Wings Over Scotland

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

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

I’m Pete Wishart. And so’s my wife.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

“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”

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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…

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

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.

“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.

@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.

@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.

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.

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.

Soda at 12:32 pm

A bit off topic but…

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.

“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?

Andy Ellis @2.25pm

This is a good article on it – link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com

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.

@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.

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.

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?

“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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

link to heraldscotland.com

29th October 2015.

Game, set and match – bolt, ya rocket!

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.

link to glasgowtimes.co.uk

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

@holymcmoses 3.30 pm

Hear, hear!

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

@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.

“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?

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

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.

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.

“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.”

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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

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.

“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”.

link to msn.com

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%

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.

@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.”

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.

Och Brian Anonymous.

You’re just a hypocrite.

So Andy the 20 % thinghy ? Any clues?

@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.

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

link to gov.scot

“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.”

link to gov.scot.

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…..

@ 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.

The likes of Wishart and Hunter have no shame whatsoever.

@ 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.

@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?

@ 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.

link to wingsoverscotland.com

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.