The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Pete’s Perfect Plan

Posted on November 24, 2020 by

We don’t mind admitting we were quivering with anticipation, readers.

So let’s go.

We’ll just dive straight into it, skipping the four paragraphs of intro waffle.

Well, it would certainly be an undemocratic disgrace. But Scotland’s been subject to democratic injustice for as long as we’ve been alive – the 40% rule, the refused Yes vote in 1979, endless Tory governments we rejected imposing policies Scotland didn’t want, the robbery of our oil revenue without the creation of an oil fund, the blocking of every proposal to the Smith Commission from 56 out of Scotland’s 59 MPs – and Westminster has seemed able to cope with it just fine.

The UK Parliament has literally centuries of experience of ignoring “whinging Jocks”. Why would something have to give this time?

In truth our heart sank at the early mention of “the international community”, but let’s put on a brave face and hear about this “series of measures”.

Yeah yeah, and while we’re dreaming we’d like a magic castle and a pony. Now tell us about the “series of measures” when they don’t, Pete.

Blah blah blah stalling stalling stalling. There’s nothing undemocratic or unconsensual about an election, including a plebiscitary one. We’re almost 900 words in and there’s still no sign of the promised plan. Series of measures, please.

Wait, are you telling us we haven’t already made clear that we’re happy to discuss a referendum with them at any time for the last four years? That’s… interesting.


Woah, easy there now, tiger! SNP MPs declining to serve on public bill committees? I mean, we want independence just as much as the next website but surely there’s no need to go straight to the nuclear option? How could we possibly deprive them of the pleasure of the company of Pete Wishart in their daily deliberations over important matters of state? We’re not MONSTERS.

In so far as those things would have any effect at all – which of course they wouldn’t – they’re all things you should already have been doing since the day of the Brexit vote. The minute the UK made clear it was going to ride roughshod over the vote of the Scottish people, Scotland’s supposed champions in the House Of Commons should have been making an unholy racket.

Instead we’ve had a thousand scenes of Ian Blackford standing up and loudly insisting Scotland would not be dragged out of the EU against its will, then sitting back down on his well-upholstered rear and doing nothing as the Tories got on with doing just that.

We’ve had a pro-indy majority at Holyrood for 13 years and the one and only time it tried “legislating on the edge of its devolved powers” Westminster just slapped it down immediately and Holyrood went and sat meekly in the corner muttering under its breath. That was two years ago and nothing similar has been tried since.

Wait, was that it? Are we done? All you’ve got beyond that is to go moaning to other countries that England won’t do what we want? We’re sure they’ll be lavish with tea and biscuits and “Oh, poor you”, but they’re hardly going to interfere. Especially if all we’ve done is have a bit of a sulk and boycott some Westminster committees.

Oh dear God above. Would they, aye?

Let’s just try to imagine for a moment how that would go. Even if, say, France and Germany had the slightest interest in meddling in internal UK politics – which we can promise you, readers, they absolutely 100% do not – what would they do about it?

Issue a strongly-worded statement in the European Parliament? The thing the UK just left because a majority of English people thought it already poked its nose into the UK’s business too much? We can all picture the Daily Mail headlines right now. If you can think of anything more likely to completely entrench English public and political resistance to a second indyref than Brussels demanding one, we’d love to hear it.

But in any event, the First Minister has insisted, over and over again, that one thing she will never, ever countenance is an “unofficial” referendum.

Was she lying all those times? Surely not?

The only route, of course, to obtaining a “legal” referendum without Westminster’s co-operation would be to go to court to try to establish its legality. But not only has the Scottish Government unforgivably and indefensibly failed to do such a thing for four years, it’s been actively opposing an attempt by someone else to do it for them. Pete Wishart himself has been particularly vocally hostile to the idea.

So what then?

The fact that the Scottish Government hasn’t attempted to establish legality in court in fact clearly shows that they haven’t “tried absolutely everything”. Indeed, they haven’t even tried the single most obvious thing. But in any event, the international community has been allowing it to stand just fine so far.

The Scottish people have voted for the party demanding a second indyref three times since the Brexit vote, it’s been voted for twice by the Scottish Parliament, it’s been formally requested twice and refused twice, and “the international community” has done precisely hee-haw about it. There’s barely been so much as a mild expression of dissent. But now Wishart thinks they’ll suddenly take up arms and rush to our aid?

Yep, it looks like that’s the end of the “series of measures”. We’re going to gripe and grumble a bit in the Commons – gosh, won’t that be an unprecedented novelty for the UK government? – and then we’re going to turn and make sad eyes at Europe, and that’s it. That’s all we’ve got.

The international community – which stood by and did nothing while the Spanish government sent in riot police to crack the head of old ladies and put a whole raft of democratically-elected members of Parliament in jail for holding a peaceful vote – is apparently going to rush to save Scotland, even though Scotland (unlike Catalonia) was actually given a referendum just six years ago and voted No, and even though the UK isn’t any of Europe’s business any more and the EU no longer has any political leverage over it.

What consequences? This site has been asking fruitlessly for months for any Plan A believers to tell us what we actually have to threaten the UK government with.

It has a comfortable overall majority, and of course a 12-to-1 mega-majority against independence, since Labour and the Lib Dems oppose it too. The Tories haven’t won an election in Scotland for the best part of 70 years. They have almost no MPs there to lose, and even when they had literally none after the Thatcher/Major era it didn’t make them concede anything. With zero MPs they still opposed devolution right to the bitter end and just days ago Boris Johnson said it had been a “disaster”.

(The alert among us will also recall Ruth Davidson’s ill-fated attempt to draw a “line in the sand” under that devolution almost a decade ago.)

Does it sound like they’re bothered what we think?

If we’re honest, our expectations for Pete Wishart’s Masterplan had been extremely low. But yesterday’s effort dug a very deep hole and tunnelled so far under them that we didn’t even feel the earth tremble as it passed underneath. His article is a gross and cynical insult to the intelligence of anyone who read it.

(He did, of course, delete all critical replies.)

But worse than that, it’s something the SNP were and are clearly happy to be said in public by one of their senior elected representatives. They plainly believe that at least a percentage of their supporters will still swallow it.

And that, folks, is because they think you’re stupid. They think you’re stupid. They think you’re really, really stupid.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 28 11 20 16:47

    Not The Plan B –

  2. 04 12 20 17:19

    Counting all the days –

239 to “Pete’s Perfect Plan”

  1. Kenny says:

    What a massive disappointment and an utter clown wee Pete is, he’s the most vocal of all for openly delaying Scotland’s right.

    Yo, Wishart – yes you, you wet little teat – how about some fighting talk on behalf of the citizens of this country?

    Cannon fodder..

  2. ken hunter says:

    Well I’m 61 now. Not sure at this rate I will ever see independence. So near yet so far. But the worst thing is being torpedoed by our own side.

  3. faolie says:

    Lost me after ‘hope’

    “..or we determine a process that would no longer involve the UK as a partner and hope that any outcome would be respected by the international community..”

    First we ask, then we demand, then we, er, hope

  4. Alf Baird says:

    Would somebody please give Pete Wishart a copy of the Treaty of Union.

  5. Bill Cowan says:

    Procrastinating Pete.

  6. P says:

    Wishy washy deleted dissenting comments?
    He’s an erse


    Oh dear christ. I’m like George Washington about to disappear up into the Blue Ridge mountains of Virginia with The Scotch/ Irish. Disappear somewhere, anywhere at least. Sir Peter Wishart is biggest prick since John Holmes. If thats it if thats Sturgeons go to plan. We’re fucked. Thing is I’m no even convinced she’d be even as good as that.

  8. kapelmeister says:

    A load of nebulous rubbish from Wishart. He stopped just short of asking us to believe again that Santa is real.

  9. Willie says:

    Santa Claus is coming children. Don’t worry, your wishes will be granted.

    As for the older adults they should take a leaf out of the children’s book and believe in Santa too. All they need to do is wish for a section 30 and independence and the wish will be granted. So all please remember to write down your wish to St Nichola.

    Simples. Now let’s all sing about wishing on a star. Altogether now ……..sing!

  10. David says:

    Pete will avoid doing anything if it jeopardises his toes becoming less cosy.

  11. Joan Hutcheson says:

    I note that Pete Wishart frames cynicism about the likelihood of the British State agreeing to a referendum as though the cynicism were based on irrational dogma. In fact it’s Mr Wishart and co whose stance is based on a wing and a prayer, as Stuart evidences. Stuart, of course, always does produce evidence which is why the ‘Wheesht for Indies’ say ‘Don’t look at Wings! Don’t read Wings! Oh look, there’s a bird in the sky! That’s the only wings to look at!’

  12. Craig P says:

    Now we are out the EU, theres nothing to stop Holyrood banning land ownership by people or organisations outside Scotland.

    That should move things on a bit.

  13. newburghgowfer says:

    Pistol Pete aka Bonnie Langford is going to scweam and scweam and stamp his feet at the injustice Rattle will be out o the pram at the injustice of the Tories saying no !!
    Pistol Pete 15 years a Mp ? What has he been doing? Pulling 1 off in a sock in his London digs as I can’t find any achievements?

  14. Steven says:

    Absolutely tragic from Wishart. Surely Scotland must actually ASSERT its right to self determination before anyone in the international community takes a passing notice. But even still, this is Scotland’s fight. Pathetic.

  15. Breeks says:

    Pete Wishart describing what happens when if a Section 30 is refused sounds just like a Unionist being asked to present a progressive positive case for the Union.

    The bottom line, and it’s not complicated, but if you don’t defend Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty when it’s challenged by colonial usurpation, then you’ll do whatever the fk you’re told by your “new” sovereign. That’s how it works.

    Maybe somebody with some wax crayons and fuzzy felts can explain it to the SNP Government before they sell us completely down the river.

  16. Cath says:

    The UK hold all the cards because Scotland voted to remain part of it in 2014. What that meant was leaving all decisions about Scotland as part of a wider “UK” decision, just as if we were a region. So if the UK government decide post Brexit to abolish devolution and the Scottish Parliament entirely, they can do that. We have literally no power *within the UK*, as a non-independent country to challenge or fight that. And no other International country has any power whatsoever to intervene or do anything. THAT WAS WHY WE NEEDED TO DO SOMETHING CONCRETE BEFORE BREXIT! While we at least still had the protection of the EU, as Ireland does and will continue to have.

    The only workable second option I can see (and I concede I’m not a constitutional expert so may have missed something, but if so I wish someone would explain what) is for Holyrood 2021 to be an effective plebiscite: vote SNP and we will begin independence negotiations, to be ratified by a vote in 2022 or whatever. And even that runs the risk of ‘what happens if they abolish Holyrood before then?’

    Other than that, we have to hope that if they abolish Holyrood they’ll end up mired in huge issues they haven’t thought about like the fact they maybe can’t just abolish Scots law, and maybe someone with some backbone will arrive to demonstrate how if they do they’ve broken the treaty of Union making us independent already. But again, if there’s any possibility of that, it would be nice if someone explained it to us all – including England – pre Brexit.

  17. Denise says:

    Pete goes horrible wrong in a number of ways but his blog doesn’t reflect the Process of becoming independent. No one is going to intervene if it is not clear Scotland wants independence, even civil disobedience is difficult to organise without a clear democratic mandate.

    The first step in the process is to establish the democratic will for independence, for that a ‘democratic event’ is required which could be a referendum or just an election. This Event does not make Scotland independent, which is the substance of Martin Keating’s s30 argument. It is just a necessary first step.

    And that event must have full democratic credentials – so for example the Scottish Parliament elections which are regulated by the EC so perfectly democratic. Or an independence referendum whose legality has been established ie. Via Martin’s case).

    Once the democratic mandate is established then the next stage is the independence negotiations.
    We can establish democratic will without WM agreement but we still need WM to negotiate. That’s the point we could put on international pressure Not before we’ve established Scots want independence

    That’s why a list party would be helpful a 2/3rd majority Parliamentary vote would be very useful internationally.

    One of the problems for Catalonia is the never demonstrated uncontestable democratic will for independence as the referendum was boycotted and in their parliamentary election the pro-indy parties only got 46% of the vote as there was a small neutral party that abstained on the parliamentary vote which declared independence.

    So get on with establishing Scotland wants independence then we move to the next part of the process and worry about getting WM to the negotiating table.

  18. kapelmeister says:

    newburghgowfer @1:27

    He’s actually been an MP since 2001. He represented North Tayside for four years until boundary changes.

  19. Alan D says:

    Westminster supremacy is the problem we face either way. Whether the Tories use it to say no to Wishart’s plan A or your plan B, the outcome is the same.

    Might as well join the Scottish Labour party. If enough of us do it, we can pull it into at least a pro-referendum position and insert that into their UK election manifesto. Whenever they win in England, job done.

    It requires far fewer members to capture the old branch office than it will to make ISP or A4I an established party, especially as door-to-door campaigning is off until covid has been knocked out. Other Scotland-only parties can’t overcome the Westminster barrier anyway.

  20. Astonished says:

    I think the wokeratti NEC are about to find out how much we’re NOT buying this nonsense.

    Pete Wishart is being laughed at. Says it all.

    My MSP and MP better start speaking out or I think they’ll find the voters leaving – even faster than the SNP members.

    We need a concrete plan B for EARLY next year. Blackford apologising for his lies (and in my opinion resigning). And the woke been removed from the party for bringing into disrepute.

    Or its a Yoon Holyrood resurgence ? God forbid – but we only have the leadership, yusuf and the woke to blame.

  21. 1971Thistle says:

    According to Pete on Twitter, we don’t have to ask; we just have to agree on a process:

    No explanation on what we’re waiting for

  22. cirsium says:

    The UK continues to ignore the decision of the International Court of Justice that Chagos Islands should be returned to the Chagos islanders but Mr Wishart believes that this UK will agree to a referendum if the SNP wins in May. He is going to be so disappointed.

  23. Laing french says:

    I’ve always thought Sturgeon was dragging her heels at independence. Alex Salmond fiasco maintained that, Covid was a meaningless excuse to delay independence especially as we watched ( not I) USA carry out a re election of a new president through an even worse catastrophic Covid than ours. So with the SNP split, Labour Party split, Alex Salmond fiasco and now another independence for Scotland political party emerging , it’s like a horror episode of Neighbours!

  24. Stu hutch says:

    If nicola is saying the referendum must be legal and a s30 is the only legal way, Is she saying the treaty of union is not a legal document and not enshrined in scots law therefore cannot be used to end the union .

  25. Facundo Savala says:

    I like when he adds “I think you will like it” to the tweets where he introduces his groundbreaking theories.

    Pete Wishart will get the Yes movement nowhere.

    But the Yes movement is stuck with him and Sturgeon for the forseeable.

  26. ScottieDog says:

    Does he at any point consider a Scottish election as a plebiscite? Say, for example, after Boris has refused a sect30 again next year?
    Surely the act of ignoring the result of such an election is more likely to raise the eyebrows of some of the international community. Hard to get that disapproval if you don’t even have a vote?

  27. James Che. says:

    I ave said it before and i’ll Say it again,
    It may be illegal for the Scottish government to go of on its own from England, or for the govererment to go udi without getting us all into trouble legally or physically,
    However it is not illegal for the people of Scotland themselves to do it, we have a legal recognised right in Scotland and recognised by England to choose whom governs us,
    We just have to organise a precise time to do it.
    Legally under the ‘claim of right’ England agrees to this, and has recognised this for centuries.
    I think, England’s Westminster thinks, we the Scots are stupid, so busy believing in the snp chasing ulterior mysterious goals, that the Scots will never realise their back door exit from uk is already legally in law and wrote down, and indeed so far have been proven right.

  28. MorvenM says:

    Dear God, here we go again.

    “Illegal”, “wildcat” and “unauthorised” referendums. It makes my blood boil. The language of Unionists.

    That’s what they’ve become.

  29. David Rodgers says:

    So much for Pete’s cunning plan! Back to Joanna Cherry, Angus McNeil & co for any hope for independence.

  30. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Embarrassing shite.

    Trying to cheer meself up earlier, was raking about in the memory for happy moments, indy-related, from the past decade or so.

    Thin pickings.

    The real highlights, for me, have all been connected to meeting fellow travellers at the marches and gatherings, the FOW social nights. But ‘our’ politicians doing anything? Alex Salmond at WM threw up some good moments. Nicola Sturgeon was untouchable at FMQs for a long time – nowhere near as entertaining as AS but the Yoons were still getting properly ‘telt’ week after week.

    But when have we ever laid a finger on WM Tories?

    Then I felt sad…

    But have cheered meself up again! by imagining how any group can possibly endure such disappointment again and again, over decades, unless they genuinely believe they can achieve their aim.

    Many of us still believe we can, but not with characters like Wishart. They need hoofed.

  31. Bob Mack says:

    What can you say? It’s all nonsense. Is that the secret plan B? To think the International community will rush to our aid at the last minute and save us.

    Dear God. Does Pete realise his stupid idea would take years and years to even try. It could be over a decade. Imagine.

    Sorry to SNP supporters, but if this is anything like the route they are taking, I will find someone else to support.

    I laughed when he mentioned not revealing “all the plans” .

    I laughed because what he did reveal was preposterous enough without adding to it. Yet others will pick this one little piece from this nonsense and say “we were right,they have sdcret plans”.


  32. Johnny Martin says:

    Pete (and any of those spouting his line of argument) has no idea what ‘independence’ or ‘independent’ means.

    A counsel of despair where we must look to the party we are supposed to be trying to become ‘independent’ of for their ‘authorisation’ to ask the question.

    What it comes down to (and I do agree that an ‘agreed referendum’ would be nice, but it ain’t happening) is that Wishart and his ilk are not interested if it’s not going to be ‘easy and convenient’ for them.

    More generally, he’s prepared to admit that a Plan B might be needed but, ‘you know, just not yet please’.

    The rest of it: who does he think is going to pay attention to whether they are on Committees or not? And that’s if the media even deigns to bring the subject up.

    I actually think there is room for engaging the ‘international community’ but there will be no success (and even then it’s still iffy), until:

    i) You fess up that ‘permission’ for an indyref has been denied many times already and make your external friends know this loudly;

    ii) on those grounds you make May a plebiscitary election, citing ‘we preferred a referendum but they kept blocking it, undemocratically’;

    iii) if you win in May, you go back to Johnson and ask to negotiate;

    iv) If he says no, you then go to your external friends and say ‘he wouldn’t agree a referendum, so we held a plebiscitary election and have demonstrated the people want independence. We then went back and asked to negotiate exit terms and he still says no, undemocratically. Recognise us, please’.

    This might not work but it has a better chance than all that drivel.

  33. susanXX says:

    What a waste of skin Pete Wishart is.

  34. Cuphook says:

    The great plan is that Sturgeon widens her letter writing to include European governments and Wishart licks the stamps.

    Sturgeon’s SNP has stopped being an independence party. The plan seems to the Scottish Free State where we pay Westminster an annual ‘solidarity payment’ of £5B – in effect handing over all profit from whisky; £1.3B a year to Westminster’s foreign aid budget so we don’t have to set one up ourselves – even though the UK uses that budget to sweeten arms deals; keeping the £UK – thereby ensuring Scotland won’t have the powers required to deal with future crises, like another pandemic.

    Sturgeon’s SNP is a neoliberal vehicle to ensure the money channels continue to flow should democracy actually triumph. Remember how quickly land reform was ditched?

  35. Dave Beveridge says:

    “Well, we turn up the heat…!!!”

    FFS you’ve had SIX YEARS and you haven’t even got the fkin oven on.

  36. First the infighting has to stop,secondly in a short time we will have a result to Keating the reply should be interesting,(legality)? The Treaty of Union states the sovereign position of Scots Law (In SCOTLAND),can NOT be overcome by English Law.Our Education can NOT be tampered with.The Internal(Infernal) Market Bill,Trashes this unequal union on Law and Education,the end of.. the Union! Westminster does not know what a Treaty is!!certainly NOT a conquest.Permission needed????Begging not required.We do need recognition from other countries to back our rightful demands.This Internal Market Bill breaks International law,Irish Agreement.Westmister will be isolated,a pariah state,already a dictatorship.The E.U.should start proceedings in court A.S.A.P. W.T.O,s with a government that can NOT be trusted??? They are strangling themselves in Westminster,how many poor and starving people in Brexit wonderland

  37. Col says:

    Let’s bombard his twitter account with this article so has to close it! I wonder at what point the faithful will realise we’ve been strung along. The SNP are just another brexit party. How are they going to explain that to the remain votes they’ve managed to pick up? What is the purpose of the party now? I would love to know salmonds real thoughts on the matter

  38. Socrates MacSporran says:

    For as long as we have the likes of Ian Blackadder and Weak Pishart speaking for us at Westminster and Olive McBurnie leading the line at Holyrood, we are NEVER going to get Independence.

    The present-day SNP are a bunch of self-serving time-servers, quite happy to hold onto their well-paid sinecures, safe in the knowledge, the opposition is too-divided (other than in their determination not to allow Independence) to usurp them.

    I have said before, within five to ten years of Independence, the SNP will be gone, so, they are quite happy to hold on as they are, and not take the final step to Independence – something to which the Unionist parties will never agree.

    Unless we get rid of the present lot, we will all be doing Private Frazer impressions for ever, because, without Independence and a party willing to fight for it – we are all doomed.

  39. WhoRattledYourCage says:

    Thos is just pure nihilism now, eh, no real point? Fuck it.

  40. Garrion says:

    Jesus. reading that smug piffle is like living the last para of Animal Farm. Are ye a pig or a farmer Pete?

  41. Tambo says:

    Mair nebulous guff from the Guffmeister. He was shite at playing keyboards too. Is there nothing he’s good at.

  42. kapelmeister says:

    Wishart does us a favour. He’s the one in the Sturgeon camp who talks so much he makes it glaringly obvious to the hitherto confused that the FM and her coterie are false.

    Keep yapping away Pete!

  43. Another_Ian_Blackford_Speech says:

    Weak Pishart. Well played Mr. McSporran.

  44. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    Am I correct in my understanding based on his article that Weet Pishfart thinks the UK is a separate entity to Scotland?

    The UK is a Unitary State formed by Treaty between the Kingdoms of Scotland and England.

    Scotland can annul said Treaty anytime the Sovereign Scots decide they want to.

    Weet Pishfart appears not to have a clue about Scotlands legal constitutional status despite creaming an MPs wages, pension pot and expenses for 19 years.


  45. CameronB Brodie says:

    As wet-nat logic goes, that’s quite impressive. Though only if your blind to the needs of justice and democracy. So here’s a look at “THE POLITICAL ETHOS OF CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY AND THE PLACE OF NATURAL LAW IN PUBLIC REASON: RAWLS’S “POLITICAL LIBERALISM” REVISITED”, especially for those who lack a spine, or who would sell Scots into the legal servitude of perpetual English Torydum.

    “….As I propose to point out in the following, natural law reasons belong to public reason insofar as they precede public reason and, thus, shape it in a fundamental way. They, however, cannot claim to be public reasons, adequate for constitutional democracy, only because they are natural law reasons, that is, because they are open to anyone’s understanding.

    This is impossible because, first, natural law embraces more than what is politically relevant and can be reasonably enforced by legal coercion; and secondly, because natural law is not positive, written law. Public reason is based in, and expressed by, political institutions and a positive legal system which define the publicly endorsed standards and rules of justice by which citizens in a constitutional democracy make binding political decisions which are legitimately enforced by the coercive apparatus of the state.

    As I will argue, rather than providing properly public reasons, natural law works as a standard of public reason’s own intrinsic practical truth, though this standard may be controversial and must therefore achieve legitimacy partly in and through the political process itself, as a valid standard of “truth” within that society.

    Thus, though natural law as such cannot claim to be public reason, the correspondence of public reason with natural law, as far as it is politically relevant, is nonetheless a condition for public reason to be fully reasonable. With this I do not mean to say that the “truth” of natural law reasons depends on their public acceptance, but only that their recognition as politically legitimate reasons does. The more such public recognition corresponds to the requirements of natural law, the more such recognition is reasonable.”

  46. Monica Worley says:

    You forgot Pete’s all-important step of ‘turning up the heat’. Imagine all those toffs in the HoC and particularly in the HoL with their ermine and wigs trying to legislate when Pete has TURNED UP THE HEAT? Sweating and moping brows and saying ‘my goodness it’s hot in here!’. They’ll cave in for sure when it’s too hot to show up at their place of work. Right?

  47. Brian says:

    I guess the current SNP hierarchy can only take us so far.
    Guess we need people with the intelligence and bravery to take us over the line. I just don’t know who that will be.

  48. Monica Worley says:

    Col – nice idea about spamming Pete’s twitter account, but he’s blocked all of us! Even his constituents.

  49. Hatuey says:

    Fuck all that, I’ve got a better idea.

    We start throwing innocent men in prison, one after another, day after day, until the UK Treasury implodes under the weight of paying the prison bills.

    What? We already tried that? Oh right… I see. So that was Plan B?

  50. wee monkey says:

    Two minor points.

    The wording on the BREXIT ballot was unequivitable in asking did you want the UK TO LEAVE THE EU.

    You voted for the UK to LEAVE the EU.

    Secondly more people in Scotland voted to LEAVE than voted for the SNP.

    Until you can face up to these then you are NEVER going to convince a majority to vote Indy.

    Step Change required.

  51. Giesabrek says:

    History will not be kind to Sturgeon, Murrell and Wishart…

  52. Jason Smoothpiece says:

    Pete Wishart is not of sufficient caliber to represent anyone. That much is clear.

    Is this dribble all the SNP have to offer surely not.

    Times like this can make folk really depressed.

  53. Bob Mack says:

    Ever think you have been taken for a fool?

    Well this post from Wishart confirms it !!.

    I think Pete is is well aware of SNP stratsgy before anybody dares to say it’s only his opinion.

    Were drowning and they throw us an anvil.

  54. James Che. says:

    I pretty much agree the treaty of the union is a busted flush legally, Westminster continues to rewrite historical treaties,
    I also agree Scots law is wrote down in the treaty as separate and equal to England’s.
    I agree the snp have had enough of our mandates and votes to challenge Westminster government for a number of years, over and over, but haven’t.
    If we the people under the claim of right legally have the right to chose who governs us, Why don’t we use that right?
    Why do we dance around the obvious?

  55. Andy Ellis says:

    @Rev Stu

    Excellent take down of Mr Wishart’s weak as dishwater gradualism.

    I was going to punt a piece about it to you after Pete’s display last night deleting any critical comments BTL on his blog, but it seems a tad superfluous given the above!

    I have however posted my thoughts here:

  56. Graeme says:

    Well at least his plan is better than having us all write to Santa

    Not much better but better I would say

  57. Gregor says:

    It’s not the role of the UK Government, nor the role of the international community to determine and assert Scotland’s democratic status and future.

  58. Thomas Valentine says:

    We are in a situation where the UK government wants us to play them at a game of rugby to a set of rules they make. So we play football rules. Or to put it a legal way, they want to apply UK national laws they set to their advantage, so we apply international laws. But you heard this all before from Craig Murray.

    Force them to agree a referendum BEFORE the next election. Or it becomes the election and everyone after. Cause enough political chaos no one can ignore and drag Europe and America into the mess. You are dealing with people who can’t deal with things happening outside the rules created to put mediocre people from wealthy families on top.

  59. Daisy Walker says:

    Thanks for doing that, I was going to go through it paragraph by paragraph (it is that full of shite), but my blood pressure was going through the roof.

    Pete is in my constituency, supported fully by John Swinney (they very much work together).

    Sadly both have now lost my vote.

    But it is changed days from the aftermath of 2014 Ref, when the SNP hosted a meeting in Scone and Pete stood up and talked.

    ‘Scotland is changed, and changed forever…. we stand on the brink of a GE which looks like giving SNP a majority of Scottish MP seats – and think what we can do with that, folks, there is the Westminster money, there are means to disrupt parliament if they don’t play ball (he really did say that) and there is the imminent danger of England voting for Brexit against Scotland’s wishes, and Boris as PM and Trump as POTUS…’

    Since then, what? It all came to pass, but Cosy Feet got to be chair of the Scottish Committee (awww, isn’t that nice) – a committee stuffed full (in defiance of elected party ratios) full of English MP’s – with neree a whimper frae oor Wishy. Wee scone.

    Pete Wishart is a Fanny.

    For folks info, it seemed to me both Pete and Swinney changed their tune and policy in 2017 after the GE, around the same time as NS.

    One last thing, just to be pedantic… I was told, repeatedly, Scotland could not go for another Indy REf2 until the Terms of Brexit were known…. and as an aside until polling was constantly in favour in the region of 60%.

    Sort of where we are now, but with Brexit Day 6 weeks away, and an Edinburgh Civil Service hub fully up and running , and an Internal Market Bill all set to close Holyrood in all but name.

    Still, any minute now, specially since they’ve got 1/2million£ in the kitty ready to go, ring fenced/earmarked (not in anyway spent and pissed up the wall).

    All these party loyalists who can’t see what a corrupt wee shower the current leadership of the SNP are, and the bullshit they are pushing, and the cliff edge our country is facing within a matter of months.

    The SNP are going to be obliterated in May if they don’t get their shit in order.

    I’m heartbroken and beyond angry at them. I have voted for them for 33 years. Contributed a fair bit of money to them in my area.

    By all means assume, I’m a ‘secret unionist’, but I’m not, and sadly I think you are about to find out there are a lot like me.

    I never left the SNP, the SNP left me, but not before it embezzled Yessers money, tried to fit up Alex Salmond, and derailed all attempts to obtain Independence by spiking the guns and pulling the punches at every opportunity. SHAME.

  60. Daisy Walker says:

    Graeme says:
    24 November, 2020 at 2:44 pm
    Well at least his plan is better than having us all write to Santa

    Not much better but better I would say’

    Luckily for all of us, Jim’ll fix it is no longer with us….

  61. SilverDarling says:

    It doesn’t matter if we play by their rules, they will just keep changing the rules. We need to be ahead of them and where has that ever occurred under NS.

    We constantly play catch up or squeak that it isn’t fair when Tories do Tory stuff. So sick of Wishart and his starry-eyed nonsense. The unionists do not play fair.

  62. MaggieC says:

    An excellent article from Campbell Gunn ,who is a retired political editor who served as special adviser to two first ministers of Scotland.

    Campbell Gunn: Scottish Government hurting itself over Salmond inquiry

    “ It’s now almost two months since I wrote in these pages that it was high time the Scottish Government did the honourable thing and released all the papers required by the parliamentary committee examining what went wrong with the botched judicial review into the allegations against former First Minister Alex Salmond.

    “ Of course, we are still to hear from some of the main players in the drama, including the First Minister, her chief of staff, Liz Lloyd, and Mr Salmond himself. I’ll get the popcorn. “

  63. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Another_Ian Blackford_Speech @ 2.18pm

    I cannot take credit for “Weak Pishart,” I stole that one from someone else – but, I will take the blame for “Olive McBurnie” as an alternative for Nicola Sturgeon.

    She’s been staring at an open goal for months but has still to score, just like Oli for the national football team.

  64. Frazerio says:

    “We should also start to behave like the independent nation the Scottish people desire. This would most obviously be done in international missions”.

    Another unionist friendly argument. If Scotland can “behave like an independent nation” within the UK, whats the need for independence? They did the same last time on the currency question. They said ‘what currency wiil you use’. When the answer was ‘same one as now, sterling’, they said ‘well why do you need to be independent then’. Its the crux of their argument. If indy means too many big changes, its too scary, so no need. If indy means hardly any small changes, then why bother.
    The bottom line with all this is, if the SNP with Sturgeon in charge deliver an indy Scotland in the next year or two, the Rev is/was wrong. I’m sure he’d happily apologise, retreat and enjoy chillin in front of a games console. If they don’t, his last couple of years or so of increasing ‘calling out’ of SNP inaction will be proven correct. To paraphrase Fidel ‘history will absolve him’. All we can do in the meantime is listen to both sides and decide which sounds more convincing. As time goes on, more and more stacks up in the warning column.
    Time elapsed since 2014,
    Blackfords empty pronouncements,
    Sturgeon campaigning against Englands Brexit vote (selfies with Alastair Campbell???) instead of using the clear manifesto fulfilment of Scotlands resounding Remain vote to bang the indy drum,
    Sturgeons seeming involvement in the Salmond case (which is absolutely mind-boggling),
    the removal of Salmond from SNP history,
    SNP entryism (eg one of the alphabet women saying in court that she was ‘soft indy’ when seeking nomination to run for Holyrood),
    Scotgov challenging the Keatings case,
    blocking of J Cherry standing as a MSP,
    lack of transparency over ‘ring-fenced’ funds,
    lack of a plan B,
    clear conflict of interest in SNP having a husband & wife as Chief Exec & leader,
    Sturgeon saying ‘no indy til Covid dealt with’ when such a crisis is latest of many spurned golden opportunities to ram home WHY we desperately need control over our own decisions, obstructions in Holyrood inquiry,
    GRA/wokism/minority interest dominance on NEC and seeming lack of priority given to supposed raison d’etre (Independence).
    In the other column, the ‘Trust Nicola’ column, what is there? Nothing positive I xan see thats clearly down to her. Polls above 50%. Is that it? Salmond boosted it 20% in 18 months under a unionist onslaught. Sturgeon boosted it 10% in 6 years with a series of open goals and democratic mandates. Or Sturgeon polls as more trustworthy than Johnson, May, Gove, Raab, Hancock, Pol Pot, Fred West & Dr Shipman. Well done her and Woopy f****n doo!!!

  65. Lindsey says:

    I’m confused. I didn’t read one concrete plan in that to actually achieve independence. All I got from it was “we can’t let other countries think we’ll fight as hard and dirty as WM, they think we’re really nice”.

    Is simply withdrawing from the Treaty of Union not a viable option?

  66. Doug says:

    Thomas Valentine @2:56pm

    Agreed.With Joe Biden we [hopefully] have someone [because of his close association with Ireland] who will see Scotland’s point of view.

  67. HYUFD says:

    Ha, ha, ha, ha, how on earth are we Unionists going to cope if the SNP threaten to convene a ‘Scottish Grand Committee of MPs’ ha, ha, ha!!! No doubt fully taxpayer funded with 3 course lunches and claret to help them deliberate!

  68. Prasad says:

    faolie says:
    24 November, 2020 at 1:02 pm
    Lost me after ‘hope’.

    Yep me too and the ‘believe’ (also Blackford).

    His blog just gives a perfect analysis of why they will never give an Indyref. Why would they when we are ‘led’ by cowardly donkeys.
    If we ever needed to know who the mole is we need now have no doubts.

  69. Andy Ellis says:

    @Doug 3.19pm

    The Americans don’t really care about Scotland. There is no Scottish lobby in the same way there is an Irish lobby in the USA. Biden’s administration and most ordinary Americans will only be tangentially interested in Scotland, particularly if we lack the cojones to vote for our own self determination.

    They’d be more concerned with what’s going to happen with Trident and NATO and ensuring stability generally with everything going on with brexit.

  70. Intractable Potsherd says:

    Stu hutch says:
    24 November, 2020 at 1:41 pm
    If nicola is saying the referendum must be legal and a s30 is the only legal way, Is she saying the treaty of union is not a legal document and not enshrined in scots law therefore cannot be used to end the union .

    If she is, then there is no legal Union and never has been. Either the entire Treaty is legal or none of it is.

  71. Breeks says:

    It’s hard not to fall out with some Indy supporters, but even a quick glance at Pete’s Twitter timeline… Jesus wept…

    “We’ve got to keep International Law on our side”.

    OK, so why the fk are you NOT doing that, and defending the International Treaty of Union??? A stricter and more accurate observance of which would prevent Scotland being subjugated by it’s Constitutional Equal. Where was Scotland’s Backstop, with the weight of International Justice rallying to defend Scotland they way they rallied to defend Ireland? Squandered, that’s where, squandered by the SNP and constitutionally illiterate Sturgeon.

    ”We’re keeping our powder dry”.

    Sob. Are we? Do tell… For what special occasion are we keeping our powder dry? Our Nation is literally SUBJUGATED at the close of December. If that doesn’t warrant the ignition of our powder, then what other seismic catastrophe are we waiting for?

    I might have to join Twitter, just to ask Pete an awkward question so he blocks me. Then my eyes won’t bleed from accidentally reading the absolute guff his supporters are writing.

    I’m a moderate kinda fella, but reading it makes me feel like a mental punk rocker doing community service in Sunday school.

  72. Breeks says:

    Intractable Potsherd says:
    24 November, 2020 at 3:31 pm

    Either the entire Treaty is legal or none of it is.

    Correct. Spot on.

    And IF the Treaty is legal, then one Constitutional Equal cannot subjugate the other. Brexit is an act of Colonial Subjugation contrary to the 1707 Treaty of Union, and modern day International Law.

  73. Beaker says:

    Ever get a feeling that someone is going to break with convention and try to get elevated to the HoL? After all, he fancied the role of Speaker.

  74. Beaker says:

    Sorry for double post, but I see Blackford has made a complete arse of himself, and Sturgeon is defending him.

    An photographer was accused by Blackford of breaking COVID travel restrictions by going to Caithness from the south of England to photograph the Northern Lights. Ranting and raving an no doubt making a complaint to the police.

    He’s been forced to apologise because the photographer because the guy lives 5 minutes from where he took the picture.

    PMQs might be interesting this week…

  75. Spikethedee says:

    Page 1 of the 2021 SNP Manifesto should read: The First Bill to be Moved by the Scottish Government in May 2021 will be a Referendum Bill, setting a date of X under the same terms as the 2014 Referendum. Voting for the SNP is taken as an explicit acceptance of this policy.
    All other Bills, policies, pledges are secondary to the above, and appear on the following pages.

  76. Doug says:

    Andy Ellis @2:27pm

    As I implied Biden will pay very close attention to the GFA and any moves towards an Irish reunification referendum. My guess is he would strongly support such a referendum. I believe Irish reunification would be a massive boost to Scotland’s independence movement. And vis versa.

    If Biden sticks his nose in Ireland’s affairs, and he will, he can’t help but smell what’s happening in Scotland.

    The vast majority of people in the USA will of course be completely unmoved by it all. Biden being moved is what’s important. If the Senate and House of Representatives stay in Republican hands Biden will have very little opportunity to pass domestic laws. He will have plenty of opportunity to indulge in foreign policy. And aye, Scotland needs to show willing…

  77. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    Apologies if already mentioned:

    Grassroots Oban are hosting Craig Murray for a zoom talk on the Route to Independence this evening at 7pm

    Details of how to attend in this link.

  78. Strathy says:

    Pete ends with a taste of next year’s Holyrood election campaign: –

    ‘ – the UK will agree to a referendum if we win in May.’

    Without this distraction, voters might start to worry about the new SNP Government using its majority to pass any law that it, and each of its NEC minority interest groups, desires.

    Not to mention its ability to control the public scrutiny that is causing it so much inconvenience at the moment.

  79. Andrew F says:

    What a weasel-word salad that is!

    A commitment (that is, a promise or firm decision to do something), might read like this:

    “If a No persists we will withdraw from the structures of the UK state immediately”.

    A single weasel word variant might look like:

    “If a No persists we will think about withdrawing from the structures of the UK state”.

    A double weasel word looks like:

    “If a No persists we will start to think about withdrawing from the structures of the UK state”.

    The triple:

    “If a No persists we should be starting to think about withdrawing from the structures of the UK state”.

    So, once everyone is agreed that we should be starting to think about doing something, we can really get stuck into the hard work of actually setting about thinking about it, and then once that’s arranged we can get the thinking part underway, which hopefully will lead to some ideas about how to do the withdrawing from the structures of the UK state part of this brilliant plan.

    The SNP’s 50 year Plan!

  80. HYUFD says:

    Doug Biden will only push for a border poll if Sinn Fein become the largest party at Stormont, on present polling the DUP will remain ahead and on that basis no grounds for the Secretary of State to call a border poll under the GFA.

    The House is already staying Democrat, the Senate may stay GOP after 2 run offs in Georgia in January

  81. Karen says:

    The Acts of Union promised a separate English Parliament. It has never been set up, the Treaty was broken (in many other ways too), let’s just leave with a new constitution and a crowd funded confirmatory referendum overseen by the UN.

  82. Pete Roberts says:

    I never thought I’d find myself saying or even contemplating this but I’m beginning to wonder if Sturgeon and Murrell are long term unionist plants in the SNP. After all the English have been subverting political opponents for hundreds of years, why would they not be at it with us? Especially with all our assets at stake.

  83. Ingwe says:

    Where, in history, has real power ever been obtained by a nation, by peaceful means, going along with their ruler’s power sharing?
    I nearly snorted my tea at the notion that the semi-fascistic EU is going to give a flying fuck about Scotland if the Tory government doesn’t permit a further referendum. Jesus. Naïve or just just plain stupidly dishonest?

  84. Stoker says:

    What’s the odd’s Wishart is exposed at some point down the line as one of those secret cross-dressers? I’ve had my suspicions for a very long time and they only seem to get stronger for some reason, not weaker.

    Another great dissection of his bile, Rev, not that you would have had to think too hard on this one but nevertheless good to see the c@nt shown up for what he is. A bullshitting bingo-Betty.

  85. holymacmoses says:

    It seems obvious that many SNP members are anxious to go to their graves keeping their dream of independence alive for the next generation.
    I’ve now come to the conclusion that Pomp and Circumstance Blackford made the remark on twitter to stir up trouble for the real Independence people. Blackford is no more anti-English than Andy Murray is anti-Scottish.
    As for Wishart: a man with even a little clout and no brains is at the very least a nuisance and at worst, dangerous – as Donald Trump has proven in America.

  86. Robert Louis says:

    This really is a crock of sh*t. Honestly, if that is the strategy, then WHY, WHY, WHY have they not been doing it? Why have they not been kicking up an unholy row in Westminster every single day since the brexit vote? Stimying votes, interrupting proceedings, causing problems. Why do we need to wait until sometime next year, or later, to even start to fight????

    Their is NOTHING undemocratic in making the election in May a vote on independence. Their is no law in Scotland bainning a referendum, none. Indeed, the claim of rights was only recently upheld by the UK parliament. You cannot on the one hand say, Scotland has a consitutional right to hold an independence referendum (by claim of right), then say, but we need permission. IT IS ABSURD.

    What is undemocratic, is the elected government of Scotland with a clear democratic mandate (several) to call an independence referendum, doing nothing.

    It is simply not acceptable to sit and wait, wait, wait, while London literally screws Scotland and its people, over and over and over again.

    As I often say, where is the outrage from the SNP, where is the fight? Scotland is being forcibly removed from the EU wholly against its wishes, yet they do nothing. THAT is undemocratic. Having poll after poll after poll showing an indy majority and STILL not acting, is undemocratic.

    Events are moving at a pace, and the SNP have their collective heads in the sand, muttering ‘oh, but once we win in May, that’ll show them..’ Delusional.

    My god, SNP, for goodness sake, will you wake the f*** up!

  87. Patsy Millar says:

    I give up!

  88. Muscleguy says:

    “Woah, easy there now, tiger! SNP MPs declining to serve on public bill committees? I mean, we want independence just as much as the next website but surely there’s no need to go straight to the nuclear option? How could we possibly deprive them of the pleasure of the company of Pete Wishart in their daily deliberations over important matters of state? We’re not MONSTERS.”

    Just back from a slow walk to the shops. Thanks Rev, that gave me a good belly laugh. He is definitely a tiger, the paper variety.

  89. Robert Louis says:

    Breeks at 337pm,

    Exactly. England may think Scotland is ‘theirs’, but it isn’t. We are in a union, which either party may end. And here’s the point, if England wanted independence, does anybody seriously believe they would wait to ask Scotland’s permission??

  90. Ron Maclean says:

    ‘Hermless, hermless, there’s never nae bother fae me … ‘ Michael Marra

  91. Andy Ellis says:

    @Muscleguy 4.33pm

    I know the ISP is on record as being a list only party for the Holyrood elections, and I’m fully on board with the logic for the time being & for #HR2021 elections, but the more I see of certain SNP representatives in both Holyrood and Westminster, the more I reckon they need to think about standing candidates against certain individuals.

    Mr Wishart is certainly one I’d actively campaign against. There are others. 🙂

  92. Robert Louis says:

    Lindsey at 314pm.

    Yes it is. Either party may withdraw from the treaty of union, as is the case with any other treaty between two nations. Scotland and England signed it, so either Scotland or England could end it. If England wanted to, it just would do it.

    The argument goes however, that in order for the Scotgov to do so, it needs a democratic decision by vote, and so either using an election or a referendum would do. Nicola Sturgeon however, insists that only a referendum will do, and she insists (although it isn’t correct) that she needs to beg Boris for permission.. and so on it goes.

    Meanwhile Scots are about to be foprcibly stripped of their EU rights and citizenship by England, wholly against our wishes. THAT is a democratic outrage.

    It is nonsense. No country ever gained independence by asking permission.

  93. Robert Louis says:

    The tories in 10 Downing street will be literally shaking in their boots, after reading what Pete Wishart is planning. I mean seriously, I cannot recall ever reading such utter, nonsensical p*sh, which is supposed to be a political ‘strategy’.

  94. Stoker says:

    Remember, wasn’t it Wishart who was touting the 60%+ line not that long ago? And now this? Is he trolling? I’d like to think so but the biggest part of me says don’t discount anything as far as this lot are concerned. We’re fucked and it gets more depressing with every passing day. 🙁

  95. Jason Smoothpiece says:


    Maggie thanks for that link interesting read.

  96. Muscleguy says:

    The particular details of how we are tied to England provides the solution to the problem. Stymied by WM’s No and by the constitution being Reserved not Devolved there is only one possible course of action: we bypass union law and go straight to International Law. Specifically the Treaty of Vienna provisions around international treaties.

    The parties involved, either one can withdraw from, abrogate, resile from a treaty by giving notice to do so.

    So, we simply declare as we did, in the presence of the monarch during the opening ceremony that Holyrood is the successor body of the Scots Parliament which signed the Treaty of Union. As such we hereby give notice to the international community of our intention to withdraw from the Treaty of Union due to manifest listed and ongoing breaches by the other party.

    This measure is subject to confirmation by referendum and Union law is suspended for the duration of the campaign. We then dare WM to send in the tanks in the full glare of international attention which there will be. That will be there only option. Holyrood controls the Polis including the transport polis now. Which just leaves the MoD polis who don’t have jurisdiction outside their bases and can be opposed by Polis Scotland.

    The international community doesn’t care a fig about HOW we become independent. Not even Spain. They just want to see an orderly arrangement agreed with WM. Who have a vested interest once they realise they’ve been stymied in agreeing one.

    Anyone who tells you the process of getting a Yes vote matters is lying or they misunderstand. It’s the negotiations afterwards which matter. Did the international community care about how the Czechoslovak split happened? No. Did we fail to intervene over Kosovo etc because they declared independence? No. We just urged the sides and continue to urge the sides to agree.

    If you think I’m wrong then who else is party to the Treaty of Union if not Holyrood?

  97. Effijy says:

    You fight fire with fire
    and it takes a thief to catch a thief!

    Westminster and the Tories have been thoroughly
    Nasty pieces of work throughout history.

    Look at Westminster’s history past and present.
    29 Million starved to death in India by them a retribution
    against Brits who tried to save them.
    How about 1 million starved to death in Ireland.
    How about them using the UDA terrorist group to kill people they only suspected might be IRA.
    How about forming the first concentration camps in South Africa were they starve to death women
    and children and introduced diseases to wipe them out quicker.
    The Highland clearances,
    The Stolen oil revenue
    The £10.5 Billion Covid steal for their fellow Tories.

    Nobody got independence or anything else from them
    By being nice.


    Get nasty with them and tell them like it is.
    Don’t let their media ask the questions, tell them
    The answers, tell them about their lies!

    My country never voted Tory in my life time, my country demanded to stay in the EU,
    My country didn’t want 10 years of austerity, nor a share of England’s Covid Bill.

    No later than the 1st of January the bell rings for the Blue Corner to come out fighting with both fists.

    Let’s get Boris and Brexit Beaten!

  98. Effijy says:

    Oven ready my arse Boris!

    Boris Johnson’s government has been warned of “mayhem” at Holyhead port when the Brexit transition period ends, even if a UK-EU trade deal is struck. The Irish Road Haulage Association said the first six months of 2021 would be “terrible” due to the lack of preparations.

    It comes as Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey has said that a no-deal Brexit would cause even more long-term damage to the UK’s economy than the coronavirus pandemic. The influential figure told MPs a deal was in the “best interests of both sides”.

  99. Robert Graham says:

    Why would Bawjaws consent to anything there is nothing for him to gain if Pete’s that bloody dumb he chose the wrong job

    Then again maybe he is smarter than we think cosy job well paid just talk a load of shite retire good pension aye I could handle that little number no problem .

    No wonder Bawjaws laughs when Blackford stands up he probably has a ear piece and is tuned into the cricket or racing results its all a bleedn game and us mugs have fell for it,

    The tory government couldn’t have dreamed of a better opponent if they had picked it themselves maybe they did , we by now have figured the last thing the SNP want is a Independent Scotland the biggest impediment to Martin Keatings court case is the SNP government ?

    I think the SNPs part in this deception has come to close they have served their purpose and people are starting to notice all the missed opportunities , the english media present them as always pushing for independence a lot of people are saying WTF have i missed all the palaver the big stooshie was it happening while i was out at the shops ,

    A clever person might have been a dictator anyway he said if you are going to tell a lie or carry out a deception make it a big one , a deception so big no one would believe that you would be guilty of it ,so off the wall so outlandish as to being behind it you could literally get away with murder and no one would question your involvement because it would be so far fetched and so unbelievable they would convince themselves it couldn’t be true ,go back and list as Stu has done look at all the missed chances then ask yourselves does this make sense is it believable or maybe the answer is staring us in the face and we cant belive it possible to be so fooled to that extent

  100. Lorna Campbell says:

    Alf Baird: You are correct. We could have been way down the road by now had the SG just done what it says on the tin and, in the wake of the 2014 result – a travesty of democratic and international justice because the Scottish people actually voted by a majority for independence, but were thwarted by an alliance of Scottish Unionists, EU residents and rUK residents – against all mores of the UN Charter.

    The UN Charter itself discourages colonial interventions (i.e. by people not originating in the country seeking independence) in the efforts of a people to gain their independence through its chapter on self-determination and its chapter on the elimination of colonialism. Then, the Treaty of Union is an international agreement between two former sovereign nations, and, as such, even one breaches the terms (Articles), the other is entitled to end the Union it created. Do not let anyone tell you that a) the Treaty is not extant or legally-binding in international law (with the Acts extant and legally-binding in domestic law) because they are lying to you through their pearlies. All those lawyer lordlings in the HoL know perfectly well how dangerous the Treaty could be to England’s interests and the future of the UK, from England’s elites’ viewpoint, which is why they want it taken out of international law and re-negotiated in domestic law as a new Act of Union.

    One can conclude only that the SG did not wish to upset the colonial alliance that pertained in 2014, and, albeit the EU residents would very likely vote YES this time, along with some Scottish Unionists and rUK No voters, the bulk of those 2014 NO voters remains and will oppose next time, too, when, in international law, they are breaching, illegally, the tenets of the UN Charter and the Treaty of Union both. It is an international disgrace, but, if we continue to do nothing pro active to press our own case in the UN, no other nation on the planet is going to do it for us.

    Pete Wishart is wrong: we never needed to try everything else before going to international law because we have always had the Treaty – and the Charter. In neither case did we require a majority of NO voters to turn to YES precisely because neither relies on a majority for independence. The moral and legal case is contained in the breaching by England of both the Treaty it signed with Scotland and the Charter it signed with the international community. We have to put the case before the international court by requesting an Address to the Floor of the General Assembly of the UN and a request that our case be passed by the GA to the ICJ for adjudication. Nicola Sturgeon Addressed the Floor on GRA reform. If she can do that for a minority of trans people, she can do the same for the majority of Scots.

  101. Lorna Campbell says:

    Unfortunately, Muscleguy, the Vienna Convention on Treaties is too recent to deal with an older Treaty like ours, but the UN does have special tribunals which could deal with ours, but it would, as you say, need the SG to get its finger out and request and Address to the UN, with a request to pass our case (we’d need to have one ready, a watertight one) to the ICJ (and/or the requisite tribunal). The UN is rarely pro active and will never interfere in UK domestic politics unless we make our case.

  102. Josef Ó Luain says:

    Cosy-feet-Pete is a political irrelevance with far too much spare time on his hands.

  103. Harry mcaye says:

    Daisy Walker 3.02on
    Absolutely superb post. Snap! I’ve contributed hundreds of £££s to the SNP over the last fifteen or so years. They HAVE embezzled that money (never did get the promised explanatory email) and I am now planning on spoiling my ballot next year, perhaps copying Stu’s rock and balls, if you see what I mean!
    I will likely vote for the ISP on the list but McKelvie can whistle for my vote. I look forward to the usual eve of vote phone call reminder, I plan to really let them have it!

  104. Morgatron says:

    I know don’t know who’s laughing at us the loudest.Im so glad I don’t use twitter I would be jailed the stuff I would say to floppy Pete. Pure utter guff a gibberish.

  105. Muscleguy says:

    @Lorna Campbell
    We can ask the Irish to set the process rolling on our behalf and bring us in as the interested party at the UN. I strongly suspect post Brexit they will be willing to do so. So might our Auld Alliance friends the French.

    Are you sure older treaties are not covered by the Vienna Conventions?

  106. Muscleguy says:

    We can cite many historic and ongoing violations of the terms of the Treaty to a UN Tribunal which could well help our case especially since there is no effective mechanism for redress of the matters violated and WM has ridden roughshod assuming it doesn’t matter. We need to rudely disabuse them of that notion.

  107. twathater says:

    WAIT , WAIT GUYS WE’VE all been had, weak pishart never posted that blog , I’VE got proof , look through the whole blog and there is no mention of Stu Campbell the demagogue , its a fake

  108. Muscleguy says:

    If we use the term Unfair British Treaty we will pique the interest of the Chinese. That is what they term the treaties imposed on them in the Opium Wars and its still a sore point with the Chinese. They will recognise the term.

  109. McHaggis69 says:

    did Pete mention the comfy chair and the soft cushions?

    Westminster won’t be expecting that, because…

  110. Sarah says:

    What about a petition to Holyrood now?

    There is a majority for independence – get a petition started instructing them to do – x,y,z i.e. all the sensible things we keep saying on here?

    Given enough signatories would make it difficult to ignore.

  111. Caroline Corfield says:

    It strikes me the SNP are oblivious to the notion that while the Scots could and are recognised by the UN as a nation, in the same way Native American tribes are, crucially it doesn’t mean you have a country, as both the Kurds and the Palestinians will also tell you. When Westminster dissolves Holyrood, on the basis of its already stated opinion that Scotland was extinguished upon the act of union, then they will have nothing to go on. Nationhood without any control over the land you occupy is an internationally tolerated and recognised situation.

    Of course they can still be representatives in Westminister for North Britain. So they will continue to have the opportunity to refuse committee positions.
    They better take heed of what happened to Labour in the north of a England recently.

  112. Hatuey says:

    the one and only good thing about tier 4 was that I could look forward to a Christmas in peace, without the torture of family gatherings…

    We’ve got to get rid of this usurper.

  113. Imbecile_Heureux says:

    You’re right that waiting for the “international community” cavalry is not a winning strategy. But the other option – suggested by Craig Murray and which you have endorsed – is really no better. Firstly, it relies on recognition of a UDI by the “international community” (spoiler: it won’t rush to recognise us, any more than they will rush to our rescue in any other way). Secondly, it completely misrepresents the international law of self-determination. I haven’t found a single international lawyer who believes that international law grants a right of unilateral secession in a situation like Scotland’s. As far as I can see, this isn’t even controversial amongst experts: Scotland has no right under the international law of self-determination to unilaterally secede.

    As far as I can see, “Plan A” – embarrass whoever happens to be UK PM at the time – into allowing a referendum is really the only possibility.

  114. Mike Fenwick says:

    Theresa May – House of Commons – 4th December 2018:

    Ultimately membership of any union that involves the pooling of sovereignty can only be sustained with the consent of the people.

    David Davis – Marr Show – 10th March 2019:

    There is no other treaty in the world I am aware of where a sovereign nation undertakes to join up, and can only leave when the other side says so.

    Attorney General Geoffrey Cox – House of Commons – 12th March 2019:

    A sovereign state has the right to withdraw if a treaty is no longer compatible with its fundamental interests.

  115. CameronB Brodie says:

    Fortunately. an understanding of, and respect for, the Natural law, acts as a guide to how we should treat historical Treaty obligations. Which aren’t optional, unless you consider re-writing legal history and breaking international law to be compatible with social democracy. In which case, you have no reasonable argument. So here’s a look at “The Persistent Spectre: Natural Law, International Order and the Limits of Legal Positivism.

  116. Alf Baird says:

    Lorna Campbell/Breeks

    On the question of ‘international recognition’, in my experience, having worked on transnational transport research projects over many years, policy makers and governments in most other countries remain totally unaware of the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England as the constitutional basis of the present UK joint-venture state, or of the fact of Scottish sovereignty. The general view ‘out there’ is that Scotland is merely a region or colony of the UK/England, and primarily this is because that is how the UK/England has portrayed Scotland to RoW.

    The SNP MP’s and the SNP Scottish Government has made no attempt at official levels to make the international community aware of Scotland’s actual constitutional status. Efforts should have been made long before now to inform the EU, OECD, UN and international courts etc of Scotland’s elected National Party majorities intent to withdraw Scotland from the UK treaty alliance arrangement, which is their right as sovereign representatives of the Scottish people.

    For SNP politicians to now say that they/we must depend on international recognition is a bit of a joke given the lack of effort made by the SNP elite to inform the international community about the reality of Scotland’s constitutional position, as well as our ongoing political and cultural subjugation. I expect that if the international community were made aware that a sovereign Scotland’s own lawful international treaty is the only thing holding Scotland to the UK union alliance then recognition of an independent Scottish state would be rapidly forthcoming.

    Perhaps the best word to describe the SNP is ‘daeless’ (i.e. feeble or useless).

  117. Melvin says:

    I have come to the opinion that I never thought I would, I hope the Tories do close seems the only way that we will get real action.I am disgusted by Pete wishart, he is supposed to be fighting for our independence. H e is a joke…a clown. If this is the ”master plan” of mainstream SNP, then we need a Alex back fast or someone that will do the damned job they have been elected to do. We are not British and we are sick of the SNP playing the British game.

    I can’t believe this utter shit from our so called party of independence. I sometimes believe that the Scots like Pete are born to be slaves and subservient to the British, what a disaster Pete wishart is a house jock.

  118. HYUFD says:

    Muscleguy Given the Chinese have just evicted pro democracy legislators from the Hong Kong legislature and cracked down on protests and effectively ripped up the one country two systems process to impose direct rule from Beijing on Hong Kong the idea they will be able to say anything about Westminster blocking indyref2 without looking like complete hypocrites is absurd and they won’t

  119. HYUFD says:

    Same of course goes for Madrid given their record over Catalonia and what Madrid says on it the EU will follow

  120. Beaker says:

    I’m sure someone will have answered this at some point in the past, but stupid questions are the one you don’t ask.

    What is the point is going to the UN if the UK has a veto?

  121. Stuart MacKay says:


    You might be onto something. I read through some of Disney Pete’s other musings and I had to check the website address to make sure I hadn’t gone to Gordon Brown’s site instead.

    Every statement is just the cringe repeated over and over and over. Better not upset the children with our uppitiness. Better be nice and not ask for too much. Better not give offence. Bloody Hell.

    No wonder the international community won’t intervene. Another nation governed by spineless jellyfish is just going to be a burden rather than an asset.

    See that independence. It’s not really for us. No. Better stay inside and not cause too much of a fuss.

  122. MaggieC says:

    Live tonight at 7.00 pm ,

    What is going on in the Snp ,Twa auld heids speak to National Secretary candidate David Henry about transparency, openness, equality and of course INDEPENDENCE Tuesday evening at 7pm
    on IndyLiveStream

    A must see for any voting delegate to decide on who to vote for.

  123. John Digsby says:

    I’m intrigued by these constitutional arguments about the Treaty of Union. The only potential issue is that the Scottish Parliament as currently constituted is not necessarily legally the reinstatement of the old one (despite rhetorical statements to the contrary). If so, Holyrood is a creature of Westminster and so isn’t capable of resiling from a treaty signed by some other Parliament that signed over its authority to Westminster.

    And if Holyrood isn’t competent in this regard, how do we resile the treaty? I think only Westminster can

    Before anyone gets too outraged, I know that the Scottish people are sovereign, but that’s the problem. How do they express that will? A plebiscite is needed – I agree May will do, but there needs to be something, followed by a negotiation

    Happy to have it pointed out that I’m wrong on the nature of the current Holyrood – it’s just something I’ve never been certain of. Can anyone point me to a document or something ?

  124. Papko says:

    “Caroline Corfield says:
    24 November, 2020 at 5:57 pm
    It strikes me the SNP are oblivious to the notion that while the Scots could and are recognised by the UN as a nation, in the same way Native American tribes are, crucially it doesn’t mean you have a country, as both the Kurds and the Palestinians will also tell you.”

    Welcome to Wings Caroline, you are a breath of fresh air.

  125. Graeme says:

    I’ve often wondered the same thing John,
    If I remember correctly when the devolved parliament was first opened in 1999 Winnie Ewing declared the Scottish parliament reconvened but just because she said it doesn’t make it so.

    Holyrood is a Westminster construct and not necessarily a continuation of the same parliament that sold our sovereignty back in 1707.

    I’d be happy to be proved wrong

  126. iain mhor says:

    Ahh there we go, ‘…pursued with a firm belief in independence democracy, consent and constitutionaity’ & ‘we have tried everything’ & ‘legal and democratic’

    So the Westminster process, it’s elections, its Government and the ‘constitution of the UK; is not democratic, is not by consent, is unconstitional, is not accepted by the ‘international community’ by any legal or moral stanndard and that is why – amongst all the ‘everything we have tried’ – it is the one thing the SNP have not tried – nor will, ever.

    ‘De do do do De da da da’ is all I hear Pete – your logic ties me up and r**es me.

  127. crazycat says:

    @ Papko at 7.13

    Caroline has commented many times before on Wings, though not much recently. Her posts have always been worth reading.

  128. Bob Mack says:

    @John Digsby,

    When Winnie Ewing opened the Scottish Parliament she used the term “re_convened”.

    Regardless of it being a Devolved parliament it represents the will of the Scottish people no less than those it elects to Westminster.

    The problem is that the SNP do not seem to have faith in that concept. They appear reluctant to test that fact in court.

    Everybody and their dug believe in the principle of Scottish people’s sovereignty.apart from the SNP. They mention it but never act on it. They appear to accept it only exists when Westminster allows it to exist.

  129. Kenny says:

    I too disagree with Winnie Ewing’s statement. Scotland is not an independent nation and so Holyrood is a devolved assembly.

    However… as the people of Scotland are sovereign, it makes sense that their parliament is their voice. At the same time, so are the MPs who are sent to Westminster. The MPs sent to Westminster could easily find a committee room (or even a car park) and either declare independence or rule on the holding of an indyref2. Both acts would be legal.

    This is all the problem of not having a written constitution.

  130. Republicofscotland says:

    I don’t think Pete Wishart actually knows what will happen on the indyfront, after all its not his call its Sturgeon’s call, and from what we can see her modus operandi is one of keeping the SNP in power, whilst keeping independence at bay, albeit talking about it close to elections to rouse the faithful into voting for the SNP.

    I get the distinct feeling from the SNP under Sturgeon and Murrell, that its preferable to be in power in a deeply subdued Scotland, than to be possibly out of power in an independent Scotland.

    Sturgeon and Murrell know fine well we really (at present) don’t have an alternative party to vote for that could deliver independence. They’re playing to this weakness and using it against the indy faithful, which is of course totally unforgivable.

    Pete Wishart’s article is a sideline a distraction, a muse on what won’t be, its a reassurance to the eternally hopeful indy faithful that under Sturgeon and Murrell, Scotland will become independent, sadly that couldn’t be further from the truth.

  131. Hatuey says:

    The disturbing thing about the Wishart article is that it represents their position in an exaggerated, rhetorical, and motivational form. That’s the emboldened sexed up version of their strategy, intended as a rebuttal to criticism that they’re weak and too timid.

    The fact that they’re even discussing independence means they’re panicking.

  132. Bob Mack says:

    The problemswith the Act of Union is simple really as would be the challenge in Court.

    The Act of Union was signed on behalf of the Scottish people and not by them. That concept does not and should not exist, especially as we now have mechanisms to gauge that will, rather than obtaining that of the local Lord of the Manor.

    It was illegal from day 1 under the declaration of Arbroath.

  133. Republicofscotland says:

    Has the Scottish government taken a leaf out of Gove’s book with FoI’s in mind.

  134. AYRSHIRE ROB says:

    Next referendum 2029 is a shoe in.

    Get to the bookies!

  135. Saffron Robe says:

    It is my understanding that the unitary state of the United Kingdom can only exist/operate under the conditions of the Treaty of Union. If those conditions are broken, which Brexit does (or will do officially on 01/01/2021 by granting different trade and customs arrangements to NI), then the United Kingdom will no longer exist.

  136. bipod says:

    So here we are in another lockdown despite “cases” already going down. The good news is that nicola has graciously allowed us to meet with up to three households for a few days this Christmas! Bad news is she is already planning for another lockdown for after the christmas period. We already had a lockdown in all but name in october that achieved exactly nothing but that hasn’t impacted nicolas faith in lockdown being the only solution. The “firebreak”/”circuit breaker” lockdowns that were only supposed to last a few weeks have also achieved nothing and have been extended with more planned. Remember there is still zero evidence showing that lockdowns have saved a single life.

    They say that we just need to wait until April where things will be back to normal, but they won’t define what normal is. Does that mean no more face masks, no more restrictions how many people I am allowed to meet and no more social distancing? Somehow I don’t think so.

    I saw today that Matt Hanock wants to repurpose the testing system built for covid to look for other trivial illnesses like the cold and the flu so we can have a new panicdemic every year, the society busting restrictions will surely follow. This is the future the lockdown fanatics have ushered in.

  137. Andy Ellis says:

    This may prove controversial with some on here, but folk get too hung up on the Act of Union, the Treaty of Union, the Claim of Right and the Declaration of Arbroath. Interesting as these all are, and nice to have in a historical sense and even as back up for our campaign going forward, they risk becoming a distraction if people continually hark back to them as though they were somehow going to be instrumental in gaining independence.

    Every people has the right to self determination. The Scots are a people. It wouldn’t actually matter if there was no such thing as any of the treaties, claims or declarations mentioned above. Many, many peoples have achieved their independence without these…..advantages.

    The international community isn’t going to give us independence any more than the British nationalists are. We have to assert it and then take it ourselves. They will only help us or intervene in very specific circumstances. It is true that they will generally not look kindly on UDI or conflict situations, but it simply isn’t true (as Wishart and other gradualists insist) that plebiscitary elections will be regarded as illegitimate or analogous to UDI à la Catalonia.

    What we require is an SNP ready and willing to take the fight to the enemy, a party and movement which will not take no for an answer. That means rejecting the gradualism exhibited by Wishart in his blog yesterday, and if necessary replacing the SNP if it cannot or will not change. If that takes years then so be it, because we all know it’s going to take years for the current SNP to achieve anything meaningful.

  138. Bob Mack says:

    The whole issue of the Declaration of Arbroath and hence the legality of the Act of Union depends on the analysis of ONE WORD in the Declaration of Arbroath.

    That word is “people”.

    This must be challenged in Court.

    Westminster will assert that” people “refers to the nobility in Scotland, whereas we believe it refers to everyone. Every man woman and child. The ones who fought for Kings and freedom to allow both to continue.

    That is the crux of the matter.

  139. Jonathan Marshall says:

    If that is the plan Pete then… God help Scotland…. and I’m not religious. Given the UK requires our Oil and gas resources for at least the next couple of decades as we still pump, even with all the doom and gloom between 2/3rds and 3/4s of the U.K.s daily requirement. I guess Alastair Jack has it about right… It will be about 25yrs before they consider it. Mean we will just have to suck it up… More austerity, more excess spending on our behalf (to make Britain great again I get it) we will just have to get used to No… Not now… Not the right time… God (there he is again) how depressing. Of course I may be missing something cunning in all tihis. Happy to be enlightened.

  140. Alf Baird says:

    Saffron Robe

    Perhaps it is a forlorn hope, but hope nonetheless that the Brexit breach making the ToU invalid results in the majority of Scotland’s sovereign national representatives giving notice to terminate the UK alliance arrangement on 31st December.

  141. MorvenM says:

    Lindsey says:
    24 November, 2020 at 3:14 pm
    ‘I’m confused. I didn’t read one concrete plan in that to actually achieve independence. All I got from it was “we can’t let other countries think we’ll fight as hard and dirty as WM, they think we’re really nice”.

    Is simply withdrawing from the Treaty of Union not a viable option?’

    I think Nicola Sturgeon’s obsession with respectability and self-image is at the root of all this. It’s always “Oooh, what would the neighbours say? They might think I’m a racist.”

    Of course we could withdraw from the Treaty of Union. She just doesn’t have the stomach for it.

  142. Effijy says:

    New name for Scottish Independence supporters

    Indy Yins.

    God know we are up against the cowboys of Westminster.

    Nicola is known as Broken Arrow!
    (Canny be fired)

  143. Lorna Campbell says:

    Muscleguy: I think we could ask a third party to help get in front of the UN, but would Ireland, or any other country, want to alienate Westminster? International politics is a slimy business and self-interest rules. It is always worth a try, though. I have never understood why the Scots have never made more use of the Scottish diaspora, especially in The States.

    Alf: Correct. Most other countries have not a clue about the basis of the UK. They think of England and the rest of us are either English, too, or defeated peoples who have been incorporated. Indeed, many in England think like this, as do many Scots, who know the truth but prefer the status quo. I have no comprehension either about why the most total lack of informal, as opposed to formal, political diplomacy, the formal being a UK prerogative, has been so prevalent since devolution. It is, perhaps, understandable that the Unionists would not have wanted to push this, but the SNP? It is almost as if anything we do that does not actually and actively involve Westminster is not permissible. It is a kind of colonial mindset that makes no sense in the context of Brexit – or makes perfect sense if you don’t actually want independence (yet, or ever). I will vote one last time for the SNP, in 2021, on the constituency vote, because there is no choice, and they know it and exploit it, but they have alienated me politically and as a woman to the extent that I am sickened by them.

  144. Famous15 says:

    @ HYFUD fount of all Unionist Knowledge. Subject Michelle Ballantyne.

    What is the skinny on the ersewhile(sic) candidate for leadership of Scottish Tories resigning from the party but staying as an MSP even though list? (Is this even allowed)?

    Is it true that that they betrayed the principles of Ghengis Khan and she wished mair weans up chimbleys?

  145. Lorna Campbell says:

    Saffron Robe: the Treaty might have survived devolution if England had also been devolved, but the breaching of its fundamental tenet, the Union itself, ensured that it would lose the rest of us. In fact, everything that stems from England’s hi-jacking of the Treaty had led to today’s state of being in the UK. Had England played fair and we had become a real federal state, we might have few grievances today. England has always been an imperial/colonial power, from its inception as a nation, always looking to conquer everyone else on these islands, and that has been its downfall. We survived centuries of invasion and oppression precisely because we always had England to galvanize us. The three satellite parts of the UK (and Ireland) have always maintained our own identities because we always baulked at English hegemony. Ironically, a far less aggressive and arrogant neighbour would probably have swallowed us up long ago.

    If Scotland leaves, Wales will follow, as will NI or it will return to Ireland. The very act of purloining the Union and the UK to itself will leave England on its own eventually. Its power will wane naturally, although that will be a very painful process. Sweden was once a colonial power with an empire, a military machine that once invaded mighty Russia (and failed, as did Napoleon and Hitler). Now, it is part of the Scandi archipelago. Once we are all independent, we might become all come parts of a larger British loose alliance of states.

  146. McDuff says:

    I`ve no hair left and my steering wheel is covered in bite marks, I can`t take much more of this. We are stuck on a bus with the driver taking us nowhere powerless to alter the direction.
    Something needs to be done and done now to change this road to nowhere. But what??

  147. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    “I think we could ask a third party to help get in front of the UN, but would Ireland, or any other country, want to alienate Westminster?”

    I think you are on to something here @Lorna Campbell says at 9:47 pm

    Maybe we could offer to extradite those two “Proud Scots Buts”

    Gordon ‘There’s been a Broontervention’ Brown and Tony ‘the alleged convicted cottager’ Blair to Iraq to stand trial.

    One for ordering and the other for financing the UKs illegal War of Aggression (as per Nuremberg precedent) against their country if they’d do it for us!


  148. Daisy Walker says:

    I see some folks speculating on Weet Pishart’s motives and strategy …

    And you all could be right.

    What is for sure is the following ground is not being covered. And it needs to be.

    There is no form of co-ordinated SNP party education/media strategy (within the party and outwith to the voters) ongoing, regarding the damage a No Deal Brexit will do, and the Danger to Holyrood re the Power Grab/Internal Market Bill.

    Nil, None, Nada, Ziltch, Zero. Absolutely Nothing. Zip. Tumble weed.


  149. Lenny Hartley says:

    Just had a very enjoyable evenings entertainment listening to Craig Murray address a grass routes Oban zoom Meeting. Even post Covid, zoom is the way to go to, nothing to stop a traditional meeting and a zoom meeting to be held concurrently.
    Thanks to Ruth for organising and Craig for imparting his knowledge and thoughts.

  150. Daisy Walker says:

    McDuff says:
    24 November, 2020 at 10:04 pm
    I`ve no hair left and my steering wheel is covered in bite marks, I can`t take much more of this. We are stuck on a bus with the driver taking us nowhere powerless to alter the direction.
    Something needs to be done and done now to change this road to nowhere. But what??


    I can only speak for myself, I’m giving it until the end of the SNP conference – I have very little hope that there will be any purposeful change there.

    After that I’m going down to Holyrood to do my shift.

    Holyrood Election has got to be a Plebiscite Election – that’s all I know for certain.

    I have one promise to myself, and that is not to leave anything on the shelf. Win or lose, that is all any of us can do.

    On the first day of Brexit, Westminster sent to me …..

  151. MaggieC says:

    Re my post on the previous thread about tomorrow’s debate ,

    I see that there’s now an amendment in the name of John Swinney ,

    Legal Advice

    As an amendment to motion S5M-23445 in the name of Murdo Fraser (Legal Advice), leave out from “notes that the legal advice” to end and insert “acknowledges that this complex matter is being actively considered by Ministers; notes that the right of private access to legal advice is a fundamental right under Scots Law, and recognises that, since that vote of the Parliament, the Lord Advocate has shared extensive detail of the Scottish Government’s legal position with the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints at its meeting on 17 November 2020, will be writing further to the Committee following that meeting, and stands ready to provide additional information as the Committee requires.”

    I don’t know what extensive details John Swinney thinks the Lord Advocate shared with the Committee as he avoided answering any questions at the meeting on the 17 th .

  152. Frank Gillougley says:

    Having been an avid follower, scrutiniser and full-time lurker of this site since its inception way back, I have absolutely no qualms in making the following statement without prejudice:

    Pete Wishart IS a tosser.

    Ther, I can now go to sleep and get up for my work the morra morning knowing that all in the world is well. I feel that I have absolutely no need to go into a long-winded historical, political, musical or psychoanalytical explanation concerning the above opinion and that my conscience is clear. Tomorrow, I will feel that I am fully human and ready to contribute fully to the well-being of others.

    Like many others here, I just had to get Pete Wishart out of my system.

  153. Andy Ellis says:

    @Daisy Walker

    I’m pretty taken with Common Weal’s response and the fact that at least *some* in the SNP seem to be on board with their proposals, which – even if not everybody will agree with all of them – at least represent something better than Wishart’s toom tabard gradualism.

  154. Tannadice Boy says:

    Thanks for the update. That amendment will get voted down.

  155. AYRSHIRE ROB says:

    Michelle Ballantyne must stand as an independant, no?

  156. Saffron Robe says:

    I just think from a Scottish perspective, we have to base our case for independence around the Treaty of Union. It then becomes a judicial argument which we can pursue legally and peacefully in an international court of law. The alternative is to countenance the use of violence which legally we have no need to resort to – our ancestors ensured us that right. (And I am not talking about Nicola Sturgeon’s understanding of legality which is nothing short of capitulation. As Breeks said above, she is constitutionally illiterate!)

  157. MaggieC says:

    Tannadice Boy @ 10.35 pm

    You’re welcome , it could be a very interesting debate . LOL

  158. Daisy Walker says:

    Andy Ellis says:
    24 November, 2020 at 10:31 pm

    ‘I’m pretty taken with Common Weal’s response and the fact that at least *some* in the SNP seem to be on board with their proposals, which – even if not everybody will agree with all of them – at least represent something better than Wishart’s toom tabard gradualism.’

    Aye Andy, and I think in order for the ‘some’ within the SNP to be able to act, the rest of us will need to get on with it and make it so they have no choice.

    I see no sign that they are prepared to break free and Lead, (and in fairness I can see why – its just we are running out of time) and there is a danger, that they too (or some within) will also be ‘gradualists’ just not quite so ‘gradualist’ as the ones before.

    After all the Brit Nats have done it once, why would the not do it again. Belt and Braces n all that.

  159. crazycat says:

    @ Ayrshire Rob

    If you mean at the election next year, she probably won’t stand at all – very little chance of being elected.

    There’s nothing to stop her continuing as an independent till then, though. She’s only in the parliament at all because of the 2017 Westminster GE. John Lamont stood down as a constituency MSP ahead of that election, so that there could be a Holyrood by-election on the same day (sounds familiar!).

    Rachel Hamilton stood down on the list to contest that by-election (she and Lamont both won, unfortunately), and her place was automatically taken by Ballantyne. She is, however, the last person on the Tory list for South of Scotland (I think), so if she were to resign altogether, the seat would remain vacant until next May.

    So she’ll stay there. The only difference it makes is financial; she’ll get a salary and expenses that we’d save if there were an empty seat.

  160. Hatuey says:

    Andy Ellis, 9.24: “ folk get too hung up on the Act of Union, the Treaty of Union, the Claim of Right and the Declaration of Arbroath.“

    Correct. And it’s an uncontested fact that Scotland is a country. I don’t know why people want to argue a point that has already been conceded, even by Unionists. The 2014 referendum confirmed not only that Scotland is a country but that its destiny is a decision for the Scottish people.

    It doesn’t annoy me that people dwell on this historical and cultural stuff, but it is essentially pointless distraction for them. All the more so when the only existing political entity capable of delivering a referendum seems to have been hijacked by a bunch of shameless charlatans.

    I’m not trying to tell people what they can and can’t talk about. Of course, I’m not. But if you have any desire to be relevant and useful, you should devote every sentence to deposing those who stand in the way of us achieving independence.

    Today, right now, the first and biggest obstacle to independence is the SNP leadership. There is no route to independence as long as the current SNP leadership remains and the party is committed to the Section 30 process.

    Nothing any of you say about Scottish history and culture, in your “mither” or any other “tungs”, will assist in any recognisable way towards getting the hijackers out and taking us forward.

  161. crazycat says:

    @ me at 11.30

    She’ll probably still vote with the Tories on most things, so I suppose there might be the odd vote here and there where she could make a difference.

  162. CameronB Brodie says:

    I wouldn’t take too much notice of those who try to down-play the significance of international law. Especially when concerning Treaty obligations. Not if you value the “Law of treaties” that is. Or the “Theory of Regulation” and the rule of law.

  163. Big Jock says:

    Frank 10.45.

    Can I add that he is a fanny!

  164. Fireproofjim says:

    Biden has just lobbed a big spanner in the Brexit plans of the Tories.
    NO trade deal with the USA if there is any sort of “defended” border with Ireland.

  165. John Digsby says:

    @Graeme, Bob Mack and Kenny

    Thanks for your responses. Food for thought.

  166. Bob Mack says:


    If what you claim actually tdue, then Martin Keatings might as well give up his court case now due to irrelevance of status of Scots as sovereign .

    You agree?

  167. AYRSHIRE ROB says:

    Crazy cat.

    Aye you’re probably right.She’ll just trough till may that wan That’s the bitch that wanted young mothers sterilised was she no?

    Anyhow she would make good oversized Chucky Doll that wan. Evil cow.

  168. AYRSHIRE ROB says:

    Mibbie I should have said

    Real life sized Chucky Doll lol

  169. Hatuey says:

    Bob Mack, not only do I not agree, I think it’s a stupid question.

    Keatings is arguing that Holyrood has the right to legislate for a referendum. Had he been arguing that Scotland is a country, he wouldn’t need a fundraiser.

  170. ScotsRenewables says:

    The Grassroots Oban meeting with Craig Murray was excellent tonight, I hope some of you were there.

  171. Hatuey says:

    From Keatings’ own fundraiser page;

    “ The case is seeking a declarator of the Court, that the Scottish Parliament has the power to legislate for the holding of a referendum on whether Scotland should be an independent country, without requiring the consent of the UK government or any further amendment of the Scotland Act 1998 (the “1998 Act”).“

  172. Bob Mack says:


    Scotland has always been a country. It’s recognised and named on every map of the world.

    That’s not the questikn. The question is what makes us have the right to a referendum If we choose.

  173. Bob Mack says:


    What do you think Martin Keatings is relying on to obtain that verdict?

    Do you think it’s Holyrood or Westminster legislation (under the Scotland Act)?

    I think not.

  174. CameronB Brodie says:

    I think the argument can be boiled down to whether or not those living in Scotland can make effective claims to possessing human rights. I’d suggest the latter, which simply isn’t compatible with the “Dynamic nature of human rights: Rawls’s critique of moral universalism”. So it is hard to square Brexit with liberal constitutionalism guaranteed through the rule-of-law. So the Tories have broken the legal bonds that justified their precious yoonyawn, through their gammon flavoured pigheaded cultural chauvinism. My heart bleeds for them.

    “Human rights do not represent an absolute truth. Otherwise, they would represent ideology, which is contradictory to the basic idea of human rights itself. Consequently, there is a need for redefinition of the main presuppositions of modern conception of human rights represented in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This paper argues that Rawls’s conception of human rights is significant for the refiguration of human rights. It represents the path towards postmodern idea of human rights and the recognition of difference.”

  175. Stan Broadwood says:


    FUCK OFF!!!

  176. MaggieC says:

    After the justice committee meeting today this is from Rhona Hotchkiss on twitter ,

    @theSNP @NicolaSturgeon
    I resign. I cannot be in a party where the abuse of women goes uncommented on, where campaigning around retaining the meaning of ‘woman’ will become a prosecutable offence & where our most vulnerable women are sacrificed on the altar of men’s feelings.

    And another of Rhona’s tweets ,

    “ So @HumzaYousaf stating ‘transwomen are not women’ will be considered a crime if accompanied by ‘aggressive campaigning’. Define ‘aggressive’. Congratulations Sir. You may be the first Justice Minister to oversee the jailing of an ex-prison governor, because I’m not stopping. “

    And this from Rhona on Bbc earlier this year ,

    “ Ex prison chief expresses concern about trans women in female jails “

  177. Breeks says:

    Andy Ellis says:
    24 November, 2020 at 9:24 pm
    This may prove controversial with some on here, but folk get too hung up on the Act of Union, the Treaty of Union, the Claim of Right and the Declaration of Arbroath. Interesting as these all are…

    I don’t think that is controversial Andy. Scotland’s people have the same rights of self determination as everybody else, and that entitles you to become a nation and seek recognition for it. The significance of Scotland’s Constitution and the Union Treaty is that you are not creating a nation based upon your human rights, but specifically resurrecting the ancient nation of Scotland and ending a bilateral treaty it signed with England.

    That’s the reason Scotland doesn’t properly need a UDI, because Scottish Independence is not the act of creating Scotland from first principles, but liberating ‘auld’ Scotland. In constitutional terms, that’s a much easier thing to do. End the 1707 Treaty of Union, and the United Kingdom ceases to exist, and Scottish Independence is a straightforward drive for International Recognition of that legal actuality. I’m curious why we would want to pursue International Recognition without having that legal actuality safe in our hip pocket.

    I know there are parts of the world like Kashmir and Palestine where legal Constitutional Nations are disputed, and International Recognition is not the defining matter it should be, but I suppose you just have to have faith in the International Community that Scotland’s assertion of sovereignty would be respected, and recognised as lawful.

    There are unique circumstances in Palestine and Kashmir, (not least the dubious attitudes of certain nations), but I honestly don’t believe Scotland those dynamics would affect Scotland. Scotland has undisputed borders and national integrity, and no outstanding territorial disputes to complicate who Scotland “belongs” to.

    The plain truth is that it’s the Declaration of Arbroath and 700 years of provenance which we have to thank for those distinctions, and why we don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

  178. twathater says:

    In the current predicament we are facing I find it very annoying that there are so many new list parties being formed , ALL the people within these parties , officials and members know within themselves that it will be extremely hard to gain enough votes to be elected to HR whether on the list or FPTP

    Without being disrespectful surely every one within these parties knows that we are in DANGER of being subsumed and sold out ,so surely the immediate imperative is what is best for Scotland

    I make an appeal to the leaders and officials of these parties , PLEASE put self interest aside , put policies aside and come to an arrangement where you amalgamate as 1 political party , make your intentions known that your party will challenge both LIST and CONSTITUENCY seats and declare publicly that your manifesto for HR 2021 will have 1 policy and that policy is a plebicite that if you are elected to power that will be a declaration of the will of the Sovereign electorate of Scotland that the union is dissolved

    If there is an agreement by the largest parties to amalgamate into 1 to go forward then YES supporters will know who to give their votes to , to forward independence , any party who doesn’t want to join the NEW PARTY will then be known to YES supporters and in the current situation I would question their intentions and motivation

    WE YES supporters have to show that we are not willing to wait on fantasy promises from the SNP gradualist hierarchy , we DEMAND ACTION NOW

  179. Stuart MacKay says:

    Clearly and succinctly put Breeks.

    This is what in so infuriating about statements from Wishart etc. It seems they purposely frame the debate from the Catalonia perspective which is about as far from the goal as you can possibly get. There’s no mention of Norway whose history is a much better analogy even though that is still somewhat inaccurate as Scotland is much more than a semi-autonomous region.

    If the past few years had been spent making the case for Scotland around world then this would all be a done deal. It’s not as if we lack identity. The country’s intentions would be clear and even the most avid supporter of England (are there any) would have had time to come to terms which the inevitability of an independent Scotland.

    Alas, given the mediocrity of the current government that probably didn’t occur to them.

  180. Stuart MacKay says:

    Daisy Walker at 10:14pm

    There is no form of co-ordinated SNP party education/media strategy (within the party and outwith to the voters) ongoing, regarding the damage a No Deal Brexit will do, and the Danger to Holyrood re the Power Grab/Internal Market Bill.

    Simply stunning. Every tiny flek of shit that hits the fan come January 1st can and probably should be pinned on the Scottish Government – bankrupt fishermen, suicidal farmers, factory closings, food shortages, the lot. All down to willful blindness or simple incompetence.

    This is a stick that can be used to beat the government all day, every day. The charge that they sat by and watched the train-wreck unfold but instead of trying to mitigate the effects they frittered the time away appeasing a vanishingly small segment of the population who felt left out.

  181. Robert Graham says:

    Every member of the SNP government should be obliged to attend their local eye clinic then walked past this bloody great big English Government alternative parliament building right in the centre of Edinburgh,
    Then the question should be ok folks





  182. McDuff says:

    Exactly Robert.
    The silence on this from the SNP is deafening. Its just another example of the SNP’s continuing indifference to Westminsters aggression.

  183. Kevin Cargill says:

    Pete Wishart, the coward who blocks everyone who disagrees with him rather than debate them, is one of the biggest disappointments in the Indy movement. A few years ago I actually believed he was more radical than some others in the party and even believed he could one day lead the party. But over the last couple of years he’s become a wet blanket trailed through the mud behind his beloved woke leader who has also now proved to be a disappointment. The SNP I knew growing up has recently forgotten what it stands for. Whether it’s through infiltration by single issue woke youth, lies upon lies to cover up conspiracies and corruption, or losing, hiding or otherwise misusing donations, the SNP has lost its direction and focus. The Independence For Scotland party must now decide whether to stick to just ISP2 or take on the SNP head on as THE party fir independence in Scotland. And as a matter of urgency!

  184. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @Robert Graham –

    Hear hear.

    I’m not very familiar with Edinburgh so I don’t know how close to the ‘centre’ the new hub is, but it’s an obvious focal point for long-term protest as discussed here many times previously.

    And there’s no point trying to be secretive about it. Everything we do is monitored to the nth degree and we’ve always had tractors in our midst. That’s just the nature of modern politics and there’s hee-haw we can do about it. But we can play along with it – let’s just openly discuss how we’ll use that Scottish Office building as a hub of our own. They won’t be frightened into shutting it down but at least they’ll know to expect us on their doorstep every day and we’ll also be doing something that Wishart and his spineless ilk can’t try to steal the credit for.

  185. James says:

    HYFUD’s farting on here again. I thought I could smell shite.

  186. Willie says:

    Has the SNP lost its way.

    Well if membership is anything to go by it is a resounding yes it has. From a high of over 125,000 two years ago reports suggest that the party may over the last twelve to eighteen months shed some 55,000 members.

    People it seem are voting with their feet and it’s not a resounding endorsement of Mr and Mrs Murrell’s leadership of the party.

    I trust that a question about membership levels will be asked at conference because if we are shedding members at this rate then electors could be soon to follow. And that is precisely why we need to get our party back on track.

  187. Willie says:

    And then you consider some of the elected at Westminster.

    Comfortable on their well pensioned, well expensed, and well paid salaries. Initially the claim was elect me and I will work tirelessly at Westminster only for as long as it takes to secure independence.

    Hasn’t quite worked out like that. Nice new car, nice new house out of the constituency, gentlemen’s hours, a bit of status with little to do, it’s good well paid work. No wonder there’s a reluctance by many to push independence.

    But not all are like that. Unfortunately they are not in control and are not likely to be under the current leadership. So it’s a new car for her, a new house for him, good wages and expenses and a gold plated pension.

    Meanwhile the party membership crumbles along with the cause.

  188. Andy Ellis says:

    @Bob Mack

    I’m not sure what point it is you’re trying to make? Martin Keatings should never have had to crowd fund the case, because the Scottish Government should have put the matter beyond legal doubt years ago, and certainly no later than 2017.

    Everyone knew it was a “grey area” and the wording was probably purposefully obscure. That didn’t really matter when there was a supposition that both sides were negotiating in good faith, and that the 2012-14 precedent would be followed. I remember the discussions about it before #indyref1 and it was taken as a given by most folk then that Westminster would abide by the Sewell Convention and not turn down a request for a referendum from a Holyrood government that had a specific mandate for it.

    The issue arises because that “assumption of reasonableness” on the part of Westminster has changed. They aren’t acting in good faith anymore, and their policy now puts the sides in direct conflict, because essentially Westminster are asserting a veto over Scottish self determination. That’s why the legal status of a referendum without a S30 order should have been squared away years ago. If the result of the Keatings case is that Westminster regards itself as supreme, and able to dictate if and when Holyrood is “allowed” to hold #indyref2, irrespective of popular mandate or support, then the referendum route is no longer fit for purpose.

    It’s that simple. No self respecting nationalist can or should accept that our self determination is in the gift of Westminster.

    That’s why an ultimatum should have been given as soon as Theresa May said “now is not the time” years ago. It was bad enough the matter had been ignored by the SNP for years before that, despite many of us saying it should be resolved one way or the other, but as soon as Sturgeon failed to react to May’s dismissal I knew the SNP would cave in.

  189. Beaker says:

    @Robert Graham says:
    25 November, 2020 at 8:43 am
    “Every member of the SNP government should be obliged to attend their local eye clinic then walked past this bloody great big English Government alternative parliament building right in the centre of Edinburgh,”

    Unfortunately, the only eye clinic open is at Barnham Castle. Nicola has told people not to travel to England, so it is with regret she will have to decline your suggestion…

  190. NotWillie says:

    Something of a tactical error I fear to give the nuclear power advance notice that they leave you with no alternative but to deploy the peashooter.

  191. ScotsRenewables says:

    @ Twathater re.the proliferation of list parties..

    If I didn’t know better I would say it looked like a classic case of divide and rule.

  192. Republicofscotland says:

    Kenny MacAskill thinks big and I agree, Scotland should be removing itself from British embassies around the world and opening up its own just as Quebec has done.

  193. Republicofscotland says:

    That sly old fox Henry McLeish, here he says Scotland should have its indyref, but in the same breath calls for Westminster to change because its mindset is undermining the union.

  194. Mike d says:

    Hey Bojo. Do us all a favour and just ******g abolish holyrood. If nothing else it’ll bring this confrontation to a head, and put a rocket up scotlands a**e. Hopefully.

  195. Republicofscotland says:

    The Festival of Brexit, and millions for the Queen’s jubilee, one wonder just how much of Scottish taxpayers cash will go to this.

  196. Mike d says:

    Kevin cargill 9.05am. In agreement with this, the ISP need to take these indy deniers on head to head with a plebiscite mandate for independence. Time is running out for Scotland.

  197. kapelmeister says:

    RepofScot @10:04

    MacAskill has the ideas, the tenacity and the drive. The more I think about it, he should be the SNP’s leader.

  198. Andy Ellis says:


    What you’re saying simply isn’t true though is it? Anyone with an internet connection can check past Holyrood elections for the voting figures, but for lazy (or more likely the hard of reasoning and ill intentioned), just a few snippets from Holyrood elections:

    Scottish Green Party.
    1999: 1 seat, 3.6%
    2003: 7 seats, 6.9%
    2007: 2 seats, 4.0%
    2011: 2 seats, 4.4%
    2016: 6 seats, 6.6%


    1999: 1 seat, 2.0%
    2003: 6 seats, 6.7%

    Margo McDonald.
    2003: 1.4%
    2007: 0.9%
    2011: 0.9%

    2003: Scottish Senior Citizens, 1 seat, 1.5%

    Of course it suits SNP ultras and bloviating eejits like James Kelly and Peter Bell to join in on the pile in against “splittists” and insist that only SNP 1 & 2 will result in #indyref2 magically happening, but anyone with a mind of their own knows that 1 million SNP list votes are effectively wasted.

    If the Greens weren’t so hopelessly mired in gender woo-woo they’d be a shoo-in to clean up on list votes, but many of us would no sooner vote for them than we would for the Tories.

    Ideally the ISP or some other list only party would have been in a position to hold the balance of power at Holyrood. Only that had any real chance of making the SNP actually deliver on independence. It’s probably too late for that now, so the 2 alternatives are to hope the SNP can be reformed from within (good luck with that!), or starting the process of building a new party to challenge the SNP which is actually devoted to achieving independence in our lifetimes, not grinding the britnats down over the course of a decade or two.

  199. kapelmeister says:

    A festival of brexit?? Jeez. Should be called the Xenophobes’ Big Day Out. Tear down any union jacks put up by Toryboys for it in Scotland.

  200. Andy Ellis says:

    @Kevin Cargill 9.05am & @Mike D 10.33am

    The logic of having a second “real” independence party for the fundies who are dismayed with the current SNP leadership and the direction of the party, is to construct a force that can challenge the SNP not just in list seats but in the constituencies too.

    It’s probably too late for @HR2021 elections, but if (as seems likely) the SNP is not for turning and nothing much comes out of the conference or enquiry into the attempted fit up of Alex Salmond, we’re stuck with the gradualists until #HR2026.

    I’d happily help campaign against certain individuals in the SNP either in Westminster or Holyrood to ensure they lost.

  201. Effijy says:

    Why would Scotland move out of our Embassies?
    We paid for them too, we paid for the staff, the equipment, training,etc.

    We will be able to sell our share to Bojo when we leave and find more
    Modern appropriate offices.

    We could even share with a non aggressive nation like Ireland,
    Canada, or New Zealand.

  202. Graeme says:

    @ Andy
    How dare you call Peter Bell an eejit, Peter is all knowing, he knows everything, he has all the answers his wisdom beyond reproach and his greatness unsurpassed, repent or bear the wrath of the great Bully Bell 🙂

  203. Ottomanboi says:

    The English/British have consistently treated subject ‘dominions’ as stupid, easily duped, not as smart as the master. However, the facts of history have binned that nonsense, the Brit empire is no more.
    Scotland has the high ground in this battle. It simply lacks the leaders and possibly the collective political will to seize the advantage. The response to the Covid-19 ‘threat’ has exposed the weaknesses, vulnerability and systemic incompetence of the political class, worldwide.
    We should take no prisoners in this matter.

  204. Ottomanboi says:

    Effijy 11:06
    Indeed, the matter of shared assets among which embassy property is one, overseas territories another. The UK remainder view is that it can retain all such assets as if the Scoto-English political union were of little account. Just the shedding of a colony in fact.

  205. Mac says:

    Winning Scotland her independence is the politically equivalent moment of lifting the world cup for Scotland. It would be what any person or politician who passionately believes in Independence would dream of one day living and achieving.

    No one passionate about achieving independence would have done what they did to AS. Not even the most Machiavellian psycho would have done that. Because even the most evil scheming ratbag devoid of a conscience could see the damage that stitching up Alex Salmond for a heinous crime would do the independence movement. It would be like shooting yourself in the head to get rid of a headache.

    So no one who truly wanted Independence would have done that to AS, just to make sure he does not stage a political comeback. As much as you feared him you would not be prepared to inflict a huge wound on the independence movement just to thwart one man and for such shallow personal reasons. It does not make sense.

    The fact that Team Nicola did precisely that tells us what they really consider to be the priorities here. NS and her ‘team’ don’t give a shit about independence, instead what they very much care about is themselves at best, or doing the bidding of others at worst, probably the latter looking at how systematically they have been poisoning the pre2014 SNP and misplaying every opportunity.

  206. Fireproofjim says:

    You are absolutely right.
    The proliferation of tiny groups of independence supporting parties on the list are a complete waste
    Of time. Sometimes I wonder if it is egos at play. To prove this is not the case and that they are genuine independence supporters to the exclusion of all other causes they MUST get together , then they will get my vote.

  207. @ Ian Brotherhood at 9.17am: I saw the new UK Government building in Edinburgh for the first last week as I made my way down New Street, which is just around the corner from the Royal Mile. Three things caught my attention: 1) masses of anti-terrorist bollards around the building; 2) it’s clad in acres of glass, which I’m sure will provide terrible temptation to infuriated people; and 3) the ‘UK Government’ in massive lettering above the entrance. The powers responsible for this interloper in our midst either don’t know or don’t care how angered and insulted Scots are going to be by it, otherwise they might have made this huge building a bit more anonymous-looking.

  208. cirsium says:

    @Andy Ellis, 9.37

    If the result of the Keatings case is that Westminster regards itself as supreme, and able to dictate if and when Holyrood is “allowed” to hold #indyref2, irrespective of popular mandate or support, then the referendum route is no longer fit for purpose.

    And that is exactly why the Scottish government did not pursue a legal case and why it has tried to block the action of Martin Keatings. If the court decision is that Holyrood is not permitted to hold a second referendum, the next excuse for inaction will be that work on resurrecting the economy takes priority. Of course, the longer the shutdowns continue, the more damage is done to the economy.

  209. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “But the other option – suggested by Craig Murray and which you have endorsed – is really no better. Firstly, it relies on recognition of a UDI by the “international community” (spoiler: it won’t rush to recognise us, any more than they will rush to our rescue in any other way).”

    Why not? They’ve done it for plenty of other countries who achieved their independence without referendums in pretty recent history. Just declaring UDI is a terrible idea. Holding a plebiscitary election and demonstrating majority support for it is something different entirely, particularly when you’ve shown that you’ve tried to do it consensually and been left with no other way.

  210. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Until you can face up to these then you are NEVER going to convince a majority to vote Indy.”

    Um, maybe check the opinion polls, champ.

  211. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @Michael Laing (12.13) –

    Thanks for that description.

    The whole thing sounds just a tad provocative. And, given its location, I imagine it must’ve cost a few bob too.

    Last thing they’ll want is a bunch of saltire-clad malcontents making the place look untidy every day.

  212. Alf Baird says:

    If the international community still wants its Scotch whisky it will do the right thing.

    What has Perfidious Albion ever given anyone, aside from grief?

  213. David says:

    What evidence Is there Boris will agree to Indy 2.
    And that zoom meeting why did he make any comment on Devolution .
    We should also ask does he think the London Assembly has been a disaster

  214. David says:

    Why did Boris make any comment on devolution.
    And does he think the London Assembly has been a disaster.

  215. David says:

    Sorry thought first comment not published

  216. twathater says:

    @ fireproof @ Andy Ellis and others the point I was making is there are tooooo many choices which will DILUTE the alternative indy vote and will confuse and muddle choices and THAT WEAKENS the votes and gives the yoons the advantage

    If there was 1 alternative indy party to vote for with 1 mandate , a plebiscite election then ALL YES supporters would KNOW what they are voting for and RALLY to them , after indy then they can ALL go back to their original factions to be elected to the SP

    THAT is doable with the explicit and targeted aim of indy , but again it REQUIRES people and parties to put SELF INTEREST ASIDE and work for the YES CAUSE , ANY PARTY who refuse to join and amalgamate will have shown indy and an independent Scotland is NOT the priority of their party and therefore need not be voted for

    That includes ISP , Skotia , AFI , SSP , RISE and any others , if they formed 1 NEW SCOTLAND PARTY the SNP would HAVE TO CONCEDE a plebiscite election

    Muscleguy as a ISP member would this work

  217. Imbecile_Heureux says:

    Why not? They’ve done it for plenty of other countries who achieved their independence without referendums in pretty recent history. Just declaring UDI is a terrible idea. Holding a plebiscitary election and demonstrating majority support for it is something different entirely, particularly when you’ve shown that you’ve tried to do it consensually and been left with no other way.

    What other countries do you have in mind?

    My main reason for (pretty extreme) scepticism is that the principle of territorial integrity is one of the most basic – and most jealously-guarded – of all principles of international law. Grand affirmations of the principle of self-determination are rarely seen without accompanying re-affirmations of territorial integrity. And for good reason: it is in no states’ interest to allow a precedent for a group (even a recognised national group) a unilateral right to secede. Many European states (not just Spain) have potential internal issues along these lines. There is just no way to infer from an exceptional case like Kosovo (currently recognised by around half the world’s states) to anything like a principle general enough to cover Scotland.

    From where I’m standing, the idea that there would be any robust or general international recognition of a Scottish UDI – even after a resounding victory in a fair referendum – is just magical thinking (on the assumption that the referendum was declared illegitimate by Westminster). It strikes me as even more fanciful than the idea Johnson might have a change of heart after the next election.

    None of this makes me happy. I would like there to be a way that we could just “take” independence that didn’t rely on victory in a civil war (which I’m assui9mg we all agree isn’t an attractive option). But I’m just not seeing it.

  218. Andy Ellis says:


    It’s up to voters to choose between the various options. It doesn’t matter if there are a dozen such parties as it’s vanishingly unlikely most of them would get any more than a handful of votes. The ISP may manage to pick up enough % for a few, or more if the SNP really go off the rails in the next few months. I’d have been happier if they had some big hitters or prominent defectors from the SNP like Salmond, Cherry, MacAskill…but I reckon it may be a bit late now.

    Irrespective of what actually happens next May, we’ll be no worse off if the ISP or others take a few list seats, as it will be at the expense of yoon seat warmers anyway. Since the gradualists heading up the SNP aren’t going to deliver for years anyway, we might as well start building a convincing organisation really committed to achieving independence sometime this decade, because that sure as hell doesn’t describe the current SNP.

  219. Andy Ellis says:


    Territorial integrity doesn’t supervene the right to self-determination, it is subsidiary to it. Self determination is a peremptory norm in international law, it cannot be denied simply with reference to arguments about territorial integrity, constitutional prohibitions (sorry Spain…!), history, precedence or economics.

    Of course the right to self determination isn’t automatic or unlimited either, but the international community (however loathe it is to recognised UDI except in exceptional cases like genocide, ethnic cleansing and use of violence) is quite capable of making a judgement call if it feels one side in a secessionary conflict is not acting in good faith.

    There are conditions, and in general the UN woudl set the bar quite high WRT the right to “internal self-determination”, particularly in liberal demcracies for areas like Quebec, Catalonia, Scotland etc. This is on the basis that the secessionary party would have to show it had tried and exhausted all other routes, and that it enjoyed majority support in response to a clear mandate.

    IMHO (and that is all it can be for anyone at this stage) you are most likely wrong about recognition for Scotland after a plebiscitary election. That proposition is far less magical thinking than that of the gradualists in the SNP who believe Westminster is simply going to agree to #indyref2 because *reasons*.

    The refusal to grant #indyref2 on the same precedent as 2014 (which was widely hailed remember as a triumph of democracy and an example of how to do such things properly) will make it considerably more likely that the international community WOULD recognise a victory in plebiscitary elections on a clear pro-indy mandate as authoritative. Westminster can easily be painted as acting in bad faith and ignoring precedent.

    In addition, in post the post brexit environment, the British nationalists have few friends: they just aren’t that important. It’s much more likley that our former EU friends in particular would enjoy twisting the knife in Johnson’s innards.

    You not seeing the obvious way forward either means you haven’t done your research, or just that you’ve bought the defeatist line of the gradualist consensus in the SNP that we need to ask permission, and that if Westminster won’t agree to a vote, it will never happen and/or never be recognised.

    If that’s honestly folks view, we might as well abandon indy altogether and start negotiating for the best home rule deal we can manage before Westminster guts Holyrood like herring.

  220. Imbecile_Heureux says:


    “Territorial integrity doesn’t supervene the right to self-determination, it is subsidiary to it. Self determination is a peremptory norm in international law, it cannot be denied simply with reference to arguments about territorial integrity, constitutional prohibitions (sorry Spain…!), history, precedence or economics.”

    This is just false as a matter of international law (unless we are talking about the very particular context of decolonisation). The principle of self-determination does not, in general, give sub-state groups a right to become a state. Generally speaking, territorial integrity trumps self-determination (understood as a right to statehood). Your claim is (maybe) true for *internal* self-determination, but Scotland already has that.

  221. Andy Ellis says:


    No, it’s not false. Self determination is a jus cogens in international law. As a peremptory norm is supervenes other principles like territorial integrity. You’re asserting things as fact which simply aren’t, sorry.

    I’m not claiming anything for Scotland, simply stating what the position is. Self determination (internal or external) is not restricted to de-colonisation situations. It is true that the right is not automatic or without limits, it is NOT true that it can be denied by the “metropolitan” power, whether a former imperial ruler in the case of colonies, the USSR or Yugoslavia in the case of former republics, the UK in the case of Scotland, Spain WRT to Catalonia or the Basque Country, or Canada with Quebec.

    International law (while far from perfect) has moved on considerably since the early post WW2 period, or the 1960’s when many former colonies gained their independence. The cases of Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland pose different questions and issues in that they are all parts of liberal democracies (well….maybe not so liberal in the case of Spain, granted!): nevertheless, we have seen developments.

    Quebec has had 2 referendums, one of which came agonisingly close to success. The Canadian Supreme Court has made some interesting findings on the duty of good faith in its discussions on the Clarity Act and Quebec’s response to it. Scotland’s own #indyref1 was widely seen as a model of how to do these things the right way, but the British nationalist establishment has now moved decisively towards a more “Spanish” approach in order to try and prevent further referendums and ensure the preservation of the union. The abortive Catalan referendum, and Spanish violence in suppressing it, was of course an example of how not to do it.

    What the different situations of these 3 cases do have in common is the general acceptance that in each case there is a people within the meaning of the UN charter that is entitled to advance the case for self determination.

    Naturally that doesn’t mean it is automatic or guaranteed, but only the most regressive unionists, or those with no knowledge or appreciation of international law can try to pretend that there is no case to be made for the rights of those 3 peoples to vote.

  222. Dan says:

    Andy Ellis says: at 4:25 pm

    It’s up to voters to choose between the various options. It doesn’t matter if there are a dozen such parties as it’s vanishingly unlikely most of them would get any more than a handful of votes. The ISP may manage to pick up enough % for a few…

    Sorry but have to disagree with that and think twathater is correct for various reasons.
    Any new party attempting to make an impact will need activists. Dilute the activists between numerous parties and it compromises the outcome.
    Consistency of message for a single party is less likely to get voters confuzzled.
    Regional votes cast for multiple different parties are not pooled whereas they are for a single party thus maximising the potential to get more list seats at each round.
    Covid may restrict the ability to carry out physical campaigning so utlising the internet to promote or get a single party trending to raise awareness over the large regional areas is again more likely to occue if single party is backed.
    Plus you have to factor in the SNP loyalists and “Indy activists” that will still shun an alternative list party because they are too fuckin’ dumb to comprehend or acknowledge the very reasons why folk are beginning to struggle to vote for either the SNP and Greens because of their actions and pushing shit policies that the majority of the electorate don’t support.

  223. Dan says:

    Went back to check for further in depth analysis and discussion in the btl commentary on Pete’s blog…
    Hmm, I’m sure there was a picture of him and Mr Swinney at the front of the Perth AUOB march which appears to have been removed from the article.

  224. Imbecile_Heureux says:

    @Andy We’re getting to the point where we are both going to have to bring out our legal arguments! 🙂

    But look: what I have said is not even controversial among international lawyers. If self-determination counts among the peremptory norms of international law (I’ve not seen the argument for that, so I won’t reject it), it does not do so in a manner that trumps territorial integrity in any context other than decolonisation I’ve read the Canadian Supreme Court judgement, and it is interesting. But it is unusual, it is not binding as a statement of international law, and it does not claim that international law gives Quebec a right to secede against the wishes of the Canadian state.

    I’d be surprised if you could find *any* international lawyer who argues differently. But am, always, open to be persuaded otherwise/proved wrong.

  225. Imbecile_Heureux says:

    “only the most regressive unionists, or those with no knowledge or appreciation of international law can try to pretend that there is no case to be made for the rights of those 3 peoples to vote.”4

    I like to think I am neither of these things, but I am pretty sure that there is no case to be made in international law that the Scottish people has a right to an independence referendum.

  226. Andy Ellis says:

    @Imbecile 6.44pm

    You saying a thing is “not even controversial among international lawyers” and that being true are two very different things. Trust me, there’s plenty of controversy. Perhaps you haven’t looked, or perhaps you’re just trying to be provocative for rhetorical effect?

    Your reading appears limited, and I have to say flawed. International law has moved on since the era of de-colonisation. There is a lively debate on these issues. you’re asserting things as evident truths which simply aren’t accepted. This is a common MO amongst opponents of secessionary movements the world over. They commonly make appeal to territorial integrity, constitutional prohibitions and other extraneous factors. None of these are uncontested in current international legal or academic International Relations circles.


    More truthy bald assertion. Good job!

    As arguments go yours would have attracted an F in my experience of teaching IR.

  227. Imbecile_Heureux says:

    @Andy – you are, of course, right that my saying it is so doesn’t make it so. The same, of course, is true of you; we’re both guilt of failing to offer good arguments for our positions to date, instead just trading assertions

    There is a legal fact of the matter about these questions, and there are good ways of proving it. Can you go and find me some robust sources that support your view? I’d be grateful. While you are looking, I’ll do the same. We can then resolve this in the way you – correctly – say we should: by the force of the better reasons, and not by putatively authoritative assertion.

  228. Imbecile_Heureux says:

    As a start, here is a quote from the Canadian Supreme Court decision you refer to:

    “International law expects that the right to self-determination will be exercised by peoples within the framework of existing sovereign states and consistently with the maintenance of the territorial integrity of these states” ((1998) 16 DLR (4th) 385, 486). The same court noted that a right to external self-determination (i.e. unilateral secession) “arises only in the most extreme of cases, and even the in carefully defined circumstances” (437-8).

    One of the arguments for *remedial* secession – that is, secession where internal self-determination is not being granted, and the human rights of a national minority violated – is taken from the 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations:

    “Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.”

    This, some argue, establishes a right to remedial secession *a contrario*. So the only issue is whether, where the human right to self determination is not granted internally, whether this creates a right to secede. Here is Shaw (author of a standard international law textbook) on that question:

    “Nevertheless, it would be extraordinary for such a foundational principle as territorial integrity to be subject to a critical exception by way of an a contrario argument and not by way of positive affirmation. Furthermore, there is no international practice demonstrating the unequivocal acceptance of the so-called right of remedial secession, whether in general terms or with regard to specific situations.” (Shaw, International Law, 203).

    Note that it is not at all plausible, given the extent of Scottish devolution, that international law would view us as not having our right to self-determination sufficiently vindicated internally.

  229. Imbecile_Heureux says:

    Can you even just point me to some expert-level controversy on these points? (That is, on the question of the international law of self-determination as applied to the Scottish case). I’d be interested to read it.

  230. Daisy Walker says:

    With regards the new Civil Service Hub in Edinburgh, including it ‘bollards’.

    How would it look if every lamppost, and bollard, pavement and wall, leading up to it was festooned with YES stickers.

    In fact, how about we make a day of it.

    On the first day of Christmas my true love gave to me,
    a colony office, in auld reekie

  231. Andy Ellis says:


    I doubt very much Stu’s blog is the forum for such an exchange, nor indeed that either of us could deliver a slam dunk “fact of the matter” result that would satisfy the other.

    From what I’ve seen thus far I’m unconvinced that’d be worthwhile: you don’t appear to know about self determination being a jus cogens or permentory norm, you’re unaware that international lawyers in general are in no way as united in their views on this, still less universally supportive of your views.

    How you think you can prove your assertion that there is “no case to be made in international law that the Scottish people has a right to an independence referendum” escapes me. I don’t think that’s what I said, or what people generally are arguing about. The holding of a referendum and the right to self determination (or in Scotlands case the claim that the people are sovereign rather than parliament) aren’t really the same thing.

    A detailed discussion about internal versus remedial self determination and how international law has evolved would be interesting for some, but probably needs a lot more detail than BTL comment on a Wings post allows.

  232. Imbecile_Heureux says:

    @Andy: your call. But surely it’s worth a try? I’m engaging here in good faith, and am open to being proved wrong. Even a link to peer-reviewed controversy on self-determination in the Scottish case would satisfy me that I’m wrong here.

    I’m not sure why the debate over whether or not self-determination is a jus cogens norm is relevant – the question is one of the scope, and not the status, of that norm. The Canadian Supreme Court appears to have accepted that it is a jus cogens norm, but one that is limited by the principle of territorial integrity in all cases apart from decolonisation, or “alien subjugation” (Quebec didn’t qualify, in its view). So even if you are right that it’s a jus cogens norm – something I haven’t contested – your claim that it therefore necessarily “supervenes on” (by which I take it you mean always takes precedence over) territorial integrity just doesn’t follow.

  233. Imbecile_Heureux says:

    In the meantime, because I’m having fun looking into this, here’s some more stuff:

    From a (relatively) recent peer-reviewed piece on secession (2015):

    “International law is mostly neutral on the issue of secession. While international law embraces the right to self-determination for all people, and while this right can effectively translate into remedial secession, international law positively allows for this outcome only in the case of decolonization and, perhaps, occupation. Other than these two relatively rare instances, international law does not affirmatively authorize groups to
    seek secession. Secession inherently undermines the territorial integrity of the mother state, and international law has for centuries espoused the principles of state sovereignty and territorial integrity.” (“SELF-DETERMINATION AND SECESSION

  234. Andy Ellis says:


    Fill your boots mate. I don’t really think this is the right forum: perhaps your should punt a piece to Rev Stu about it so everyone can become involved? BTL comments in someone else’s blog, which won’t even be that easy to find in a day or two wouldn’t be my choice. IT risks ending up pissing other readers off by being an exchange of fairly dry cut and paste extracts and links so beloved of Cameron Brodie who still sometimes haunts these comments sadly.

    You clearly don’t understand/haven’t read up on jus cogens, peremptory norms and the evolution of international law in relation to self determination. Go do! Google is your friend.

    The Canadian Supreme Court’s answer to the 3 questions put by the Canadian Government referred more narrowly to UDI, so either you’ve misread the response, or you’re purposefully misdirecting. Nobody sane in Scotland is recommending UDI, despite what gradualists like Pete Wishart say.

    In terms of your second post, as you say international law in neutral on the issue because it is underdeveloped, and little in the way of real enforcement and is oftentimes reacting to novel events. Situations like Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland don’t really “fit” the de-colonisation reference points, or situations of violence or war which applied to most other secessionary conflicts.

    The post as far at it goes isn’t really germane to the issues at hand.

    For what it’s worth, I don’t really accept you’re here in good faith. you’re just some random on the internet, posting anonymously whose motives and background I can’t discern, because I’ve never seen you post here, nor do I know what your agenda is. You don’t seem particularly knowledgable about the issues you’re posting on, but appear happy to pontificate about them then challenge folk to an exchange of ideas on somebody else’s blog post, hoping to provide enlightenment in BTL comments?

    Seems a doubtful practice to me.

  235. Imbecile_Heureux says:


    “The Canadian Supreme Court’s answer to the 3 questions put by the Canadian Government referred more narrowly to UDI, so either you’ve misread the response, or you’re purposefully misdirecting. Nobody sane in Scotland is recommending UDI, despite what gradualists like Pete Wishart say.”

    Um. Isn’t that what Rev and Craig Murray are recommending after winning an unoffical “plebiscitary election”? From the latter’s blog:

    “So how should Scotland proceed? My advice would be to declare Independence at the earliest possible opportunity.”

    I’ve no interest in getting into a credential-pissing contest with you. I’ve made my view clear, and provided good support for it. You can continue to cast aspersions on my understanding of basic international legal concepts, and my bona fides, if you like. I just don’t like misinformation on these matters, and will try to correct it where I see it. Anyone still reading can make up their own minds.

  236. Andy Ellis says:


    Yes, anyone still reading can make up their minds. Regular readers on this site will be all too familiar with tactics like those of Cameron Brodie, who used to spend all his time, and clog up most of the BTL threads, with screeds of secondary linked sources which purported to support what passed for his arguments. The thing is, it doesn’t really pass muster if you’re trying to establish your bona fides. Original thought and analysis doesn’t consist of who can google mine most efficiently: eventually Rev Stu got sick of Cameron Brodie and clipped his wings. Good.

    You ARE misdirecting. What Craig Murray is proposing is wrong IMHO, and I’ve told him so. It does have constitutional and historical precedents. My view has always been that we don’t need to use his proposed route, because the obvious (and much simpler) alternative to a referendum which the British nationalists frustrate by saying “now is not the time” for the next 19 years, is plebiscitary elections.

    Plebiscitary elections aren’t “unoffical”. If and when the UK state is shown to be acting in bad faith WRT granting an “agreed” referendum (which many would argue it now is, since there are an overwhelming number of mandates and % of Scots who feel only Holyrood should have a say in when and if referendums are held) it is perfectly appropriate and legitimate for a Scottish government with a clear mandate to declare a general election plebiscitary. Wishart and his cronies, who I assume from your comments you agree with, are simply wrong. I can see however nothing will persuade you otherwise.

    The misdirection here is coming from your direction. You clearly don’t understand the basic concepts involved, but want to come on here in front of a largely hostile audience, and tell us how wrong we all are.

    Don’t expect most of us to take you remotely seriously. As I said, this really isn’t the right forum for such discussions, but go ahead and punt an article to Rev Stu explaining your position, or if not do your own blog or longer piece somewhere else so we can make our minds up just how misinformed the parties to this discussion are.

  237. Graham says:

    Weepish Tart or Twee PishArt or He/It’s a Twerp – or whatever his name is – impresses me, negatively, as someone bending over backwards to have an independence-seeking Scotland fall flat on our face.

    I wonder if these are truly his thoughts or if he has been prompted to pen such maunderings by SNP high command, the perpetual stall-seekers (in both senses.)

    ‘please please trample me some more’ he seems to beg of The Mother of P********ts.

    I’d be glad to see the SNP declare any and all majority votes for its candidates to be immediate justification to declare Scotland independent.

    I wish that it always and already had done so, which seems to me to be what it is constituted (constitutionally mandated, indeed obligated) to do, in service to the interests of Scotland.

    By that I mean [the interests of] Scotland’s sovereign inhabitants, not some myth of a sovereign disembodied ‘state’ (as England holds to).

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

↑ Top