The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

RICS rolling

Posted on November 03, 2016 by

Here’s Ruth Davidson at FMQs today, telling the chamber that “last week the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors said the real problem facing investment and jobs in Scotland was [Nicola Sturgeon’s] threat of a second referendum”.

Would you like to know how many actual people that was, readers?

The RICS’ latest quarterly survey of its over 125,000 members gathered data from representatives of around 270 firms, of which just 15 were in Scotland. RICS’ press release on the survey made no mention whatsoever of a second referendum.

However, as well as compiling various statistics, the report includes all the additional comments made by the firms’ spokesmen. We’ve copied the entire contents of the section covering Scotland below.


That’s FOUR comments, of which THREE refer to the prospect of a second indyref.

What Ruth Davidson presents to Parliament as the official position of the Institution are in fact the personal opinions of 0.0024% of its membership, which are in no way endorsed or reflected by any comments from the Institution itself. We’re pretty sure that we could find three “Rangers” fans opposed to the monarchy, but that wouldn’t make it the club’s view.

If you thought the OBFA consultation was some dodgy science, make way for the new undisputed champion of political misdirection, folks. (Although you can listen to an even more outrageous claim from Ms Davidson here.)

Print Friendly

    391 to “RICS rolling”

    1. Merkin Scot says:

      Nothing new here. SNP baaaaaad, move on.

    2. Janet says:

      I would have thought that indy would be great for commercial property landlords. All these offices to be established in order to avoid the Tory Brexit.

      Methinks that there’s a touch of sourness from Tory types in commerce.

    3. Bruce L says:

      No wonder she’s so keen to get on Strictly.

    4. davidb says:

      Oh go on, do that thing you do. Dig around to see if they belong to any political party. Go on.

    5. Iain says:

      Please, someone in Parliament take this up. She gets away with so much.

      Wings is great, but even more publicity would be better. The National should start a regular feature – ‘Latest Unionist Lies’. It would be so easy to fill.

    6. Greg says:

      Yes, some fancy footwork indeed!

    7. Macart says:

      Ms Davidson truly is one of the most dishonest, disingenuous and deliberately misinformative individuals in Scottish politics. If that individual’s lips move at all, you instantly have to question whatever soundbite occurs.

      Still, she is at least consistently dishonest. There’s a lot to be said for being consistent… I suppose.

    8. MajorBloodnok says:

      Would be interesting to learn how many of these three commenters are members of the Tory Party or connected in some way.

      What’s interesting also that the three #SNPBad commenters just say it’s bad and it’s the SNP’s fault.

      However, the longer and more considered response from Mark Jones gives some context and explanation and basically says the #Brexit effect is alleviating a bit of pressure in Edinburgh so that a good thing for landlords.

    9. Doug Daniel says:

      Those guys don’t sound like Yoonbat tweeters at ALL, do they? What a joke.

    10. Brian Powell says:

      A healthy society has checks and balances and part of that should be the newspapers and TV to inform the public of misinformation and falsehoods but our 4th estate is a willing amplifier of the misinformation and falsehood.

      One might think that the RICs would want to correct her deliberate misrepresentation, but as was shown with Brexit non debate those who should have stood up and shouted resistance stood dumbly by, then it was too late.

    11. Chic McGregor says:

      That’ll be ‘Strictly Dum Chancing’ I presume.

    12. Sinky says:

      If Westminster is given a say on implementing Article 50 so should Holyrood.

    13. Arbroath1320 says:

      Just wondering here but maybe the “Famous Three” are all supporters of the Tory branch office and she gave them all a wee “head’s up” on what to say so she could make her “claim” about constitutional uncertainty.

      As she never made any reference to only the “Famous Three” being from Scotland but made a general statement about RIC “claiming” the real threat to jobs and investment was Nicola Sturgeon’s threat of a second referendum.

      Apparently oor wee Miss Photo op. continues to like to use information about a mainly English based survey to attack the Scottish government. She did it the other week over the N.H.S. in Scotland using ENGLISH N.H.S. figures and here she is today using the R.I.C. figures.

      Best you stick to your day job Ruthie doing the photo ops. cause you are absolutely useless as a politician!

    14. Thepnr says:

      Another own goal and lie by Davidson. She blatantly states:

      “and it’s not just me, last week the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors said the real problem facing investment and jobs in Scotland is her threat (pointy finger wagging at Nicola Sturgeon) of a second referendum.”

      As is pointed out in this article this is a blatant LIE. RICS said no such thing but anything to deflect from the real problem facing investment and jobs in Scotland.

      A Tory Brexit, which Ruth now seemingly supports.

    15. Greannach says:

      I hope Ms Davidson gets more than 0.0024% of the votes in Great British Strictly Come Baking on Benefits if she ever gets on the show.

    16. Stephen kilday says:

      She continually spouts blatantly incorrect “facts” in parliament which are the picked up by the tory media and press. Unless she is pulled up on these lies and made to give the true facts she will continue to succeed in muddying the water. And as we all sadly know this will just bolster the unionists and maybe even some potential voters cos,it’s on the news/it’s in the papers so it must be true. C’mon SNP,challenge her in Parliament!!

    17. bobajock says:

      Lovely building in Westminster Square. RICS hosted Parliamentary IT Committee when I was on it and it was a real treat.

    18. Andrew McLean says:

      Straw poll, just asked two associate RICS, pro Indy, two MRICS, one pro indy, one on the fence? Now waiting for one FRICS to finish his panini.

      Do I win smart arse of the day award?

    19. Big Jock says:

      No press scrutiny of any statistics the Yoons care to mention. In fact the press make up statistics as well. So essentially we live in a country where a Yoon can subjectively say anything on anything and it’s presented as a headline.

      The SNP are scrutinised on everything and even good stats are twisted into bad by the press.

      This is the Omni-shambles of the unionist colony.

    20. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      So yet another blatant attempt to mislead The Scottish Government.

      This is exactly the same Bullsh*t Davidson pulled when she used English NHS Statistics not that long ago.

      Surely there are grounds for sanction as The Ruthenfuhrer once again MISLEADS The Scottish Parliament.

      It is taken seriously in HoC:

      I’ll give The Ruthenfuhrer the benifit of the doubt about previous utterances, but today with RICS and previously with EngNHS, that’s her Second strike on misleading Holyrood.

      Can the public petition the PO about this or does it have to be an MSP making a point of order (like Ken Mc didn’t acknowledge on the EngNHS comment last time).

      Another ‘stronger opposition, no to IndyRef2’ moment for BBC/MSM etc. to proclaim to the masses later.

    21. shug says:

      Of course this misleading point in parliament will be covered up by the BBC

      Call Kaye, call Kaye,are you listening

    22. Big Jock says:

      Greannach – 1.37 – Ruth would make a fine Scottish puddin.

    23. Rookiescot says:

      Is there no method by which she can be dragged into the Holyrood chamber and made to explain her comments?

    24. Richardinho says:

      Ruth Davidson is by far the most dishonest politician in Scotland.

    25. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Well now @Richardinho says at 1:47 pm

      “Ruth Davidson the most dishonest politician in Scotland.”

      I wonder if the Herald, will now strip her of their Scotland’s Politician Of The Year award she won recently.

      (I don’t really wonder, it was rhetorical)

    26. HandandShrimp says:

      Ruth, burly men, Davidson is not noted for her honesty…she is after all a BBC journalist.

      Be interesting to see which of these three tweeters are Yoonderland regulars.

    27. Roboscot says:

      There’s a Lib Dem councillor in Paisley called Mike Dillon.

    28. Fred says:

      The bigger the arse, the bigger the lies! Old Gaelic saying.

    29. Michael McCabe says:

      If Ruth does make it onto Strictly ? I would love to be the first to Tango with her.

    30. Big Jock says:

      She lies with an articulate voice. People hear the articulate voice and it leads them to believe she is a professional honest politician. However the truth is she is a lying , self interested toe rag with a good PR team.

      Unfortunately people fall for style over substance.

    31. eckle fechan says:

      And no sign whatsoever of her choking on the weight of her brass neck. Hubris has no bounds.

    32. drawdeaddave says:

      Looking at it from a different angle, rather than be angry that Ruth Davidson consistently lies & misdirects i console myself with why she has to lie… She, the Tories & unionists in general have nothing, nada, zilch, diddly squat, nothing but their compliant media & lacky journo’s pushing their ridiculous unionist agenda, win the communications battle & indy is in the bag..

    33. Les Wilson says:

      Well I expect no more from the Tories,along with their other Unionist parties. This is all to halt the SNP march on councils. Then, any thought of Independence.
      Keep saying anything that will somehow, in any way denigrate the peoples choice.

      Add to that the BBC and other compliant media. This what we get from a Union desperate to keep their colony.It will get worse, they now have their pieces in place.

      Do not forget, Ruthie now has an ex uk spymaster working for her, who also was behind the scene in Indy1. He is not here for the fun of it, he has a job, that job will be to stop Scottish Independence by any means.

    34. shug says:

      Mark Jones conservative candidate Aberdeen?? same person perhaps

      Mike Dillon Lib Dem paisley – same person perhaps??

      Niall Burns possibly an independent candidate Renfrew – possibly same person??

    35. stonefree says:

      When Oh When……… Is someone going to stand up and say , “You’re talking shite, Fat Boab, produce the documentation!! or sit on your erse and be quite” …..

      Honestly you’re all being far too civil about her

    36. George S Gordon says:

      Three commenting on Indyref –

      Montagu Evans – head office in London, branch in Channel Islands (Oh dear!), Edinburgh & Glasgow.

      Kames Property is a bit of a mystery, registered in Largs. The website has been registered, but is not in use.

      Burns & Shaw are in commercial property, but their statement about this being affected by Indyref is not supported by evidence.

    37. Jack Murphy says:

      Brian Powell said at 1:33 pm:-
      “A healthy society has checks and balances and part of that should be the newspapers and TV to inform the public of misinformation and falsehoods but our 4th estate is a willing amplifier of the misinformation and falsehood.———-”

      EXACTLY——-time for BBC Reporting Scotland to step up to the Plate tonight,either in the form of Brian Taylor or the on camera Cue-Reader to inform the viewers—–it has a duty to tell the viewers about the 0.0024%.
      Get on with it or else you are a Fail minus.

    38. Graeme Doig says:

      “You can hear more from Ms Davidson here”

      Think I’ll pass on that Rev. Thanks all the same. Listened to her get her arse skelped by Nicola earlier. That’s good enough for me.

      The entire opposition have nothing constructive to say anymore. They are the ones turning us into a one party state.

    39. heedtracker says:

      She’s a very confident liar but that’s all part of the tory bullshitter life. Also it doesn’t matter how we vote in the Scottish region of Greater England. Tory creeps like this one are still in charge and they own the BBC too.

      Thanks again for all that proud Scotbuts.

    40. james says:

      Surely the surveyors comments are just stating the obvious. Uncertainty about another referendum is detrimental to people making new long term property decisions.

    41. Why does the SNP not hit back at this. Not everyone reads these posts, so SNP needs to qualify and quantify this openly. She needs to be publicly humiliated.

    42. David Smith says:

      Ruth is right, I have spoken to enough surveyors who agree to believe that’s the case. They also said business dried up around the first referendum. I work in the property industry.

    43. Jack Murphy says:

      TODAY. First Minister’s Questions.
      Scottish Parliament TV.
      Now Archived and available to view at:

    44. Lenny Hartley says:

      Stephen Kilday @ 1.39
      I contacted my Msp the other week about her lying in Parliament and asked why she was not forced to make an apology. He said the SNP released a press statement! I then said so there was nothing to stop her lying in Parliament and he replied correct. We need to force through rules which stop this behaviour, I will be going to see my MSP at his next surgery to demand that this is put right.

    45. heedtracker says:

      richie bradley says:
      3 November, 2016 at 2:26 pm
      Why does the SNP not hit back at this.

      Presumably because Richie, once they started, its all they’d be doing every minute of every day in tory teamGB.

      This is a tory nation, reigned over by tories, high and low.

      So, Ruthie babes lies like a crook to parliament about what RICS don’t say about ref 2, not a peep out of Pacific Quay. In fact that lot will probably run it as peak time UKOK news/propaganda.

      Meanwhile, the monumental catastrofuck that is Brexit, collapses into an even bigger toryboy disaster at the High Court in London today.

      Yet the whole staggering tory farce is merely reported by the tory BBC in particular as completely fine and normal, just another day at the UKOK office.

      There’s also by-elections this week in Aberdeenshire so this is the stuff for toryboys out the hustings.

    46. call me dave says:

      Michty! The Heralds archived page is spitting out the article in ‘Latin’… well it’s Greek to me! 🙁

      Anyhoo! Here’s the Guardian’s take.

      Will the article 50 ruling stop Brexit?
      Guardian panel responds

      Theresa May will only regret it if she doesn’t call an early election

    47. Luigi says:

      It’s the Ruth, the whole Ruth and nothing but the Ruth.

      In other words, it’s bullshit.

      Wot a chancer. 🙂

    48. louis.b.argyll says:

      Pathetic, from Davidson.
      Bluff and bluster.

    49. Scott says:

      This story reminds me of this one where the Tank was caught out.

      Following the trail

      Posted on September 16, 2016 on Wings

      She is a sly not to be trusted person.

    50. rosa alba says:

      Assuming this is vaguely true – it will be vaguely because the purchasers it is affecting, are those who would not move to an i-Scotland, I imagine, and the properties affected big ticket Edinburgh Grade A properties, and maybe £1 Million gaffes in Perthshire. Lodge type houses.

      Properties – a semi in Musselbrugh, a terraced in Coatbridge, a villa in Dundee, or a cottage in Nairn not so much I warrant and these are the bread and butter properties…

    51. heedtracker says:

      Nige predicts a riot. From another ferocious toryboy liar, it could well shut down Brexit, which would be very funny/scary, Brexiteers wont get their new UKOK NHS hospital a week n shit.

      Nigel Farage ?@Nigel_Farage 5h5 hours ago
      I now fear every attempt will be made to block or delay triggering Article 50. They have no idea level of public anger they will provoke.

    52. Martin Wood says:

      “She did it the other week over the N.H.S. in Scotland using ENGLISH N.H.S. figures and here she is today using the R.I.C. figures.”

      Which the BBC are still only too happy to repeat ad nauseum.

      The were at it again this morning with ” Last weeks Damning Report on the NHS”

    53. heedtracker says:

      Quick trip along Ruthy babes twitter and everyone on planet toryboy is very excited at the neo fascist’s Voice of the North P&J and their daily SNP bad smear campaigning. You’d think there was some by-elections on that outfits turf this week though.

      The “trappings of high office” have left the health secretary oblivious to the difficulties facing north health boards, it has been claimed.

      North East MSP Ross Thomson savaged Shona Robison over the “astonishing” underfunding of the NHS in the region”

      Ooft. It is rather a lot of tory propaganda even for the P&J readership.

    54. Big Jock says:

      May could call an election and she would win hands down. So no election will be called as the opposition can’t win that.

      Where does that leave us. As we were, the referendum was held and the result must be honoured no matter how hard it is to swallow.

      May will carry on as she does with most things. She is impervious to outside influence as she is not a diplomat. I fear there would also be riots in England if the Brexit vote was denied.

      The courts decision only muddies the water on the way to the inevitable. I think this decision may even push May into a swifter Article 50 trigger. They could have a vote in WM to agree article 50. The Tory Whips would make sure that the motion was passed.

    55. Thepnr says:

      @rosa alba

      Good post, but if Scotland remains in the EU and rUK exits there would be a rush on for those £1m plus properties and commercial property in Edinburgh and Perthshire when many banks currently based in London chose to relocate to Scotland.

      I think the Westminster government know this too. The balls at our feet now.

    56. Meindevon says:

      Heed…the DM readers are going apoplectic down here. Over 13 thousand comments BTL. Mostly calling for rioting and the ‘sharpening of pitchforks’. Not to mention never filling in electoral roles and refusing to vote ever again.

      Such fun!

    57. Thepnr says:

      @Big Jock

      Sorry Jock but have to disagree, the people may have spoken but now it is the turn of the judiciary, the bankers and the parliamentarians.

      Never has democracy counted for so little. Best just buy some popcorn and continue to watch the shenanigans.

      Anything could happen though I don’t think it will make a shred of difference to the direction Scotland is heading in.

    58. She cannot even describe the organisation correctly.

      It is known as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

    59. galamcennalath says:

      You would think the Ruth Davidson Union Forever Party only had one policy – stop IndyRef2.

      Wrong! As part of the London based Greater England Nationalist Party they have to take full responsibility for all sorts of nasty shit! And, no one should let them forget it!

    60. yesindyref2 says:

      To be precise, 2 out of 4, with an unspecided threat from the SNP.

    61. heedtracker says:

      Meindevon says:
      3 November, 2016 at 3:26 pm
      Heed…the DM readers are going apoplectic down here. Over 13 thousand comments BTL.

      😀 very much! I still cant bring myself to have a look at what UKIP Scotland’s roaster is saying. It is going to be fun watching how the end of Brexit is sold to us sweaties up here though. ” A triumph of teamGBness!” on one side of the border.

      Coburn’s not saying much at all actually.

      David Coburn MEP Retweeted
      Despairing Sturgeon calls for massive ‘ALLSCOTLAND’ opposition to Brexit. I despair of her, exclude her from talks!

    62. ROBBO says:

      I fear Ruthie and her lies is merely trying to outdo James kelly the other renowned MSP and waste of space to retain her Herald’s crown of Scottish Politician of the year 2017. They are both equally a disgrace to Scotland.

    63. Bob Mack says:

      English media being bombarded by semi literates demanding their “rites”. Talk of civil unrest, revolution and riots. Need to lay in some snacks for when the curtain goes up on the next act.

    64. RogerM says:

      So a bunch of property spivs are worried that rents and property prices may not rise so quickly?

      What was the bad news?

    65. Robert Peffers says:

      @Sinky says: 3 November, 2016 at 1:34 pm:

      “If Westminster is given a say on implementing Article 50 so should Holyrood.”

      Ach! Sinky, You know that, I know that and so do the majority of Scots know that – but, as far as the Westminster Establishment goes – the real situation is exactly as that idiot, Mundell, (The Elder), who is The Secretary of State against, Scotland claimed it was during the Scottish Independence Referendum:-

      “The Treaty of Union extinguished the Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England as the United Kingdom”.

      Now I may not be an expert of such things but the plain fact is the congenital idiot does something in that quote that reduces the Westminster Establishments case into a shattered pile of broken Treaty of Union Articles.

      By his use of the terms, “Kingdom of Scotland” and, “Kingdom of England”, he amplifies the legal fact that, “The United Kingdom”, is without doubt a union of Kingdoms. Yet there is not one single reference to countries in the entire treaty.

      Secondly his claims are utter lies that the Kingdom of England ever became the United Kingdom for the Truth is that the Kingdom of England in 1706/7 had been a, “Constitutional Monarchy”, since that Kingdom had their, “Glorious Revolution”, in 1688 and, in 1688, the only two British Kingdoms still extant were both still independent Kingdoms and the still independent Scotland had ended the Devine Right of Kings rule of law in 1320 by the Declaration of Arbroath.

      Furthermore, the Kingdom of England had three countries as its member countries but was not a United Kingdom as the two English acquisitions of Wales & Ireland were acquired under the rule of law of Devine Right of Kings and thus were annexed – not united with.

      It also highlights the stark fact that if there had indeed been a, “Union of the Crowns”, in 1603 there would have been no need for A Treaty of Union in 1706/7 as the only two still existing Kingdoms would have been already a United Kingdom by divine right inheritance. It wasn’t and remained two equally sovereign kingdoms until 1706/7.

      The plain truth is that Westminster has now, also illegally, made itself the, “Master Country”, of England. by running the bipartite United Kingdom along the lines of four devolved countries instead of along the lines of two, equally sovereign, Kingdoms. It then legislates and runs only the country of England as the United Kingdom while also funding only the country of England as the United Kingdom and granting the other countries a Block Grant.

      It is thus devolving only English powers upon the three countries of Wales, N. Ireland and Scotland.

      However, the Treaty is legally an agreement of two, equally sovereign, Kingdoms but the Kingdom of Scotland has been relegate by Westminster to the status of just one more acquired country of England’s subservient underlings.

      The truth is that the United Kingdom is exactly that, a union of two equally sovereign Kingdom and it is not now, nor ever has been a unified country composed of a master race country and three unequal subservient satellite countries.

    66. heedtracker says:

      Ah the Heil, creepy, sleazy, cant even use it for loo roll.

      ‘How dare these activist judges try to overturn our will?’ Fury as High Court ruling throws Brexit into chaos by allowing Parliament to BLOCK referendum decision to leave the EU”

      “The former model who took on Theresa May and won: How South American mother-of-three launched legal challenge to Brexit because it made her ‘physically sick'”

      “Gina Miller, 51, (left and right) lives in London with her financier husband Alan, nicknamed ‘Mr Hedge Fund’ (inset together) because he made £30 million after starting one of the City’s first funds in 1997. The couple now run an investment firm with a reported £100million in its portfolios. Nicknamed ‘Mrs Wham Glam’ by friends, she has now been branded ‘woman of the century’ by Remainers”

      and usual creepy as feck Heil style ogling little girls in their underpants.

      They’re probably relieved Brexit is all over now though. If it was any good, the pound crash would have sent FTSE rocketing up but there’s been nothing. That’s probably the best sign of just how really shite Brexit was going to be.

    67. stonefree says:

      Kames Property?? I doubt it has anything to do with this one

      “The additional pricing cut to the Kames Property Income and Kames Property Income Feeder funds was due to the “continued market volatility” since the vote, Kames, which is owned by Dutch insurer Aegon (AEGN.AS) said in a statement.

      Seven UK property funds with assets under management totalling more than 18 billion pounds have suspended trading this week, while three other funds said on Thursday they had cut pricing. ”

      However as the Director is a surveyor , he would be a member of RICS, subject to paying the fees,and putting his tuppence worth in

      Just a load of shite spewed by Davidson yet again

    68. yesindyref2 says:

      Monague Evans about Indy Ref 1 (Date: 20/06/2014)
      “Hugh Rutherford, partner at Montagu Evans, is adamant that the independence vote has not yet had any significant effect. ”

      Kames Property “We believe the Brexit vote makes higher inflation more likely in the UK.”

      Burns & Shaw “We have a positive outlook
      We can improve yours”

      Okay! Let’s boogie.

      Ruth Davidson reads the Telegraph whose motto ain’t “Always look on the bright, side, of life”.

      Ta tum

    69. Big Jock says:

      This will go to a vote in WM. The MP’s will vote in favour of article 50 as that’s what the people in England voted for. Scotland is a side show.

      We need to press on with our referendum on independence.

    70. Dr Jim says:

      I’ll keep saying it
      David Cameron “offered” the electorate a referendum
      Nicola Sturgeon “threatens” the electorate with a referendum

      Does this mean if a Tory offers to punch you on the nose it’s OK and to be welcomed
      If somebody else offers to do the same thing it’s a threat

      Clarification on this is required as I’m happy to make offers all over the place or do I have to be a Tory

      Did everybody see Kez walking about Holyrood with a half eaten banana with the skin floppin about, I don’t know why I laughed I just did
      I could be mistaken of course it coulda been Marigolds
      so’s she didn’t leave fingerprints on the vote button

    71. heedtracker says:

      Ruthie babes, teller of the tory mega whoppers, makes top billing on twitter, big Cons and little Cons. No mention of end of Brexit though. But planet toryboy does like a big chunk of Ruthie babes, future Thatcherite leader of teamGB, oh yes.

    72. Brian says:

      Yes, I watched FMQT, and i heard this from Davidson. So this debunking is a fabulous piece of reporting…thankyou once again for staying on the case, all the time.

    73. Dr Jim says:

      MSN reporting since the court ruling on Brexit £pound surges against the Euro

      It’s shot up they say to £1.12

      I’m off to the shops immediately

    74. gordoz says:

      She’s being economic with the truth. Typical Tory

      I am RICS and they are not that daft; well aware membership is split down the middle in Scotland.

      Was at a conference today and they hit brexit far harder for cause of uncertainty.

      Speech by Federation of master builders put issue of uncertainty largely down to both May and FM equally.

      Apparently Experion report on future economy shreds Brexit all over the place. Says value of pound in pocket has not bottomed out yet. Inflation will hit 4%
      Commercial construction projects will nose dive.

      Must have been QS she was in bed with ?

    75. Dan Huil says:

      The britnat bbc will report her claims as undisputable fact. Don’t pay the bbc tax

    76. Robert Peffers says:

      @shug says: 3 November, 2016 at 1:43 pm:

      ” … Call Kaye, call Kaye,are you listening.”

      Yes, Shug, She has been listening to the Scottish electorate for even longer than the, “Labour in Scotland Accounting Unit”, has been listening.

      They have been listening to the Scottish Electorate for longer than I’ve lived and I’m eighty now. Mind you YouKaye wi wan “e”, is now looks her real age and sounds even more old and tired when she’s on air.

    77. heedtracker says:

      Must have been QS she was in bed with ?

      Eww. QS’s have more sense. She is fantastic liar though, so lawyers will enjoy a taste of Ruth. Also she has no tells, so don’t play poker with our Ruth either.

    78. gordoz says:

      Maybe National should ask RICS to confirm her statement.
      As the TV wont.

      Believe me they wont take kindly to this misquoting.

      (Will ask them to clarify Davidsons statement for membership)

    79. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Bob Mack says at 3:53 pm

      “English media being bombarded by semi literates demanding their “rites”. Talk of civil unrest, revolution and riots. Need to lay in some snacks for when the curtain goes up on the next act.”

      Selects Sarcasm Font:

      Oh the irony Bob Mack.

      I was teaching the wife and kids to shoot straight whilst stockpiling food, water and fuel for the Apocalypse brought on by Putin or Trump (odds were even).

      English Civil War II (now will that require the footie team to wear a red flower or a white one or am I thinking of the wrong Southern British constitutional war)?


    80. Chic McGregor says:

      Robert, during the interregnum Oliver Cromwell and the English Parliament annexed Scotland into the Commonwealth of England.

      Defacto from 1652 (declaration called the Tender of Union) and officially by Act of the English Parliament in 1657.

      Commonwealth, not Empire, since there was no recognised monarch.

      Scotland, temporarily, became simply part of the Commonwealth of England.

      This situation pertained, with Scotland merely having a ‘Council’ to adminstrate it and 30 MPs at Westminster with dubious allegiance to anything other than Westminster’s interest, until the Restoration of Charles II.

    81. Dan Huil says:

      Didn’t britnats make the same claim about IndyRef1? And were later proved wrong by the official figures? And they [the britnats] were never challenged by the bbc et al?

    82. Robert Peffers says:

      @Richardinho says: 3 November, 2016 at 1:47 pm:

      “Ruth Davidson is by far the most dishonest politician in Scotland”.

      Indeed so, Richardinho, but as more and more former Unionists begin to notice that fact then more of them become independence voters.

    83. Luigi says:

      Thepnr says:

      3 November, 2016 at 3:34 pm

      @Big Jock

      Sorry Jock but have to disagree, the people may have spoken but now it is the turn of the judiciary, the bankers and the parliamentarians.

      Never has democracy counted for so little. Best just buy some popcorn and continue to watch the shenanigans.

      Anything could happen though I don’t think it will make a shred of difference to the direction Scotland is heading in.

      The more legal challenges, the longer this is drawn out before Article 50 is invoked, the better, as far as Scotland is concerned. Public opinion seems to be running about 6 moths behind events, as people struggle to digest the full implications. What better way to help the independence vote catch up than long, drawn out court action?

      My concern is that Nicola may have to pull the IndyRef 2 trigger too soon, before the people are quite ready (soft NOs are starting to come round, but only slowly, and many are still in a state of shock or denial that is going to get quite as bad as expected). Of course, the heat of a campaign will accelerate things, but we could do with another year or two before kicking off IMO.

    84. liz says:

      @Chris McGregor, – someone with more knowledge than me might be able to answer this- but wouldn’t that have broken the Treaty of Union?

    85. Big Jock says:

      Chic regards Cromwell. That was the brief period where England and occupied Scotland was a republic.

      I get really angry when I go to historic buildings and they refer to the Cromwellian wars in Scotland as a civil war. It was no such thing. Scotland was occupied and England was fighting Cromwell as well, but Scotland was fighting him for different reasons. England had a civil war and we fought to take our nation back.

    86. yesindyref2 says:

      All power to your elbow (or whatever the expression is).

    87. Big Jock says:

      There is no appetite or a general election as Labour is in a mess. So no GE will happen unless the parliament vote down the article 50 bill. The Tories who have a majority will fall into line and back May. Not forgetting the various other MP’s who agreed with Brexit who may agree with article 50.

      In the unlikely event that WM stops article 50. England will go into meltdown and there will be a democratic civil war. At that stage Scotland can walk away from the mess. However it’s about as likely as Ruth Davidson telling the truth.

    88. Robert Peffers says:

      Has anyone else noticed that Wee Ruthie always has a look on her face as if there as something unpleasantly fragrant just under her nose?

      Mind you, in view of all the lying shite she spouts there would certainly be a rather unpleasant smell very close to her nostrils.

    89. Richard anderson says:

      Given there were 3 out of the 4 saying almost dactyl the same thing, I’d wager a £ to a penny that these guys are Tories or Tory party donors. It’s significant that the language used in reminiscent of the threats used during indyref. I smell Brown stuff

    90. ronnie anderson says:

      @ Robert Peffers Noo you widnae be implying that Kay wie the E hiz only ah face that Radio listeners would love wid ye lol.

    91. Black Joan says:

      You’d think she’d have enough well-connected Tory land agent friends to know that it’s the Royal INSTITUTION of Chartered Surveyors, not INSTITUTE.

      But then again, when did details matter?

    92. This evil little woman is robbing our poorest citizens to the tune of £2 billion a year and is therefore responsible for the premature deaths, smashing the chances of our poorest youngsters ever getting a decent education, and has rewarded the rich with another 5% tax cut.
      She is evil personified.

      This is not an ad hominem attack.
      All three Unionist Parties Up Here are mere marionettes controlled by the neo Con Red Blue and Yellow Tories Down There in Ingleland.

      I hold Rennie, Dugdale, Davidson,and their wee band of list Super Councillors, and god help us, Harvie(?), accountable for trying to destroy Scotland by any underhand means.Lies, threats, bullying.
      Meanwhile oodles of cash for Trident, Brexit, and bombing the towel heads.
      They disgust me.
      She is a down right liar and clearly is an evilly ambitious woman.
      The Yoons bang on about a second Indy Referendum, thus avoiding having to account for the relentless social and economic destruction being visited upon the majority of their fellow Scots by their English Parliament.
      Independence is inevitable now.
      Hang your heads in shame, ye liars, and abstainers.

    93. Chic McGregor says:

      liz, It would, if it wasn’t 50 years before the Treaty of Union. 🙂

      Big Jock,
      I think there was a civil war element in Scotland too along monarch faith lines, but your right both sides ended up fighting for Scotland’s survival.

      One can speculate what might have happened if Charles II had been minded differently.

    94. stewartb says:

      Need for some care in research. Seems to be some confusion in earlier posts between Kames Property – (just) a wee company registered in Largs – and Kames Capital, an investment/wealth management company based in Edinburgh and London.

    95. Glamaig says:

      archived article from the Independent in July – how Theresa May can call a GE.

    96. Glamaig says:

      @Big Jock

      I think historians now call it the Wars of the 3 Kingdoms as the English civil War was only part of it.

    97. Conan the Librarian™ says:

      @Big Jock

      It’s now collectively known as the War of the Three Kingdoms.

      Anglocentric historians excluded.

    98. Vestas says:

      All of the A.50 stuff is just speculation until the appeal gets heard on the 6/7 December (?).

      If that appeal court upholds the high court decision then I suspect a General Election will be happening very soon.


      MPs in England are largely screwed whatever they do – their constituencies voted to leave, after all. I suspect that (with some exceptions) the Brexit result wouldn’t be repeated if the referendum was re-run now so they’re desperate to find a way to turn the tanker around.

      We’d need Lalland to comment but I think a GE could be triggered by the PM/Govt resigning and declining to offer a “successor” to Betty from the Tory party.

      She would then have to ask Corbyn to form a govt which he wouldn’t really want/be able to do (Tories would block him regardless) and then so on.

      No recommendation for PM supported by a majortiy of the HoC then that equals an election I think?

      Feel free to correct me 🙂

    99. Another Union Dividend says:

      SNP get their £100 million for schools and council tax reform passed

    100. Betty Boop says:

      Ruthie honed her story-telling “skills” on her own party sycophants during indyref because they just hadn’t a clue anyway, folk who couldn’t think why the union was good, but, it must be because, because, well, it just had to be… Ruthie said so and she is the lead sheep.

      They don’t know that disingenuous, dishonest Ruthie’s stories are malicious and conniving. They don’t even know they are lies, that they are being mislead by her great, big whoppers. We do though, oh yes, we do. Ruthie knows too, but, she has stardust in her eyes; Strictly is only the start of her dreams…

      So, it is down to us lot to wake them up!

      Re: Brexit. A massive amount of damage has already been done. The longer it drags on, the worse it will become. Who would trust the dangerous, arrogant fools in UKIP Westminster?

    101. Proud Cybernat says:

      Kez slips up (again)…

    102. call me dave says:

      Will Davis’s new bill for approval of A50 in WM be an England ‘EVEL Bill’ meaning our MPs not getting a chance to debate?

      Oh wait! Davis now saying Parliament is sovereign and the people are sovereign so the majority of MPs will vote it through to carry out their wishes. Methinks he really only means England.

      Complicated init!

      I’m glad Mr Peffers is reminding us about our history.

    103. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      One lesson that the SG or the SNP needs to learn from the US election campaign is to get a very proactive fact-checking rebuttal unit up and running. (And not just at election time either.) Too much passivity in the face of outright distortions such as this latest by Buffalo Gal make it far too easy for a lazy and outright biassed MSM to pass on utter rubbish unchallenged.

      This is exactly what we had for years and years with the EU: a drip-drip-drip of lies and misinformation that was fundamentally corrosive of good understanding and thus ultimately of the democratic system itself.

      For many dead-tree publishers, rebuttal may of course be routinely ignored, but supposed neutrals such as the BBC should be getting heavy-duty chapter-and-verse about the real facts of any case as soon as some MSP spouts off some nonsense in Holyrood. (Yes I know, if its reporting was rather less supine it would be doing that unprompted for itself, but long experience indicates it generally doesn’t. Except of course when its SNPbaaaad.)

    104. Sinky says:

      Robert J. Sutherland says at 5:23 pm
      “One lesson that the SG or the SNP needs to learn from the US election campaign is to get a very proactive fact-checking rebuttal unit up and running. (And not just at election time either.)”

      Scottish Government can’t do this but SNP should have an topical and searchable rubuttal section on its web site.

      I know the SNP belives in putting out positive messages but supporters need the ammunination to correct opposition propaganda and the continual SNP Bad output from the right wing press that sets the agenda for broadcasters.

    105. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      call me dave @ 17:22:

      Oh wait! Davis now saying Parliament is sovereign

      The Brexiteers are twisting furiously in the wind over this one.

      The Leave campaign was all about Westminster becoming “sovereign” again instead of being over-ridden by all these dastardly foreign johnnies, but after the court judgement that their precious totem does actually have some entitlement to determine how our civil rights are to be trashed, their tune changed to “power to the people” and “how dare parliament stand in the way”. Richly ironic but also destructively chaotic, as Nicola has already rightly pointed out.

      If Davis has done yet another volte-face, as you suggest, I would not be at all surprised. It would be a real treat to actually observe the deep turmoil that’s going on behind closed doors in Whitehall right now. That would be really worth getting the popcorn out for!

      (Which is probably all we’ll be able to afford to eat in a couple of years’ time anyway, if things carry on like this.)

    106. Proud Cybernat says:

      Ran Nae Truth Rooth’s latest pile of steaming keech through Google’s new ‘fact-check’ service.

      My PC blew up, smoke everywhere. Fire brigade on the way.

      [Sent from my iPad]

    107. call me dave says:

      Listening to Big Brian on shortbread trying to explain how the Council Tax bill went through a wee while ago… I’m not sure he convinced me and he sounded a bit surprised. 🙂

      Life jackets for fisher-folk not compulsory on deck… FGS!

      They will not help reducing accidents?

      Whit!… shurley schome mishtake there by spokesperson.

      Flu and Shingles jab today. Good old SNHS!

    108. liz says:

      @Chic McGregor, well that’s my knowledge of UK history exposed, LOL

    109. Cactus says:

      ..’triggle’ Article 50 Bernard? ?

    110. yesindyref2 says:

      Point taken!

    111. Graeme says:

      Not only did Ruth Davidson lie through her teeth (nothing new there) but I think the way she referred to the First Minister as “Her” was at best disrespectful if not downright nasty

      Her has a name, Her has a title either would have done


    112. Joannie says:

      So the British government doesn’t know what they’re doing obviously. I hope the Scottish government has a plan because Teresa May’s lot are a disaster. Hilarious to watch from this side of the Irish sea, probably not so funny from over there.

    113. Thepnr says:


      Yes, “her threat” is pretty much the school playground sound we here from Ruth the Uncouth all the time.

      The “First Ministers threat” sounds totally different and more appropriate.

      It can get a bit sweary and uncouth on Wings but this is not the Chamber of Holyrood and posters are not elected MSP’s. If Ruth is gonna lie she could at least do it civilly instead of insultingly.

    114. Thepnr says:

      Oops, sorry. Error with the bold.

    115. call me dave says:


      MoD to make announcement on Type 26 Clyde frigates

      Maybees aye… maybees no?

    116. lumilumi says:

      What strikes me about those four responses is that only the second one (by Mark Jones of Cushman & Wakefield) reads like something you’d expect in a survey of professionals by that profession’s umbrella organization. Concise but considered, reasoned, analytical. The other three are more like tweets. SNP bad.

      Still, Ruth can say with truth that 75% of those who gave an answer said indyref2/SNP bad. She just leaves out that we’re talking about four people here.

      That’s why we need sites like Wings, to dig a little deeper – in this case, not very deep at all – and report the real story behind the propaganda.

    117. Thepnr says:

      @call me dave

      Expect an announcement saying Yes with a start date for 8 frigates, anything less will be another disaster for the future of the Union.

      Now that Osborne has gone and austerity no longer matters Scotland will be thrown a sweetener in a bid to avoid Indyref2.

      Too little, too late. They really are bricking it. Hurry up with the poll Rev! They are behind NOW.

    118. Ferncake says:

      It’s quite amazing the effect of that silent ‘P’ in RICS.

    119. Cactus says:

      BBC Scotland.. shockingly misreporting Scotland from 6:30pm. They bulldozed through the lead story and cut the First Ministers full response to feed to the poll tax demo, oh that’s nice.

      We seen ye.

      Rock n Roll on indyref2.

    120. Capella says:

      Just read the Parliamentary Bulletin and see that the opposition is one vote short because Alex Johnstone has resigned:

      “Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body – Resignation
      The Presiding Officer wishes to inform Members that Alex Johnstone MSP has intimated his resignation from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body with effect from 2 November 2016.”

    121. Valerie says:


      It’s not that funny from this side. The country is being run by these right wing thickos, and in Scotland we have to endure the likes of Davidson spouting endless shit – unchallenged.

      As if this isn’t enough, Gordon Brown threatens another intervention. The level of stupidity is insane.

      I would have hoped the Scottish population would have downed tools, and picketed Holyrood night and day, until they promised a date for an independence referendum, by now.

      Can you imagine how hard the EU is laughing tonight? Can you imagine how the global economy looks at this clown show, as they plan how to rip off the hapless British negotiators?

      This is weapons grade insanity on display for the entire world, and the Daily Heil described the judges as ‘activist judges’.

    122. Onwards says:

      Graeme says:
      3 November, 2016 at 6:18 pm

      Not only did Ruth Davidson lie through her teeth (nothing new there) but I think the way she referred to the First Minister as “Her” was at best disrespectful if not downright nasty

      Her has a name, Her has a title either would have done

      She did this a lot during the TV debates for the Holyrood elections. It does come across as pretty nasty.

      I noticed Trump doing the same with Clinton during the US debates. Pointing across the room, and spitting out ‘Her’ left right and centre, as if he can’t even bring himself to say her name, even when they are both in the same room.
      I don’t think it plays well with women.

    123. Thepnr says:


      Whit! That’s a shock, wonder what he’s been up to?

    124. Thepnr says:


      I can’t find reference to his resignation from that link. Just this:

      “That the Parliament agrees that Dean Lockhart be appointed to replace Alex Johnstone as a member of the Finance and Constitution Committee.”

    125. Stoker says:

      Rev wrote:

      “Here’s Ruth Davidson at FMQs today, telling the chamber that “last week the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors said the real problem facing investment and jobs in Scotland was…”

      Note how Yon Dim Rooth says it with a straight face whilst wearing her political poppy. She’s just a hypocritical jobby jawed shite talker, like the rest of her Tory cronies.

      Jobby Jaws = One who’s breath reeks of shite.

      Sorry, Hamish 100, but sometimes it just has to be told like it is.

    126. Joannie says:

      @Graeme – you’re right it really doesn’t go down well with women! Trouble is, Ruth Davidson can get away with more than Trump, being a woman herself. She’s cultivated this sort of cuddly, jokey image too, which works in her favour.

      @Valerie – weapons grade stupidity is right. They look like a government that couldn’t find their own arses with both hands, and yes the rest of the EU is laughing. On a positive side, I think your chances of winning the next indyref are increasing daily. Boris Johnson got it more right than he realises when he said Brexit would be a “Titanic” success.

    127. Capella says:

      @ Thepnr – the mind boggles re Alex Johnstone. I thought there was something wrong with the arithmetic yesterday when the votes tallied 64/63. Same today. Turns out he’s gone sharpish. Wonder why.

      Stu did an insightful article on this lovely lad in 2014:

    128. Bob Mack says:


      It is definitely there as Capella indicated.

    129. Dr Jim says:

      If any proof were needed that Scotland is not a one party state our rainbow coalition of Tories made sure of that tonight
      Without rehashing it all again we know who caused it and what to do about it

      And so Englands one party state Mays merry mightys didn’t get their own way after folk took them to court and won, but in the wake of that small victory threats of murder again fill the internet airwaves down in Brexit land
      There are nutters out there and without doubt some of them will be extreme nutters and the woman who ran the campaign against Brengland only happens to look non British doesn’t she and in certain circles of the Brengland mind that’s not allowed

      Horribleness to follow

    130. stewartb says:

      Sinky @ 5.38 pm

      On who could establish a ‘rebuttal unit’, SNP or SG?

      This from the Guardian online (13 June, 2007) on “…. how New Labour made the news’:

      “Rebuttal was developed as never before in Whitehall. In opposition, Labour had its Excalibur computer, to provide material at an instant to combat Tory attacks. A similar system was brought into the Cabinet Office.”

      For the avoidance of doubt, I was not a supporter of New Labour, but this points up that a government can act proactively and robustly to rebut. Not at all convinced that ‘rebuttals’ communicated via the SNP web site would be sufficient..

    131. crazycat says:

      @ Capella

      If Johnstone has resigned from the Corporate Body, he’s still an MSP and part of the opposition.

      The SPCB just makes sure that the Parliament runs effectively.

      AJ had special responsibility for finance and security.

    132. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Well this is old news @ Capella and @ Thepnr

      So wonder what Alex has been up to now?

      Wonder if BBC et al will tell us??

    133. Capella says:

      @ Thepnr – the announcement is at the top of the page just under the date. It was obviously just announced today, after the resignation takes effect. His twitter feed advertises his forthcoming surgeries so he was obviously not planning to resign:

    134. Sinky says:

      Including this evening, the 15 BBC Question Times since May13, excluding the Labour leadership programme and two Brexit referendum programmes which had no SNP rep, have featured 75 panellists, only THREE of whom have been SNP supporting, and in the same period 9 UKIPers have graced our screens.

      In the 17 Question Time episodes from Jan 15 to May 2015… when the Lib Dems were the third force in House of Commons, they had 10 panellists.

    135. Walter Scott says:

      Fat Boab is so tedious. London Luvvies love her for not being Michael Forsyth but she’s just as right wing and anti state and she’s also sooooo obsessed by a future Scottish referendum that she started fighting against having another one the day after winning the 1st one!

    136. call me dave says:


      Well spotted. 🙂

      Nothing showing that I can find.

      But it’ll be on radio shortbread early morning no doubt or in the papers at least.

    137. Capella says:

      @ crazycat – I didn’t know that. Nevertheless, he was missing from the votes listed yesterday leaving the Tories one short – 30 instead of 31.
      Since the votes were the same today I’m assuming he wasn’t there today either but don’t know if the voting has been published yet.

    138. Dr Jim says:

      8 Frigates and some lifeboats, date to be decided to coincide with Indyref2 announcement to give the Yoons something to threaten Scotland with that they’ll take away if we vote Yes

      But as we all know if we vote No they’ll never be built here anyway because they were never intended to be in the first place

      I think they really do believe we’re daft, well, I suppose some are and some just cling wae thur fingurnails in hope nuthin bad’ll happen, ye know they ones thit are always saying Ach Ahm no interested in politics, until they get shit on then moan aboot it efter indignantly

    139. woosie says:

      Jackie Burd on ebc news last night stating that the horrid crazy yoonette was CLEARED of kicking a yes campaigner. She wasn’t cleared, the verdict was NOT PROVEN! This basically means we know you did it, but can’t prove it.

      Babe Ruth lying again without a challenge, because you can do that in parliament. Lucky for her, it’s all she knows, which is why it took the herald cap doffers inventing an award for not being quite as pathetic as we’d all expected. The only thing she’ll ever win is her lifelong struggle with anorexia!

    140. Thepnr says:

      @Capella @Bob Mack

      Yes, sorry folks couldn’t see what was right in front of my nose.

      Too used to reading the right hand side of that screen.

    141. Thepnr says:


      Is that Alex Johnstone twitter page for real? OK I believe it is but…

    142. call me dave says:

      Theresa May concedes article 50 process will need act of parliament.

      Prime minister accepts ‘logical conclusion’ of high court ruling is that government will have to put bill before MPs

      EU commission still refuses UK talks before article 50 triggered.

      Body reiterates ‘no negotiations without notification’ principle after PM announced deadline and called for preparatory work

    143. crazycat says:

      @ Capella

      Yes, I did think it was an interesting coonicidence that he was the person missing yesterday.

      So far it does appear just to be a coincidence – there have been changes of personnel in the SPCB before – but if there is a deeper reason no doubt we will find out.

      And then he’ll just be replaced by another Tory from further down the NE list.

    144. Effijy says:

      What a nasty lying little monster she is!
      Fat Boab, Wee Jimmy Krankie, Bride of Chuckie.

      So much more descriptive than she who must belittle and Lie.

      100% of the employees in my work agree that none of them has ever voted for the Tories in Scotland over the last 50 years.

      Why is that for most of that time, Scotland has had to suffer under English Tory Governments, with a brief spell of rule under Red English Tory leaders like Blair and Brown?

      Don’t forget Ms Davidson’s Guarantee that the reduced order of 8 Frigates for the Clyde would be placed in the summer of 2016.

      Anyone ever hear about Guy Fawkes night being in the Summer?

      Like a ventriloquist’s dummy, her lips only move when her
      master’s decides what jokes to tell us.

    145. Capella says:

      So resigning from the Corporate Body is not the same a resigning as an MSP, as crazycat points out. So why was he not in Parliament voting in a debate that was widely flagged as important?

      The SNP only need two more votes to have a majority. An odd time to skip off, specially after Kezia’s press the wrong button moment and the other Tory at a football coaches’ training event.

    146. Gary45% says:

      Wee Ruthie Jong Un, telling porkies again???
      Methinks the Dying Fly will be her forte on Strictly come on your face, its a pity the Great British Wa*k Off has finished, because she would make an ar*e of herself on that also.
      Another train wreck on G M Shortbread this morning, with Rowley and some tit from the Tories, Embarrassing.

    147. MorvenM says:

      Intervention! Even Gordy admits the Union isn’t working.

    148. Stu Mac says:

      @woosie says:

      No it doesn’t mean that at all. Look it up. What you’ve stated is a myth and betokens prejudice. She was cleared. That’s it. Get over it. There are a lot more important matters to get on with.

    149. galamcennalath says:

      So May and friends are going to abide by the court ruling and go before parliament.

      I’ve never seen an analysis relating constituency Leave/Remain result against standing MP’s party. However it looks like Labour areas in the North of England were more likely to be Leave. So UKIP could be as big a threat to Labour as Tory.

      Will MPs vote on party lines (whatever that might be for Labour), or for what their constituents wanted, or on personal belief? Will all Tories vote to declare Article 50?

      Could it be defeated?

      What will the SNP do? I think they should abstain to show that Brexit is an English matter and their preferred option is to leave the UK if it goes ahead in anything but a very soft form!

    150. jo galley says:

      RICS = Estate Agents

    151. galamcennalath says:

      MorvenM says:

      Intervention! Even Gordy admits the Union isn’t working.

      ‘Federal’ Brown arisen from slumber again.

      He obviously never took The Rev’s petition to heart.

      The last thing we want is a federal UK. That would change the UK into a single country of federated states with a written constitution. At the moment it’s a kingdom of countries, I have absolutely no doubt the ‘federal solution’ would strip Scotland and the Scots of all national sovereignty.

      The federalists are the biggest threat to Scottish self determination. Perhaps just as well England won’t want such sweeping changes either! However, talk of federal solutions could amount to a Vow2 with associated derailment potential!

    152. Joannie says:

      Is there some kind of cunning plan behind their apparent stupidity? If they allow parliament to scupper Brexit, for example, would it set a precedent that any future vote for an independent Scotland could also be voted down by Westminster?

    153. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Don’t agree with @ galamcennalath says at 8:17 pm

      “What will the SNP do? I think they should abstain to show that Brexit is an English matter”.

      Brexit isn’t an English matter.

      Brexit will financially decimate the UK and Westminster will prop up England to the detriment of Scotland without any recourse to EU Law or ECHR.

      SNP abstention would as with all things SNP, therefore be SNPBaad top of the hour, front page news.

      Not the unreported Labour abstentions we are used to when Labour don’t stand up for the poor or disabled.

      But this time the BBC/MSM would be correct.

      SNP can only vote this down as the Scottish electorate voted it down 62% – 38%.

      To vote it through without any substance of what it will mean would give the Tories a blank cheque.

      The SNP at Westminster aren’t the gesture politicking Scots Greens after all, are they.

    154. Vambomarbeleye says:

      I wonder where Ruth buys her asbestos knickers.

    155. Iain More says:

      So the SNP got its extra 100 million Brit Pesos for education then. Shouldn’t that just 75 million Brit Pesos since the Brit Peso has lost 25% o its value since the English Referendum on EU.

      Better pump up those local tax hikes on the Yoons to make up the for the Brit Piso devaluation then. I am feeling evil tonight.

    156. Dan Huill says:

      The Scottish government should continue holding talks with EU ministers, indeed they should publicize their meetings as loudly as possible. The britnats and britnat media already hate us so we’ve nothing to lose there and all to gain with the EU. Getting England all hot under the collar could result in England declaring the end of the uk union before Scotland does – another win-win for us.

    157. Tinto Chiel says:


      Thought the same thing myself. Although most of us here want to stay in Europe, it worries me that this could be used against us when we win the next referendum.

      galamcennalath: I know why you’re worried ‘cos federalism is our worst outcome, but I can’t see Londinium giving up any real power to the English regions, and even less to us.

      Expect more federalism shenanigans from ablow the dyke to muddy the waters, though, when required.

    158. Iain More says:

      galamcennalath says:
      3 November, 2016 at 8:17 pm

      It wouldn’t matter what way the SNP voted as it will be SNP BAAHD headlines whatever way they vote.

      The SNP have to vote against it as it is just simply the right thing for them to do and I voted Leave as well. Scotland voted 62-38 to stay in EU so it kind of ties the SNPs hands. They would look pretty treacherous voting any other way.

    159. Graeme says:

      So what happens if parliament votes not to Brexit by less than 56 votes assuming every SNP MP votes no to Brexit ?

      Do they dissolve the union, invade us, accept the vote and blame us till the end of time or is that just not likely to happen?


    160. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Thinking similarly to @ Tinto Chiel and @Joannie.

      “High Court being used against us when we win the next referendum.”

      Pretty sure Robert Peffers can help us out on this 🙂

      But personally I don’t think High Court in England can over rule the result of a Plebiscite by the Sovereign Scottish people?

    161. Artyhetty says:

      Iain More @8.54pm

      I am no strategist, but it will be portrayed as SNP bad, but also south of the border it will be portrayed as Scotland bad, a dangerous, sinister and orchestrated ploy. Classic tactic, make your neighbour, (especially if they have things you might quite like to hang onto, ie, resources), appear as the rogue state, one which could jeopardise your very existence, having a vote, or a say. Put absolutely nothing past the unionists, nothing at all. Power cuts, shellfish poisoning, anything, it will be taken as far as necessary.

      Anyway great to see so many fabulous and astute, well informed comments on WoS as usual.

    162. Sinky says:

      Good article on Tory duplicity over support for Hinkley Point nuclear power at the xepense of Scottish renewables.

    163. Thepnr says:

      I can’t see a vote for Brexit ever getting passed in Westminster HOC or Lords. Far too many Tories against it in the first place as well as their financial interests to think of.

      Guess then that the UK government is in a bit of a quandary. What that scenario would do with regard to a second Independence referendum? I haven’t a clue.

      I can only guess it would mean an early UK General Election to try to sort things out with a new mandate for an incoming government. Same might even happen in Scotland.

      Whatever, just look at the mess. Who’s going to clean that up?

    164. Joannie at 8.28

      In the final analysis it doesn’t matter what the Westminster Parliament does. If Scotland votes for independence it gets independence according to the United Nations Charter. There is absolutely no way in my opinion that London will either stop a referendum or disregard the result. Of course there are other ways to independence other than a referendum. What if,for instance, there is another UK General Election as a result of Brexit shambles and the SNP fights it on a single manifesto commitment to declare Scotland independent on receipt of a majority vote for it. That would produce a perfectly legitimate democratic mandate.

    165. So the hanging of those blown-up dolls at Celtic Park was OK then.Sorry for all those who say present laws were sufficient and that OBFM was not appropriate or needed. Those dolls broke no other law, only OBFM.
      All law is constraints on personal freedoms. It is constraints we all agree to in the general good so the Greens excuse came out their arses.

    166. Luigi says:

      62% REMAIN is one helluva mandate.

      Fight them all the way, Nicola!

      The other EU members could help out by creating a “holding pen” until Scotland resolves its constitutional crisis (regardless of how lone BREXIT takes). So; Come on Europe, do us a favour. After all that WM crap, it’s the least you could do. 🙂

    167. Bill Hume says:

      Completely off topic (sorry), but just had to share.
      I suspect there will be no fiery crosses lit for this.

    168. John from Fife says:

      Be careful what you wish for.

      If the UK Parliament gets to vote on Brexit and a soft Brexit is the result (i.e. access to the single market and free movement of people) will there still be a case for Indyref2.

    169. Thepnr says:

      @Bill Hume

      That link is a belter, loved the comments complaining about the judges decision today and in the same sentence saying the PARLIAMENT IS SOVEREIGN. I thought that was what the judges did say LOL.

    170. Inbhir Anainn says:

      Today’s High Court ruling Miller & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) (03 November 2016)can be viewed at:

    171. Ghillie says:


      Well done to Bob Dorris, SNP MSP, for calling out the Greens and Labour for teaming up with the Tories. That they should hang their heads in shame. (STV online news article)

      And in particular for calling out Green MSP, Andy Whightman for his petty stunt and petty ammendment today which seems to me to serve no purpose other than to try to take a wee jab at the SNP and to get his name in lights. Not impressed Andy.

      I kept quiet yesterday out of respect for fellow Wingers who do support the Green party and hoped Patrick Harvie and Alison Johnson would learn from the reaction to their latest tatics. Immature politicing and openly spiteful. Ruth must be delighted.

      WTF do they hope to achieve?

    172. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      MorvenM @ 20:05,
      galamcennalath @ 20:27,

      Oh, El Gordo has pronounced, so federalism is imminent. It will be here in a jiffy. Faster than that, even. The immense omnishambles that is Brexit will be solved at a stroke by his cunning plan of a “constitutional convention”. Which will go over the issue for months or even years trying to persuade Westminster to relax its vice-tight grip on power but will unfailingly end up with sunshine and flowers for everyone.

      Or maybe not.

      The man is reportedly intelligent, so you would think that he, of all people, would understand that after the disgraceful behaviour of Labour in the Smith Commission undermining every iota of what El Gordo assured us was a done deal over Home Rule, his renewed assurances over its proposed resurrection would have even a crumb of credibility.

      Or does he think we are total morons with the memory of a midge?

      It’s a gross insult to the many who truly attempted to respect the result of indyref1 and make reasonable proposals for a way forward which was consonant with his assurances. Now he tries to repeat these worthless, cynical diversionary tactics. They are born of nothing more than raw desperation as his precious Unionism is dying of senescence.

      More fool him. We are not buying his pish any longer. He should find something more socially responsible to do with the remainder of his years. All the while haudin his wheesht.

    173. heedtracker says:

      So has nobody actually Rick Rolled yet!? Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down…

    174. Tinto Chiel says:

      “What if,for instance, there is another UK General Election as a result of Brexit shambles and the SNP fights it on a single manifesto commitment to declare Scotland independent on receipt of a majority vote for it. That would produce a perfectly legitimate democratic mandate.”

      An excellent question I ponder in the wee small hours, D M Hill. Would the final tally be in seats or total votes? I’m beginning to think Maggie Dismay may cut and run for a GE if legal objections pile up and she realises the HoL will scupper her.

      There may be no need for Indyref2: I have this picture of NS getting off the Harley, looking over the shades, looking us in the eye and simply saying, “Do you feel lucky, Scotland?”

    175. Clootie says:

      Ruth Davidson sums up unionist politics in Scotland…disregard the people of Scotland…pay no heed to the potential of the people…get your sound bite for the day. One day we will have Scots in all parties who believe in their nation!

    176. Connor McEwen says: A wee runt gets away with it, tanked and fluffed up with bull from Tory HQ and Tory owned media runts with a C,C see

    177. Tinto Chiel at 10.00

      It would have to be a majority of the vote to be beyond argument.

    178. Thepnr says:

      I’ve read all the posts on that article about the Brexiters that Bill Hume linked to earlier and came to the conclusion that they are right!

      Right to feel aggrieved that is, after all the UK had a referendum, Brexit won and now they are pissed off with the delay and “interference” as they see it by the judiciary.

      No matter what happens now, it won’t be good for May or the UK. They are in no mood to take No for an answer. It can’t end well.

    179. heedtracker says:

      . One day we will have Scots in all parties who believe in their nation!

      If you check out all the tory MSP’s on twitter, there’s not a Scotland flag to be seen anywhere in all their photos or front page picture thingee. Maube its bad luck, for planet torboy.

      Then there’s this dude.

      And then there’s Prof Tomkins, being as creepy as ever. What ever you say about Farage, we’re still a land of free speech. So christ knows what he’s going to expose and, what a pack of hypocrites toryboys are. But we know this anyway.

      Adam Tomkins MSP Retweeted
      Ryan Shorthouse ?@RyanShorthouse 36m36 minutes ago
      Ryan Shorthouse Retweeted Nigel Farage
      We’ve appeased, indulged even, this anti-establishment nonsense for too long. Be brave, politicians, and expose it for what it is: nonsenseRyan Shorthouse added,

      Nigel Farage @Nigel_Farage
      After today’s judgement I’m really beginning to question the independence of our judiciary.
      0 replies

    180. scottieDog says:

      So question is
      If they can override this referendum result what’s to stop them overriding indyref?

    181. Thepnr says:


      This was posted less than 10 minutes ago on Bill Hume’s link

      “Why should Parliament have a say in this? We got rid of the EU Parliament in June so now it is time to tell the UK Parliament where it gets off. It is anti-democratic for MPs to expect to have a say in what Britain does. Who do they think they are? We don’t need them and could save a lot of money by getting rid of them. People who say Brexiteers voted to make the UK Parliament sovereign are mad. We just want Nigel Farage to be the sovereign. Get rid of the Queen too. King Nigel the Great.”

      I’m afraid this is how the Great British Brainwashed think.

    182. Sinky says:

      Dave McEwan Hill says at 9:31 pm

      “So the hanging of those blown-up dolls at Celtic Park was OK then.Sorry for all those who say present laws were sufficient and that OBFM was not appropriate or needed. Those dolls broke no other law, only OBFM.”

      Good stuff from Derek Bateman on OBFA and The (Parliamentary) Greens.

    183. Glamaig says:

      Dave McEwan Hill says:
      3 November, 2016 at 10:07 pm
      Tinto Chiel at 10.00

      ‘It would have to be a majority of the vote to be beyond argument.’

      I like it. We could do that at every GE until we win… and we wouldnt have to listen to Tories girning on about neverendums and day jobs 🙂

    184. scottieDog says:

      Wonder if the vote could be framed as a vote to honour/ignore the referendum result.
      For me that would put snp in a difficult position..

    185. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      DMH @ 21:22,
      Tinto Chiel @ 22:00,

      I have been thinking that after the ruling today, an early UKGE is much more likely. Very tempting for Theresa, because it would wrongside Labour in England and simultaneously provide a nice “get out of jail” card for Tory Brexit that the HoL wouldn’t dare then oppose.

      But on this side of the border, the same would apply. An SNP win with a manifesto based solely on independence would be irrefutable. Ironically, under WM voting rules, as determined by the no of MPs. Why not? Them’s their own rules. (Though admittedly a majority of votes would probably be needed to cement the result.)

      It would get us out from under this whole Brexmess with minimum bother and maximum efficiency. The SNP in government won’t be able to sustain its popularity for ever, simply through natural attrition; it’s actually amazing it has managed to sustain such popularity for so long already.

      So Nicola has to put up sooner rather than later anyway.

    186. Still Positive. says:

      D M Hill & Tinto Chiel

      I said the same thing to my son earlier this evening and he thought it a bit risky.

      I understand his point of view but by all accounts the SNP MPs are doing a good job for their constituents – much better than those they beat.

    187. Dan Huill says:

      @scottieDog 10:19pm

      “So question is
      If they can override this referendum result what’s to stop them overriding indyref?”

      The people of Scotland, who are sovereign in Scotland. In other words we tell Westminster to GTF.

    188. Capella says:

      The BBC website gets more bixzarre by the day. Is there anything of any importance going on in the world?
      Admittedly, I haven’t registered to say what my area is. So I suppose I’m getting some generic UK list of stories.

      FT: Southampton 2-1 Inter Milan
      Reality Check: Could High Court ruling on Article 50 scupper Brexit?
      How did the snowflake generation get its name?

      NEWS HEADLINES: Brexit, Inflation, Migrants drowned
      SPORT HEADLINES: Southampton, Manchester United, Southampton

      Bublé at the BBC: Michael gets a new face and goes undercover
      Stranger pays for jobless Cornwall man’s first date with girlfriend
      Odd jobs: The weird careers ex-footballers have gone on to

      Bus lane fine for taking terminally-ill wife to hospital
      Wife, 84, can reunite with husband she stabbed
      Why I sent my white daughter to a 98% black school

      How to get the exact same trainers for less
      Yellow stickers: Secrets of cut-price food revealed
      How to avoid feeling hungry on a diet

      Then it’s all TV programmes.

      Apologies for this rant but I really do regret the terrible demise of what could be a great institution. It gets plenty of funding after all – over £3 billion a year. We should get our money back.

    189. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Dave McEwan Hill at 10:07 pm.

      You typed,

      “It would have to be a majority of the vote to be beyond argument.”

      Assuming that any general election would be fought under current rules, ie ‘first past the post’, if 50+ MPs out of 59 were returned from Scotland with an unequivocal mandate to declare independence for Scotland, should that not be taken by the rest of the planet as a clear indication of ‘the will of the people’?

    190. heedtracker says:

      Thepnr says:
      3 November, 2016 at 10:19 pm

      Aye its fascinating watching the flames getting fanned and who’s fanning them. Ultimately though its filthy rich guys like Dacre of the Heil who will need to have a word with himself, if only because if things do start to get social unresty, its the filthy rich of teamGB who a lot of Brexiteers are angry at, filthy rich Paul Dacre included. He’s always got his half million acre slice of Scottish estate to hide in, if things get out of hand.

      As that blog says,

      “Remain MP Ken Clarke said he was prepared to “risk civil disorder to ignore the #Brexit vote” and it is now clear that his treacherous wish has been granted.

      At the weekend, war criminal and Remain fanatic Tony Blair called for a Remain “insurrection” to stop Brexit. We are now on a collision course to all-out conflict with the Remain ("Tractor" - Ed)s. Our strategic objective must be to stop their insurrection against democracy and ensure Brexit goes ahead. ”

      So its probable someone will have a wee word in assorted Fleet street editors shell likes.

    191. harry mcaye says:

      Apologies in advance if I’m being a bit thick, but can anyone clarify who voted for the Council Tax bill tonight. STV said Tories, Lib Dems, Labour and Green voted against government and the vote was 64-63. BBC website says 65-63. So who voted with the SNP? And the final motion was passed 92-35. So who voted on that one? I haven’t seen it explained adequately for the layman. Nothing on but it’s bloody hopeless.

    192. Liz g says:

      Jockanes Wind Talker @ 9.14
      We don’t go to the high court.
      We are under the court of Session, then apparently the Supreme Court,then Europe.
      That would be their real Constutional Crises,if they had attempted to include Scotland’s Soverenty in that judgement.
      But what they did do indirectly was give the Treaty of of the Union the most recent legal confirmation that it’s an active and current Treaty and not as some would have it just a part of the Historic record.
      The High Court today stayed away from Scotland position on Soverenty.
      In theory that Court can only take a position on the English part of the Union.
      The Court of Session deal’s with ours.
      But while we are still under the 1706 arrangements,we are included in what that Court decided for Westminster.
      It’s a bit like Brexit Westminster has a position on its Treaty with the EU.
      The EU has a position as the other signatories.

      Today the high court confirmed the Soverenty of the Crown in parliament as the boss.
      We don’t have that,they can confirm it for parliament but not for Scotland.
      That’s not to say they wouldn’t try when there is a yes vote but all the Soverenty issues and concepts of how it works being discussed can only help us by shining a light on it.

      If you listen to the way Nicola the MP’s and the rest of the SNP speak you will hear it.
      They say things like.
      Sovereign will of the Scottish People.
      Equal partnership ect.
      They are never corrected,dont you think that people like Reece Mogg Andrew Neil ect would correct them in a heartbeat if they thought they could.
      They don’t cause they can’t our situation is totally different our referendum vote will be advisory.
      We will be advising our elected representatives to dissolve the Treaty of the Union,theres only an issue if they don’t want to.

    193. Bob Mack says:


      The Greens would only support the SNP if they accepted the green motion criticising themselves for failing to find an alternative solution. The rest voted against the SNP.

      Rather opportunistic of the Greens I thought.

    194. Alan Mackintosh says:

      Thepnr, re the comments on that beacons article, did you spot this one near the end…

      “Why should Parliament have a say in this? We got rid of the EU Parliament in June so now it is time to tell the UK Parliament where it gets off. It is anti-democratic for MPs to expect to have a say in what Britain does. Who do they think they are? We don’t need them and could save a lot of money by getting rid of them. People who say Brexiteers voted to make the UK Parliament sovereign are mad. We just want Nigel Farage to be the sovereign. Get rid of the Queen too. King Nigel the Great.”

    195. Glamaig says:


      I agree it was good to see this

      ‘As your Lordships are aware, after the union between Scotland and England and the creation of a UK-wide Parliament, Scotland kept its independence with respect to its legal and religious systems. That was part of the deal. The Act therefore made special provision to protect the Scottish legal system, and to protect Scots law from alteration without proper Parliamentary consideration.
      This is constitutional legislation, because it is in substance the founding document of the kingdom of Great Britain. It is the basis on which the Scots have been able for more than 300 years to enjoy the advantage of their own distinct legal system within the union of nations which now forms the United Kingdom.’

    196. Dan Huill says:

      All this and brexit hasn’t even started yet! Wonderfully muddy and malicious south of the border. In the midst of this right-wing Westminster mess Scotland has the ideal opportunity to break free and end the debilitating union with England. All it will take is an honest amount of nerve and some judicious timing. Scotland is capable of both. We’re on our way.

    197. galamcennalath says:

      Thepnr says:

      … after all the UK had a referendum, Brexit won …

      Yes. The last thing we want is for the result of a referendum to be overturned. Although advisory, ignoring a result sets a dangerous precedent. How would we feel if IndyRef2 were overturned?

      Some people saying the SNP should vote against Article 50. For the same reason the SNP shouldn’t be seen to play a part in overturning.

      Scotland has a better way to deal with Brexit, if we have the will to do it. And that entails IndyRef2 the result of which we want to be honoured.

      IndyRef1 stood, and had to. Now Scotland finds itself with two contradictory referendum results which can only be settled by yet another referendum. We want the result of that to stand too.

    198. Brian Doonthetoon at 10.31

      That used to be the SNP position but the flaw in FPTP is that that result is possible on a minority of the vote so a majority of the vote is certainly better and probably essential.

    199. Big Jock says:

      Brian 10.07.

      In actual fact the SNP would only need 30 Mps at Wm as a mandate. The SNP only had a referendum because they stated so in their manifesto at Holyrood. If they change it to we will negotiate Scotland’s exit from the UK. Then the SNP can proceed if the people return 30 Wm Mps.

      It was never the original intention to have a referendum pre Holyrood. Holyrood muddied the waters over the WM majority. Had the SNP had 30 Mps at Wm before Holyrood came into being. Then we would probably be independent by now.

      I am not sure we will need another referendum the way things are heading.

    200. Capella says:

      @ harry mcaye
      You can go to the parliament website and get the detail of the debates and the votes. It lists who voted for what.
      When you see 63 votes, that means all the SNP members voted. The opposition has 65 votes but Alex Johnstone has been AWOL for two days so the vote against the Government totals 64.

      See the Decision Time section for list of how members voted.

    201. Robert J. Sutherland at 10.27

      “So Nicola has to put up sooner rather than later anyway.”

      Exactly. I wish everybody understood that.

    202. Tinto Chiel says:

      “As your Lordships are aware, after the union between Scotland and England and the creation of a UK-wide Parliament, Scotland kept its independence with respect to its legal and religious systems. That was part of the deal. The Act therefore made special provision to protect the Scottish legal system, and to protect Scots law from alteration without proper Parliamentary consideration.”

      Interesting point, Glamaig. Strangely enough, I was following up today a couple of points regarding Jacobite prisoners in 1746 and James Wilson of Strathaven in 1820 and, when it suited them, the Establishment used English law’s oyer and terminer to attempt to convict these Scotsmen. In Wilson’s case it resulted in his cruel death.

      I’m sure Mr Peffers has a list but incursions into Scots Law over the years must amount to a considerable hill of beans.

      Which leads me to my question: what has the Scottish legal fraternity ever done about it? How many synonyms for zilch?

      Internal colonisation, as CameronB Brodie rightly says.

    203. Rock says:

      Davidson is the most disgusting and dishonest politician in Scotland in my view.

      No wonder the BBC are so proud of her.

    204. Liz g says:

      Scottie dog 10.19

      They can’t overrule our referendum result,the best they can do is to try to stop the vote happening.
      A yes vote is only advisory,but it does tell our MP’s what we want them to do.
      If our MP’s know we are Sovereign and they do then they are obliged to follow that instruction.

      The problem with Brexit is that the people aren’t Sovereign just like the court said Parliament is Sovereign so parliament doesn’t have to do anything the people tell them to.
      While we as a Sovereign people allow the Treaty of the Union to stand we are a part of that system.
      Also because we are able to be out voted in that parliament it seems like we have to go along with it and the high court judgement that says there’s no boss but Westminster but it only seems that way.

      If we tell our MP’s to dissolve the Treaty of the Union,what Court could Westminster take it to?
      The High Court?
      The Supreme Court?….that one could be attempted but it can’t deny our Soverenty so it really can’t do anything.
      Westminster can jump up and down all it likes about being the ultimate law maker.
      But they can’t get away from the fact that they couldn’t remove our Soverenty 300 years ago and still can’t.
      Unless enough Scot’s were stupid enough to let them pretend they control it with a new Act of Union.

      Their only position could be to claim that our Soverenty never existed in the first place , something they may have pulled of at certain points in the past.
      But they have no chance now.

    205. Rock says:

      Liz g,

      “We will be advising our elected representatives to dissolve the Treaty of the Union,theres only an issue if they don’t want to.”

      How exactly will we be doing that?

      I can say with 100% certainty that the SNP will NOT have dissolving the Treaty of the Union in their manifesto.

    206. Thepnr says:

      @Alan Mackintosh

      Yes I did see it and posted the same quote at 10:19pm It was so good though that I’m glad it was posted twice 🙂

    207. harry mcaye says:

      Capella – Thanks I’ve read the relevant parts but I’m still confused. There seem to have been three votes, I thought it was two. 63-64, 64-63 and 92-35 and on the last one Labour and the Greens DID vote with the SNP. So was the first one the SNP’s, the second the Green’s Andy Wightman’s that was critical of the SNP and the third ?

      I’m afraid I find stuff like this very difficult to follow:

      “The question is, that amendment S5M-02121.1.1, in the name of Derek Mackay, which seeks to amend amendment S5M-02121.1, in the name of Andy Wightman, which seeks to amend motion S5M-02121, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on the approval of a Scottish statutory instrument, be agreed to. Are we agreed?”

    208. Alan Mackintosh says:

      Thepnr, yes I saw it after I had posted and the page refreshed, but you’re right…

      “King Nigel” needed to be seen again

    209. heedtracker says:

      Davidson is the most disgusting and dishonest politician in Scotland in my view.

      We’re only on our 5th Scottish Parliament since 1707. We’ve come rather a long way but we’re still run by our neighbours. And we know who wants it all stop. Therefore, a tory sock puppet like Ruthie babes will do fine for now.

    210. Dr Jim says:

      Gordon Brown, a man so possesed by hatred of the First Minister and the SNP he can’t even bring himself to say her name or even use her title so he calls her Mrs Sturgeon as though he’s just spat out a bit of gone off earwax he’d been hoping was still tasty

      He is however just as psychic and endowed of the power of thinks as he was at referendum 1 as he employed his superbrain talents to inform us all of the First Ministers dastardly secret plan that only he knows and the funny thing is nobody ever says to him WTF are you on about you absolute raving bonkers case

      I suppose we’ll be getting the threat to pensions coming along soon with the borders and the currency and the martians invading and all of the country being unemployed and dying of the SNP policy of introducing a new incurable disease to reduce the population to manageable levels but only leave immigrants alive but even they’ll have EU fleas

      Hate the English Hate the English Mrs Sturgeon Gaaargh

      Seriously? Seriously?

    211. heedtracker says:

      Also, cometh the hour, cometh my Slovene girlfriend. He’s mad as fish but he’s a much cleverererer toryboy than silly old Ruth.

      Adam Tomkins MSP ?@ProfTomkins 1h1 hour ago
      Stupid headline. Not even remotely what today’s case is about.
      The Judges Versus the People.

      Its the torygraph, again.

    212. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      O/T but it might amuse you anyway: A mini two-finger salute to the Tories from the BBC tonight? Hard to credit, but…

      …just caught a glimpse of Kirsty Wark, rounding off Newsnight by responding to some servile twat of a Tory MP’s pronouncement that BBC1 should end its programming each night by playing “God save the Queen” in celebration of Brexit.

      To paraphrase her: “We’re not BBC1 and it’s not the end of tonight’s programming, but we’re happy to respond to the request”.

      Then on came a clip of the Sex Pistols playing their version…!

    213. Thepnr says:

      Since we’re now well off topic and it’s fairly quiet tonight I thought you might have a laugh at a post I put on The New Statesman over 3 years ago just after the SNP conference. The article was by Kevin McKenna, changed days LOL.

      I have a couple of issues with your article starting with:

      “The Scottish nationalists must snap out of their victim complex over a perceived anti-Yes bias in the UK and Scottish press.”

      There is no “perceived bias” the bias is obvious, overwhelming and in fact counter-productive to the No campaign. Fools that they are have yet to cotton on.


      “Certainly, the pattern of press ownership in Scotland suggests an inherent pro-Union sentiment, but a study of each of Scotland’s national newspapers shows that the Yes camp has little to complain about.”

      What “study” are you referring to? Your own or some published study? If the latter please provide the link. The only study I know of to date was carried out by Dr John Robertson from the University of West Scotland and can be read about in this article:

      Finally, your having a laugh eh?

      “noticed that my newspaper colleagues and I were being treated to what could only be described as “aggressive clapping”. The perpetrators, in this instance a row of senior citizens…”

      Being concerned when confronted by a cheering and laughing group of OAP’s “clapping aggressively”. I doubt any other journalist in history has ever coined the idiom “clapping aggressively”.
      Somehow I doubt you’ll ever make a war correspondent.

    214. Dr Jim says:

      I don’t believe opportunistic is the correct terminology for what Comrade Harvie and his party are given his communal ideas of community and communing together

      Hiv ah left enough clues

    215. Capella says:

      The substantive motion was agreed 92 for to 35 against. Labour and the Greens and the SNP voted for. The Tories and Liberals voted against.

      However, there were two amendments which had to be voted on before the main motion. Andy Wightman’s motion regrets that the SG haven’t been bolder and abolished the Council Tax. Derek McKay tried to amend Andy Wightman’s motion to water it down.

      Derek McKay’s was voted on first. It fell by 63 for to 64 against.

      So, with that decided , Andy Wightman’s amendment can be voted on. It passed with 64 for to 63 against.

      Finally, the substantive motion, as amended by Andy Wightman, can be voted on. It passed with 92 for and 35 against.

      It all boils down to taking the decisions in the logical order.

    216. crazycat says:

      @ harry mcaye

      The sequence of events is as follows:

      1) SG proposes motion S5M-02121
      2) Andy Wightman seeks to amend it, therefore he proposes amendment S5M-02121.1
      3) but Derek Mackay seeks to amend Andy’s amendment, with S5M-02121.1.1, Derek can’t just propose reverting to the original motion (that would be achieved by the defeat of Andy’s amendment) so he’s conceding some changes to the SG motion

      3) must be voted on first. If it’s passed, it is that amended amendment which would then be voted on to amend the SG’s motion. If Derek’s amendment fails, it is Andy’s earlier amendment that is put to the vote.

      If either of the amendments passes, it is the amended motion which is subject to the final vote, to determine what form of Council Tax goes ahead. If all amendments fail, then the original motion is put to the vote.

      Does that help at all, or make it worse? I believe I understand it, but it looks awful written down!

    217. Robert Peffers says:

      @call me dave says: 3 November, 2016 at 5:22 pm:

      “Complicated init!”

      It is only complicated if you believe the Yoon loon take on things that they cannot back up – even under English Law.

      Quite simply all the many kingdoms in the British Isles were sovereign kingdoms with a rule of law that was, “Divine Right of Kings”, until 1320 when Scotland submitted the Declaration of Arbroath to the then international authority – The Pope in Rome.

      The history behind that Declaration was that the King of England had been asked by the Scots to help decide who should become monarch after Alexander died and his heir to the throne, the Maid of Norway died on her way to claim her kingdom.

      The English king saw his chance to take over Scotland as he had done with Wales in 1284 and he appointed, “Toom Tabard”, John Balliol as King because Balliol swore allegiance to the English King and was thus easy to manipulate. He only lasted a short time and there were two contenders for the crown of Scotland Bruce & The Red Comyn.

      No one knows what actually happened but Bruce slew the Comyn on the alter Steps of Dumfries High Kirk. As the two were alone it may well have been self defence but the English King, who then had the ear of the Pope, egged on the Pope to excommunicate the Bruce. However, as the rule of law throughout Christendom was Divine Right that meant the monarch was owner of everything in the Kingdom including the monarch’s subjects.

      The Pope excommunicated The Bruce and that meant everyone in Scotland. In addition he had every church service in England begin by cursing Scotland. This was the reason the Scots drew up and sent to the Pope the Declaration of Arbroath and it began to change the entire history of the World. That declaration not only claimed that Scotland was an independent Kingdom but that the Divine Right of Kings did NOT apply in Scotland and that the people, not the monarchy, were sovereign. The Monarchs of Scotland have been legally titled Kings and Queens of Scots ever since and their job is to protect the people’s sovereignty.

      Not until the English Parliament’s, “Glorious Revolution”, of 1688 was the now, three country Kingdom of England to only partly change the Divine Right of Kings.

      Their situation was a little different from Scotland’s. Their plans to have Scotland annexed to England by a marriage of convenience had misfired and a King of Scots had inherited the Crown of England in 1603. Under the laws of England, (Still divine right), James VI of Scotland inheriting the English Crown would have seen England, Wales and Ireland all become part of the Kingdom of Scotland.

      Except for the fact the Scots Monarchy had not been sovereign since the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320. As he was not sovereign James VI of Scots could not take over the God Given sovereignty of the Kingdom of England and he was sovereign of the Kingdom of England and English law states that a sovereign, just by being sovereign, could not give away the sovereignty of the Kingdom but could only abdicate the kingdom’s sovereignty to the next monarch in line to the throne. There was thus no Union of the Crowns in 1603. James had a duel role. He was the Sovereign King James I of England and at the same time he remained King of Scots James VI.

      Hoever, the English were hoist with their own petard when they deposed their monarch, (now James II of England and fetched in King Billy & Queen Mary but, due to the English parliament’s Glorious Revolution of 1688 they forced their new monarchs to delegate, while still legally retaining their Divine right, legally delegating their divine given powers to the Parliament of England. But Scotland was still an independent Kingdom in 1688 and thus the English Kingdoms three countries law became, “A |Constitutional Monarchy”, but could not legally change Scotland’s monarchy nor her legal status of the people being legally sovereign.

      Yet today Westminster wrongly claims that Westminster has legal sovereignty over Scots and Scotland but there is no legal evidence to back their claim. Remember that the Glorious Revolution sparked the Jacobite Uprisings with Scots claiming the English Monarchy were not King & Queen of Scots and the English, to this day, claiming that the Jacobites were rebels but you cannot rebel against a foreign monarchy. Yet they two kingdoms were still fighting at Culloden over the Jacobite uprisings almost 40 years after the Treaty of Union was forced upon Scotland in 1706/7.

      There simply is no legal evidence to back up Westminster’s stance on this matter. They just assume they are sovereign and now have even declared the bipartite United Kingdom is not a kingdom but is a country and it is England devolving the powers of the Kingdom of England to three integral English Kingdom countries while treating England as the Master race.

      Westminster operates under English Law and Westminster funds England directly with United Kingdom funding while deciding how much funding that Parliament of England is granting by way of Barnet Formula Block Grants to their three subservient countries.

      The evidence is stark yet most Scots don’t see it.

      Only England is funded as The United Kingdom.
      While there are four countries in the United Kingdom the actual United Kingdom is a bipartite union of only the Kingdoms of Scotland & England but Scotland is now being treated by Westminster as just another of the English Kingdom’s annexed countries but Scotland has never been an English Kingdom’s annexed country.

      Why else was there a Treaty of Union between only those two existent kingdoms in 1706/7? Simply because Scotland was not annexed by the Kingdom of England. There is no evidence that The Kingdom of England became the United Kingdom and there is nothing that shows the People of Scotland have ever given away their sovereignty to anyone, any country or any kingdom.

      There is though a Treaty of Union that says we are an equally sovereign kingdom partner in the United Kingdom.EVEL is an illegal action by Westminster.

    218. crazycat says:

      @ Capella

      I should have just let you answer! You explained it much more clearly.

    219. Liz g says:

      Rock 11.13
      Well I don’t know what anybody else would do Rock.
      But I would give all their email addresses to you and you can tell them.
      That’s probably the fastest way to wear them down!

    220. Fran says:

      Sorry for the OT folks.

      Just back from the pub and speaking to a young English lad who wish he had someone to vote for. He said at least up here you can vote SNP, I have no-one, cant trust any of the MPs.

      ye feel sorry for them across the border

    221. MacPorridge says:

      As a Fellow of the RICS and director of a surveying company the official position of our firm is that Independence can’t come soon enough. The Union is holding our economy back and needs to be dissolved at the earliest. Ruth, you should have included our company’s opinion too!

    222. Liz g says:

      Fran @ 11.43

      Ye do indeed feel sorry for them,but hopefully those that want change,will be better placed to make it happen as a result of Westminster being financially weakened by the loss of our resources.
      Also if we get it right the people in England won’t be prepared to put up with the there is no other way propaganda.

    223. Onwards says:

      scottieDog says:
      3 November, 2016 at 10:19 pm

      So question is
      If they can override this referendum result what’s to stop them overriding indyref?


      They aren’t overriding the result. They are backing up the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

      And the referendum question and narrow result are inconclusive when there are effectively 2 types of Brexit.

      What is more important than MPs getting a vote on triggering Article 50, is MPs getting a vote on whether to accept a final deal – especially if Donald Tusk is correct and the only option is a ‘hard Brexit’ or ‘no Brexit’

      Is there a majority for leaving the single market entirely ?
      I don’t think so.

    224. Capella says:

      @ crazycat – you’re right, it’s hellish difficult to explain in writing. I thought of an example:

      I propose that all the Wingers go out for a slap up meal in Perth on St Andrews night and split the bill. (That’s the substantive motion).

      You propose an amendment, that we include drinks such as wine and brandy .

      Ronnie proposes an amendment to the amendment, that the drinks are spring water and fruit juice only.

      First we vote on Ronnies amendment. If passed then that defeats your amendment. The drinks are soft drinks.
      If it falls, then we vote on your amendment

      Finally, we vote on the substantive motion plus any succesful amendment.

      (You can see why Adolf Hitler thought democracy was tediously boring!)

    225. Rock says:

      Liz g,

      “Rock 11.13
      Well I don’t know what anybody else would do Rock.
      But I would give all their email addresses to you and you can tell them.
      That’s probably the fastest way to wear them down!”

      Robert Peffers and yourself are the ones who bang on about the Scots being “sovereign”.

      But neither of you has a clue how that “sovereignty” could be exercised in practice.

      Both of you post long essays but are totally incapable of providing practical answers to what you bang on about.

      You should stop making pompous statements like:

      “We will be advising our elected representatives to dissolve the Treaty of the Union,theres only an issue if they don’t want to.”

      if you don’t have the foggiest idea of how you will be doing that.

      The “plebs” have NEVER exercised their so called “sovereignty” for the simple reason that they never had it in the first place.

    226. Wull says:

      The SNP will have to vote against Brexit in order to be faithful to the clear ‘Remain’ majority in Scotland in the referendum, and to the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign.

      The SNP will have to state clearly that they want Scotland to remain a full member of the European Union. Only thus will they be able to remain faithful to the 2016 referendum result in Scotland, to the principle that Scots are sovereign in their own country and to the Party’s long-standing, and never-revoked policy commitment to ‘Scotland in Europe’.

      Being part of a ‘soft Brexit’, whereby Scotland remains in the UK while losing membership of the European Union but retaining access to the single market, should not be sufficient for the SNP or the SG. So far the SNP leadership seem to be saying the opposite, which is astonishing. The impression is being given that access to the single market without membership of the EU would be fine and dandy. This is a betrayal of the SNP’s own clearly stated policy commitments, on which their MPs and were elected to Westminster, and their MSPs to Holyrood.

      I realise that a considerable minority of SNP supporters and voters remain unconvinced of EU membership. Figures of something like 30% have been quoted, though how accurate these are it is impossible say. They seem extraordinarily high, but even if they are correct it would mean that 70% of SNP-supporting Scots still want an independent Scotland to be a full member of the European Union.

      I cannot see how it makes any sense to placate the 30% minority (if, indeed, they are as many as that) while thereby risking to alienate the 70% majority. Surely the leadership should stick to its principles, and its policies. If it came out clearly for ‘Scotland in Europe’, besides being consistent, it would be supporting the vast majority of its own supporters, who are indeed pro-EU.

      Not all of the party’s anti-EU supporters would thereby cease to vote SNP. Independence surely remains their main objective, and many would still see the SNP as the best way to achieve that goal. For most, their reservations about Europe would be overridden by their desire for independence.

      I don’t think the SNP would lose even 10% of its vote by stating clearly that it wants Scotland to be a full member of the EU. 5% might be more realistic. And it would gain more new supporters than those who would turn against it. The outcome, in terms of support, would be a net gain.

      Meanwhile, this pretending that a ‘soft Brexit’ within the UK would be acceptable might just be putting off not a few of the SNP’s long-standing supporters. Many of them have always admired the SNP for its consistency in sticking to its principles. Here, however, on what is undoubtedly a key matter, it suddenly seems weak, wobbly, hesitant, and backtracking. Unconvinced – and unconvincing.

      ‘Pretending’ is probably the right word here. The SNP leadership may be convinced that they can afford to pretend that they want a soft Brexit – loss of EU membership but access to EU markets – when in fact they do not. But they could be badly mistaken.

      They should not feel safe in an assumption that a soft Brexit will never in fact happen. I have never heard any SNP leader argue convincingly that what they really do want is to get out of the EU, while retaining access to the European market.

      I can’t imagine any of them actually believing that that would be a good solution. Now that it seems to be the official view, they might adhere to it in public, but only as a strategy.

      If so, it’s a very poor strategy – which might well require an embarrassing U-turn later on.

      Maybe the SNP leaders don’t want to be seen as the ‘spoilers’: perhaps they want to be able to say ‘we tried our best’ to remain in both the UK and the EU, but the Tory government failed to deliver, so now our only option is to go for Indyref2.

      If so – and I sincerely hope it is not the case – it would be a very dangerous game to play, and one that will not, ultimately, do the SNP any credit.

      Dangerous, indeed, on several levels. The calculation that the Brexiteers will never be able to achieve a ‘soft Brexit’ might prove wrong. Who knows? They might just pull it off, or something close to it? If they do, the SNP will be left high and dry. They will be told: ‘that’s what you said you wanted, so now you have it!’ And the opportunity will be gone.

      That is not all: no matter how bad the eventual UK-EU deal is, and how far away it is from a ‘soft Brexit’, the SNP should not underestimate the ability of the Westminster government to dress it up as if it is just that, a ‘soft Brexit’. And the ability of the Yoon Press to sell it as such.

      The propaganda war will be immense, and no matter how untrue it might be, the UK government will undoubtedly claim it has achieved the best of both worlds, even for Scotland. This might well be rubbish, but the SNP might have more difficulty opposing it than they presently imagine.

      It really would be much better – cleaner, simpler, more honest and more convincing – to do away with the pretence, and say things the way they really are.

      The SNP’s firmly established policy remains independence in Europe, as a full member state within the EU. That policy now needs to be talked up. No one challenged it at any recent Party conference; and if they did, they never got any traction. The leadership has no right to change that policy on the hoof.

      But that is what many may feel is happening, whether by stealth, or neglect or omission. Scotland in Europe seems to have disappeared as slogan. Replaced by preferring a ‘soft Brexit’ instead, a notion that cuts clean contrary to stated SNP objectives. The impression is being given, somewhat mysteriously – approved by whom? – that both the SNP and the SG would be satisfied with such a paltry outcome.

      Now more than ever is the time for the SNP to be bold, and insist on its commitment to Scotland becoming a free and fully committed European nation. This needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

      Nothing would do more to endear Scotland to the rest of Europe, and it would be done not just in the name of the SNP or the SG, but as an explicit affirmation of the sovereignty of the Scottish people. This is what we voted for, SNP – so, please, please give it to us, and don’t cover it over or kick it into the undergrowth. Don’t get caught up in the mire of over-calculation.

      There has to be strategy, of course – but the best strategy is always to be honest, and stick to your principles. People like transparency. Now is the time to affirm these principles more clearly than ever. Never mind a ‘soft Brexit’ that would keep us in the UK: the people want independence in Europe. And even many who are still not sure about it soon will – so long as you propose it in the clearest possible terms.

      The European ideal is well worth fighting for. Now is the time to promote it. Scotland IS a European nation, and MUST REMAIN so.

      Nothing less will now do.

    227. Chic McGregor says:

      Dr Jim,
      ” Mrs Sturgeon”? If she is Mrs anyone she is Mrs Murrell.

      Still, one cannot expect Clunker to get even the most basic of facts right.

    228. yesindyref2 says:

      Re the Court judgement, there’s going to be people out there who’ll try saying the Scottish Government can do nothing in the appeal as it’s the UK Government, but in fact anyone or any party can be a third party to either side of the appeal, either as appellant or respondent, and that includes the Scottish Government. The important word in Intervention, and all they have to do is fill in the apporpriate form, pay any appropriate fee, and send in any appropriate material.

      For some reason people want to put the Scottish Government in its miniscule place. Silly boogers, blinded by hate. The Law’s the Law, man.

    229. Stu Mac says:


      The result hasn’t been overturned. The referendum was advisory. That means there is leeway to have several options (including no Brexit though I think that’s unlikely) which need to be discussed in Parliament now. This judgement today means May and her cronies have to give parliament some indication of what their plan is which they don’t like because as is obvious to everyone they don’t have a plan.

    230. Liz g says:

      Rock @ 12 .11
      Where is it then Rock ?
      If your so sure we don’t have it tell us where you think it is?

    231. Chic McGregor says:

      Good post.
      I agree the danger of the SNP ostensibly supporting any list of acceptable EU deal demands, however unlikely, contains within it, necessarily, the danger that those are, however unlikely again, achieved.

      It is a reasonable poker play, but even the most reasonable poker plays can be defeated on the river.

    232. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Wull @ 00:11:

      The SNP will have to vote against Brexit in order to be faithful to the clear ‘Remain’ majority in Scotland in the referendum, and to the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign.

      Yes, that’s it in a nutshell. We voted to stay full members by an uncontestable majority.

      The rest of what you say follows, and I agree. In the apparent hope the UK will swim for them against the current, the Indy-Leavers seem to be echoing St. Augustine: “Lord, let me have independence but not quite yet”.

      We need principled resistance right now, around which people can rally, not playing safe and passively hoping that events will somehow make it all work out.

    233. crazycat says:

      @ Capella

      I like the sound of a slap-up meal in Perth (which is pretty central for us all), but since I’d be driving, I’d be the one proposing soft drinks 🙂 (Maybe everyone would be driving, of couse.)

      When we win the next referendum, we can seriously consider it, perhaps.

    234. Meg merrilees says:


      Anybody fancy trying to get tickets for BBC QT from Stirling, Nov 17th.

      Wonder who’ll be on the panel?

      Lots of unhappy people in Watford tonight!

    235. ronnie anderson says:

      @ Capella Ah want tae make ah amendment oan ma amendment ah Jura wie ah wee thimble fae o spring watter Scottish watter that is.

    236. Capella says:

      Rock – why don’t you stop making pompous statements?

      The “plebs” don’t exercise their sovereignty because they have no idea how the political system works. The Establishment intends to keep them ignorant.

      One of the beauties of the Indyref movement was the spread of knowledge about politics and support for ordinary people expressing their ideas.

      Exercising sovereignty is done through influencing the decision making process. Not allowing negative attitudes to defeat your intention.

    237. crazycat says:

      @ ronnie

      You and I can just swap amendments; I’ll go for the soft drinks, you go for the Jura (which I would certainly drink circumstances permitting).

    238. Capella says:

      @ ronnie – well that would have to be voted on first and would win by a large majority! 🙂

    239. yesindyref2 says:

      There was a court case today brought by the People of the UK, against the UK Government effectively (appropriate minister). The court found in favour of the people, and that was that the UK Parliament has the right to decide on the EU Referendum result as it was advisory only according to the wording of the Legislation, and according to the UK’s Constitution. Effectively the People of the UK asserted their right to have their rights upheld by the UK Parliament (in this particular case).

      In the case of Scotland, you would subsititue Scotland’s Constitution to the UK’s Constitution in a court case brought by the People – and THAT would be where the Sovereignty of the People would be tested, would it win for instance against Parliament, if that was the thrust of the case, including its actual dissolution?

      Clearly Robert Peffers and others including myself think that the People would win that court case.

      It’s very simple really, it would be determined (a good old-fashioned legal term) in Court, under Scots Law.

    240. James Barr Gardner says:

      Daily politics on BBC tonight have Stepanie Flanders (JP Morgan) throwing in her tuppence about brexit.

      This is the same lady who was an ex-girlfriend of both Ed Balls and Ed Milliband, amazing that the british biased cons think that most folk have the memory of a goldfish.

      Well I don’t EBC continue in their pathetic fall in public confidence.

    241. yesindyref2 says:

      Stirling I think, huge marquee somewhere near the Bridge, or hire the castle! Or just take it over …

    242. Big Phil says:

      I cant understand it, dugdale, her maj( her liefullness), rennie and that other wee greenhorn tory guy,why cant they want freedom from the westminister shitesters, they are arse licking the arseholes that are putting us down, and when we are free they should be tried for treason.I mean it ,please o please let us fuck up our own country, what can you lose, we are shite.

    243. Big Phil says:

      By the way , i watched Outlander tonight so im emotional. HELP

    244. Liz g says:

      Yesindyref2 @ 12.46
      Now that your mentioning Court’s deciding things under Scottish Law.
      Do you get the impression… that between the Irish Court the other week mentioning Scotland in its judgement when it didn’t have to.
      And the English Court today indirectly affirming the Treaty of the Union as an active document.
      Which by the way could have just demolished in a court Fluffys legal advice.
      That Scotland is being encouraged to get this into a Court?
      Could that be the way they want Brexit stopped?

    245. Liz g says:

      Big Phil @ 1.01
      When it comes to Outlander there isnay any help.
      Ye jist hiv tae feel the feelings. Sorry!!!

    246. Chic McGregor says:

      “Anybody fancy trying to get tickets for BBC QT from Stirling, Nov 17th.

      Wonder who’ll be on the panel?”

      On current Anti (Scottish) Beeb form it will be:
      Ruth Davidson, Kezia Dugdale, Gordon Wilson, Jim Sillars and Wee Wullie for comic relief.

    247. Chic McGregor says:

      Libdems only coming 5th in Holyrood, Wullie no longer qualifies for ‘Third Man’ jibes re Michael Rennie who starred in the TV series.

      Perhaps he should become a columnist.

    248. Still Positive. says:

      Who is the MP for Stirling?

      They voted Remain by about 70%. It will be interesting to say the least.

    249. Meg merrilees says:


      re Stirling QT Panel

      I kinda thought it might be a toss-up between Murdo Fraser or ‘Lord’ Forsyth.
      Ruth probably too busy baking! Thought she looked a bit embarrassed in the Gas-fitter’s overalls the other day.

      Count me in for the slap up meal, even if it’s glamping. Quite like the idea of the Castle – only if the Saltire is flying there tho!

    250. Meg merrilees says:

      Stephen Paterson MP for Stirling. Bruce Crawford MSP

    251. Meg merrilees says:

      Suppose they could ask Dennis Canavan??? …

      Don’t be stupid girl!

    252. Meg merrilees says:

      Nicola has called for May to drop her Appeal against today’s ruling, save time and money. The Scottish Government will study the judgement carefully and may consider ‘actively opposing’ the Tories by participating against them if she goes ahead with the Supreme Court Appeal.

      Great front page on The National!

      Has everyone else gone to bed?

    253. yesindyref2 says:

      @meg – still here
      @Liz g – now that’s a big question, I need a cup of tea! BRB.

    254. yesindyref2 says:

      @Liz g warning, probably long posting! Part 1.
      Right, the UK Government have an Advocate General for Scotland, a cabinet role. He is their man, but should of course uphold the principles of an advocate – represeneing his client, but within the ethics of his profession. The one at the time of Indy Ref 1 was Jim Wallace and I was very disappointed in him when he came out of his office beaming his head off saying the Scottish Government could not hold a referendum on independence without the UK Government’s permission – this back in 2012. That’s cobblers, and he knows it. It could be done, albeit facing a possible court challenge.

      The current Advocate General for Scotland is Richard Keen, he was Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, then chair of the Scottish Conservative Party. But I looked him up when he was appinted, and I don’t think he’s anybody’s tool – or fool.

      For Scotland it’s the Lord Advocate, who was Mullholland. A lot of people said he was too close to the SNP. Perhaps, but he is Government’s man. The current one is Wolfe, and I know nothing about him yet, but he is supposed to be independent – though I’m not sure what that means. He was an observer at the High Court case, and would presumably be the one in charge if the Scottish Government intervenes as Sturgeon has indicated they might. Personally I think it’s should, not might, as it could clear up a few questions!

      But these two are Government appointments and work in the Government, they serve in the UK cabinet and the Scottish cabinet, respectively.

    255. Liz g says:

      Meg Merrilees @ 1.56
      Sorry meg was over on YouTube watching Question Time.
      You given up yet?

    256. DerekM says:

      Wow those brexit guys show unparalleled stupidity you would think they would know it would have to go through the UK parliament.

      okay for you brexit guys

      Brexit means leaving the EU and having to discuss new trade terms

      Article 50 means leaving the EU parliament and must be signed in the EU parliament this must take place first before brexit can take place,two things understand sound similar but they are not!

      So what the tories are doing is a pointless political charade in the hope that they can tie it up in parliament giving them some more breathing space on the deadline they set.

      Now this is the important bit brexit chumps so pay attention May could have signed article 50 in the first few weeks of her PM and Houdini Dave could have done it before he vanished into thin but bacon smelling air.

    257. yesindyref2 says:

      @Liz g – part 2!
      Right. Well, my understanding of the judiciciary stuff started in my freelance days when I had to check out contracts, with and without legal advice where I found that law is kind of equitable generally, if you get something against you in employment for instance there has to be something for you of the same value – that’s grossly simplifying.

      I had to change at start of this millenium (RSI), and change business to consumer stuff and had to learn the laws, particularly as because of that equitableness I found the formal advice on the distance seling regulations to be puzzling. The laws are actually incredibly easy to read as they are logical in nature and from that I found the OFT advice was – wrong, so I did what I thought was right, and it passed trading standards when I discussed it with them. I had to read up other laws after that, and for various reasons read up actual judgements to inform myself – which I also found logical. Well, if I can do it, anyone can do it.

      Anyway, this is to say that because of that I took an interest, and to get to the point at last, I think the Law is adminstered impartially and logically, and is available to criticism and oversight – which of course makes it impartial and legal in its nature. There may be exceptions but unlike a certain poster’s claims, it’s not corrupt, and thank goodness for that.

      Which means that the judiciary are not political in nature, and therefore it’s very unlikely the judges in NI or the England and Wales one would have made their comments to try to influence Brexit in any way at all.

      On one hand firstly they’re judges and have to point out anything that might affect their judgements, but on the other hand secondly, well, it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if they wanted to see this all end up in a Scottish Court so they could get out the popcorn and marshmallows!

    258. Liz g says:

      DerekM @ 2.39
      Have heard it said though that they would have triggered article 50 by now,except they were too scared of losing Scotland.
      They are playing for time to try and figure out how to lock us in.
      Might be true might no,but would certainly be one explanation of how she’s behaving!

    259. yesindyref2 says:

      Part 3 and end
      Advocate = QC. They represent one side of an argument in court, and give opinions generally to solicitors to pass on to clients. My favourite I liked to read was Aidan O’Neill – very interesting views on the Scottish Constitution and the EU, and other things. Advocates are allowed a life outside court!

    260. Meg merrilees says:

      Yesindyref2, Liz g

      Phew! Thought everyone was asleep!!

      fascinating in para 19 of today’s judgement the ruling basically states that since no-one has said that any relevant constitutional law in Scotland/NI is different to that in England and Wales re Royal Prerog, they will refer to UK constitutional law.

      Scotland was still an indy kingdom in 1688, so we weren’t affected by the decision settled on after the Glorious Revolution re Royal prerogative. Plus I know there’s a clause in the Acts of Union that says that Scots Law cannot be ‘over ruled’ , in perpetuity, so I think we may have a strong case to scupper TM’s cunning plan. Nicola’s playing a canny hand. Plus I believe that the Scots lawyers involved in 1707 would not have stitched us up, but may just have outmanoeuvred the other signatories!

      QT audience tonight was stating that Article 50 could have been triggered June 24th, and still could be triggered at anytime if there was a will so to do.

      Some diplomat, Lord Kerr, who helped draw up Article 50 said on BBC tonight that it was only meant as an exit route in the event of another EU country undergoing a coup.

      He explained: “I thought the circumstances in which it would be used, if ever, would be when there was a coup in a member state and the EU suspended that country’s membership.
      “I thought that at that point the dictator in question might be so cross that he’d say ‘right, I’m off’ and it would be good to have a procedure under which he could leave.”

    261. Liz g says:

      Yesindyref2 @ 2.52
      Thanks for that, I certainly don’t find it all easy to read.
      I can read it to mean both things at the same time,if there’s a conspiracy anywhere it’s in how these dam law’s are written,canny be anything other than deliberate!!!!

      I think we are actually in agreement here .
      I should have been more clear.
      I don’t mean that the government plan to get out of Brexit through the Scottish Court’s and they are all in on it.
      If fact I had understood that the judiciary don’t like to be caught up in politics.

      What I was thinking was that they (Irish & English judges ) seem to want to kick this into the Scottish Court’s.
      Maybe to get out of Brexit because the judiciary themselves want it stopped and Scottish Law has the most effective means to deal with it.
      Or that they just see it as the proper place to deal with it.

      I agree that the Scottish Government Should go to court as it would be useful to get as much issues as we can straight.
      There’s always the added bonus of potentially shutting Rock up as well.
      A win right there,but will admit the odds aren’t good!

    262. Liz g says:

      Meg Merrilees @ 3.18
      That’s very interesting that article 50 was only designed for an emergency situation.
      But also a bit disturbing!
      I mean if you have a coup you would expect protection..Aye?
      Must admit I am no very happy that it’s so difficult to leave the EU, I mean it really shouldn’t be so damaging to a country.
      We know exactly what that’s like an it’s no pretty.
      Mibbi that’s something we could do a bit about when we have our own membership?

    263. Meg merrilees says:

      Liz g

      I think you have a valid point.
      Judges are comfortable within their own jurisdiction English/Scots Law etc., They know it’s an equal Union of two Kingdoms and they know that Scots Law is strong, hence the big hints to Scottish courts to get involved.

      So far T May (and Ruth) has tried to bludgeon us with, ‘we voted as the UK and we will negotiate/leave as the UK ‘ ‘you voted to stay in the UK in 2014’ and apart from repeating, ad nauseam, that they can’t be expected to reveal their hand prior to doing any negotiations with the EU, they have NO plan. That is obvious.
      Who knows, it really could lead to an election in the Spring!

      Maybe that’s why the ‘Ruth Davidson party’ is trying to get off the ground! Maybe Tory/Conservative will be really dirty words by then and Ruth dreams of sweeping all before her as she sambas into the position of First Minister and Pastry Chef of Scotland…

      ooh!.. just dozed off there and was having a terrible nightmare…

    264. Liz g says:

      Meg Merrilees @ 3.44
      Well at least you got a bit of a doze.
      Thinking of Ruthie as First Minister… noo am feart tae shut ma eye’s.

    265. DerekM says:

      @ Liz g

      Yes Liz that is exactly what is happening.

      They know the second they sign article 50 they open up the escape door into Europe for Scotland.

      Everything hinged on a remain vote brexit was never meant to be the outcome but project fear backed fired on them,EU remain vote equaled no indyref2 or constitutional dilemma and it would have been back to ukok business as usual with spam face Dave ducking and diving.

      But that did not happen behold the big fella said those poor Scots get a rough deal i think i will answer their prayers if just to shut them up….and so brexit was born 🙂

    266. Liz g says:

      Meg Merrilees @ 3.44
      Do ye really think that May will call a general election,because of all this?

    267. Liz g says:

      DerekM @ 3.53
      Aye isn’t Karma a bitch. LOL

    268. Liz g says:

      Sorry everyone.. this tablet is trying to update or something and it is doing its best to tell me to stop asking it to do anything else.
      Fully paid up member of the awkward squad right now so it is.
      Will need to call it a night…. even spell check has bugged out and I’ll just embarrass myself with out that.
      Night all

    269. yesindyref2 says:

      Sheesh, amateur BBC hour again. So they ask some eejit economist Galbraith guy at the University of Texas (that’s in the USA oh geographically challenged BBC) and he says it seems that you can’t have a referendum that’s binding now because of this ruling. Hello dickwad, part of the ruling was that because the EU Referendum legislation didn’t make the referendum binding, it therefore wasn’t binding and that gave the UK Parliament the final word.

    270. Meg merrilees says:

      It might be her least worst option. She’s currently saying ‘No way!’ but it doesn’t always go the way you want. This is a catastrophe for her.

      As the ruling stands just now, she has lost control of Brexit . If they lose the Appeal, she has to go to Parliament. (Apparently all 11 senior judges including those of Scotland and NI will sit in the Supreme Court ruling).

      I know the Labour MP on QT was saying that she would respect the voters and vote for Article 50 as would many of her colleagues, but the Tories have a majority of 12 and there are Eurosceptic rebels within the ranks.
      It might need an Act of Parliament and ratification by the House of Lords or e.g. Owen Smith could introduce an amendment for a 2nd ref on the actual deal. This has also been suggested by Lord Kerr – that there be a second ref. on the actual deal as negotiated.

      TM has no electoral mandate, having been handed the job and the markets are volatile. There could be a vote of ‘No Confidence’.

      Who knows, it’s all gone a bit pear-shaped today. tee hee!

      Def. going off line now.

    271. woosie says:

      Robert Peffers;

      Great summary of the events surrounding the birth of the union.

      EVEL is an illegal act by WM; I get that. What I don’t get is that we Scots seem to have accepted it. What would the procedure be to challenge all the english decisions which go against Scotland’s legal position in terms of the union?

      BTW, hearing on the news Hammond set to announce frigate work for the Clyde. They must be worried now!

    272. Sinky says:

      Deja Vu fderalism from Gordon Brown on GMS. He was the one who claimed the “Near Federal” Vow would stop ndependence. He backed Labour’s stance that they would not allow Scotland to use the pound. He was part of the Labour government that had 13 years to bring in Federalism. He is just reactionary with no real vision.
      Labour at Westminster and in the Smith Commission voted against devolving VAT and many other powers to Scotland.

    273. cearc says:

      The tabloids down south are quite scary.

      Mail front page with pictures of the Judges with ‘Enemies of the People’ in huge letters.

      Express front page piece ends with,’… we must leave the EU. Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight.’

    274. heedtracker says:

      UKOK newsroom melt down summation from Graun. “We must get out of the EU” is lovely schadenfreude but Brexit really is over now.

    275. cearc says:

      Just got the ‘commenting too quickly message’ and there hadn’t been a message posted for half an hour apart from Sinky’s at the same time. So I guess the ‘new improved’ server can only cope with one at a time!

    276. Thepnr says:

      So now we’re getting the frigates and federalism again! The’re not desperate the’re lunatics.

    277. heedtracker says:

      Usual and total SNP teamGB media black out on latest Brexit farce and Graun also includes greatest political commentator of the age. Who knows what this filthy rich lady is on about though, Brexit wise.

      J.K. Rowling ? @jk_rowling
      If the worst they can say about you is you’re an OPENLY GAY EX-OLYMPIC FENCER TOP JUDGE, you’ve basically won life.
      4:38 PM – 3 Nov 2016

    278. winifred mccartney says:

      Blast from the past Gordon Brown on RS -thought we had ‘the most powerful devolved govt’ near to home rule, the vow delivered blah de blah why would anyone ever listen to labour again- and for GB to have to nerve to try and con everyone again – no shame.

    279. Macart says:


      Heh. Saw they’d rolled out that arse Brown again.

      Brown ‘guaranteed’ many things to the Scottish electorate in the last indyref. He guaranteed as I recall the very nearest to a federal solution possible, constitutional conventions, the writing of the permanence of the Scots parly into the ‘unwritten’ UK constitution and such. All the while, terrifying pensioners with threats to their pension delivery, the NHS and Gawd knows what else. A real prince among… etc.

      Folk listened to him, believed him, voted for the entirely false picture he painted and then he abandoned them. Gordon Brown is a liar and a coward of the very worst order. Whenever the ‘state’ is threatened they roll him out of his closet to rinse and repeat the self same lies time after time.

      To those scanning this thread from curiosity or for the first time if your considering moving from no to yes, his speeches, declarations and ‘guarantees’ from indyref 1 are readily available from the interwebby with a few deft clicks on google.

      Brown does not have and never had any power or position to follow through on guarantees of any description. He still doesn’t. We are where we are because he was deployed like a weapon against a very particular demographic. His threats to our aged and his guarantees to those wavering were enough to give people the excuse they needed NOT to take what they considered a leap in the dark.

      It didn’t work out so well.

      Independence isn’t a leap in the dark and never was. Its about knowing what you have, what you can be capable of and having the confidence, the will and the imagination to use it for the benefit of all the population. Today’s generation and tomorrow’s.

      Its about freedom of choice.

      None of which is anything like what Brown proposes, EVEN IF he had any real say about delivering on his delusions. Which he most certainly DOES NOT!

    280. Ken500 says:

      @ Guardian Commentary

      ‘Openly Gay ex Olympic fencer top judge’

      They wanted English Law for English folk. That’s what Brexit was about. Now they don’t like it.

      Could the Tories make a bigger mess? They are destroying the world economy. The only way they can get out of it is to have a GE and lose. The Poison chalice.

    281. Ken500 says:

      Scotland has paid for the frigates. Nearly £4Billion. If Scotland was Independent Scotland could build frigates, supply boats, ferries and liners. Scotland doesn’t even have boats to patrol it’s shores but is paying for nuclear.

    282. Les Wilson says:

      Well Fallon has announced the 8 naval ships will be going ahead on the Clyde with a couple of lighter ships to be added.
      This was followed with the familiar sound bites ie “this will support 6,000 jobs in Glasgow and will last for 20 years”.
      Ramped up of course by the EBC and the English based shipworker’s GMB union mouth piece.

      Well we heard all this before,how could anyone trust them.
      For a start where are they going to get the money from? By all normal standards they are bankrupt now. Also, let’s not forget all the commitments they have made down south, which if ever carried out, would not be in the interests of Scotland.England’s needs will always usurp Scotland’s.

      Clearly they are following Indy1 tactics, that they feel worked for them.This announcement is again timed to effect an Indy decision, but whether or not anything would go ahead after Indy2 is doubtful but they will promise everything as they did before.

      They will promise the world,but as we know, their word is worth nothing.
      Given all their future costs and likely much lower GDP due to Brexit they will not go through with delivering anything of substance for Scotland.
      Whatever they do, it will benefit England not Scotland.

      They are in a hard place, and their propaganda may not work this time,they are becoming hysterical about it. So expect much more bribing, but all will be forgotten the day after the Indy2 vote.

    283. Macart says:

      Just looked round some of the front pages.

      Holy moley! 😮

      They’re really going after the judiciary big time. Apparently judges should have ignored the law and just delivered is the long and short of it.


      They call them LAWS for a reason.

    284. Onwards says:

      What’s interesting on the EU ruling is that it makes another parliamentary vote or another referendum on the Brexit terms more likely.

      If the EU refuses to compromise on its core principles, and there is only the option of a hard Brexit where we leave the single market entirely, would that get public approval ?

      It would be a lot harder than a general question about simply leaving the EU where many voters thought the UK could cherry pick a sweet deal.

    285. Macart says:

      @Les Wilson

      Good news for the Clyde if true.

      Shame it took the threat of constitutional and economic carnage to move them to keep their word. 😉

      Will it stop independence from happening? Doubtful. It shouldn’t take threat for partners to act like partners.

    286. carjamtic says:

      Rare Coincidences

      “The Lancaster,best oilfield in the world”….not my words.

      Life imitating art….a ‘Local Hero’ moment…..”I’ll make a good Gordon,Gordon”.

      Tell you what,if you keep nice and quiet about the new oilfields,we will let you make those warships for us,remember them,we mentioned them,a few years back….is it a deal ?.



    287. ronnie anderson says:

      Indycamp Holyrood being Evicted just now ( appeal lodged yesterday to the Supreme Court ) but High Court officers moved onto the Campsite this morning (wait for it ) with Witness’s ie Paid Strawmen.

    288. orri says:

      The thing is that the public is being hoodwinked into the fable that all referenda are advisory. The one on AV wasn’t. The one on independence wasn’t. The one on the EU was.

      The “con” is that an Act can be passed that will be time limited and triggered on the result of a referendum. That the conservatives were in such a disarray that they chose not to include such a clause in the EU referendum does not mean that had they wished they could have. However, it’s worth repeating that the conservative manifesto had a commitment to honouring the outcome.

      Basically the idea that a referendum can only be advisory is simply untrue.

    289. Arabs for Independence says:

      I listened to the Clunking Fist this morning and I can’t recall him ever being interviewed in the last 3-4 years. There is something missing with this guy – Gary Robertson quizzed him on the Vow and him leading the near federalism stuff. Broon’s response was that it was nothing to do with him and “I don’t know what you are talking about” – did I hear correctly that Gordon Brown said he wasn’t involved in the vow?

      Reminds me of the SAHB song ‘Framed’ – “I never did nuthin”

    290. heedtracker says:

      Ken500 says:
      4 November, 2016 at 8:54 am
      @ Guardian Commentary

      ‘Openly Gay ex Olympic fencer top judge’

      They wanted English Law for English folk. That’s what Brexit was about. Now they don’t like it.

      They do not! But it means Daily Mail style Brexit’s over and that’s gotta hurt.

      Also, J.K. Rowling says if “you’re an OPENLY GAY EX-OLYMPIC FENCER TOP JUDGE, you’ve basically won life.” Fair enough, she’s an idiot but and so,

      Wiki says Sir Terrence, or Terry as he loves to be called, “won life” in vitro, with that grand old silver spoon and Terry,

      attended St Paul’s School and studied history and law at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

      Legal career
      Etherton was called to the bar (Gray’s Inn) in 1974 and became a Queen’s Counsel in 1990. He was appointed a High Court judge on 11 January 2001 and assigned to the Chancery Division, receiving the customary knighthood…

      St Paul’s costs around £30k a year and so on.

    291. Chic McGregor says:

      Gordon Brown Aug. 2014:

      “We’re going to be, within a year or two, as close to a federal state as you can be in a country where one nation is 85 per cent of the population.”

      Gordon Brown Aug. 2016:

      “I believe that we should examine a way forward that offers a more innovative constitutional settlement, more federal in its relationship with the UK than devolution or independence and more akin to home rule than separation”

      Did he really believe a near federal relationship would be forthcoming?

      Does he believe it now?

    292. Nana says:

      Gina Miller Article 50 Judgement Fallout Sees Campaigner Receive Death Threats Online

    293. Les Wilson says:

      Macart says:

      I do not see any promises (bribes) will ever come to anything, just look at last Indy. This time is even worse as the economy goes down the drain. There will be little spare money and what there is will be used to placate English voters, Scotland’s interests will be in the bottom bin as usual.

      Do we not realise this from what happened last time.

    294. Dorothy Devine says:

      Nanna , the last piece of the film reminded me of a poor , sweaty man I once met on holiday ( having a pint outside the pub on a warm evening) He had a cloud of millions of midgies round him – which saved the rest of us being bothered!

      But all that debris will not necessarily stay in orbit round us so we can expect a few dents and bumps along the way – humanity is messy and disgusting in so many ways.

    295. ronnie anderson says:

      Aw this Jam tomorrow , ah need tae start ah Crowdfunder fur Jeely Jars tae put it in ,mair than likely they’ll be plenty of that soor bitter orange stuff to confuddle the taste buds.

    296. cearc says:

      Not sure which paper this was from (saw a screenshot on twitter) but it is from that great democrat Jacob Rees Mogg,

      ‘We will achieve Brexit, even it takes an election, a purge of the Europhiles or 1,000 new peers to get there.’

    297. Valerie says:

      Orri 9.17

      Well said.

      That’s the essential difference between politicians that respect process, and those that do not. Cameron thought he would win Remain, hence his carelessness, this will be another nail in his legacy.

      Despite the angry mob last night on QT about the judgement, no one laid the blame at Mays feet, who is responsible for announcing that A 50 was hers to.trigger. May was trying to act unlawfully, and the court has slowed her down.

      The whole thing is a revolting example of Tory mismanagement, and again, I say, Scots should be screaming to get out of this despite.

    298. Brian Powell says:

      Totally weird from Alex Neil on SNP members voting for Brexit.

      Anybody have any idea what caused him to go with this to the Telegraph now? Every Tory newspaper, thats all newspapers, and commentator is whooptedo over it.

    299. Macart says:

      @Les Wilson

      Aye, they’re not too big on delivery right enough. Regardless of confirmation, it didn’t stop Glasgow from being a YES city last time of asking and I’m pretty sure it won’t at any future referendum.

      Thir ontae plums when it comes to transparent bribes by this point.

      The timing on the back of the judicial result was beyond spooky. I reckon when the wind dies down you can hear the knees knocking in Westminster from Cape Wrath at this point.

    300. Thepnr says:

      Arabs for Independence

      We know Brown is a liar, this FT article from 15 proves it.

      “But for a brief period in September 2014 Mr Cameron and his Labour predecessor worked closely together, culminating in two telephone calls between the two men amid growing concern about the future of the union.

      The first took place on the afternoon of September 8, the day after a YouGov poll gave the Yes side the lead in the referendum campaign — news that broke while Mr Cameron was staying with the Queen at a tense Balmoral.

      During a 15 minute call to Mr Cameron on the Monday afternoon — described as polite and formal by the Cameron team — Mr Brown made it clear that the Scots had to be made an explicit offer of what he later called a form of “home rule”…”

      “Meanwhile, the prime minister showed Mr Brown a draft of his final speech to be delivered in Aberdeen on September 15; Mr Brown suggested Mr Cameron should stress a No vote would be the “safest and quickest” way to win more home rule for Scotland.”

      Sorry but FT articles cannot be archived if you want to read it.

    301. heedtracker says:

      Aw this Jam tomorrow , ah need tae start ah Crowdfunder fur Jeely Jars tae put it in”

      Actual jam. Please Sir, can we have a £400 million container port in your Scottish region of Greater England, perlease, we’ll be quiet and good?

    302. Les Wilson says:

      Macart says

      Ha Ha, well said.
      “The timing on the back of the judicial result was beyond spooky. I reckon when the wind dies down you can hear the knees knocking in Westminster from Cape Wrath at this point.”

      That did make me laugh! Also somewhere near the truth.

    303. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Just catching up on last nights comments this a.m.

      Thanks @ Liz g says, 3 November, 2016 at 10:35 pm was hoping that’s the way it would be seen.

      Thanks also @ Glamaig says, 3 November, 2016 at 10:46 pm.

      And @ Robert Peffers says, 3 November, 2016 at 11:40 pm.

      A wee bit less complicated now you’ve all enlightened me further.

    304. Arabs for Independence says:


      Thanks – but there musht be shum mishtake as Mr Brown doesn’t know anything about that and wasn’t involved

    305. Tinto Chiel says:

      So are federalism *sigh* and frigates all they’ve got left?

      Headless chickens doesn’t really cover it.

      Londinium’s falling down, chaps.

    306. DerekM says:

      I see those magical disappearing frigates have magically reappeared must be an election soon.

      lol and crash federalism broon on the loose as well,yoons bringing out the shiny beads and tall tales of better togetherness.

    307. Bob Mack says:

      It appears they have deliberately omitted the Scottish problem in all media with regard to this judgement on Brexit, and yet it was enough to occupy the judges over 10 pages. I think it is very significant.

      It would also explain why a few months ago they were bleating on about a ?newnew Act of new Act of Union. This one gives them too many problems.

      Newspaper coverage this morning is a cross between Les Miserables and Kim Jong Un.Almost inciting revolution. England is on a bad road.

    308. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Aye @ Derek M, on the the shiny beads and tall tales (Plus Gordzilla on the loose).

      Looks like a vote of confidence/Snap GE may be on the cards.

      I’m off out to get a Smallpox vaccination as the infected blankets will be getting dished out as well no doubt. 🙂

    309. Stu Mac says:

      @Liz g says:
      4 November, 2016 at 2:58 am

      Another explanation is that she is spectacularly incompetent and hasn’t a clue what she’s doing. Her time at the HOme Office was noted for her incompetence but maybe never showed up so much due to being in a cabinet with the likes of Osborne, Hunt and Smith who were just as incompetent but in positions to do even more damage to the country.

    310. Glamaig says:

      UKGov has had to give us frigates again so they have something to threaten to take away in Indyref2! ‘Steel will be cut in mid-2017’ so that must be when they are expecting Indyref2 🙂

      What an absolutely extraordinary morning on GMS, Gordon Brown federalism, frigates, and WTF is Alex Neil doing?

    311. galamcennalath says:

      Tinto Chiel says:

      So are federalism *sigh* and frigates all they’ve got left?

      …that and trying everything possible to stop IndyRef2. It’s the only policy of the Ruth Davidson Party.

      Campaigning to prevent Scottish self determination never stopped but has stepped up a gear or three now.

      You are right, they will struggle to come up with winning tactics next time. They don’t have the stash of ammunition they had of IndyRef1. Most of that turned out to be blanks and won’t be much use a second time. Their threats of what Indy might bring have all come to pass anyway! And the lies and deception will be thrown in their faces.

    312. One_Scot says:

      Honest to God, the UK is a F’in mad house. If we don’t get out ASAP Scotland is finished, no question.

    313. galamcennalath says:

      Glamaig says:

      WTF is Alex Neil doing?

      I can’t believe he is a loose cannon, it will be intentional.

      It may be so he can be seen to be unwaveringly behind Scotland and Indy despite having been Leave. An example all Yes folks need to be persuaded to follow.

      Everyone knows a third of SNP supporters voted Leave. That was bound to include some politicians. It makes sense to get it out into the open and not glossed over.

      SNP must be seen as the party pushing Scotand’s interests in every aspect and not just proEU.

      IndyRef2 has to be about much more than the EU and Brexit. WM mismanagement, deceitful promises, policies, further shift to the right, damage to our renewables … IR2 can be fought on a broad front and should be. Brexit is the trigger, but Indy has to be about much more.

      Those who voted Yes and Leave MUST be kept on board to vote YES again.

    314. ronnie anderson says:

      Yes 2 Proven Livestream last night Gordon McIntyre Kemp.

    315. One_Scot says:

      Jeez, are these frigates tied to the end of a frickin yo-yo.

    316. Meg merrilees says:


      Far be it for me to defend JK but there is uproar re the Judges who made the ruling yesterday.
      One of them is high up in some pro-European group looking at more integration; one of them has sold his ‘wisdom’ for thousands and one of them is an ‘Openly gay, ex-Olympic fencer and top judge’ – HENCE JK’s remark that if the worst they can say about you is that you’re an Openly gay, ex-Olympic fencer and top judge then you’ve won life.

      Personally I think things just took a turn for the horrific in England – can see the water cannon and tear gas coming out yet! And they want to make Farage a LORD!!!

    317. Dr Jim says:

      We wouldn’t have Squillions of debts and deficits if we were’nt in the EU coz they take all our money
      I read that one this morning, these people are like feckin lemmings or sheep or something, they hear it repeat it and believe it

      It would appear that if the majority of “British” people think like this it’s no wonder the Europeans laugh their heads off at Britain, they must think we’re all morons and that’s rather embarrassing and really damn dangerous to the rest of the world, I have never ever met any foreigners who are this stupid

      So instead of throwing out the foreigners can we not just throw out the dafties and replace them with smarter foreign folk, although the queues of “British” migrants leaving our shores to “Swarm” somewhere else would probably find no room at the inn anywhere, fences would be going up all over the world, who’d want them?

      A swarm of UKIPPERS

    318. Pete says:

      Great to have Alex Neil come out as a leaver.
      People like myself who want REAL independence have been drowned out by the EU fanatics who seem to have taken over the SNP.
      Leaving the EU opens up great opportunities for fishing and agriculture and frees us from the insidious rule by the ECJ.
      I hope we’ll see lots more leavers now come out.

    319. Lollysmum says:

      Liz g @3.21am

      🙂 You are awful but I like you 🙂 Well said!

      Just got the ‘You are posting comments too quickly-slow down’ twice for this one line of text.

    320. ronnie anderson says:

      @ One_Scot Aye wan wie ah Wee Yella String, or its ah Push Me Pull Me Anyway You Want Me ( thats ah boat wie nae Engines ) an the Shipworkers Unions will TUG the forelock again & again.

    321. Dr Jim says:

      Don’t know about Farage becoming a Lord but quite happy for Farage to meet him…..

    322. Wull says:

      Rock says (in reply to Liz G at 11.13 p.m.):

      4 November, 2016 at 12:11 am (Rock posting at exactly the same time as my previous post, which also concerned the sovereignty of the Scottish people: and many thanks from me, by the way, to Chic and Robert at 12.26 and 12.27 for their supportive posts).

      Now, to get back to Rock at 12.11 a.m., here are some of the things he said to Liz G:

      ‘Robert Peffers and yourself are the ones who bang on about the Scots being “sovereign”.’

      [Rock could have added ‘so does {that eejit!} Wull’, but it is perfectly understandable that he didn’t, since I post much less frequently than either Liz or Robert. But in this post I will indeed be ‘banging on’, as Rock calls it, about the very same principle of sovereignty.]

      Rock continues:

      ‘But neither of you has a clue how that “sovereignty” could be exercised in practice.

      Both of you post long essays but are totally incapable of providing practical answers to what you bang on about. …

      … The “plebs” have NEVER exercised their so called “sovereignty” for the simple reason that they never had it in the first place.’

      I just want to comment on that last, incorrect statement of Rock’s. ‘They’ (the Plebs) have had ‘it’ (sovereignty) at least since the time Robert Bruce was made Scotland’s king and ruler, in 1306. This is clearly documented in the Parliamentary Act known as the ‘Declaration of the Clergy’. An Act which was passed during Robert Bruce’s first parliament, which was held at St Andrews in March 1309. That suggests a history of popular sovereignty in Scotland stretching back at least 700 years.

      In the 1309 Declaration the ‘Plebs’, as Rock rightly calls them (and us), are explicitly mentioned. Not once, in fact, but twice.

      In both cases they appear in the phrase ‘Populus et Plebs’. At that time, the connotations of the Latin word ‘populus’ was at best ambiguous, if not downright aristocractic. It usually referred not to ‘the people as a whole’ but, rather, specifically, or even exclusively to the upper echelons of society. Basically, it referred to the aristocracy (both major and minor), including the knights. Instead of meaning ‘everyone’ (as ‘people’ now does), in those days ‘Populus’ usually meant only ‘the people who matter’, the elite.

      The addition of ‘et Plebs’ (‘and the common people’)to the term ‘Populus’ in the 1309 parliamentary text is therefore highly significant. It made sure that NO ONE could harbour the false assumption that the 1309 Declaration was talking ONLY about the elite. Instead, without excluding the elite, it talks about them together with all the rest of the population – explicitly, the ‘Plebs’. And these ‘Plebs’ would be hugely more numerous than the ‘Populus’.

      These are the same ‘Plebs’ whom Rock mistakenly excludes from the sovereignty principle running through the history of Scotland. ‘Mistakenly’, I say, in regard to their exclusion, because the 1309 Declaration explicitly includes them.

      And what does the 1309 Declaration actually say about the ‘Populus et Plebs’ – i.e. the whole population – of Scotland?

      To answer this question we have to bear in mind the purpose of the 1309 text: it was published as a justification of the legitimacy of the Bruce monarchy. It sought not only to affirm but also to demonstrate that Robert Bruce was the legitimate king of Scotland and ruler of the Scots.

      In doing so it used various arguments, but (in my opinion) the key one around which all the others were organised was this: that Robert Bruce was the Scots’ legitimate king and ruler for the simple reason that the ‘Populus et Plebs’ of Scotland believed and said that he was, and continued to do so.

      The Scots had identified and recognised him as their ruler, and it was thus that he was entitled and able to govern them. They had freely consented to his rule; therefore, on that account, his rule was legitimate. The term ‘sovereignty of the people’ is not used in the 1309 text – it was coined in a later era – but here, in essence, is the very same idea: a rose by any other name is still a rose.

      It was an idea, moreover, that had not only been expressed (for instance in the 1309 Declaration), but had already been acted upon. In particular, when the Scots had made Bruce their king. At that point, so the Declaration claims, the Populus et Plebs of Scotland were exercising their right and ability to appoint their own rulers.

      In other words, the ‘Populus et Plebs’ of Scotland – that is, the whole population of the country – are sovereign. Their rulers are not imposed upon them, for for they (the same ‘Populus et Plebs’) appoint them themselves. The implications are clear: no one else has the right or ability to appoint rulers over the Scots. This is what it means to be a free people. Moreover, the Populus, the elite, cannot act alone in appointing a ruler: they have to have the agreement of the Plebs, who are the vast majority of the population. The Populus act in conjunction with the Plebs, and therefore in accordance with what the Plebs want, in the matter of appointing a king.

      I will grant you that some of this is implicit in the text rather than explicit, but it is there all the same. And clearly so, for anyone who cares to study the matter with sufficient care.

      The Declaration of Arbroath, which comes 11 years later, in 1320, is only being consistent with this principle of sovereignty when it affirms that Robert Bruce can be deposed, and will be if he acts in a certain manner. Unfortunately, the 1320 text does not explicitly mention the ‘Plebs’ – in that regard it seems to be a more ‘aristocratic’ document than the 1309 Declaration – but the principle is clearly that of 1309: those who appoint the ruler can also depose him, and replace with another.

      This can be called the sovereignty principle.

      In 1309 it is absolutely clear that the sovereignty in question is ‘popular’. It obtains to the whole people: not the ‘Populus’ alone, but the ‘Populus et Plebs’ together.

      It is true that the ‘Declaration of the Clergy’ of 1309 is much less well known than the Arbroath text of 1320, even among Scottish constitutional lawyers who are fully aware that popular sovereignty has for long and weary been the consistent basis of the Scottish constitution, and who know that this goes back in terms of extant documentation to the time of Robert Bruce. The 1320 text is far more likely to be quoted, whereas that of 1309 remains in obscurity, little known and virtually never appealed to.

      Yet, at least to me, the 1309 text seems by far the more significant document from a constitutional point of view. This was an Act of the Scottish Parliament. Issued by the clergy who were members of that parliament, it is true, but still as a parliamentary Act. It was an Act, moreover, that set out the legal and constitutional basis of the Bruce monarchy. Being issued from the first parliament of King Robert’s reign, it undoubtedly had his full approval, and he too was bound by it.

      Could anything be more clearly constitutional, in reality and intention?

      Such a Declaration, issued from a parliament and setting out the basis of the king’s rule, is ‘constitutional’ in a an explicit, deliberate and legally binding way. The same can hardly be said – at least not to the same extent – of a diplomatic letter sent by a limited group of some of the Scottish barons to the Pope, which is what the Arbroath text of 1320 actually was.

      This is not to denigrate the Arbroath Declaration, which is also vastly important, but to put it in a wider context. In order to see that ‘the Plebs have it’, a quick glance through the 1309 Declaration is needed (though I will admit that proper interpretation of the clergy’s text does require close and sustained scrutiny, as is always the case in such matters).

      Sorry Rock, but allow me to say: on this 14th Century rock (the 1309 Declaration), your thesis has foundered. That is, your thesis according to which ‘the “plebs” have NEVER exercised their so called “sovereignty” for the simple reason that they never had it in the first place’.

      In fact they both had it, and exercised it. Even in the 14th Century, indeed at its very beginning … This is what the Declaration of the Clergy says.

      The Plebs’ exercise of that sovereignty – without excluding the ‘Populus’, for that sovereignty belongs to the WHOLE People of Scotland, ‘Populus et Plebs’ alike – is clearly attested in 1309. And, according to Bruce’s parliament of that year, this is precisely how Robert Bruce became the Scots’ king in the first place. His legitimacy as their governing authority rests on an action of the Scottish ‘Populus et Plebs’ as a whole – what today we call ‘the Scottish people’. He is their legitimate governing authority, because they have consented – and continue to consent – to his rule.

      This serves to demonstrate that the sovereignty of the people is indeed the basis of the Scottish constitution. This has been the case from the time of the Bruce monarchy onwards (early 14th Century). It may even have been the case well before that, but the Bruce monarchy is the first instance where we have explicit, extant documentation to demonstrate the fact.

      Sorry, Rock, but the law is the law – please don’t ignore it. I don’t know if you live in Scotland or not, or whether you even come from Scotland. But, presuming that you do, please accept the constitution of the country in which you have chosen and are most welcome to abide.

      It is on account of that constitutional bedrock, the sovereignty of the whole people, ‘Plebs’ and ‘Populus’ alike, that by residing and belonging here you have the right to be a full participant in Scotland’s political process. And every right to exercise that right. Whether or not you and I agree or disagree, that remains the case. That is how it is. Be glad of it!

      But please don’t undermine your own foundations, as a political actor in Scotland, by sniping away at those you accuse of ‘banging on’ about the sovereignty of the people in Scotland.

      The foundation of the English constitution may lie elsewhere, in some other principle, but in Scotland the foundation on popular sovereignty is clear, and long established. The idea may even have a longer history in Scotland than in any other country in the world, though of course – as elsewhere – it also had to compete with other more aristocratic theories of government.

      I have long believed that one of the reasons why there is no written constitution for the UK, and no real desire to produce one, is because, within the UK, more than one constitution is in fact at work. In some respects the fundamental constitutional assumptions in Scotland are quite different from those that bear sway for England. The powers that be don’t want the many ambiguities and contradictions to be exposed, for obvious reasons. They prefer to keep everything in a misty haze, without being explicitly spelled out, so that they can invent their own imaginary versions of the ‘British Constitution’ to suit whatever they see as the needs or requirements of the situation of the moment.

      Funnily enough, the Brexit fiasco is actually and inexorably exposing all this, and there will be plenty more of it to come. The long-sunk and stealthily-buried wreck of what the British Constitution may or may not be is gradually being dredged up to the surface, and all kinds of flotsam and jetsam are coming into view with it. What a mess – but that is another story, which we can’t go into here.

      Anyway, Auld Rock (though maybe, for all I know, you are a Young Rock, and somewaht inexperienced in the matters on which you hold forth so adamantly) … do try to learn a thing or two from the likes of Robert Peffers and Liz G. They may have a lot more to teach you than you have to teach them. This is a great learning site: let’s all keep studying. The ‘docile’ (literally, ‘teachable’) mind learns much; the obdurate, nothing.

    323. DerekM says:

      @ Jockanese Wind Talker

      I would not put it past her calling a GE but i think she will not because UKIP might just steal the show with the brexit referendum vote consolidation.

      A bit like the situation Labour got themselves in with indyref as yes voted SNP on mass in the GE.

      Though it would be hilarious to watch them try to out nasty each other and see who can get that possible 40% brexit referendum vote out as a party vote.

    324. ronnie anderson says:

      Its inevitable that there will be a Indy Ref 2 & there must be a Referendum on EU membership in a Independent Scotland. I for one am glad Alex Neil has spoken out , but that is a debate for another day after our Independence is secured.

    325. Andrew McLean says:

      Robert Peffers 11:40
      “The Pope excommunicated The Bruce and that meant everyone in Scotland.”
      If you forgive me Robert I will expand that point as one of the principal drivers to the declaration, and why it was, being excommunicated in that age was a mortal and immortal damnation, the dead were not given a Christian burial and you could not be legally wed! The church then was all, everything, it was the law the education the hospital, the undertaker, the social worker, every aspect of your life, and your direct line to god. No as no one knew how long Bruce would be excommunicated for, they had to remove him as a blockage to God.

      “There is no evidence that The Kingdom of England became the United Kingdom”

      Again forgive me Robert I would attest that there is centuries of written evidence and court decisions that it did not, even up to yesterdays wording in the court, anyone saying that Scotland was extinguished is either an imbecile or a liar of the worst order, it is as stupid as saying grass is not green but orange with red spots, water flows uphill, or the most outstanding politician last year was Ruth Davidson, its nonsense no sane person would make such an assertion!

      The ruling may be heavy reading, but essentially it confirms what is already centenary’s old fact, all rights in law, private and public for citizens of Scotland, can be added to by an Act passed in the palace of Westminster, but to remove these acts back to the level they were previously will also need an Act passed in the palace of Westminster. Not argued because no such royal prerogative, or power under any act of parliament, exists either now or prior to the Act of union to remove those rights of citizenship and the most fundamental right of man is to be a citizen of his land of birth and in particular his Sovereignty passed by Primogeniture ab initio.

      And in Scotland its citizens were bestowed that sovereignty by the most powerful ruler in Christendom, the only man able to do such a thing,intra vires, and to quote the Papal Bull that ordered that, and had that authority, as if it had been written by the hand of God, “by the venerable relics of the blessed Apostle Andrew, with a great outpouring of the divine power”.

      To quote the ruling again, that the Scottish Sovereignty granted in perpetuity by the Pope, is different from that of the other nations “the united kingdom constitutional law, as recognised in each of the jurisdictions of the four constitute nations”.

      My point is no royal prerogative was ever given by the act of union, or that of the Union of the Crowns, because no such prerogative ever existed since the papal bull, and arguably before that, but what the Bull crystallised was that inalienable right, and the only power capable of removing that right , the sovereignty of Scotland, no longer has that power.

      Therefore that is why the court decided to only use the law of England. It didn’t want to get anywhere near that fact!

      As the Scotsman is Sovereign by the hand of God, the Englishman is a subject of the descendants of the Norman Kings who began English sovereignty circa 1066.

    326. The Isolator says:

      @ Brian Powell

      “Totally weird from Alex Neil”

      Why?There is a vocal minority within the party opposed to membership under current conditions.

      I for one would hope that an independent Scotland would renegotiate on it’s own terms for entry to the single market including our net contributions.In fact during the 2014 campaign someone within the SNP should have asked Barroso to clarify to us as European citizens what grounds they had for expulsion of it’s fully contributing population in Scotland and details of our rebate if they went ahead with the threat to a newly independent member state.

      I’m sure Nicola Sturgeon would have known that this acknowledgement of Anti EU feeling was about to be made public and I would hope encouraged.It’s all about balance..and is what differentiates us from other political parties.We’re a broad church that’s for sure.

    327. Meg merrilees says:


      What type of opportunities will there be for fishing and farming outside the EU?

      Hill farmers depend on their subsidies and as it is they are the lowest in the UK – Westminster won’t pick up that bill- it already shares out money due for our farmers amongst all four nations.

      How can we afford the upkeep of our harbours and fishing fleet,(new boats, nets) which many fishermen credit to the funding from the EU?

      Don’t you think that the UK boats will just swarm all over our seas and we’ll be fished ‘dry?

      We need quotas for sustainable fishing stocks so there’s no way we can up our quota by 150,000 tons without consequences. At least if we are in Europe, we have a say at the table and can be part of the negotiations around fishing, rather than have Westminster shaft us.

      I realise all the points above can also be solved in an Independent, stand alone Scotland but it would be harder on that route.

      I’m not an ‘EU fanatic’ but I believe in close ties with Europe – the way forward is to take it one step at a time.
      Let’s get out from Westminster and then a few years down the line decide what will be the best for Scotland and the generations to come after us.

      Westminster will destroy us- that’s our priority.

      Nicola has the facts and she’s for Europe – that’s good enough for me.

    328. heedtracker says:

      Meg merrilees says:
      4 November, 2016 at 10:48 am

      Far be it for me to defend JK but there is uproar re the Judges who made the ruling yesterday.

      It struck this observer in the cheap seats, as particularly daft tory thing to say, from a self made mega rich Britnat.

      If Rowling thinks life is something you win, its fair to say this judge’s extremely expensive private schooling, one of the most fancy private schools in teamGB too, then law at Oxbridge, you’re pretty much set to make a fortune as lawyer in London to say the least.

      And that’s what its all about planet toryboy wise, when you buy your little uns that £30k a year start in this life championship.

      Is the UK heading for another 2011 riot season across England? nah. The English yeomanry aren’t instinctively up for civil unrest, like say the French. They do as they’re bid, tug the forelock, knuckle under, bend the knee. If need be they’ll even turn on each, like they did in the 80’s at the now industrial wastelands of Orgreave.

      If you get the chance, its worth going there and seeing what it was like in a city like Sheffield in 84. The sheer scale of what was destroyed by Thatcherite toryboy world is just staggering. And it wasnt just miners either that were defeated. Thousands and thousands of steel workers faced off thousands of battle ready cops right in the middle of Sheffield and they lost.

    329. Dan Huil says:

      @ronnie anderson 11:04am

      Spot on, Ronnie. First things first: an end to the disasterous union with England. We can deal with the EU, NATO etc later. However, if talking with the EU [as the SG is doing now] can help us first achieve independence then we should continue to do so.

    330. Scott says:

      Re Brown the vow did anyone else hear him on about a federal system again and refer to our FM as Mrs Sturgeon I know she married Peter Murrell so that would be her married name.
      Poor broon should just go away we heard enough of his lies before and I see Lord Flipper has come out of the woodwork as well with his SNP bad ramble.

    331. harry mcaye says:

      Belated thanks to Capella and crazycat for explaining yesterday’s proceedings in Holyrood. My confusion wasn’t helped by BBC saying one thing on screen and another online!

    332. Proud Cybernat says:

      ** BREAKING **

      Another Tory MP resigns seat over Brexit. Another by-election called.

    333. Nana says:

      How depressing, two more tory councillors. Who the hell votes tory in Scotland.

      Lincolnshire Tory MP Stephen Philips has resigned

    334. Andrew McLean says:

      Alex Neil’s, intervention is no bad thing, good that Westminster can’t say we are too EU friendly so should be excluded from negotiations, and good that the EU don’t think we are a walkover.

      You would think it planned, if you were a suspicious sort.

    335. Breeks says:

      Frigates in the rigging again eh? Well, there’s feck all else to do.

      But I don’t think is going to work.

      As for Alex Neil in the Telegraph? Doesn’t that rather suggest Alex Neil isn’t a Winger who keeps tabs on Telegraph journalism?

      It’s funny, as an ardent Independentist, I can still find some empathy for the unenlightened Unionist who believes whatever he believes through some (in my opinion) misplaced loyalty. More to be pitied than ridiculed.

      I am also an ardent Europhile, however I really struggle to find any logic behind wanting to leave the EU, and worse, leave it on the crest of a wave of insular Britnat xenophobia. It just doesn’t compute.

      As far as I’m concerned, at present, all things European come to us cold filtered through the hateful UKOK media, problem 1, and cold filtered twice because the only interface we have to interact with Europe is Scottish Enterprise, problem 2. Few of us have unfettered contact with anything European.

      I’m a Europhile because I have a positive, inclusive perspective on life, and I enjoying spicing up that perspective with exposure to European cultures whenever I can. If anybody, be that Theresa May, or Alex Neil wants me to surrender that perspective, then I look forward to hearing their persuasive arguments. Strikes me however they are both a bit wishy washy about what they actually want in “Brexit”, so I’m going take a wild guess that they don’t have many persuasive arguments in their arsenal. It takes all sorts to make a world, but there’s a knack to not listening to some.

      If you have a point to make Mr Neil, I’m afraid I won’t be finding it in the Torygraph.

    336. Bob Mack says:


      Brilliant post friend. You have taught me something this morning. I feel with some certainty that it will indeed come to a head over legal issues. That may well be our saviour.

    337. Onwards says:

      Pete says:
      4 November, 2016 at 10:52 am

      Great to have Alex Neil come out as a leaver.
      People like myself who want REAL independence have been drowned out by the EU fanatics who seem to have taken over the SNP.
      Leaving the EU opens up great opportunities for fishing and agriculture and frees us from the insidious rule by the ECJ.
      I hope we’ll see lots more leavers now come out.


      There is an argument for an independent Scotland outside the EU, but independence from the UK has to come first.

      In my opinion Alex Neil, Jim Sillars and any other YES supporters who voted for Brexit before we have left the UK are fucking idiots.

      Because if the UK has a hard Brexit and is outside the single market, then Scotland is trapped.

      If you thought the first Project Fear was bad, what do you think it will be like when the rUK threatens tariffs, barriers, and a hard border with Scotland ?

      The single market prevented all that.

    338. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Well now @ DerekM says at 11:04 am

      “I would not put it past her calling a GE but i think she will not because UKIP might just steal the show with the brexit referendum vote consolidation…………it would be hilarious to watch them try to out nasty each other and see who can get that possible 40% brexit referendum vote out as a party vote.”

      Following on from:

      SNP Baad (since 19th Sept. 2014)
      Gordzilla Federalism
      Frigates for the Clyde (again)

      We now have:

      Tory MP Resigns overMays Brexit stance. He’s an out and proud Brexiteer but not happy with May.

      Maybe positioning himself as an Independent in the event of a Snap GE so he doesn’t lose his place in the Commons to UKIP?

    339. orri says:

      Part of May’s “strategy” involves not allowing other parties to support or oppose Brexit. In that way she get’s to present only the C&UPoGB as following the wishes of the public.

      Then there’s always the “zeal of the convert” element to how she acts.

    340. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Unfortunately @ Nana says at 11:33 am

      “Who the hell votes tory in Scotland.”

      Banff are fisher folks, Inverurie mainly Tory/Fib Dems.

      Lot of SNP V.V.V. Baaad in the local press up here in the last week and Burnett and Chapman courting the rural/fisher vote.

      Some of these will be the same folk who vote Alexander Burnett into Aberdeenshire West at the SG 2016 elections.

      I suspect a healthy dose of Yoon tactical voting has happened but haven’t seen the breakdown yet.

      Another ‘triumph for The Ruthenfurher’, ‘Conservative resurgence continues’ headlines on STV/BBC/P&J etc.

      Gies me the dry boak.

    341. Andrew McLean says:


      the Declaration of the Clergy 1309 is important, but its a Scottish Act, it has no bearing on English law, In the bull of Pope Boniface VIII, addressed to King Edward I of England, 27 June 1299, the pope demanded that Edward end the war against Scotland, as it is a land which belongs to the church of Rome, and is not dependent on England. He (the pope) confirms that sovereignty of Scotland rests in its people, and as the Popes rulings were superior to the English courts results in that English law being subservient to papal law had to recognise that fact.

      I would argue, that no written act of Westminster has ever challenged the foundation of the Scottish nation as a nation state, and that no attempt could be made to absorb or assimilate Scotland into a greater England, as it would have been fundamental impossible to do. Therefore, even today, as the law stands, the united kingdom is a partnership. And partnerships can be dissolved.

    342. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      @ Nana

      Another though re: Aberdeenshire Local By-elections.

      Turnout will probably have been low and I suspect the SNP didn’t get their voters out in sufficient numbers.

      This has cost the SNP seats before in other areas as other Wingers have previously pointed out.

      The Yoons manage to mobilise their voters better.

    343. Joemcg says:

      Robert Peffers and to a lesser extent Wull and Rock these never ending arguments about sovereignty and citing ancient history the 1300’s and Bruce etc are pointless. It’s been going on for months now. I scroll past and I bet most others do. Yoons will just laugh at you and just say braveheart braveheart if you try and use it. I admire your knowledge but honestly it’s boring and a waste of time. They won’t listen. I dont know what you are trying to prove or achieve.

    344. Andrew McLean says:


      If you don’t know your past, how can you see your future?.

    345. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      @ Nana

      Yet Another though re: Aberdeenshire Local By-elections.

      Local Press and Yoons have been raging about Council Tax from ‘middle classes’ in Abderdeen City & ‘shire being given to Glasgow, Dundee etc.

      Relentlessly citing SNP/SG ‘Central Belt’ and ‘Pro Indy Council’ Bias.

    346. Les Wilson says:

      Wull says:

      A long but very good and interesting post Wull, your time and efforts are appreciated.

    347. Alistair Grapevine says:

      “Robert Peffers and to a lesser extent Wull and Rock “,
      I always lookout for and enjoy reading your posts,
      Keep up the good work.

    348. Nana says:

      @Jockanese Wind Talker

      I see from twitter turnout was low.

      I think also poor communication has a lot to do with it, folks don’t seem to know when elections are taking place.
      Makes me worry for next years turnout.

    349. Ken500 says:

      Taylor/Chapman will be in for six months. The Tories have ruined the Oil & Gas sector.

      Davidson has been telling more lies. Along with the P & J.

      Vote SNP/SNP 2017.

    350. liz says:

      @Nana, turn out in both was about 30%.
      What can be done to get people out, voter fatigue?

      As for central belt bias, if it wasn’t for the SNP, the A9 wouldn’t be getting upgraded.
      Again to blame the SNP for trouble in the oil industry & the fishing rights, just shows how uniformed folk are

    351. Macart says:


      Thousands upon thousands of unique views are registered on this site every month. Regular commenters and viewrs hold their conversations and post information which many of us have seen and absorbed many times over.

      Newer visitors though?

      Even detractors arguing the points with Robert, Wull, Andrew, Cameron et al. serve to draw peoples attention to those posts where they can then make their own minds up.

      If folk don’t want to read a thing from familiarity, they can stroll on past till they see something that catches their eye. People taking time to research and post, to engage at all, is a good thing. *waves to new readers* 🙂

    352. stewartb says:

      Fascinating discussion between Andrew McLean @ 1105 and Robert Peffers. Many thanks to both.

      I’m no lawyer but couldn’t resist reading through the High Court judgment of yesterday on Brexit/Article 50. A few things stood out from me and I wonder what Andrew and Robert might make of them.

      From para 19: “In these proceedings, this court is called upon to apply the constitutional law of the United Kingdom ……”

      And goes on in the same para: “Although this court only has jurisdiction to apply the law of England and Wales, we note that no-one in these proceedings has suggested that such parts of constitutional law in Scotland and Northern Ireland in relation to the interaction between statute and the Crown’s prerogative powers as are relevant to determine the outcome in this case are any different from the law of England and Wales on that topic. Accordingly, for ease of reference and in view of the general constitutional importance of this case we will refer to UK constitutional law.”

      And later, in (b) The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, Para 20: “It is common ground that the most fundamental rule of UK constitutional law is that the Crown in Parliament is sovereign and that legislation enacted by the Crown with consent of both Houses of Parliament is supreme …”

      Later, paras 23 and 28, the judgement refers in justification to the Case of Proclamations (1610) – and in the extract it reproduces to ‘the King”; and to the Bill of Rights (1688) – and in the extract to “regal authority”, both documents of course predating the Act of Union in 1707.

      So, was the High Court (just) using the law of England to avoid a legal minefield or essentially saying it is justified in doing so because it sees no relevant difference between this and Scots law in this case? A view which was unchallenged. Or am I getting the wrong end of a stick?

      (The court judgement notes that Counsel for the Lord Advocate of Scotland was present but took no part in the proceedings. )

    353. Nana says:


      Voter fatigue. Seems more like voter selfishness or voter ignorance in some areas.

      Whatever it is needs addressing or we are sunk. Councils run elections and indyref2 will depend on who is in control to keep it fair.

    354. Andrew McLean says:

      Just to echo Macarts point, and to add, please don’t ever agree with me, I haven’t learnt anything worthwhile in life by agreement. Challenging ideas, or shibboleths that’s where either they are corrected or alternatively proves to establish a truth clearer in my mind.

      Or in other words being wrong can help make you right!


    355. ronnie anderson says:

      Teresa May’s confident she will win the appeal on Brexit , she’ll be contacting that great constitutional expert on the Unwritten constitution Saint John Stevas ,who’s goat ah Weegie board she can borrow, fek ‘d fae the start Teresa.

    356. Les Wilson says:

      Joemcg says:

      Ref boring,no it is not boring,it is our history,something we do not hear enough of. Which reminds us who we are.

    357. K1 says:

      Actually Joe, if you did start reading Robert’s (and other’s input) posts you would begin to grasp how relevant they are to our Independence cause. The problem we have is that we have not had Scottish History taught in our schools and so we remain largely ignorant of how things came to be the way they are.

      Also in the undoing of the Union it is vitally important to understand the Law and where the laws originate, how they apply and will be applied to ‘effect’ the outcome we seek. Just look at the post by stewartB above, you can see how what seem like ‘archaic’ and ‘outdated’ Acts from centuries ago have actually underpinned yesterdays ruling:

      ‘Later, paras 23 and 28, the judgement refers in justification to the Case of Proclamations (1610) – and in the extract it reproduces to ‘the King”; and to the Bill of Rights (1688) – and in the extract to “regal authority”, both documents of course predating the Act of Union in 1707.’

      Lots of us ‘read’ the posts connected to our history and especially our ‘constitutional’ history as the understanding of this is going to go a great way toward understanding the ins and outs of the court proceedings that are going to follow on from Brexit et al.

    358. Tinto Chiel says:

      Wull @11.00: a most informative post, thanks.

      Some might think this mediaeval stuff isn’t relevant but these documents have strong foundation and legal weight and it is important we understand the nature of our sovereignty to prevent illegal incursion by English law and the UK Parliament. It’s our law which will protect us from further attempts at assimilation/annexation.

      Scots law will soon grow thorns in the constitutional mayhem I thing we are about to witness. I’m sure smart English law officers understand the difficulties our independent legal system could cause for them and the Union, the politicians not so much, yet…..

    359. Andrew McLean says:

      I think you answered your own question. “In this Case” remember this is about can the Crowns prerogative, Whitehall, usurp the Palace of Westminster.
      So pertaining to this case, under law adding rights and privileges in addition to what predated the joining of the eu, required an act of parliament, so to remove those also took an act of parliament.

      Where it pertains to Scotland, the mace that sits when Parliament sits is the united crowns of the united kingdom, Parliament can effect laws in Scotland, these laws were passed into Scots law by the authority of the Secretary of state for Scotland, ie royal prerogative, but to remove or revoke them is not in the power of the Scottish office.

      The Judges looked at the act of union, but it was agreed that no rights hitherto obtained were removed that would affect the act.
      The Scottish nation was in effect untroubled by anything they were discussing. Or so they argued. But the question was left unanswered. “to what extent does
      the Act of Union abrogate a prerogative power over the
      law of Scotland.”

      The Court could not answer!

      if you want read the following exchange.

      LORD JUSTICE SALES: But does Scottish law not allow for
      exercise of prerogative powers just as English law does?
      MS MOUNTFIELD: Not to change the public and private
      LORD JUSTICE SALES: Right, so then the argument is just the
      same. It doesn’t seem that the Act of Union is adding
      anything to that argument?
      MS MOUNTFIELD: My Lord, it is adding a vires point to it,
      that if the act of notifying withdrawal from the EU
      triggers the inevitable removal of public law rights
      from Scottish citizens and the inevitable alteration to
      private law rights in Scotland, then these rights cannot
      be preserved by Parliamentary legislation. It won’t be
      possible for our Parliament to preserve the right of
      Scottish farmers and so on.
      LORD JUSTICE SALES: But on your argument, that would only
      be the effect of the government exercising the
      Article 50 power, because Parliament has not taken that
      away from them, and it is part of the constitutional
      background that they have that power.
      MS MOUNTFIELD: Yes. My Lord~–
      LORD JUSTICE SALES: You are not showing us anything that
      suggests that that basic background is different in
      Scotland than it is in England.
      MS MOUNTFIELD: No, if I address what the government says
      about this, they say two things. One is that the issue
      of evident utility is not justiciable, and for that they
      cite Gibson, and we accept that, but we say it affects
      public law rights and private law rights. We are not
      talking about justiciability; we are saying you don’t
      even get to an act of Parliament, because — ask has
      Parliament acted consistently, because there is no Act
      of Parliament.
      Then what the government says is that it is
      a misinterpretation of the Acts of Union, or our
      submission is based on a misinterpretation of the Acts
      of Union, because they say at paragraph 71, on page 27
      of the skeletons bundle, that Scots private law is not
      only a matter for the UK Parliament.
      What we say to that is it is not quite clear what
      they are saying. If the point is that the Scottish
      Parliament can also alter Scots law, then that is
      correct. But section 37 of the Scotland Act, which has
      again been inserted into the back of bundle E because it
      was missing, specifically says that the Acts of Union
      have effect subject to that Act. So if that is what you
      are talking about, that doesn’t get around the point.
      But if what is being said is that ministers do have
      a prerogative power, ministers of the Crown, of the
      United Kingdom, have powers to amend Scots public and
      private law without the reference to the Parliament of
      the United Kingdom, and that that is a matter that can
      be recognised in the courts of England and Wales, that
      is something that we say there is no authority cited for
      the assertion, either in the law of the Scotland or the
      law of England and it is wrong; because if it were right
      that there were a prerogative power to change Scots law,
      then the requirement of evident utility in relation to
      private law would be otiose. The government of the day
      could just alter Scots public and private law with no
      Parliamentary consideration at all.
      I repeat that I am not saying, not saying, that
      rights cannot be removed from Scots law, or that the Act
      of Union cannot be repealed or altered. But whether or
      how to remove rights which arise in Scots law is
      a judgment of the UK Parliament and not a minister of
      the Crown. So in effect, yes, if we are looking at
      Scottish private law, or public law rights, those are
      matters which have been removed from the prerogative by
      the language of the Act of Union. I suppose it becomes
      another abrogation point, really, to what extent does
      the Act of Union abrogate a prerogative power over the
      law of Scotland.

    360. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Agreed @ liz says at 12:39 pm

      “just shows how uniformed folk are”

      Aye Liz it is because BBC/STV & The Dead Tree Press scream “SNP Baaaad”.

      Some believe it, but a great many are unaware at what the Scots Gov. has actually done for the in the last 10 years.

      Bias and Propaganda by omission is as bad as the lies.

      That’s why the Bill boards project is important.

    361. Joemcg says:

      I love reading about our history and I have reasonable knowledge of it but this is a topical politics site. I want to read about our ultimate goal. These arguments over sovereignty are meaningless. WM will over rule it anyway! That was a joke by the way.

    362. K1 says:

      How it works with Robert and others is the ‘hammering’ home of the same points over and over Joe. It works this way cause that’s actually ‘how’ we learn…repetition repetition repetition…yer brain does the rest. That’s another reason why Robert must keep posting this vital information over and over again. He’s no daft.

    363. Fred says:

      Looks like Brexit will end up with a Commons vote, it would be useful if the Shinners in Nornirn would take the boat to Cairnryan & their seats on the green benches. You’re needed.

    364. K1 says:

      Joe, ah refer you to Andrew’s post above. Now tell me again ‘These arguments over sovereignty are meaningless’?

      I strongly refute that assertion Joe. These arguments are an important part of informing us ‘how’ our constitutional arrangements ‘work in practice’. Robert more than anything is trying to get the point out that they can play politics all they want but when it comes right down it they will have to refer to the actual Act of Union and all that this entails before they have free ‘reign’ to decide anything they want on Brexit and the same goes for our having a second indyref. It’s not ‘up to them’.

      The issue of Sovereignty is going to be absolutely central to our cause, as you watch this unfold and it enters more into the mainstream you will see it refereed to more and more. The Union is ending before our eyes Joe. Brexit is speeding it up.

    365. Flower of Scotland says:

      What a fantastic site this is! Folk with so much knowledge of our Scottish History and so pertinent to today.

      Thank you all for some great comments. Copied into my notes for future use.

    366. manandboy says:

      The BBC is Photoshop for broadcasting, specialising in distorting the true picture and skewing it to serve the needs of UK Government propaganda.

      BBC viewers can be fooled nearly all the time. Just like they were during the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum campaign, and the 2016 EU Referendum campaign.

      Heard someone say only yesterday that Scottish oil is finished. Fooled again.

    367. Liz g says:

      Thanks for replying earlier everyone….Too many to mention.

      Wull….That was a great post I didn’t know any of that stuff,looks like The Declaration of Arbroth has been built on a very solid foundation.

      Joemcg…..Try looking at all the Soverenty posts this way Joe.
      Yesterday at FMQS Nicola indicated that she might have the Scottish Government get involved with the Court case in London.
      There may be some,even some Yes voter’s who would agree that she is just stiring things up to annoy the English.
      And she really has no business getting involved.

      We know that is not true at all,and she has every right with the Law full square behind her.
      We know this because of the information contained in all the posts about Soverenty.

      We are not just making a statement,we can provide the explanation for why we are saying what we are saying.

      Then there was last night’s Question Time,because anyone who has read the stuff about the Crown in parliament,would have had a bit of an understanding of what the Judge’s actually did yesterday.
      They would have see the BBC allow a question about 3 judge’s overruling 17 million people.
      That was an unbelievably stupid question.
      But not nearly as ignorant as the opinions of the panel’s response to it.
      The misdirection from the Tory guy in particular was shocking.
      But I thought he did know exactly what he was doing where as the Labour woman just didn’t seem to understand.

      So what I am trying to say is the issue of Soverenty and understanding it,is current.
      Knowing that stuff would help anybody make a judgement on what was happening in the world of politics yesterday!
      Which is what you are saying you want to know.

      Yes I know it keeps coming up on here but I think we have to make the assumption that a new reader will be seeing it for the first time.(Rock does have his uses)
      Especially now that the Concept of Soverenty has entered the mainstream discourse.

    368. Breeks says:

      Steady Joemcg.

      You sound like exactly what Westminster thinks every Scot should be saying. Next you’ll be believing that auld Scots is a bastardised version of English which we can barely pronounce properly, and that Scotland ceased to exist in 1707.

      Sovereignty is as vital to to the arguments about Scottish Independence now as it was 700 years ago because it’s the exact same sovereignty we are talking about. It mattered then, and it matters now.

      The Declaration of Arbroath you would rather we didn’t discuss is a UNESCO Memory of the World precisely because the principles it established and had formally recognised by the all powerful Pope were without precedent, and would in time form the basis of Republican principles which define the modern constitutions of America. We might yet find the Declaration of Arbroath and subsequent Claim of Right serving as guardian angels for the Nation state of Scotland and the precious heart of the matter, our sovereignty.

      There are great swathes of our every day life as Scots in Scotland which we take for granted, but which would not exist but the dogged foresight of our ancestors 700 years ago.

      If none of that matters to you, and you worry people laugh at it. Then just vote YES for Independence next time as a favour to all those folks for whom it does matter.

    369. Fred says:

      Good post Wull…….ye no come back again?

    370. Thepnr says:

      I know nothing at all about either Scottish or UK constitutional law but I read the links posted by Andrew McLean yesterday on the court verdict and it seems obvious that sovereignty is very important.

      I think basically the court said that Theresa May could not use the “Royal Prerogative” to remove the rights of UK citizens as it was Parliament that was sovereign, therefore there had to be a vote.

      The QC putting forward Scotland’s case made clear that this did not apply under Scottish Law and the judges choose not to use that argument in their decision as they didn’t need to.

      UK government on a very sticky wicket even if Parliament supports Brexit as Scottish Law is clearly for the Scots and totally separate from E&W, this is made clear in the 1707 Act of Union.

    371. Willie says:

      Does anyone believe what the RICS say. The name should give an indication. It’s the ” Royal ” institution of chartered surveyors no less.

      Now as far as I know, many of the organisations that trade on the name royal do so because it covers up for the bag of toilet droppings that many of them are.. Not an exclusive diktat, but think ” British ” and you get the drift.

      British Broadcasting Corporation, British Airports Authority, British Airways, are all second hand names for overpriced poor service trading on a name. And so it is with Royal.

      Maybe we should rename more of our Scottish institutions ” royal ” to reinforce our fealty. Come to think of it we do, Royal Queen Elizabeth ( southern general ) hospital being an example – and it was under the SNPs watch when it got renamed.

      But I digress. Independence – no chance, not with the Feeble Fifty ( six) )

      Ach I’m in a bad mood. We really love royalty and all things British, because voting for anything else is a waste of time. Nuff said!

    372. Thepnr says:


      RICS didn’t say anything that liar Davidson said they did, you probably saw that yesterday it was 3 members out of 125,000 she was on about.

      Got to disagree with you though about loving Royalty and all things British, I appreciate that in Scotland that will mean a lot to many and that’s fine by me. I just want Scottish voters to elect their own government AND have control of the all of Scotland’s income.

      I don’t trust Westminster to waste it for us, or should I say spend? Because that is exactly what they do now, decide how our money raised in Scotland will be spent.

      Well to me that is just wrong. Scotland is a very wealthy country by world standards, and if we had an SNP government that fecked up in the early years of Independence then us the electorate would replace them. Right now we cannot do that.

      The voters of England chose our government no matter how we vote.

    373. Legerwood says:


      Perhaps if you want to understand the Treaty of Union and why it is relevant now you should read this short article by Professor Douglas-Scott about Article 50.

      The section on Scotland’so position and the relevance of various Articles in the Treaty is of particular interest.

    374. Willie says:

      Fair points PNR. I do appreciate that there will be some who see royalty as a good thing. I don’t . You are however, if I may say so, bang on the money to want a Scottish Government, elected by Scottish Electors spending Scottish income. How we get there is the issue, and without a doubt independent or devolved our Westminster friends and Royal and British institutions will do their best to keep us better together. They’re doing it as we speak, they’ve did it during the referendum and they’ll continue doing it till we get our own sovereign parliament.

    375. Stu Mac says:

      @Macart says:
      4 November, 2016 at 8:30 am

      Agree re Brown: posted much the same myself on a Guardian BTL recently. As for the rest of your post, I wish this site allowed thumbs ups as I’d give you a score or more.

    376. Thepnr says:


      I wasn’t sure from which side of the royalty argument you might have been coming from. But I stick by what I said originally it is only independence that is of importance to me right now.

      I’m sure in the future there will be much discussion and disagreement about multiple issues. Let’s leave them until we are Independent is how I feel.

    377. yesindyref2 says:

      Supposedly one-third of SNP members voted Leave, and I believe it.

      But a, well, THE reason the SNP are getting so much behind the EU is the 62% who voted Remain. That would include a large number of NO voters, and if they can be persuaded to vote YES to Indy to stay in the EU that’s most of the job done.

      The rest of the job is to try to keep YES voting Leave supporters like you onside with Indy. and that is where the likes of Alex Neil comes in.

      So that’s why he’s “come out” in the best paper you could think of to get the widest publicity – the Tory anti-EU Telegraph. And it’s succeeded. That’s what I think anyway.

      I think, just a guess, that various SNP people are doing some weird stuff to get out to as wide a number of the undecided as possible.

    378. yesindyref2 says:

      Basically what it’s saying is that the judgement was reached without needing to explore any differences between Scots Law, and that of England and Wales.

      Judgements are given in logical order, but not neccessarily actually arrived at that way. The full judgement kind of fills in the missing pieces, with Scots law being one of them, but irrelevant to the judgement – in this case.

    379. Fred says:

      I mistakenly thought that voting was a secret, nobody knows how anybody voted, it’s bollox. We do however know how Scotland voted.

    380. Rock says:


      “I just want to comment on that last, incorrect statement of Rock’s. ‘They’ (the Plebs) have had ‘it’ (sovereignty) at least since the time Robert Bruce was made Scotland’s king and ruler, in 1306.”

      When was the last time that the “plebs” exercised their “sovereignty” in the last 710 years?

      Were the “plebs” asked about the Treaty of Union?

      When did the “plebs” get the right to vote? Which law gave them the right to vote?

    381. Brian Powell says:


      When Unionists trumpet that a 1/3 of SNP voters went for out of EU they miss, deliberately or because they can’t think, that SNP don’t want to remain in the UK.

      That puts their stance a ocean’s width away form the Brit out of EU position.

    382. Fred says:

      The last time the plebs exercised their sovereignty, apart from the Holyrood election was 2 years ago!

    383. SOG says:

      If I can return to the original story, I feel that the RICS would not approve of having been misquoted in this way. If anyone is, or knows, a member then getting in touch with their Press Office may be worth the effort.

      We are all free to hold our own opinions, I believe the Institutes and Institutions try to be independent.

    384. SOG says:

      @ willie – Royal is their historic title, and yes it probably meant more to people back then. I believe that changing it would require a lot more than just ordering new stationery, ie legal stuff, order in council or whatever. If they wanted to.

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

    ↑ Top