. Are we going to wait until all the horror and outrage that an incident will cause makes the Executive admit its error? That is what I foresee will happen.
« I asked the same questions in the previous debate: why did the change happen? Was it a show of ignorance? Members on the Westminster delegated legislation committee admitted that they were puzzled and did not know the impact that it would have. It was obviously a mistake. However, if it was not a mistake, and there was a conspiracy, it was a pretty disgusting conspiracy of thieves in the night on the eve of the establishment of our distinguished Parliament. What on earth can the motive have been for that? Was it to increase the English tonnage in the quota at the expense of the Scottish tonnage?
« In my presence, during a visit by the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, Henry McLeish admitted that because fishing in the UK was predominantly a Scottish matter, the Scottish minister would represent the UK in Europe. Was the transfer something to do with that, as if the English and Scottish tonnages were equalised, there would not be the problem of the Scottish minister representing the UK?
« Was the motive fear that we were going to win our independence? Was it a warning light? Was it to say, “You have got your Parliament, but we are still the masters, so we will dish you out a dirty trick on the eve of your creation”? That may sound enormously stupid, but as I cannot get an answer to the question whether it was a mistake—the Executive does not seem prepared to admit that and to put it right—one is left with the conspiracy theory.
« There is a lot of confusion. We are told that the issue has nothing to do with oil, but we have already heard many members tell us from experience that many fishing boats serve the oil industry. The two industries are not totally separate; there is a mix, as we all know. I know that many of my fishermen friends are out there in boats that serve the oil industry, and a dangerous job it is too.
« Mr Johnstone, in his very able speech, mentioned other matters that it is now agreed will be affected. There is confusion, and there certainly was not consultation. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation was in St Andrew’s House and found out about this matter by accident. I would add that, at that time, I was the only United Kingdom vice- president of the European Parliament Committee on Fisheries. Would not members think that, as a matter of courtesy, there might have been some intimation sent to that committee, which was obviously involved in the matter as well?
« We all seem to agree that there was some kind of cock-up. Or was it a conspiracy? I do not know—but let us get the answer and put the matter right. »
_____
Read full Holyrood debate transcript here:
Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999
– in the Scottish Parliament on 26 April 2000
Link to PDF of original Westminster legislation:
1999 No. 1126
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
DEVOLUTION, SCOTLAND
The Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999
Made – – – – 13th April 1999
Coming into force in accordance with article 1
At the Court at Windsor Castle, the 13th day of April 1999
Present,
The Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty in Council…
It is very interesting that Winnie Ewing talked in terms of the transfer being a breach of the Treaty of Union. No-one in the SNP gov or parliamentary ranks since 2014 ever seem to think that the Treaty is of any relevance. What a shower they are.
Sorry! Lloyd Quinan not Neale Hanvey. It was on a TASP that Lloyd said it.
It’s a total red herring of an issue though. It has no practical impact and will signify nothing at the time of independence because the maritime boundary between Scotland and the rump UK will be decided using accepted international legal principles and UNCLOS conventions.
Useful summaries of the issue can easily be found on line such as:
link to herbertsmithfreehills.com
The difference between the straight line Civil Jurisdiction (Offshore Activities) line of 1987 and the more northerly Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order of 1999 will have to be resolved in post independence negotiations. Neither line is likely to represent the final EEZ boundary as neither conforms to internationally accepted norms or precedents: it’s actually likely to fall somewhere between the two.
The latest poll, released Dec. 31st, has the following for the next Holyrood election:
Pro-Indy parties (SNP and Alba):
33.1% constituency vote
26.9% regional vote
Not exactly the “plebiscite” results the Indy fanatics are hoping for. And if one excludes the SNP as being pro-Indy (as many here do) the pro-Indy vote share is laughably small.
This poll was commissioned by the pro-Indy “National” and thus, if anything, is pro-Indy weighted.
Doubtless the tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists on WoS will label this poll result a part of some vast anti-Indy conspiracy.
Doesn’t look like the detail is on the Find Out Now site yet:
link to findoutnow.co.uk
I notice you (intentionally?) omitted the Green share of the vote above, so the figures wouldn’t appear to be much different in general from recent polls within standard margin of error.
I note you also omitted to mention the same poll found a 4% lead for independence using the standard referendum question. That doesn’t really fit with your narrative either, huh?
Andy, the actual numbers are findable on that website. You are citing their “summary”, not the actual numbers.
BTW the actual poll results showed 42.4% would vote for Indy. The rest, “no” or don’t know. That doesn’t really fit with your narrative either huh? Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Indy, is it?
“Pro-Indy parties (SNP and Alba)”
The SNP ceased to be a pro-independence party on the 14 November 2014, the day the political fraud Sturgeon took over from Mr Salmond.
“This poll was commissioned by the pro-Indy “National””
The National is not a pro-indy newspaper. It is an SNP and Nicola Sturgeon fanzine.
Just out of curiosity, how big is the subscription of the National and how representative of Scotland’s pro-independence movement, never mind Scotland’s electorate, it actually is?
How many single voters accessed the poll? Some of them may have cast more than one vote.
The company who carried out the polling (Find Out Now) say it was a representative sample and from their website are members of the British Polling Council. Without seeing the detailed breakdown of polling figures – which The National may not release, or which may not be released until later – it’s hard to say what kind of polling was carried out.
Unless they’re using some particularly dodgy methodology there’s no instant reason to think the poll itself is any more inaccurate than any other similar polling: indeed the fact the results seem broadly in line with others suggests the opposite.
As the Rev Stu – who after all has quite a bit of experience commissioning polls, which isn’t something most folk can say – it’s pretty dumb to attack polling just because you dislike who has commissioned it, or even worse because the result isn’t the one you’d prefer.
From memory during #indyref1, polling companies tend to take a dim view of randoms off the internet casting aspersions about how they conduct their business.
I appreciate and understand all what you say, but, currently, to comment in the National or to vote in some of their polls, as far as I know, you have to be subscribed, so the pool is quite limited.
That is why I ask how many people are currently subscribed to the newspaper.
Regarding my asking how many people actually voted, rather than the number of votes, the question was asked because I do not know if you remember that infamous poll about who was going to win the leadership of the SNP when Yousaf was candidate.
At that time, tens of thousands of votes appeared overnight to put Yousaf in the lead position when was far back before. The figure added overnight greatly surpassed the readership, never mind the subscriptions of that newspaper at the time.
At the time, I actually tested it and you just had to refresh the pay and could vote as may times as you wished. The only limit being the length of time it took to refresh the page.
The company may say that the polling was representative, the question is representative of what. If the poll appeared in the National and somewhat they were not restricting the vote so each person could only vote once, or it was restricted to their subscribers, I am not really sure we can trust the results as representative.
Again, without knowing the total number of votes it is difficult to estimate the relevance of those percentages. If the number of voters/votes is very low, they will be meaningless.
You’re assuming (without any evidence I can see) that the poll was just some online poll in The National. From what I can see from the polling companies website it seems more likely to have been a properly commissioned poll. They actually say:
Unless you have any evidence that the sample size was particularly small, or it wasn’t carried out properly I don’t see any reason to doubt the general accuracy.