The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Remembering Pete Wishart

Posted on June 29, 2022 by

Such a tragic loss.

So very very sad.

[A KNOCK AT THE DOOR.]

[NICOLA STURGEON ARRIVES.]

[A VERY SHORT CONVERSATION ENSUES.]

[NICOLA STURGEON LEAVES.]

Joy be upon us! It’s a miracle!

.

.

DVD BONUS CONTENT:

Print Friendly

    157 to “Remembering Pete Wishart”

    1. Ian Brotherhood says:

      When they finally abandon ‘politics’ altogether, Wishart and Hunter would make a great comedy duo.

      Question is, who would be the ‘straight’ guy?

    2. Ian McCubbin says:

      Well that is Pete to the last, belief in Westminster system to the last. Amen to that bring on the plebiscite route.

    3. Scott says:

      I’m Pete Wishart. And so’s my wife.

    4. Graham Adamson says:

      Brilliant. He must really hate you. Sincerely hoping after yesterday’s announcement that you’re getting back in the saddle Stu. Scotland needs you.

    5. Vivian O’Blivion says:

      Pete’ll hae tae be dragged kicking and screaming fae his beloved Westminster.

    6. Awkward Westie says:

      You would almost think Pete is clueless and just repeatedly spouts whatever he is told to think … can’t be that though can it ????

    7. Margaret L says:

      He’s had an overnight epiphany?? Or is that lobotomy? We need you back Stu.

    8. Andy Ellis says:

      Fun fact: runrigs were non-contiguous strips of land which periodically re-assigned to ensure nobody had continuous use of the best land.

      Comfy Baffies Pete appears to have the same approach to policies and principles: if you don’t like the ones he has, he has others you might be interested in. Truly the charlatan’s charlatan.

    9. fillofficer says:

      poor old pension pete
      ‘we have to do it their way’
      20 yrs a union tosser
      call me a cynic, but
      i bet he’ll be there another 20 annaw

    10. Fraser Reid says:

      Good old Pete – informing the tories on how to block Indyref 2 – 5 more years of carrots anyone?

    11. Frank Waring says:

      Yesterday cheered me up for the first time in months……. today there is a slightly more sober reflection that Scotland will get independence only if ‘civic Scotland’ has the courage to take it.

    12. Shug says:

      Re the plebiscite are the SNP wobbling already?
      Is it a majority of MPs or a majority of votes where all non SNP votes are no. Will there be a 60 percent required.

      Margaret Thatcher said MPs

      A side thought if Boris agrees to section 30 and wins his legacy will be delivering Brexit and saving the union. These must be worthy of a statue next to churchill

    13. Morgatron says:

      Sitting at a poolside In Croatia, and reading Wishy Washy’s previous pishy soundbites from years gone by. The mans has a total brass neck,does he think we forget the shite he spouted. Anyway, the Croatian sunshine took me back to the summer of 2012 when the excitement was growing ,reading and replying to Wings blog. Stu, you have a job to do for your country.

    14. 1971Thistle says:

      @ Ian Brotherhood

      Question is, who would be the ‘straight’ guy?

      That would be both of them

    15. Doug says:

      I can’t help but think the reason the current SNP leadership has been terrified of actual independence is because within weeks Pete with his Cosy Slippers and Pals wouldn’t just be swept from office they could be kicked out of the country.

    16. Sharny Dubs says:

      Oh the cybernats are on the rise again!!

    17. Stan Flately says:

      I really would love to see Wishart made to respond and justify these Tweets. His despicable self important and loftiness to Indy Supporters legitimate statements is appalling.

    18. sarah says:

      Well this has put a smile on my face – an improvement on yesterday afternoon’s depression. I wonder how the joshing in the Westminster SNP group will go… “Plebiscite Pete, do you want a cup of cold sick?”

      “Or rosemary tea – wouldn’t want to forget what you said, would you, Plebby.”

      “Ah wis only following orders. And so were you, Ian, Stuart, Kirsty, Mhairi…”

      PP looking around – “where’s Angus and Joanna? I need to speak to them now – haven’t had a word with them for years. Almost forgotten what they look like…”

    19. Andy Ellis says:

      @Shug 10.09 am

      It’s a majority of votes that counts, not seats. The SNP won 56 of 59 MPs in 2015 on 49.97% of the vote. Thatcher’s point was made before Holyrood even existed, and on the presumption at the time that Tories and unionists would never agree to a devolved parliament in any case. Her point was that Scots weren’t entitled to impose or dictate terms for devolution to Westminster.

      She specifically agreed that Scots were entitled to vote for independence if they chose to do so. At that point – with no devolved parliament in Edinburgh – it was assumed that a pro independence party which won most Scottish Westminster seats would enjoy majority support, much like the IPP in Ireland before partition.

    20. stuart mctavish says:

      Sometimes hard to tell when folks are being sarcastic these days but is it just the premature bit the ladies (lord advocate and solicitor general) disagree with Peat Worrier on – or have they just poured enough scorn on the ‘academic’ and ‘hypothetical’ nature of the dismissal to merit a full refund with judicial rates of interest too?

    21. 100%Yes says:

      Sturgeon and the SNP knew that they couldn’t continue with the promise of a were having a referendum without ever given date, they where losing support. The SNP also knew after the 2014 Referendum that a section 30 order would never ever be granted again. After the 2014 Referendum we have other Pro_Independence party’s willing to take up the cuase of Independence if the SNP aren’t will to act its only because of these other Pro-Indy parties before 2021 election that’s made the SNP give the pledge of a Referendum next year. The SNP had to do something.

      1 It will lose its case Supreme Court
      2 A section 30 never be granted
      3 what alternative option was left to the SNP other than a Plebiscite.

      We may have unionist call an early WM election in order to stop the SNP for a few years, I’m of the opinion that a Holyrood election although its 4years away it would have more legal clout because its our parliament.

      I suppose what will happen is, the SNP will get a majority of MP at the next Westminster election and on the opening of the English parliament the SNP leader will stand up and say to the Speaker of the house that the Scottish MP’s are withdrawing from Westminster and returning back to Scotland to convene Scottish parliament in full and to restore Scottish nation.

    22. Haud says:

      Agree Shug,

      I said earlier that Boris may well grant the section 30 and assume he’ll win.hes that arrogant after all.

      Save the Union and save his arse
      ..what a guy.

    23. Robert Dickson says:

      In a way….you have to love old Comfy.
      It takes balls to be that much of a dick in public

    24. robertkknight says:

      That man has superglued his lips to Westminster’s teat and is going nowhere.

      Leave him there I say – England’s welcome to him.

    25. Duncan Gray says:

      You know Stu, sometimes in this crazy ol world even when you’re right you’re wrong. If its feet to the fire time and those feet reside in both parliaments(cosy or otherwise), the only logical conclusion is to get behind this with all the positivity we can muster. Leave the carping and sniping to to the usual suspects who have no plausible argument for keeping us tethered to this failed economic and military project. This disunited kingdom of chancers and grifters have only one strategy to derail Scotland’s place as a normal independent country, and that’s to portray our movement as divisive. We can, rightly, laugh at that from inside the bubble, but outside these things can resonate. The story I’m writing for Scotland is not one of division, but of unity as a normal democratic independent country.

    26. Mark Boyle says:

      Pete Wishart – the gift that keeps on giving.

    27. Willie says:

      When you read these tweets arranged together you realise what an absolute F*ckwit Peter Wishart is.

      This is an absolute scum bag who does very nicely masquerading as an MP and a hunting and shooting gent. He is a ("Quizmaster" - Ed), he is the Patrick Sellars of all those years ago. Argh – the sooner he is gone the better. But in the meantime we have to deal with him.

    28. Stuart MacKay says:

      Andy Ellis @10:20am

      “She specifically agreed that Scots were entitled to vote for independence if they chose to do so.”

      I don’t think this can be stated enough times. With a majority voting for independence in a plebiscite election then it doesn’t matter which indy party it’s for or what the political leadership, north or south of the border says. The decision is in and the Union must be dissolved. It’s up to the politicians to sort out the details. In other words, with Plan B, the boot is on the other foot, and the question on independence has been taken out of their hands.

    29. 100%Yes says:

      I had forgotten all about Pete Wishart. I wonder if he’s upset with Nicola because he won’t be able to be speaker of the house of commons.

    30. 100%Yes says:

      I think GB news is going to have to think about changing its name.

    31. holymacmoses says:

      “There’s no limit to what a man can do, or where he can go, if he doesn’t mind who gets the credit.”

      I have to add
      “Or how he gets rewarded”

    32. DJ says:

      Stuart MacKay @ 11.09 am

      Absolutely Stuart, 50% + 1 is all that is required. Forget the likes/dislikes, personalities, unionist boycott threats, who said what and when and all of that garbage. A vote for any Indy party’s a vote for independence. That’s all I care about.

    33. Jan Cowan says:

      Willie, Slippers hasn’t the guts to perpetrate the horrendous cruelty attributed to Patrick Sellars – who was the absolute worst type of human-being imaginable. Poor old Slippers simply adores Westminster + contents. “Pathetic” is a more realistic description.

    34. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      Sorry to pour cold water on this cruel bit of hope by Sturgeon.

      Whilst I enjoy seeing Rev Stu spit roast Pension Pete and barbecue his pickle with a double dose of irony,…

      Stu, I love what you do and your style of execution by forensic words.

      But Septic-Sturgeon’s IndyRef2 is a TRAP. Sturgeon will fix it so the YES movement LOSE.

      There will NEVER be an INDYREF3

      This is the End-Game. Scottish Independence killed off for 100 years.

      Does anyone actually TRUST Sturgeon to deliver Independence after all she has done in her tenure at Puke House?

      As for Pension Pete and his Westminster long service medal for being the UK’s longest serving parasite. OK this page has a certain flavour packed schadenfreude.

      Though I have this weird vision of Septic-Sturgeon with her gloved hand up WetFart’s aarse cheeks working him like a ventriloquist’s dummy.

      Hope she wore industrial grade PPE gloves and a ton of lube. Actually, ditch the lube, stick a hedgehog up there instead.

    35. malcolm says:

      Absolutely brilliant, he has sure made a right royal fool of himself.

    36. scozzie says:

      Couple of weeks’ ago She/Her was waving her butchers apron and now we’re all on like donkey kong!
      As for cosy feet Pete, his eye is firmly on winning Perth for another stint at WM after a failed SC ruling (can you imagine him negotiating independence for Scotland…no me neither).
      I think I’m firmly in the Ian Brotherhood camp – don’t trust these lying, snivelling, turn-coat bastards.
      Level heads are needed before we eat up their carrots (with GRA glitter on)!

    37. lothianlad says:

      what a hypocrite Pete whishart is!! Lets face it… The SNP gave up on Independence when Sturgeon took over giveing her nature deniers and careerists an easy ride!

      You’ll wait a long time before Scotlands Claim of right is spoken about by the SNP, preferring an English law supreme court to be superior to the sovereignty of the people of Scotland!

      Make NO mistake…. Sturgeon is setting us up to fail!!

      My Party will….’ She is out to destroy the indy movement from within!

    38. Laing French says:

      I think sturgeon is a Westminster bought woman, she has no intention of reaching independence and closing down SNP. After all that was SNP,s manifest, independence. Once that’s achieved no more SNP. Never trusted that woman after the Rangers fc court case. that opened my eyes to this devious back stabbing lying untrustworthy WOMAN! Hope I got the genre right?

    39. Soda says:

      A bit off topic but…

      It’s been almost 10 years, or it will be or more whenever we all actually get around to putting our crosses in the box, and a thought occurs…

      Just how many folks have passed away since the last vote and how many have become eligible and has anyone worked out the averages of YES and NO voters among them?

      Wouldnt it be safe to assume that there should be fewer NO voters and more YES voters around now than in 2014?

      And if that is indeed a fair assumption then how in the name of the wee man are we still stuck on 47% in the opinion polls?!?

      Am i missing something? Answers on a postcard.

    40. Breeks says:

      I hesitate to say it, (because we’re all meant to be drinking the YES Unity and Camaraderie Koolaid these days – that’s YUCK to you and me, lol), but one way to look at yesterday’s events is to see it as Sturgeon (finally) giving the thumbs up to the strategy ALBA has been promoting since its inception.

      I’m quite sure that’s NOT the way Sturgeon will be looking on it of course, but however you spin it, ALBA was right, Sturgeon was wrong, and it’s one in the back of the net for ALBA.

    41. Confused says:

      In future, politicians will deal with this by operating shadow accounts which say the opposite of what you said in your main account; then you can quickly delete and reinstate the shadow account, so that,e.g.

      PETE WISHART HAS -ALWAYS- FAVOURED A PLEBESCITE

      I can feel the bullshit hurricane machine machine whirring up

      – some fat b1tch from durham said it was a no go

      – then some foreigner from coventry also says its a no go

      – the sun has done a poll with 74% against indy

      – whitaboot the currency trolls along in a minute

      Helpful hint : How will Scotland do X?

      X= anything

      – answer : exactly how every other cunt in the world did it.

      Then the counter-attack by logic – if we are so poor, why do you want us to stay? What is this forcible, muscular, philanthropy?

      – in the wings archive will be old lists of “bullshit questions/sayings” (and their rebuttals) which need to be dusted off; some of them will be hilarious –

      YOU WON’T BE IN THE EU – YOU WILL HAVE TO REJOIN THE BACK OF THE QUEUE

      I feel, somewhere along the line, the zombie resurrection of the 40% RULE will get a “reboot” and a new franchise.

    42. Breeks says:

      No gloating about it though…

      Lets see how many of ALBA’s other bright ideas can be seen in the broad daylight without being spat on by the SNP…

    43. Allium says:

      Lots of bot accounts on Twitter instructing sceptical Yessers to get onside with Nicola and stop asking questions. I wonder if the SNP politburo have been surprised that there hasn’t been more of a wholesale falling into line.

      It will be interesting to see if they start another round of claims that SNP membership has skyrocketed following the announcement (tbf, maybe it will), and/or if they double down on the In Nic We Trust spin.

    44. Merganser says:

      Divisions, divisions.

      Looking at the responses to yesterday’s announcement, it seems that half have been suckered (again) and half see through it for what it really is.

      Someone so self -interested has only one purpose in life, and will pursue any means to achieve it.

      Only when Scotland is led by someone who will put country before self will independence be achieved.

    45. holymacmoses says:

      It’s a move and one that Wishart et all have rejected for years – that’s enough to get the Yoons stirring. I think our answers will finally emerge from reaction to pushing for independence. Only a fool will fail to realise that Scottish Independence is England’s last stand and they will fight tooth and nail and we must use their propensity to bully as a weapon against them

    46. Ian Brotherhood says:

      What would it take to get Yessers back together again?

      Sturgeon won’t countenance ever working again with Salmond so why should anyone else forgive and forget?

      If we had another FOW gathering, do you imagine that Paul Kavanagh would be welcome, even if he did show face (which he wouldn’t)? And what about any of the other names who used to be regulars right there but bolted, in tears and denial, when Stu called their hero ‘The Betrayer’? Personal friendships were wrecked but a shared trust in Nicola can bring us all back together? Can it, aye?

      Craig Murray has ‘congratulated’ Nicola and urged everyone to forget everything that happened. That’s nice. I look forward to Craig dropping in to explain to cynics like me why I should put my testicles back in the same mangle which crushed them first time around.

    47. PhilM says:

      I know there’s still a dedicated fan base but let’s put all our musical differences aside and just think how much better Big Country might have been if…

    48. Andy Ellis says:

      “If we had another FOW gathering, do you imagine that Paul Kavanagh would be welcome, even if he did show face (which he wouldn’t)?“

      We had an example on the previous thread of one of the usual suspects telling me to “fuck off ya English plant” for pointing out the necessity for a majority of votes in plebiscitary elections 2 minutes after Rev Stu had agreed with my post and posted “100% this”.

      It seems that to many of the moonhowlers the Rev himself would be unwelcome at what we can only assume is ironically referred to as the “Friends of Wings” group. If you need help with that plank in your eye let us know, eh Ian?

      With friends like these….?

    49. Llen says:

      Has anyone asked Pete about this? He’s blocked most people on twitter.

    50. stuart mctavish says:

      OT, unless and to extent Swinney’s throwing a double Pete Wishart, the decision to make the potential GE a plebiscite on votes rather than seats implies some interesting coalition negotiations in event Supreme court calls the bluff on Scottish sovereignty to deny indyref2

      ie Ignoring the international community being worried about anything up to French levels of abstention (54%+), consider the possibility (albeit ludicrous) of Alba, SNP and Green sharing the independence vote to win say, 10, 30 and 11% of the total respectively – yet still ending up with less Scottish seats at WM than a liblabcon coalition that managed to win 30+ Scottish seats (as per every GE outwith the last 86 months).

      Since avoiding such a scenario infers the plan MUST be to present an indy coalition to the electorate if necessary, the question arises as to how the initial selections will be decided along party lines (assuming politicians are chosen to lead the negotiations)

      In the alternative, an even more radical approach might be for Holyrood to employ professional negotiators directly for what is (presumably) intended to be a one time only event -ie with a view to getting the brightest and best from McKinsey, Deloite etc to undertake the not necessarily easy burden of negotiating on Scots’ behalf once elected – at which point the question of which of the MPs absolutely need to be kept on regardless might also be up for debate 🙂

    51. Cath says:

      I had a good chuckle last night about that “naysayers and belligerents” tweet: he was the most naysaying belligerent about the only real way to independence and all those arguing for it.

    52. Breastplate says:

      I had put this on the previous thread regarding seats v votes in a plebiscitary election.

      Tactically, I think it would have been better for John Swinney to stick to what he said about winning seats would be enough regardless of him believing it or not.

      If it is dismissed out of hand, (no matter how ridiculous some people believe it), we’re basically throwing away weapons in front of the enemy.

      You can argue that you know these weapons don’t work but it’s probably not a good idea to tell your opponents that you have nothing up your sleeve.

      The argument that seats would be enough could perhaps force the hand of the Unionists to get what you really want.

      Just like the Unionists throw in the line about “once in a generation” or “once in a lifetime” whether they believe it or not, it’s not ever going to be their main or only argument.
      After all, Margaret Thatcher seemed to think sending a majority of pro independence MPs to Westminster was enough to start the ball rolling on independence.

      Would it not benefit the independence movement to turn the question back on them and let people hear them explain why it’s different now?

      A Yes/No referendum would be better than a plebiscitary GE or HE because there’s lots of room for the Unionists and the SNP to muddy the waters.

      So whether you believe you have a pish poker hand or not, play it like you’re going to win regardless.

    53. Republicofscotland says:

      “When they finally abandon ‘politics’ altogether, Wishart and Hunter would make a great comedy duo.”

      Ian Brotherhood.

      Yes unfortunately both are as funny as a bad bout of the toothache, talking of comedy duo’s.

      When Laurel and Hardy arrived in Glasgow at Central station (the main train station in Glasgow) a huge crowd of Glaswegians greeted them and cheered them, one young Glaswegian rushed up and shook the hand of Oliver Hardy vigorously and said how pleased he was to meet him, the young man then melted back into the crowd never to be seen again, a few hour later Oliver Hardy noticed that his gold watch was missing.

    54. Breastplate says:

      IanB,
      I think we are allowed to be cynical, I think it’s a good default position regarding politicians, however, if the time arises that we have an opportunity (even if it’s a shit one, like some people believe) then surely all of us can vote Yes for Scotland?

    55. Andy Ellis says:

      @stuart 1.37 pm

      An interesting “trial balloon” there! It’d almost be funny to see the yoons heads explode if they got a majority of the WM seats but pro indy had a majority of votes and declared independence on that basis! I could see some britnats on Scotland voting tactically but I think a formal alliance or “Team UK” would go down pretty badly with what’s left of Scottish Labour – and I suspect many in UK Labour.

      Isn’t the logic of a win in plebiscitary WM elections an immediate withdrawal from there and the convening of an interim National Assembly? That could be tasked with negotiating the details of the independence settlement with rump UK. I’d suggest there’s a case for an immediate Scottish GE, but there’s no reason a constitutional convention or assembly couldn’t run in parallel to deal with the negotiations of the divorce settlement with the UK, reaching out to the EU, framing a written constitution etc for approval either by the first newly elected parliament or via referendum.

    56. Andy Ellis says:

      @Breastplate 1.50 pm

      A turd, however lovingly polished, remains just a turd.

    57. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Breastplate (1.53) –

      ‘…surely all of us can vote Yes for Scotland?’

      Yes, of course we can, and I’m sure most 2014 Yes voters will do so again.

      My point is simply about trust. It’s gone. It means we can’t have the same grassroots action that Alex Salmond is talking about.

      Spooks are everywhere, in every organisation and at all levels – let’s not forget that they also learned a lot from the 2014 experience.

    58. Republicofscotland says:

      Wishart jumps from denouncing a Plan B to promoting a Plan B, he’s the equivalent of Dr Frankenstein’s Igor never having an independent thought and always following to the tee what his master tells him, even if it makes him look foolish, and Sturgeon eventually promoting a Plan B after years of saying no, has seen Wishart who laughed and scorned a Plan B suddenly be in favour of it.

      Wishart had no credibility to begin with, this utter appeasement which makes his rantings and raving look even more foolish top it all of.

      On the Supreme court.

      “With regards to the Supreme court Lord Reid (not John Reid) is the President of the Supreme court, he’s a Scot, however the Supreme court was created by Gordon Brown in 2009, and a sprinkle of UK compliant Scots judges were added to give it an appearance of parity to the Four Nations that Make up the UK.”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reed,_Baron_Reed_of_Allermuir

    59. McHaggis69 says:

      Despite my antipathy to NS –
      starting as we are from circa 47% ‘Yes’, Independence is nailed on just so long as the referendum takes place.
      Despite other policy issues, NS might just have enough goodwill to get us over the line.

      Yoons won’t boycott it – they know thats taking aim at both feet, despite their online rhetoric.

      As for Weak Pishfart?
      It is no less than shameful what he has been doing over the last 3 years or so on Twitter and I hope HE takes time to reflect on HIS role in splitting the movement. This colossal backstep from the SNP should really have him eating a shit-ton of humble pie.

    60. Breastplate says:

      Ellis,
      You may think it a turd but wouldn’t it be better for the Unionists to be handling it rather than you tidying it away?

    61. Breastplate says:

      Agreed IanB,
      The trust is gone but we move forward nonetheless.

      In some ways it will be more difficult than the first campaign on the other hand there are some things that will make it easier.
      I’m sure we will learn more about the pros and cons as we go on.

    62. Republicofscotland says:

      Do as we say not as we do.

      “The Tories are claiming Scotland cannot call a legal referendum, which is a bit rich given that last night the Tories voted to break international law”

      https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1541837705096699904

    63. David Beveridge says:

      Soda at 12:32 pm

      A bit off topic but…

      It’s been almost 10 years, or it will be or more whenever we all actually get around to putting our crosses in the box, and a thought occurs…

      Just how many folks have passed away since the last vote and how many have become eligible and has anyone worked out the averages of YES and NO voters among them?

      Wouldnt it be safe to assume that there should be fewer NO voters and more YES voters around now than in 2014?

      And if that is indeed a fair assumption then how in the name of the wee man are we still stuck on 47% in the opinion polls?!?

      Am i missing something? Answers on a postcard.

      You’re missing something. The age demographic that should be going in our favour is being overtaken by the level of inward migration from down south and our young folk having to leave.

    64. Andy Ellis says:

      @Dave Beveridge 2.16 pm

      You’ll have receipts for all those claims then?

      What are the figures for the nett loss per year? How do you know what % of people moving to Scotland are anti independence?

      Could it be that you’re just doing that nativist thing of presenting wild arsed guesses as *FACTS*?

      Shouldn’t we be concentrating on making the case for independence and against the union so strong that the huge preponderance of native Scots put the matter beyond doubt, rather than coming up with regressive policies to deny some random category of “new Scots” a say in the future of their country?

    65. robbo says:

      “Just like the Unionists throw in the line about “once in a generation” or “once in a lifetime” whether they believe it or not, it’s not ever going to be their main or only argument.
      After all, Margaret Thatcher seemed to think sending a majority of pro independence MPs to Westminster was enough to start the ball rolling on independence.”

      This nonsense needs to be eradicated once and for all. There is no document anywhere- in a legal documents or a treaty or anyfuckingthing anywhere that says this pish, but yoons keep spouting it till they day they die.

      Anytime it’s brought up Indy Mp’s need to ram it doon their fucking throats everywhere it’s brought up.

      That scour of a wumin Andrea Leadson brought it up again on politics live again the day. Fucking sick hearing it in pubs clubs, buses trains and automobiles- where’s the fucking documents ya fanny- where does it say this?

    66. John Donaldson says:

      Some 120 countries around the world have populations of less than six million people.

      Q: Westminster, should Denmark be an independent country?
      A: Nah… probably not.

      Q: Westminster, should Kuwait be an independent country?
      A: Nah… probably not.

      Q: Westminster, should Uruguay be an independent country?
      A: Nah… probably not.

      Q: Westminster, should Mauritius be an independent country?
      A: Nah… probably not.

      Q: Westminster, should New Zealand be an independent country?
      A: Nah… probably not.

      ..

      ..

      etc, etc. etc

      Q: Last question Westminster, should Scotland be an independent country?
      A: Don’t be silly – too small, too stupid, not enough resources. Now get back in your box!

      Sums it all up.

      Vote Yes!

    67. David Beveridge says:

      Andy Ellis @2.25pm

      This is a good article on it – https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/07/11/determinants-of-independence-demographics/

      So how do YOU explain the older No-voting generation dying off, being replaced by the predominantly Yes-voting one and yet the polls not budging an inch? The incompetence of the present SNP administration? If that’s the case then we’re all fked anyway.

    68. Jontoscot21 says:

      I’d be very cautious about how viable the independence project is ten years on and with the perfidious alliance with the Greentrans mob destroying our society and economy. I voted
      For in 2014 for the future of the young people of Scotland. It will be tough to take that
      position as they assert their woke ideology whilst expecting the mature and thinking population to pay for it. We need to seriously start focusing on the economics with
      Bot just the constitutional issues. Yes we can opt for a poorer standard of living (i don’t see how we can avoid given the SNP ruin of the economy and squandering of our national assets but will we be tasting the spirit of real nationhoods or a different kind of servitude under the woke yoke.

    69. Andy Ellis says:

      @Dave Beteridge 2.47 pm

      There may be many factors involved. You’re the one making the claim that migration from the rest of the UK more than offsets the number of older unionist dying plus younger indy supporters being enfranchised, and that this asserted net loss could or should be remedied by changing the franchise.

      It is surely ncumbent on you and those who agree with your to prove the asserted problem is real and if so to justify a change to the existing arrangements. The majority of the movement regards disenfranchising 20% of Scots residents as regressive nativism deeply at odds with the whole principle of civic nationalism.

    70. Republicofscotland says:

      “The age demographic that should be going in our favour is being overtaken by the level of inward migration from down south and our young folk having to leave.”

      David Bevridge @2.16pm.

      I wholeheartedly agree David, and the majority of them will support the union, no matter what kind excellent case is made for dumping it.

    71. Astonished says:

      Reading this makes me sorry for the utter charlatan. O.K. I’m lying.

      We must unite and I think a good start would be apologies from SNP politicians. Especially to Martin Keatings and Chris McEleny.

    72. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Dave Beveridge (2.47) –

      Thanks for that link, haven’t read that before.

      This leapt out right away:

      ‘This was confirmed by post-2014 referendum research findings, as people from rest-UK coming to live in Scotland mostly voted against Scottish independence, reflecting a linguistic and cultural (and hence ethnic) divide between them and the Scots. This evidence suggests independence may therefore be undermined by prevailing uncontrolled immigration from rest-UK to Scotland. In addition, the independence challenge is made more difficult through the use of an irregular local government electoral franchise for national elections and referendums in Scotland which is based on residence, not nationality.’

      Why can’t this stuff be discussed without accusations of ‘nativist’ coming from the usual quarters? Ellis may not have a problem doffing his cap to landowners and holiday-homers, but plenty of us do because we can see the damage they’re doing, not just demographically, but to the land. Does he really believe that they view him with any less contempt than the rest of us ‘natives’? Because make no mistake about it – that’s what we are to them. Unless we’re loyal ghillies of Monarch of the Glen type, we’re like the servants in Remains of the Day – we shouldn’t be seen lest we make their backyard look untidy.

    73. Breastplate says:

      Robbo,
      I agree and that’s my point.

      It was a mistake to say these things but it is our shit to deal with.

      It would be great if the Unionists conceded that it was just an observation and not a promise and said no more about it but that’s not going to happen, we need to deal with it, they won’t clean up our mess for us.
      We shouldn’t clean their shit up for them either, so I want to listen to some blue Tory or red Tory tell us why things are different now than when Margaret Thatcher said a majority of pro independence MPs was enough before.

      I certainly don’t think we should concede that Margaret Thatcher was right then and Boris Johnson is right now.
      What is the benefit to the independence movement of making Unionist jobs easier?

    74. David Beveridge says:

      Andy Ellis @3.02pm

      Where did I say it “could or should be remedied by changing the franchise”?

      I get the feeling you’re just a shit-stirrer with eff all better to do.

    75. Republicofscotland says:

      “Why can’t this stuff be discussed without accusations of ‘nativist’”

      Ian Brotherhood.

      Indeed or we are classed as some sort of anglophobes, to add to this many of the EU citizens who were here in 2014 and voted no have now left after Brexit and will not get a vote, many of whom I think would want to make up for voting against independence and and the ensuing disastrous Brexit.

      So many coming from South of the border must eventually lead to a tipping point, and no amount of voicing of the benefits of independence will persuade the majority of them to vote yes.

      Has the tipping point been reached I wonder?

    76. Haud says:

      Boris will grant S50. Then he’ll be ousted and new PM calls GE?

    77. Maureen says:

      Good to see you posting again Stu!
      Along with many others I watched Sturgeons speech yesterday and was pleasantly surprised that she has caught up with what was being said on here for years. I really hope that she is being sincere.
      I don’t fully trust her but I trust the Scottish people to vote for their independence, given the chance. The alternative is too grim to consider.

    78. holymacmoses says:

      I don’t see any reason to unite for Independence. I see a good reason for each of the independence parties to fight for every vote they can get using every reason available. The more reasons the Scottish people are offered at the prospect of voting yes, the more votes ‘yes’ will get. So create parties if we must. Have locals who are really popular stand on their own merit. All stand with a political point of view to attract whichever target audience and all stand on the YES ticket. IF the YOONS come up with a good idea that attracts a lot of voters just get another YES party to take it over and add it to their ‘manifesto’
      Give the Scottish people every reason to vote yes and show them the choices they will get once they do.
      Scottish people need to understand that independence offers them political choices and national opportunities which will NEVER be available if they vote no.

    79. Mark Boyle says:

      Republicofscotland says:
      29 June, 2022 at 1:52 pm

      When Laurel and Hardy arrived in Glasgow at Central station (the main train station in Glasgow) a huge crowd of Glaswegians greeted them and cheered them, one young Glaswegian rushed up and shook the hand of Oliver Hardy vigorously and said how pleased he was to meet him, the young man then melted back into the crowd never to be seen again, a few hour later Oliver Hardy noticed that his gold watch was missing.

      Complete pish.

      There is no older version of this urban legend than the one Ken Smith at The Herald gave in the always suspect Diary column in 2015, where facts were never allowed to get in the way of a good story.

      It’s since grown a moustache and a beard and it is claimed they had their pockets picked too.

    80. Mark Boyle says:

      David Beveridge says:
      29 June, 2022 at 2:47 pm

      Andy Ellis @2.25pm

      This is a good article on it – https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/07/11/determinants-of-independence-demographics/

      So how do YOU explain the older No-voting generation dying off, being replaced by the predominantly Yes-voting one and yet the polls not budging an inch? The incompetence of the present SNP administration? If that’s the case then we’re all fked anyway.

      I thought that old chestnut had been thoroughly debunked a year after the result and it was shown far more of the young had voted “No” than had been surmised after all, largely because they’d swallowed the garbage about being worse off?

    81. robbo says:

      Andy Ellis says:
      29 June, 2022 at 3:02 pm
      @Dave Beteridge 2.47 pm

      So your opinion Andy is that’s it’s tough luck that the majority of the English people moving up here and having second homes( basically using Scotland and it’s resources) and mostly voting against Indy and using it as their personal retired home is good for us- suck it up ?

      Even on the news today the people in Wales are sick of this shite and even some English counties and islands too. The young are getting forced emigrated out of their own areas just to satisfy the elite buying up nice we pretty wee villages from their ill gotten gains in London. – FUCKING DISCUSTING! Nowt nativist about it is there , just pure fucking greed.

    82. Republicofscotland says:

      “There is no older version of this urban legend than the one Ken Smith at The Herald gave in the always suspect Diary column in 2015, where facts were never allowed to get in the way of a good story.”

      Well Mark Boyle lets see the evidence please.

      Mines is the tour guide at Central station, and from Tom Shields book 111 Places in Glasgow You Shouldn’t Miss.

    83. Gregory Beekman says:

      In regards to the once-in-a-generation line……

      We just need Alex Salmond to go on TV and state, “This is another once-in-a-generation opportunity.”

      They took his statement then as indisputable fact, and they’ll do so again.

    84. robbo says:

      If things get much worse with this 2nd home carry on you may find the “highland clearances in reverse happening” maybe in thon south and north valleys too in pretty Wales.

    85. Breastplate says:

      Gregory Beekman,
      You’re right but hopefully the same mistake won’t be made again.

      The fact of the matter is that the 2014 is a once in a lifetime/ generation event, that will cease to be a fact only after we have had another one.

    86. James Che. says:

      Maybe it is a bit of a connumdrum for westminster and the supreme court to be caught between a legal rock and a hard place.

      If they say “no” to what is now preposed before both of them, they are saying no in front of the whole world to the Scots having the right to self determination, which is Colonialism.

      On the other hand if the supreme court or westminster are saying ” no” that the Scots have not got a entitlement to the “Claim of right” to chose whom governs them, for as long as they [ chose any ] particular method or length / in the treaty of the union,
      Westminster holds the hand that the breaks treaty of the union themselves by playing the role of sole ownership of the treaty.
      It is a factual legal impossibility to have a treaty with only yourself,

      It is not just a matter of colonialism playing out as active in the supreme court but as active colonialism in Westminster buildings in present day.

      What Alf Baird has been commenting on regards colonialism would come actively out into the open.
      That Scotland is a hostage country and the people being held captive in and under a false set of promises made by england parliament in an international treaty in 1707.
      It will open many cans of worms the uk parliament would wish to keep the lid on,

      I can see westminster folding on BJS and their position on a referendum rather than it have a world audience listening to their dirty washing being aired.

      Having said that, listening to Barrhead boy and group analysis after sturgeon’s speech yesterday.
      They pretty much all agreed that the franchise for the voting system on Scottish independence when the day comes cannot be left as it is or was in 2014,
      At the moment it is a tory whom owns that franchise.

    87. Mark Boyle says:

      Republicofscotland says:
      29 June, 2022 at 3:48 pm

      Well Mark Boyle lets see the evidence please.

      Mines is the tour guide at Central station, and from Tom Shields book 111 Places in Glasgow You Shouldn’t Miss.

      “… the tour guide at Central station.”

      😀

      “Tom Shields book 111 Places in Glasgow You Shouldn’t Miss.”

      First published 30th May 2018 – ISBN-13 978-3740802561.

      😀

      Ken Smith’s pish:

      https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/13902685.laurel-hardy-mobbed-glasgow/

      29th October 2015.

      Game, set and match – bolt, ya rocket!

    88. Republicofscotland says:

      Craig Murray making plans to speak around Scotland for independence, he’s 100% behind the indyref even though he knows the pitfalls, I suppose if this man of ill health is behind it, the least we can do is try and act positively towards it, even if we have our doubts that anything will materialise.

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/06/dont-look-back-in-anger/

    89. Republicofscotland says:

      Mark Boyle @4.36pm.

      Is that it, a newspaper article that say it can’t prove it, well Boyle I have the Evening Times forerunner newspaper (Evening Citizen) online article that was actually there in 1932.

      https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/18175768.dramatic-glasgow-visit-laurel-hardy/

      Of course your poor stream of insults relays to me that as usual you’re unsure of yourself in this exchange.

    90. Andy Ellis says:

      @robbo 3.45 pm

      1) “So your opinion Andy is that’s it’s tough luck that the majority of the English people moving up here and having second homes( basically using Scotland and it’s resources) and mostly voting against Indy and using it as their personal retired home is good for us- suck it up ?”

      Well, yes. Unless and until Scots have the political balls to vote for independence, it’s pointless whingeing about folk moving here on the one hand, and moaning that we have a demographic crisis on the other hand, and will run out of people to care for us when we’re old, or pay taxes in future. Second home ownership and its impact on communities are issues virtually anywhere you look: they’re not unique to Scotland. If folk don’t like that, then let them pressurise their local and national governments to do something about it. That’ll be easier to do when we’re independent. Just how many second home owners do you think there are? Do you really think they are going to swing the balance against independence? How many are owned by Scots born people? Or people who have lived here decades?

      (Hint: “The latest figures, for September 2021, show that there were 23,890 second homes, 45,801 unoccupied exemptions which have generally been empty and unfurnished for less than 6 months, and 43,766 long term empty properties that had been empty for more than 6 months.”

      https://www.gov.scot/publications/housing-statistics-scotland-quarterly-update-new-housebuilding-affordable-housing-supply-published-7-december-2021/pages/9/#:~:text=The%20latest%20figures%2C%20for%20September,for%20more%20than%206%20months. )

      2) “Even on the news today the people in Wales are sick of this shite and even some English counties and islands too. The young are getting forced emigrated out of their own areas just to satisfy the elite buying up nice we pretty wee villages from their ill gotten gains in London. – FUCKING DISCUSTING! Nowt nativist about it is there , just pure fucking greed.”

      So do something about it: gain independence and enact laws to regulate the ownership of second homes, and/or build more affordable homes and create more opportunities to ensure young folk don’t have to move away.

      You might not like it, but it is undeniable that there is a nativist streak in much of the dialogue about people moving in to rural areas, or buying second homes whether they are in rural areas or tourist hot spots in cities. You say greed, others say capitalism: if you have a better system of government in mind, have at it!

    91. Andy Ellis says:

      @holymcmoses 3.30 pm

      Hear, hear!

      From your lips to God’s ears. I hope it catches on!

    92. stuart mctavish says:

      holymacmoses

      Spot on – ties in well with the Andy Ellis interim national assembly explanation above.

      Presumably that scenario needs a continuation act and clarification up front on rules for all subsequent elections*, especially given that combination of the GE victory and supreme court ruling (or not) preceding it risks rendering obsolete the Scotland Act (and devolved authorities by extension), but nothing beyond the wit of independent minds – war games elsewhere notwithstanding

      *incl perhaps an opportunity to get in early with registering the truly Scottish labour, conservative and liberal parties

    93. Andy Ellis says:

      @Brotherhood 3.08 pm

      1) “Why can’t this stuff be discussed without accusations of ‘nativist’ coming from the usual quarters? Ellis may not have a problem doffing his cap to landowners and holiday-homers, but plenty of us do because we can see the damage they’re doing, not just demographically, but to the land. Does he really believe that they view him with any less contempt than the rest of us ‘natives’? Because make no mistake about it – that’s what we are to them. Unless we’re loyal ghillies of Monarch of the Glen type, we’re like the servants in Remains of the Day – we shouldn’t be seen lest we make their backyard look untidy.

      Because many of those making the argument are nativists and anglophobes. Even those that aren’t – or at least deny they are in public – are still promoting a regressive point of view which represents a step change from the 2014 indyref pattern, and is the antithesis of the indyref1 civic-nationalist model. The arguments are well rehearsed, not least in this place, and have not changed.

      Even if it could be convincingly demonstrated that the figures in 2014 proved what the nativists say, the onus is in the overwhelming preponderance of native born Scots (> 80% of the population) to grow a pair and vote for a better future, and on the independence movement to make a better case and argue it more convincingly to ensure a Yes victory.

      Disenfranchising a particular group to queer the result just looks like moving the goalposts because our arguments are crap.

      The assertions in the link are not givens either. The franchise used in 2014, based on residence not nationality, is the norm for self determination referendums. Changing it to a franchise based on blood, ethnicity or ridiculously long residence criteria which some have proposed, would be very much an outlier in historical and constitutional terms, as well as looking and feeling regressive and “old school nationalist”. Those pushing the “Scotland as colony narrative” are making a false equivalence which only a fringe minority accepts.

      Finally, we see it here all the time. Those arguing against the nativist narrative are routinely labelled as “English” as an insult, yoons, Sturgeoniste stooges and MI5 plants, 77th Brigade operatives etc. You and your moonhowler posse are usually to the fore, despite it being abundantly clear that the owner of the site you all come on to and hijack to try and fluff your snake oil thinks your case and your argument is shit. That’s why it triggers you when folk point it out: the mainstream movement can see the nativist Emperor has no clothes.

    94. Shug says:

      We’ll just heard Nicola saying that the plebiscite vote in the GE would require not a majority of seats but a majority of votes
      How long till she says and at least 40 percent of the entire electorate
      And then permission. From the house if commons and the house of lords and uncle Tom Conley and all

    95. Ian Brotherhood says:

      “So your opinion Andy is that’s it’s tough luck that the majority of the English people moving up here and having second homes( basically using Scotland and it’s resources) and mostly voting against Indy and using it as their personal retired home is good for us- suck it up ?”

      Well, yes.

      There it is. “Ellis in Straight Answer Shocker!”

      ‘Suck it up.’

      🙂 🙂 🙂

      We should just accept a 20% handicap before a vote is cast?

      Very telling, eh?

    96. Andy Ellis says:

      @Dave Beteridge 3.12 pm

      “Where did I say it “could or should be remedied by changing the franchise”?

      I get the feeling you’re just a shit-stirrer with eff all better to do.”

      I’m happy to withdraw my over hasty conclusion. I assumed you were just another nativist pushing the same tired old discredited line that’s been kicked to death here over past months. The fact you’re fluffing the output of the “Scotland as colony” supremo didn’t help.

      Your OP did posit a specific link between inward migration and lack of progress on independence. It was hardly an unreasonable conclusion.

      FWIW I get the feeling you’re just happy to parrot arguments you haven’t really thought through. Whether you’re a shit-stirrer I’ll leave for others to judge for themselves.

    97. holymacmoses says:

      The answer is to make sure before the vote that we have the terms well and truly publicised both here and abroad. If it’s not in our favour (which it surely won’t be) we have to use that to our advantage – that’s not rocket science.
      Make sure we ALL know what’s required to win our independence and fight in such a way that people can see an advantage for them. That means lots of ideas. Some individuals. This referendum should be all about letting the people of Scotland shine
      Forget the party game – that’s playing by their rules. This Scottish people wanting independence and seeing something in it for themselves. With this Westminster government in power that can’t be a difficult task

    98. Andy Ellis says:

      @Brotherhood 5.23 pm

      I’m happy to give straight answers. The answer is the one the majority of the movement thinks is right. Virtually everyone I know supports it. The only people I’ve ever come across who oppose it are the nutter fringe in here. Rev Stu himself has eloquently fisked the nativist narrative.

      No independence party supports your view. No major organisation does either. It’s supported by a tiny minority on the fringes of the movement, and some higher profile opportunists who should probably know better, but are desperate to push their hobby horse “Scotland as colony” schtick.

      To quote Rev Stu again:

      “If you want to deny 20% of the people who live in Scotland the vote in a referendum because they were born somewhere else, we’re not on the same side. If you want their votes, fucking well persuade them. If you can’t, your case is shit.”

    99. Liz says:

      Pete Wishart is a waste of good space.
      Obv he is colonised beyond redemption.

      WM does not matter, if we get a plebiscite won, still hope its number of MPs not % vote, the international community have to accept it.

    100. Breastplate says:

      IanB,
      Yes, we should be able o discuss the voting franchise precisely because of where we are.

      Every referendum and every election in the world has restrictive franchises, it’s nothing new but also necessary.

      We are in a position where we could be dealing with 1 of 2 possible restrictive franchises, it would be remiss of us not to talk about the pros and cons of each, preferably without being called blood and soil nativists.

      I’ve seen an interview with Alex a while ago about how they came to the decision of who could vote and whatever franchise they decided on came with their own hurdles or challenges but he ended up saying they had to draw the line somewhere.

      I don’t know if he thinks on hindsight that was the right thing to do or not or if anything would change his mind but there were definitely discussions around it, there had to be, it was necessary.

    101. Breastplate says:

      IanB,
      Just to be clear, it will be the same this time around and yes, we will have to play with a handicap, as you put it.

    102. Ian Brotherhood says:

      So, ‘suck it up’ it is then.

      Nothing to see here…

      There is no problem…

      Such yearning for independence – it drips from every word of every comment.

    103. Republicofscotland says:

      “Just to be clear, it will be the same this time around and yes, we will have to play with a handicap, as you put it.”

      Breastplate.

      Oh well, all I can say is who knows what might happen along the way, as the saying goes.

      “A bad plan is better than no plan (at all)” is a popular chess adage that is also used in business. Chess champion Emanuel Lasker (1868-1941) wrote in Chess Strategy (1915): “An unsound scheme, even if worked out to its logical conclusion, can of course be of no value. All the same it is better than no plan at all.”

    104. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Breastplate (5.56) –

      I remember Alex, clearly exasperated (perhaps even rueful?) saying that ‘franchise’ was one of the most difficult decisions he had to wrestle with when Scotland’s Future was being written. (Was it maybe during the full-length interview with Stu?)

      For anyone to dismiss relevant legitimate debate as ‘nativist moonhowling’ of interest only to a ‘nutter fringe’ is every bit as insulting as the canard that the referendum was a ‘once in a generation’ event.

    105. Breeks says:

      Shug says:
      29 June, 2022 at 5:20 pm

      We’ll just heard Nicola saying that the plebiscite vote in the GE would require not a majority of seats but a majority of votes
      How long till she says and at least 40 percent of the entire electorate…

      Between her and Swinney, they seem determined to screw it up.

      When you’re fumbling such a pivotal issue within 24 hours of announcing it, isn’t it telling how little research and analysis you’ve done about a Plebiscite Election when you don’t know where the threshold for victory is meant to be?

      It needs to be a majority of seats. End of story.

    106. Andy Ellis says:

      @Breeks 6.19 pm

      Oh stun us wi’ another…! Now the moonhowling nativists – not content with pushing the regressive franchise restriction narrative – are determined to push the bonkers and already discredited line that a plebiscitary election is decided by seats not votes.

      Talk about dumb and dumberer!

    107. Breastplate says:

      IanB,
      I’m a great believer that the spirit of any law, rule or regulation is paramount and that the written word of the law, rule or regulation is usually a poor attempt to encapsulate that spirit.

      If you also believe that the written word is an attempt to capture the spirit of the franchise for a Scottish independence referendum, for example, what would that spirit or ideal be in that respect?

      There does have to be restrictions, I think everyone agrees with that.
      What people believe those restrictions should be is the contentious part.

    108. Breastplate says:

      IanB,
      I can’t remember where or when I saw the interview but you may well be right about that.

    109. Andy Ellis says:

      @Brotherhood 6.04 pm

      “Such yearning for independence – it drips from every word of every comment.”

      So the line you’re going with is that those who disagree with your regressive nativist worldview don’t yearn for independence?

      So Stu Campbell and me and anyone else who opposes disenfranchising 20% of Scots aren’t as committed to independence as you…?

      Not ideologically pure enough?

      That’s your hot take to publicise on Stu Campbell’s blog?

      Are you fucking on something? Jeezus wept.

    110. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Breastplate –

      Thoughtful point, and that’s why it needs open honest discussion.

      The franchise may remain exactly as it was in 2014, but the whole point is to air the unavoidable fact that we are hamstrung before any campaign even starts – the demographics are against us right from the off.

      Who to ‘blame’ for that is one thing, and what to do about it is another, but to maintain that it is not up for discussion *at all* is as cowardly as it is damaging. Sticking the cork ever-tighter into this particular bottle won’t end well.

    111. Doug says:

      The only way we’ll regain our independence is by breaking Westminster law. By obeying Westminster law we will forever be England’s property. A majority of seats means a declaration of independence regardless of Westminster law. If England wishes to enforce its undemocratic grip over Scotland by using force then so be it. Then we’ll find out just how mush we want independence.

      The Republic of Ireland would still be England’s property had the Irish people never broken Westminster law a hundred years ago.

    112. Doug says:

      If Westminster passed a law saying every Scot had to be tattooed with “I am English property” on his or her body, and the so-called supreme court upheld Westminster’s right to do so, how many of us would break Westminster law by refusing to be so defiled?

      How many of us would “respect” Westminster law and refuse to even countenance breaking the law?

    113. robbo says:

      Andy Ellis says:
      29 June, 2022 at 6:43 pm
      @Brotherhood 6.04 pm

      “Such yearning for independence – it drips from every word of every comment.”

      So the line you’re going with is that those who disagree with your regressive nativist worldview don’t yearn for independence?

      So Stu Campbell and me and anyone else who opposes disenfranchising 20% of Scots aren’t as committed to independence as you…?

      Not ideologically pure enough?

      That’s your hot take to publicise on Stu Campbell’s blog?

      Are you fucking on something? Jeezus wept.

      Where does this 20% figure come from? Seriously I’m curious.

    114. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Andy Ellis at 6:36 pm.

      You pasted/typed,
      “Now the moonhowling nativists – not content with pushing the regressive franchise restriction narrative – are determined to push the bonkers and already discredited line that a plebiscitary election is decided by seats not votes.

      Talk about dumb and dumberer!”

      Why can you not conduct your debate without insulting those with whom you disagree?

      A local election franchise was used for the 2014 referendum vote, even although it affected the (inter)NATIONAL status of Scotland.

      A majority of pro-indy MPs at Westminster was accepted by Maggie Thatcher (and others – see Indyposterboy) as a mandate to enter independence negotiations.

      Learn how to communicate with folk, who want independence for Scotland, as much as you profess, without chuckin’ in the extraneous insults.

      https://indyposterboy.scot/a-majority-of-seats/

    115. Mark Boyle says:

      Republicofscotland says:
      29 June, 2022 at 4:50 pm

      Mark Boyle @4.36pm.

      Is that it, a newspaper article that say it can’t prove it, well Boyle I have the Evening Times forerunner newspaper (Evening Citizen) online article that was actually there in 1932.

      https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/18175768.dramatic-glasgow-visit-laurel-hardy/

      Of course your poor stream of insults relays to me that as usual you’re unsure of yourself in this exchange.

      LOL! This is too easy, even by your “can beat your IQ with one dart” standards.

      The article in the Evening Times was in 22nd January 2020 – post Ken Smith’s 2015 embellishments – and you will notice the vast difference in your story (guy stealing his watch when shaking his hand pish) to that quoted from the Evening Citizen:

      “Suddenly a stone balustrade in Hope Street, skirting the wall of the hotel, collapsed outwards onto the pavement owing to the pressure of the crowd, and a number of persons were knocked over by falling masonry.

      “The heap of broken stonework fortunately formed a barricade which protected the surging crowd from falling into a basement seven feet below.

      “Immediately help was forthcoming for the injured persons. Three ambulance wagons arrived on the scene, and nine men were removed to the Royal Infirmary.”

      You will notice no mention at all inside of the quotes of the “ripped clothes, damages shoes and a missing watched [sic!] (it was pinched from Stan’s wrist in the chaos)” Fotheringham claims later.

      You will also notice Fotheringham omits to mention the full date of the issue concerned – doubtless fearing some Glasgow “local history” buff or Laurel & Hardy buff checking it in the Mitchell Library archives – so we can deduce from this that it was not in the original article and she’s just adding sauce and a flake from the “urban legend” – hardly surprising, since “Stan Laurel Robbed In Glasgow” is something that would have made worldwide newspaper news – in 1932 he was one of the biggest stars of the day – let alone some local rag.

      Ergo it never happened – just another of those “No Mean City – Friendliest Citizens In The World Even As They Rob The False Teeth From Your Granny’s Gub” shit stories that really need kicked into touch, even if some impotent types love a wee bit of machismo bullshit.

      Yeah, I know logic isn’t your forte and I do make allowances for it, but you really need to stop being so gullible as to repeat parrot fashion every pub tale you read or hear as “fact”.

    116. Merganser says:

      A rose by any other name….

      Is a plebiscite election called to decide just one question in fact a referendum with all the consequences which would ensue if the Supreme Court gives the verdict anticipated on the Lord Advocate’s question?

      Interestingly, on Difference Between.net you find this:

      ‘Referendums: a stronger way to get the opinions of the masses across; plebiscite- a technique used by the government to legitimize any policy.

      Referendums can usually empower the people; plebiscite usually empowers the government at the expense of the masses.

      Referendum; held very commonly; plebiscite, seldom held, when the government is desperate to win support for a decision ( in some cases by tricking the masses to think something else).’

      I fear we are being led down a tunnel which has no beginning or end.

    117. robbo says:

      https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/disruption-warning-as-orange-walk-expected-to-gather-crowds-of-3000/ar-AAZ0wno?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=4f5afeca0b0f4b2dbe19333bd6b43290

      So basically a no go area in AYR the whole weekend. Nice eh.

      Are this lot British nativists Andy? How many of these marching and watching will be voting NO if we get a referendum or plebiscite vote?

      I reckon 100%

    118. robbo says:

      I hope it’s pishing it doon in Ayr all weekend.

    119. Breeks says:


      Doug says:
      29 June, 2022 at 6:57 pm

      The only way we’ll regain our independence is by breaking Westminster law. By obeying Westminster law we will forever be England’s property. A majority of seats means a declaration of independence regardless of Westminster law…

      With a Plebiscite Election, I would say it’s less about breaking Westminster law, and more about using Westminster rules against itself.

      Westminster is run my seats and majorities. That’s how the place works. What is there 650 seats or so? 325+1 seats gives you an outright majority government, irrespective of what the vote share is. That’s how Westminster works. There is no capacity to hold a retrospective review of “the vote” every time the Government makes a decision.

      Scotland with 59 seats in Westminster, needs 30 of those seats to be pro Independence for the will of Scotland to “be” Independence, and have a mandate to topple the Union.

      When we use their system against them, what comeback do they have?

      The same goes for Constitutional Referendums. There are International standards and precedents for determining who should and should not qualify for a vote. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. It’s a very “British” preoccupation to devise all sort of cunning conventions and exceptions to rules, which funnily enough, only ever apply to Scotland, and always seem to work to Scotland’s disadvantage. Funny that eh?

      Time and time again, Scotland allows itself to be played off the ball, and wouldn’t you know it? Once again, what bad luck, Scotland is confounded by some improvised “convention” which moves the goal posts. From your 40% rule, to your Section 30 Agreements, or “we must approve the question”, Westminster once again turns a Scottish sprint into 110m hurdles.

      Truth be told, the whole nine yards of Holyrood, and every facet of Devolution, is one massive “hurdle” expressly devised to muddy Scotland’s Constitutional waters. The whole thing is a proxy.

      Well fk ’em. When 30 Scottish MP’s are elected on an Independence manifesto, the will of Scotland, as it exits when represented in Westminster, becomes a mandate to repeal the Union, then the Union is thereby repealed.

      30 seats is our threshold, and it’s the Westminster system of Government which makes it so. That’ll do for me, and it should also be good enough for the International Community.

    120. Andy Ellis says:

      @Brian 7.29 pm

      I’m not insulting them, I’m simply expressing my belief that those proposing disenfranchisement of 20% of Scots are supporting regressive policies and are by and large moonhowlers. Stop clutching your pearls and engage in the issues. I’m not continually calling them cunts like that piece of work Ruby routinely does of me, or accusing them of not being “real” indy supporters.

      Strangely I’ve never seen or heard you or the other usual suspects who constantly bleat about being called moonhowlers call the abusers out. Seems to be OK if it’s directed at folk you disagree with.

      The franchise used in 2014 is in line with that used in the vast majority of other self determination referendums since WW2. They overwhelmingly used residence not ethnic, blood or nationality criteria. YOU are the ones who are out of step, but you’ll never admit that.

      It’ll be the same with the seats vs. votes issue. You’re dead wrong but you’ll drone on about it until the rocks melt in the sun.

    121. Andy Ellis says:

      @robbo 7.35 pm

      “Are this lot British nativists Andy?”

      Yes. THey’re only slightly more nauseating than blood and soil regressive nativists in our own movement advocating the disenfranchisement of 20% of Scots.

      As a wise man once said:

      “But I’ve officially lost any urge to even think about it, if even the people opposed to that awful vision just have a different kind of awful vision, of a country where only “ethnic Scots” have a say. Bollocks to that.”

    122. Republicofscotland says:

      “You will also notice Fotheringham omits to mention the full date of the issue concerned – doubtless fearing some Glasgow “local history” buff or Laurel & Hardy buff checking it in the Mitchell Library archives – so we can deduce from this that it was not in the original article and she’s just adding sauce and a flake from the “urban legend” – hardly surprising, since “Stan Laurel Robbed In Glasgow” is something that would have made worldwide newspaper news – in 1932 he was one of the biggest stars of the day – let alone some local rag.”

      Mark Boyle @7.32pm.

      So you have no evidence to the contrary just supposition of this and that, except, flake, urban legend, deduce, and it never happened.

      And your bum chum Agent Ellis calls me a conspiracy nut, I think I’ll leave it at that.

    123. Breeks says:

      Truth be known, if I was SNP Leader in Westminster, the 45 SNP MP’s would be primed to walk out of Westminster and declare the Treaty of Union breached and at an end the very moment the UK Government breaks International Law over the NI Protocol.

    124. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Och, Andy Ellis.

      You’re just a haver.

    125. Andy Ellis says:

      Och Brian Anonymous.

      You’re just a hypocrite.

    126. Dan says:

      @ BDtt

      You’ll note that when Andy selectively quotes what RevStu stated on twitter, he continually chooses not to mention the part where Stu also stated btl on ScotGoesPop that he had no great issue with tightening up the eligibility criteria with regard to temporary residency such as students or transient workers.
      Permanent residency in Scotland should mean all legal declarative requirements such as your passport, car registration document, insurance policies, etc are all stated as being at a Scottish address.

    127. robbo says:

      So Andy the 20 % thinghy ? Any clues?

    128. Wee Chid says:

      Soda says:
      29 June, 2022 at 12:32 pm

      I know of several older Yes voters who have died in that time – one of them just yesterday. I’ve also seen how many of the empty houses in the area, including social housing, has become occupied by Tory voting naysayers from south of the Border – or economic migrants, as I like to call them. We’re screwed.

    129. Andy Ellis says:

      @Dan 8.44 pm

      You’ve made this weak assed point before. Unsurprisingly it gets no more convincing for the repetition. Tightening the criteria in ways that excluded temporary residents is a no brainer, but are you actually going to try and argue that would result in more than drop in the bucket in terms of numbers?

      i’m happy to stand by my re-quotes of Rev Stu: doubtless he can answer for himself. He’s haded a few of your hapless mates their arses on plates when they’ve tried to misuse his words before. Perhaps you’re crusing for a Robert Hughes moment too “Dan”?

      The kind of measures you’re suggesting could and should have been instituted years ago as part of state building measures. They’re not going to happen now in the timescale required.

      If you’re deluded enough to think the kind of numbers involved would make a difference you’re a bigger fool than I took you for.

    130. Andy Ellis says:

      @robbo 8.52 pm

      No clue what you’re on about. When you’re more verbal, get back to me.

    131. Andy Ellis says:

      Number of deaths in Scotland over the past 5 years:

      2016 (full year) – 56,718
      2017 (full year) – 57,872
      2018 (full year) – 58,202
      2019 (full year) – 57,691
      2020 (up to 20th December) – 62,415

      https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000128465/

      “In the year to mid-2019, net total migration to Scotland was +30,200. Net rUK migration was +10,000, with inward and outward flows of 47,500 and 37,400, respectively. Net overseas migration was +20,200, with inward and outward flows of 39,900 and 19,700.”

      https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotland-future-opportunities-challenges-scotlands-changing-population/pages/7/#:~:text=In%20the%20year%20to%20mid,of%2047%2C500%20and%2037%2C400%2C%20respectively.

      Any of those bloviating about how we’re being swamped going to take a stab at showing how they prove what the nett effect of the number of deaths, nett inflow into Scotland and newly enfranchised voters will be? How are you going to figure out whether they support indy or not…?

      We’ll wait…..

    132. John Digsby says:

      What happens if the court case is won, and WM immediately pass the equivalent og a Clarity Act that prevents it?

      Obviously wildly unpopular, but what has Borus got to lose?

    133. sarah says:

      @ Breeks at 7.49: NS has said that a majority of VOTES will be required at the plebiscite election, NOT a majority of seats.

      So she is already putting a further barrier in the way of us restoring our independence.

      I despair.

    134. Merganser says:

      At my age (74 coming soon) and in my state of health (don’t ask unless you want to be bored for hours) I know I will never live in an independent Scotland. It would be a comfort to know that there is a real prospect of it being achieved at some time in the not too distant future, with a majority of people seeking it, led by someone of the stature of Alex Salmond.

      I am far from convinced that this ‘route map’ is the answer to my wishes.

    135. Kcor says:

      The likes of Wishart and Hunter have no shame whatsoever.

    136. Andy Ellis says:

      @John Digsby 9.52 pm

      If the britnats try that, then the plebiscitary elections route is taken. In fact, if they try to queer the pitch in that way, I’d hope any self respecting independence movement wouldn’t wait for GE2024, but would provoke an earlier Holyrood election instead. The more anti-democratic moves the yoons make, the more converts to indy.

    137. sarah says:

      @ Merganser: snap. My husband and I both have no faith whatsoever in the current SNP managing this campaign successfully. As I have just commented, NS is already erecting barriers by stating a majority of seats in a plebiscite election will not be enough, it must be a majority of votes.

      Does that sound as if she is desperate to regain independence? No it bloody doesn’t.

    138. Kcor says:

      O/T.

      lumilumi, you must be feeling much safer now that Finland is joining NATO.

      A few years ago you were so afraid of Russia/Putin invading Finland any moment.

    139. Andy Ellis says:

      @sarah 9.32 pm

      It’s not a further barrier, it’s the minimum acceptable to ensure international recognition. They will demand a clear majority in response to a clear mandate.

      Do you honestly think the UN will accept 49.97% of the vote and 56 of 59 seats like in 2015?

    140. Derek says:

      For all those shouting dog’s abuse at each other, a reminder…

      “2. Play the ball, not the man (or woman).

      And by all means disagree, by all means disagree forcefully – but argue with people’s views, don’t insult them personally. And that includes calling them “trolls” or implying they’re undercover Unionists. We’ll decide if someone’s trolling or not. But in the meantime, if you think they are, ignore them.”

    141. Dan says:

      @ Andy Ellis

      You’re always so quick with the needlessly and overly antagonistic and dismissive responses aren’t you. If it is a “no brainer” to implement tighter residency criteria for individuals to be included on a particular voting franchise, then surely that warrants discussion, rather than your continual divisive attempts to coral and tar all those that may want to discuss and consider divergence from using the exact same franchise as in 2014 as blood and soil natavists.

      Ever considered that using a “no brainer” sensible franchise with tighter residency eligibility isn’t just to stop temporary residents getting a vote on Scotland’s future…
      Much as it might not align with your, or Stu’s, or any other all inclusive civic nationalism pusher’s wonts, it could be a significant number of the small “c” conservative Scots aren’t actually that impressed with giving everyone that has just rocked up or are temporary residents a vote on Scotland’s long term future. Could just be they voted No because they didn’t think they would like what an Indy Scotland might become if all those “foreigners” get a vote.
      The point of independence is for Scot’s to decide what sort of country we want to live in. Would you deny or work against Scotland becoming independent just because a majority of folk weren’t aligned with your views on a particular matter?

      And how is it impossible for measures to be implemented to deal with tighter control of the electoral roll in a limited timescale? The electoral roll is updated periodically. Is it somehow beyond the wit of a human to use IT tools to run comparisons between updates to check for changes and anomalies thus facilitating the ability to filter out various groups for say residency duration. Oh, that’s right, they already do use that technology because we already utilise various different franchises in different elections…

      And FYI I don’t mind if I happen to have different views on matters, we are all individuals with our own life experiences and it’s inevitable none of us will be exactly aligned on all things. I would however like to be able to discuss subjects in a reasonable manner so folk have the opportunity to develop our knowledge and comprehension on different subjects.
      I’ve previously not agreed with certain choices Stu has made in the past, and I am actually aligned with his views with regard to tightening the residency criteria, so not sure what your game is trying to suggest I have contentious differing views to his on this particular subject, other than you continuing to try to misrepresent my views and stoke division.

      But just for reference, here’s where I did actually disagree with Stu’s decision and course of action on a pretty major matter.

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/of-no-materiality/#comment-2535076

    142. Iain More says:

      Well I see my last post got moderated out of existence.

      It seems to the Yoons that Scottish nativism is wicked and evil and bad and whatever negative connotations can be applied to it but Britisher nativism is golden sunshine and that sun never sets, it seems that they also get orgasmic at the Royals and the Butchers pinny and London Rule is pure ambrosia to them.

      Where a Saltire once flew on my street there now flies a Butchers pinny. We haven’t a chance in hell of winning a Referendum when our two hands are tied behind our backs in Red, White and Blue chains like they were in 2014.

    143. sarah says:

      Scotland and England are already registered [by the UK] as separate countries at the UN – quite rightly, as we are separate countries in the defining terms of borders, history, language etc and as proven by having separate [and very different] legal systems in Scotland and England. So I see no difficulty in being recognised by the UN.

      Furthermore the fact that there are Scottish constitutional documents that pre-date the Union, and that the Union preserved the distinctions between England and Scotland, is further reason to be recognised. This Constitution’s detail has been hidden from us but it exists and we all know the key item – the Claim of Right that states the Scottish people are sovereign. Not any parliament or any government – the people.

      So the rules of Westminster or Holyrood must bow to the people, not the people be tied by the parliaments’ rules.

      A majority of MPs at Westminster is sufficient prelude to the Scottish people being engaged further in the arrangements for our future.

      Given that a new Act of Union is at the second stage at Westminster it becomes even more urgent that the current Scottish government enlightens the public as to its existing rights.

      It is extremely worrying that the SNP is seeking permission from a UK court first – it is unnecessary and it is incredibly dangerous.

    144. Hatuey says:

      Andy Ellis is very confident of the unionist position. But he cannot show us where in any UN document it says that parliamentary democracy is inferior to direct democracy.

      To be clear, Westminster’s refusal to facilitate a referendum is a violation of democracy and nobody can plausibly argue — not even the confident Mr. Ellis — that there is anything legitimate about using a violation of democracy to thwart democracy itself.

      You’re falling into a unionist trap when you argue that an absolute majority of votes is needed to do anything in a parliamentary system, whether you be talking about the trigger for a referendum or the outcome of a general election in which the SNP stands on a single issue.

      And, in actual fact, from a constitutional and legal standpoint, it could be very easily argued that a general election provides a more legitimate basis for determining independence as compared to a referendum, given that referenda are always going to be consultative in a parliamentary system that relies on constituencies for brickwork.

      Either way, as I’ve said, it’s a needless concession to take into the negotiations we are entering into about these things.

      If the shoe was on the other foot and the SNP was consistently winning a majority of votes but not a majority of seats, you can bet that the confident Mr. Ellis would be here arguing the opposite — that it’s seats that count, not votes, in a parliamentary system — along with his unionist bedfellows.

    145. Hatuey says:

      Merganser: “I am far from convinced that this ‘route map’ is the answer to my wishes.”

      Alex Massie today argued that what Sturgeon’s speech yesterday amounted to was actually a sort of surrender in that she essentially was acknowledging that a referendum isn’t going to happen next year. In his view, this was Sturgeon breaking the bad news to us gently and subtly.

      I think his analysis has some value. Structurally, it looks like the stuff about using a general election as a plebiscite was stapled on as a sort of afterthought — a spoonful of sugar intended to help the medicine go down. I can easily imagine the idea being ditched amidst some objection by the electoral commission or some fart or another from a particular direction.

      The apparent confusion over how that plebiscite would work (in terms of whether votes or seats would count) is indicative. It’s likely they hadn’t even seriously discussed the idea in cabinet.

      That said, etc., I think just putting the idea of using an election as a referendum out there is likely to have positive implications. It might even spur the Unionists to say and do silly things.

      The forgotten abject scandalous tragedy of all this is that support for independence has not increased under Sturgeon, despite Boris, Brexit, the shambolic handling of Covid, and a million other things. What a head-bobbing failure she is.

    146. Breeks says:

      sarah says:
      29 June, 2022 at 9:32 pm
      @ Breeks at 7.49: NS has said that a majority of VOTES will be required at the plebiscite election, NOT a majority of seats.

      So she is already putting a further barrier in the way of us restoring our independence.

      I despair.

      Well, I have hopes that if the Supreme Court rules it’s beyond the competence of Holyrood to decide on Constitutional matters, then the Scotland Act which codifies Holyrood also codifies the position of First Minister. She won’t have the competence either.

      If Holyrood is blocked off, and Scotland thus resolves to pursue Independence via the Claim of Right or a Plebiscite General Election beyond and outside the realm of the Scotland Act, we should take that opportunity to put YES in charge of Independence, an amalgamation of YES organisations, rather than Sturgeon the Feckless and her equally brainless SNP.

    147. Robert Louis says:

      Pete Wishart, alas, has been way to long in Westminster. He really, really believes that quite uniquely, poor wee Scotland simply cannot get independence unless London agrees. Did Pete seriously think that if we had won in 2014, London would have simply turned around and said, ‘well, that’s fair and square, you guys won, let’s get it organised at our end in London too’?? Of course not, and I do not doubt Alex Salmond will have expected a fight with London, if he had won. That is no doubt why in the last few weeks he made sure lots of global media outlets were covering the result.

      No matter how Scots demonstrate their desire to end English coloniasl rule of Scotland, London will argue about it. As was so clearly explained by Dominic Raab yesterday, England needs Scotland’s wealth and natural assets. As such lying Tories will dismiss ANY result, no matter how it is achieved.

      As regards using a generla election, i had always understood, that the Westminster system was based on number of seats, not share of the vote. So, if NS has said, she will only base independence on share of the vote, then she is either a fraud or a mug. It is number of SEATS that makes you UK prime minister, not share of the vote. That is the rules. That is entirely how UK general elections are organised. That is how you win at a general election. So why oh why would it be different, simply for Scotland???

      No prime minister has ever been elected to Westminster with a majority share of the vote.

      If England decides it does not respect democracy, and will not (in their words) ‘allow’ a referendum, we will be forced to use the general election. As such, the whole democratic world (except Pete Wishart and England) will see it as fair if pro indy parties win a majority of seats. You simply make sure it is clear, that if you vote for an indy party at the general election, and if they have a majority of seats then they will enact independence. Of course London will whine ,and obfuscate, of course they will. England desperately NEEDS Scotland. They really, really NEED Scotland, so they will NEVER voluntarily end their colonial undemocratic rule over Scotland.

      It strikes me, that their are simply too many, especially within the SNP, who are quite literally feart of London, and cannot grasp that Independence is not given, it is taken. London will NEVER, EVER, turn around and say, ‘oh, well that’s a fair vote, let’s cheerily sort out your independence and make sure it is equitable for England and Scotland’. That day will never, ever come. They will fight, ewven once we win. Just ask any of the other hundreds of former English colonies. They were all threatened, they were all told they were too poor, all the while getting bled dry by thieving, lying England. Perfidious albion indeed.

    148. stuart mctavish says:

      @Breeks

      As someone Andy Ellis might refer to as a disenfranchised Frenchman, might I humbly suggest that if supreme court does (try to) assume sovereignty over Scotland, Ms Nicola could instruct Mr Blackford to terminate the treaty in advance of any GE* such that the subsequent election would not only be run as a plebiscite as promised (albeit a confirmatory one), it could be done so without any non Scots skewing the result – and in strict accordance with international best practice to boot.

      That scenario should be enough to overcome any concern about votes v seats taking priority and could also help open the door to holymacmoses suggestion being not only perfectly viable but even potentially preferable from any perspective keen to shape the post indy legislature from the bottom up.

      * worst case a majority of Scots MPs could defect to Alba for same result

    149. craig murray says:

      Friends, we don’t need to put particular trust in any individual or process.
      We need to take advantage of the fact that the merits of Independence are being nationally debated again for the first time in 8 years, without the Wisharts of this world pouring fresh torrents of cold water.
      We need to use this opportunity to build popular enthusiasm for Independence, to get the whole country feeling like Glasgow and Dundee felt on the street in 2014.
      Independence brings opportunity and responsibility to Scotland. It does not come with a guarantee against bad politicians or governments. That is not the point. The point is our achievements will be our achievements, our potential will not be artificially hampered by London, and our mistakes will be our mistakes.

    150. Andy Ellis says:

      @Hatuey 11.06 pm

      1) “Andy Ellis is very confident of the unionist position. But he cannot show us where in any UN document it says that parliamentary democracy is inferior to direct democracy.”

      It’s not a unionist position, it’s the realist position. The inference that I’m pushing a “unionist” narrative is noted however: it’s of a piece with the atavistic need amongst moonhowlers to other those they disagree with. I’d like to say I expected better of you Hatuey, but I honestly don’t. The UN hasn’t faced a situation like this before: there is no precedent, any more than Westminster has.

      There is no rule book that everyone accepts as binding, any more than international law is universally accepted and automatically applied everwhere on earth. At least try to argue in good faith without making ridiculous points like yours. There is no question that in any situation of self determination like Scotland’s (or Quebec or Catalonia), a clear majority of voters will be the hurdle.

      2) “To be clear, Westminster’s refusal to facilitate a referendum is a violation of democracy and nobody can plausibly argue — not even the confident Mr. Ellis — that there is anything legitimate about using a violation of democracy to thwart democracy itself.”

      Our movement believes it’s a violation, but most unionists don’t. Even if and when the SC found in the SG’s favour, there will still be unionists arguing the SC is wrong and that Holyrood lacks the competence. It is however not thwarting democracy to point out that self determination based on a minority of votes, but a majority of seat won’t fly. It’s simple common sense.

      3) “You’re falling into a unionist trap when you argue that an absolute majority of votes is needed to do anything in a parliamentary system, whether you be talking about the trigger for a referendum or the outcome of a general election in which the SNP stands on a single issue.”

      No, I’m not. you’re asserting a patently anti-democratic concept, i.e. that self determination can be achieved by the minority imposing it on the majority. No true democrat could or should be making your argument. Yoons refusing “permission” to hold a referendum is undemocratic because the majority of Scots have voted for parties who stood on a specific mandate of holding a referendum.

      We also know that polling indicates that a super majority of Scots (which must ipso facto include many unionist voters) believes it should be entirely a matter for Hollyrood when and how often we have a referendum.

      It’s simply utter bollocks to say “we” are falling in to a unionist trap or giving away a weapon to pressurise britnats. A plebiscitary election as Plan B is already pressure enough, and it will only be recognised if it reflects a majority of votes, not seats. The 2015 GE result would not be sufficient to lead to independence, however much those pushing this deeply anti-democratic narrative with otherwise.

      4) “If the shoe was on the other foot and the SNP was consistently winning a majority of votes but not a majority of seats, you can bet that the confident Mr. Ellis would be here arguing the opposite — that it’s seats that count, not votes, in a parliamentary system — along with his unionist bedfellows.”

      False. I’m being entirely consistent. Unlike you and others I’m not an anti-democrat, and I don’t treat principles as a pick and mix buffet. Hence, I don’t believe it’s right to suddenly think nativism is better than civic nationalism and advocate disenfranchising 20% of Scots so we can frig the result of a referendum. Equally, I’ll never be convinced that there are cunning plans that allow us to achieve independence on a minority of the the votes cast, or by using airy fairy novel paths that none of the proponents have ever been able to adequately describe, let alone justify.

      I’d say the snidey comment about “unionist bedfellows” was beneath you, but I truly believe you’re already lower than a snake’s ass in a wagon rut. It’s fringe nutters like you and some of the usual suspects in here that are doing the work of the British nationalist establishment for them. Extremists are always the bane of mainstream political movements.

    151. Breeks says:


      craig murray says:
      30 June, 2022 at 8:38 am

      We need to take advantage of the fact that the merits of Independence are being nationally debated again…

      I hear that Craig.

      But we are hampered when Sturgeon’s SNP seems hellbent on letting the air out of our tyres at every opportunity.

      Half our effort goes on fighting an uphill battle with the SNP just to get them to do something, and then a minute later, we’re running downhill full tilt trying to catch a runaway train, because the SNP have gone and done the wrong thing.

      She mentions a Plebiscite General Election! Hurrah!
      She declares 50% of the vote wins it! Oh FFS…. The despair returns.

      After eight years of this shit, it’s just exhausting.

      All I want right now is Sturgeon to step down, go away, and let us begin again. The fight will he hard enough without carrying so much dead weight ballast.

    152. Breeks says:


      stuart mctavish says:
      30 June, 2022 at 8:09 am

      … if supreme court does (try to) assume sovereignty over Scotland, Ms Nicola could instruct Mr Blackford to terminate the treaty…

      Hopefully, SALVO is running ahead of you there Stuart.

      The Treaty of Union had a prenuptial agreement, to the affect that if there’s no Claim of Right, then there is no Union.

      https://salvo.scot/

    153. Stoker says:

      Stan Flately says on 29 June, 2022 at 10:17 am:
      “I really would love to see Wishart made to respond and justify these Tweets. His despicable self important and loftiness to Indy Supporters legitimate statements is appalling.”

      As would i, Stan! He’s a bigger bum than 10 arses. And to avoid the slightest bit of scrutiny he automatically blocks folk on his social media accounts for the slightest of reasons. I’ve seen him block folk just because they disagreed with him. And they were polite about disagreeing with him. Years of drumming must have turned his cerebral matter to a pulp. He is more than the proverbial fly in the ointment. He is self-serving and untrustworthy.

    154. Hatuey says:

      Andy, I use the term “unionist” descriptively rather than pejoratively to describe your position. The argument unionists use now to deny that we have a mandate for a referendum is the same argument you are using.

      I repeat, if the SNP had an absolute majority in terms of vote share right now, but a minority of seats, unionists would be arguing that it’s seats that count.

      Is there anyone here that doubts that?

      I’m sick of bowing to their bullying and lies.. It’s Stockholm syndrome.

      Shake it off and grow a pair.

    155. Liz G says:

      Either way votes or seats ..and IMO, seats are Westminster’s system of choice so seats it should be.
      Why on earth different rules for Scotland apply because there’s a particular manifesto commitment is beyond unfair…
      Anhyoo while that issue is playing out.
      We,I think,need to concentrate on voter registration.
      Thats something practical we all can do right now and could in theory render the seats/ votes issue moot.

    156. Geri says:

      Andy Ellis ‘Wild arse guesses as facts’
      The study of participants in the 2014 indyref clearly showed Scotland remained chained to the Union by no voters who were rUK.
      Who owns holiday homes in Skye, the Highlands etc? Who owns huge estates? Leaving no homes OR land for the next generation of Scots to live or build on?
      Who’s in charge of our immigration policy?
      Who ‘bussed in’ activists from England during indyref?
      What die hard Rangers fans are from Scotland?
      Who’s taken over Edinburgh properties? Festivals & street vending?
      A clue: it’s not Scotland.
      You try to insult ppls intelligence & gaslight concerns as being blood & soil natives pish!
      Who has always had their takety boots on Scotland’s neck?
      Bless, you think Tories that move here will suddenly switch to YES at the border or collect it in a welcome pack on the ferry? LOL!
      That colonial mindset OWN Scotland, in Every. Single. Aspect. You couldn’t convince them otherwise.

    157. Andy Ellis says:

      @Geri 4.58 pm

      The study of participants in the 2014 indyref clearly showed Scotland remained chained to the Union by no voters who were rUK.

      One study suggested this, and the data is no longer available to be analysed. It is in any case impossible to know what the 2014 result *might* have been if nativists had had their way then and succeeded in imposing blood and soil ethnic criteria for eligibility. For all you know the result could have been worse for Yes. Civic nationalism was a cornerstone of the Yes campaign: neither you nor anyone else can really prove what the impact of a non civic nationalist campaig would have been.

      Who owns holiday homes in Skye, the Highlands etc? Who owns huge estates? Leaving no homes OR land for the next generation of Scots to live or build on?

      I don’t know. Do you? Does anyone else? Do the records show if they are native Scots, English, EU citizens, Zimbabwean…? Do you really think the number of second home owners and estate owners turned the 2014 result, or will turn future results? What % of the total voter pool do you think they represent? Is you concern really over numbers, or just a class based thing?

      Who’s in charge of our immigration policy?

      The UK government. The only ways to change that are either to vote for independence or to persuade the UK government to devolve the responsibility to Holyrood. Since few people (other than dyed in the wool nativists) would argue that we need more immigration rather than less due to our declining population, what else do you suggest. Presumably it’d be nice to have some younger folk around in coming decades to pay taxes and help keep all the old folks.

      Who ‘bussed in’ activists from England during indyref?

      Unionists. That’s what comes of not having the bollocks to vote for independence though. Doubtless Scots folk have been bussed south in the past to help in elections there. Big whoop. We know what the antidote is.

      What die hard Rangers fans are from Scotland?

      Loads of ’em. I know a fair few. Some support independence, most don’t. Some even cheer England on at football. They’re just not right. I could perhaps be persuaded of the merits of disenfranchising them. 🙂

      Who’s taken over Edinburgh properties? Festivals & street vending?
      A clue: it’s not Scotland.

      How should I know? Is your complaint that it’s only or primarily the dastardly English, or is it bad if anyone non-Scottish buys any property in Edinburgh? How do you propose we change that right now? If we want to restrict it to Scottish citizens and/or impose restrictions, we know what we have to d, right?

      I don’t know if our festivals and street vending have by and large been “taken over” by non-Scots. Is nobody non-Scots allowed to own or run street vending in Scotland then? You seem to be raging against the capitalist system in general. I’m not sure how popular that will prove…but if you want to make that case, have at it!

      You try to insult ppls intelligence & gaslight concerns as being blood & soil natives pish!

      In many of their cases intelligence isn’t much in evidence. Unreason runs strong among a small coterie of fringe nutters, some of whom have regrettably taken up residence in here. They’re not representative of the movement as a whole, still less the overall voting public. Many of them do sincerely believe the blood and soil pish, some of them just play along because they lack the wit or moral compass to do otherwise. Nary a one has adequately addressed Rev Stu’s original fisking of the whole odious franchise restriction narrative.

      Who has always had their takety boots on Scotland’s neck?

      More sub “Scotland as colony” bullshit. Seems like you’re at least balanced enough to have chip on both shoulders.

      Bless, you think Tories that move here will suddenly switch to YES at the border or collect it in a welcome pack on the ferry? LOL!
      That colonial mindset OWN Scotland, in Every. Single. Aspect. You couldn’t convince them otherwise.

      We all doubtless know folk from England and elsewhere who have moved here and support independence. Even some Tories support it. Lots of Scottish Tories will of course be around post independence. Like so many other nativist moonhowlers you vastly overestimate the numbers and influence of those migrating, because it suits your regressive blood and soil narrative. Same old, same old.



    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