The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Scotland’s Day Of Shame

Posted on November 24, 2022 by

This legendary soliloquy never rang more true than on 23 November 2022.

Let’s be methodical about it.

THE SUPREME COURT

A panel featuring three English judges out of five and just one Scot ruled definitively for the first time that Scotland was erased as a nation 315 years ago, and subsumed into England as a colony. Remarkably, the panel did so while insisting explicitly that it was doing no such thing, in a grave insult to all intelligent people.

If Scotland is not a colony, it must follow that it is a country, and no country can be prevented from asking its own people a question about how they wish to be governed. Any place which CAN be so prevented by the rulers of an external country is a de facto colony of that country, by any commonly-understood definition of the word.

You can argue legitimately that Scotland is not a colony. You can argue legitimately that Scotland is not a country and gave up its people’s right to self-determination. What you cannot do is legitimately argue both, because the two assertions contradict each other in the most absurdly direct and blatant way.

The court was under no obligation to rule on that issue at all, which did not form part of the Lord Advocate’s referral. It could simply have said “a referendum clearly relates to reserved matters and is therefore outwith Holyrood’s powers, the end” and left the arguments about self-determination to the politicians.

But the unnecessary addition of the reference to colonies ironically simply made it look like an arm of an arrogant colonial power slapping down the natives. It was a tin-eared, ill-advised and nakedly political provocation.

UNIONISTS

For some inexplicable reason, many supporters of the Union who habitually describe themselves as “proud Scots” took the judgement as their cue to gloat sneeringly all over social media about the formal destruction of what they claim as one of their own national identities, presumably in the bizarre belief – comprehensively disproven by literally everything that’s happened in Scottish politics since 2007 – that such an attitude will be in some way advantageous to their cause.

Some who wished to appear at least superficially less obnoxious actually elected to insult Scots’ intelligence still further, by insisting that the Court’s ruling still left open a democratic route to the very self-determination the Court had just absolutely expressly ruled that Scotland didn’t have.

But Tomkins’ assertion is clearly drivel of the lowest order. The current UK government, like those of the recent past and any future ones, will be under no obligation whatsoever to grant a referendum even if polling showed 100% of Scots wanted one. They have their own clear democratic mandates to reject the request, and indeed have repeatedly stated their refusal to even consider the matter for another 20 or more years under any circumstances.

Tomkins’ blithe statement that any UK government would behave according to the gentlemanly spirit of fair play is belied by, well, pretty much anything that any UK government has said or done since 2014, and it’s embarrassing for an academic of supposed intellect to punt such tommyrot.

(Indeed, it’s such cobblers that even Kenny Farquharson of the Times felt the need to urge Rishi Sunak to put a real and proper democratic route in place.)

THE SNP

Given how long the SNP have had to plan for the possibility of this judgement, their official response would have had to be amplified a hundredfold to even reach the threshold of “pathetic”.

Nicola Sturgeon gave a long waffling statement of indescribable feebleness, with no discernible content whatsoever other than a vague commitment to commission some sort of party discussion on the subject at some unspecified point next year.

(As if SNP conferences decided anything about SNP policy nowadays.)

She backed it up with a shouty but equally vacuous speech in front of a few hundred people huddled shivering outside the Scottish Parliament that evening. But “Scottish democracy” cannot be defended when it’s already been lost. It’s not as if we weren’t given plenty of warning.

Sturgeon reiterated in general terms (while refusing to be drawn on any specifics) that the new plan was to conduct a plebiscitary general election, but offered no explanation for why we had to wait two years for it.

It is wholly within her power to stand down as First Minister, have the SNP and Greens block the election of a replacement and thereby force a new Holyrood election which could serve as the plebiscite, and would have the considerable benefit of including two demographics (EU citizens and 16/17-year-olds) who statistically favour independence and would be able to vote in a Scottish election but not a UK one.

(It would have been significantly easier to do such a thing if the SNP’s spiteful, cynical and petty “both votes SNP” campaign hadn’t wasted a million list votes last spring, but it nevertheless remains fairly straightforwardly possible.)

We cannot think of a single valid reason for the First Minister not to adopt this strategy, given the urgency with which she insists the matter of Scotland’s democracy must be asserted and the multiple obvious reasons why it would be preferable to do this via a Holyrood election rather than a Westminster one.

And given that that party’s payroll and cheerleaders are all currently jumping up and down about a (somewhat questionable) new opinion poll which ostensibly suggests that a plebiscitary election would be successful by a margin of at least 20 points, it rather invites the question “why not strike while the iron’s hot?”

(We apologise for mentioning irons.)

THE SCOTTISH MEDIA

See “Unionists”.

But also, in an interminably dull press conference following her speech, not a single Scottish journalist thought to enquire of Sturgeon why a further two-year delay was necessary, nor did any of them think to put her on the spot about why she couldn’t have obtained the Supreme Court’s ruling way back in 2016 and given Scotland the opportunity to vote before it was dragged from the EU.

(The nadir was when some wittering clown from the Scottish Sun decided to use the occasion to solicit a comment on school strikes.)

Of all the wretched, rank and rotten organs of Scotland’s body politic in 2022 – and in the face of particularly stiff competition from both the ruling party and the opposition – its media remains perhaps the worst.

Although to be fair, England’s is more dreadful still.

THE STRAGGLING REMNANTS OF THE YES MOVEMENT

Having been tirelessly pre-emptively urged to demonstrate their outrage by every pro-indy party and Lesley Riddoch, the wider public responded with an embarrassingly dismal turnout at a series of protest events.

Around 300 to 400 turned up in each of Glasgow and Edinburgh (despite the rarity value of the Dear Leader herself deigning to actually appear at an independence event in the latter case), and a few dozen elsewhere.

Most of them resembled not so much a revolutionary mass of the people as a cheesed-off bus queue waiting for a delayed No.23. From the few pictures posted on social media we estimate the total attendance at all the events combined at well below 1,500 – less than 0.1% of the people who voted Yes in 2014.

Not that we can blame those who didn’t show – it was a cold, miserable November evening and pointlessly standing around in a drizzly town square to mutter and grumble at nobody in particular about a decision taken hundreds of miles away wouldn’t have been our idea of a fun night out either.

But this site has long espoused the Rule Of 100 – if you can’t be certain of getting that many people at a bare minimum to your protest, it’s best not to bother at all, because you just look small and ridiculous, invite mockery and invigorate your opponents.

We’ve tried to keep this short because it’s depressing. But nobody truly won yesterday. Unionists ensured that they’ll be governed (very badly) by the SNP for many years to come. The SNP’s supporters, meanwhile, refused once again to wake up and realise that they’re led by charlatans with no interest in independence who couldn’t conceal their glee outside the Supreme Court about the fact that they’re going to be secure on the comfy, well-upholstered gravy bus until at least 2029.

Truly, there has never been a shiter time to be Scottish than this.

Print Friendly

    217 to “Scotland’s Day Of Shame”

    1. meg says:

      The SNP should adopt Pink Floyd’s Have a Cigar as their official song

    2. Karen says:

      Eloquently and succinctly put.

    3. Confused says:

      3 steps to heaven …

      1. get rid of the blockage

      Sturgeon is the capstone of the woke cabal ruining indy, the SNP and the country; they are all dependent on her, her pets – if she goes, the whole lot could fall, at least most would run for cover. She is “queering the pitch” for indy (as it were).

      – but since she has the place sewn up at present, the law and bureaucracy, it would need a whistleblower to bring her down; this would be the equivalent of a “suicide bombing” or done from a foreign country, never to return.

      Her true weakness is that she organised a criminal conspiracy to frame an innocent man; this is “jail time”. Nikki is a control freak who lets nothing happen without her approval – all the arrows point backwards to her, unless you believe in “a big boy did it and ran away”.

      – that is “the law”, but in “public opinion” she is yet to reap the backlash once people realise what “trans rights” really means; there are petrol fumes in the air, it only takes one spark.

      2. accept Scotland is, for all practical purposes a “colony” (defacto, pseudo – salt it as you wish, it won’t take the bitter taste away – anyone still denying this is guilty of sophistry) – and go UN Decolonisation

      – you need an “independent” independence referendum, controlled completely by external non-partisan entities (UN, EU, US); no one, scotgov, ukgov, localgov touches a damn thing and you have specialist corporate anti fraud investigators watching all. Equal time in the media for both parties. Also, setup by an international body, you get instant recognition as they can hardly deny their own operation.

      – think of the security a casino will use, just to safeguard a couple of million in cash; you need to assume, if it is stealable, someone will try. What is Scotland worth? Trillions. Does perfidious Albion have such an innate respect for democracy it would not try to con you? Do you really think the English are fair minded people with no selfish interest in Scotland? If you believe this, you are the real problem. Idiots, always get what they fucking deserve.

      I did not think, had we won in 2014 (okay we did win, the Scots voted for it) the UK would even have recognised their own “gold standard Section 30”; but with an international body, the UK cannot pull any of the dirty tricks it is famous for (- you think they’ve never rigged a foreign poll? Read a book.)

      (if we lose in a fair fight, so be it – but I think we will romp it)

      3. PROFIT!! – er, rather INDY!! (… everyone gets laid … handicaps come down … the weather improves … the football team wins a fucking game or two … 100% of our tax revenue recirculates … )

    4. David Beveridge says:

      Fkin hell that was a depressing read. All the more so cos every word is true. 🙁 Nikla will have a chat about things sometime next year. No hurry then eh?

    5. Breeks says:

      Use the Claim of Right to Impeach the Vichy Holyrood “Government” for Scotland’s unconstitutional Brexit subjugation.

      Sack Holyrood, and crash test dummy First Minister with it.

      “They” invented a Supreme Court to protect the faux legitimacy of the Devolved Assembly they invented to assist their subjugation of Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty.

      All those “duped” by these colonial insurrections should hold no office whatsoever in an emergency Convention of the Estates assembled to steer the Nation of Scotland out of this outrageous colonial insurrection.

      Get your fkg names on the Liberation.Scot declaration so that SALVO and our vital Convention of the Estates has the best possible fighting chance to have this colonial subjugation deemed unlawful before the Constitutional Sovereignty of a Scottish Nation.

    6. David Hardie says:

      Good to have you back Rev.

    7. James Che says:

      Rev Stu.

      It is the biggest and longest lasting scam in history.

      It takes some serious journalism to discover that Scotland’s parliament closed its doors in Westminsters eyes by Agreeing to the treaty of the union.

      For over three hundred years the Scottish parliament has not existed in union with the English parliament.

      When Westminster parliament site itself states this in 2022.

      I have a question to put to you as a journalist and a man with curious mind.

      If the union of parliaments ceased in 1707, because the Scottish parliament closed its door, before the new British parliament opened.

      What Country and which parliament does Westminster parliament hold on to a treaty with for the past three hundred years?

      A extinguished Scottish parliament cannot hold a treaty of union with any Country, Nor can it be held accountable To a treaty,

    8. Anonymoose says:

      A well written analysis Stu.

      You have a wee typo in the Scottish Media/Yoon section – “ncecessary”

      In the penultimate picture I notice the chief grifter of the Glasgow City Council, who’s normally faaar too busy on all the ten thousand committee’s he supposedly a member of to attend any of them, somehow found time to jet off down to London just to get his mug in a photo.

      I do wonder if he’s claming this trip on expenses, keeping a keen eye on when said expenses are submitted could prove useful in the future.

    9. Lenny Hartley says:

      Been told approx 250 at Inverurie!

    10. David Hardie says:

      One thought does occur to me. Under Scottish law the people are sovereign. We are entitled to decide who we want as monarch.
      Could the Scottish government hold a referendum over who should be head of state?
      If the head of state was changed to someone who simply refuses to ratify any Westminster law where would that leave us?

      Its just a passing thought. No more than that.

    11. Liz says:

      I had no intentions of going to any rally last night.
      Sturgeon as per used it to talk about her.

      She will never use any of the suggestions if it involves her stepping down early.
      We all know by now, she’s a fake, a fraud and a coward.

      I did detect a slight self promotion from Robertson, although I dont trust him either.

      What is plain, despite waffle from the SC, is that Scotland is being treated as a colony right now.

      We gave WM our soveteignty in 2014, I think a lot of people didnt realise that at the time but the cards were always stacked against us with so many pro Brit settlers

    12. MuttersUWS says:

      As one of the aforementioned huddled and shivering attendees, if we ever needed a revolutionary calibre leader to fire up a social movement it is now.

    13. Robert Louis says:

      Agree with most of this, but the turnout in Edinburgh was good, and the feeling was good. Some folk find solace in such things, some see it as a way to express their interest or anger. Many, many reasons for folk attending the demos last night, so not as pointless as suggested by REV STU. We need to remember we are dealing with actual humans, and not robots. I didn’t know and most other folk didn’t know who would speak in advance. I certainly didn’t go to ‘see Sturgeon’.

      As for taking things forward, we really need everyone to push the Scottish election idea. Sturgeon does have self interest at heart when using Westminster instead, since regardess of result, she will still be an MSP, and First Minister. And yes, I do think she is that duplicitous.

      Fact is, it is up to us, to do whatever is necessary, including the removal of the SNP, if needed, if they will not push indy with vigour now. The message needs hammered home every single day, WHY will Sturgeon not dissolve her government and call an election for indy? She could have it underway early next year. That she won’t, stinks to high heaven, and reeks of complicit corruption at the very highest level in the SNP and Scotland.

      It canot go back to ‘business as usual’ in Westminster. The SNP and ALBA need to work together, and jointly make statements then walk out of the undemocratic cesspit called Westminster. If, as I suspect Blackford and co just carry on as normal, then in my book, they are finished. Their country that they supposedly stand up for has just been laughed at and told it cannot make its own decisions. Democracy denied by England. That cannot be just allowed to pass. It cannot be just business as usual. if this will not make them walk out permanently, then for heaven’s sake, what will????

      Totally agree that Sturgeon’s press conference yesterday, was utter sh*te. They have had years to get ready, months since they launched the court case, so why are they only NOW thinking about what to do. Utter, utter bullsh*t, and almost all folk, aside from some foolish diehard SNP supporters, can now see it. Sturgeon is literally pulling their chain, and they are full of praise. None so blind as those who will not see.

      Anyway, we need all leaders in Scotland to throw other policies aside as of today, and pull togehter, convene an estates commission, and get on with things, because it is now very, very clear the SNP simply won’t.

    14. Kevin Cargill says:

      Having watched the latest Through A Scottish Prism I can foresee the formation of a rebellious group fed up of having no legitimate legal democratic means to obtain independence beginning a campaign of civil disobedience and more. Deeds not words is the only way to stop us being ruled over by those wankers south of the border!

    15. rossd says:

      Am I banned from commenting? I note my message on demographic has been moderated while latter posts are allowed.

      I mean im not argumentative, im not abusive; i agree with much of what is written here but the 2 years thing is debatable. it just is.

    16. Breeks says:

      David Hardie says:
      24 November, 2022 at 1:10 pm

      Its just a passing thought. No more than that.

      It’s a credible thought for aw that David, but right now, King Charles III is the rarest of assets; a ruling King of England who has recognised and sworn fealty to the Claim of Right.

      Pity Scotland has so few Politicians capable of understanding what that means.

    17. ross says:

      the 16/17 year old of today you mention will be voters in 2 years time.

      Plus some older people will die in two years time.

      there is the possibility of a slight shift on this basis.

    18. Iain MacLachlan says:

      Nicola Sturgeon – The Destroyer of Women’s Rights.
      Now she can add the Destroyer of Scotland’s Rights to her list.
      I haven’t felt this depressed about Scotland since the results of the Referendum came out. This was overcome by Hope for the Future.
      What Hope do we have now?

    19. Yur da says:

      Seen this idea floated around a few places since the announcement and I don’t understand it, sorry for being thick. So, why is it a better idea to hold the plebiscite in the parliament we struggle to get a simple majority in, rather than the UK parliament where (supposed) pro indy partys win a majority of Scottish seats rather easily?

    20. Gregla says:

      Excuse the ignorance rev but why 2029 ? Thanks

    21. Robert Louis says:

      Kevin Cargill,

      And that is the point. If you remove democracy and the ballot box, what is left??? That is exactly what they tried and failed with in Ireland, and India, and Malta, and the Americas. ‘Vote how you like, but we’re not letting you go’, hahaha! says London.

      Yesterday was like history repeating itself. Well Scotland wants to go, and eventually a lack of democratic means will break the system. What is the point of voting at all, if Scotland can never be free of these English Tory thugs?

      Sadly, I think the pathetic (‘yet very wealthy, thanks for asking’) SNP MP’s will all attend the HoC same as usual next week, whilst a shiver runs around looking for a spine to run up.

    22. James Che says:

      Breeks.

      Scotland cannot be in a treaty of union of parliaments with a extinguished parliament since 1707.
      It is a Westminster Scam, and a biggy.

    23. Robert Louis says:

      Breeks at 118pm,

      Indeed, I do wonder why they do not cite the claim of right? Charlie Windsor swore allegiance to it, so why are they so reticent to use it. If folk say, ‘oh that’s an old and outdated concept’ , well by the same logic so is the treaty and acts of union.

      I very much doubt we would be in this pickle, if Alex Salmond were still FM. Sturgeon has shown herself to be a wilting failure, the chocolate teapot of Scotland’s right to self determination.

      I do sometimes wonder how many SNP MP’s and MSP’s or the FM actually know the details of the claim of right and the treaty and acts of union. My guess is, based on the available evidence, precious few, if any.

    24. James Che says:

      Robert Louis.

      What happens If you remove the 1707 Scottish parliament from the treaty of the union of parliaments?

    25. Robert Louis says:

      Just a point, why are the SNP not meeting today, now?? Why are they waiting until ‘early’ next year to actually begin doing anything??? Why the delay? Yet more evidence of procrastination and obstruction by Sturgeon.

    26. orri says:

      I remember looking through the rules on nominations for a first minister and there aren’t any that say they can’t be elected without a majority. All that would happen is that as soon as they were in office they’d be out on their arse when they inevitably lost a vote of no confidence.

      The constant turmoil and inability to get things done would suit the unionist parties to a t as they’d be able to use it as justification to impose a form of direct rule.

      Ironically the point about colonies is pertinent in the case of Northern Ireland and its origin in the Plantations making it a colony of, mainly, Scotland. Which in turn might be heading odd at the pass questions about why they and Scotland get different treatment. Other than the obvious willingness to resort to violence that is.

    27. James Che says:

      The Tories, labour, Lib Dems, SNP, Alba are all well aware that the devolved government is a Westminster alligience government.

      Why do they want to work in it under Westminster english legislation and Statues?

    28. Ottomanboi says:

      Truly Scotland needs its Sinn Fèin. The few who actually believe Scotland is worth fighting for. Plainly the overwhelming majority could’t give the proverbial.
      A subregion of stay at home wimps it seems.
      The world is laughing…..what does a Scot have under his kilt?

    29. solarflare says:

      It’s the lack of speed in the SNP response that highlights their general ambivalence to actually achieving independence. Plenty of rhetoric, precious little ACTION.

      No momentum is ever built up because after every big announcement – whether it’s been directly called by the SNP or not, whether it was entirely predictable or not – they end it all with “we’ll go away now and have a long think and come back at some undisclosed period in the future to tell you the next step, if you’re still here that is”.

      In the meantime, everyone skulks off, demotivated – nothing more to do.

      They are utterly hopeless.

    30. Cringe says:

      I was at the Edinburgh one. Sturgeons appearance was unannounced, if it had been there would have been more hecklers. I tried to get to the front to make my feelings known but was blocked and by the time I got near she was gone. Around half the people were applauding like seals the rest looking bewildered at the brass neck of the person who effectively caused this demonstrating against her own actions.

    31. James Che says:

      Orri.

      Supposing that there has been no completion of the treaty of union becuase the Scottish parliament closed in 1707.

      That would make Scotland the longest lasting Colony in history would it not?
      With No voice or right to self determination.

      And the SC just ruled it to be so.

      No treaty of union of parliaments.

    32. Skip_NC says:

      Greetings from Raleigh, North Carolina where the two turkeys pardoned by President Biden, Chocolate and Chip, will live out their lives. Millions of other turkeys are not so fortunate. Their time is up.

    33. Effijy says:

      How about the highest court in Scotland rules that no foreign law or mandate trumps our own national laws.

      The Sovereign Scots never signed away their rights to be answerable to any Crown or Parialment.

      The treaty of 1707 called it an equal partnership and at Indy ref they loved their equal partner
      But now they fully admit Scotland is their Colony, owned by Westminster, their Slave.

      The English say it’s unacceptable for China to rule Tibet, Russia to rule in Ukraine and for the EU to dictate a small degree of English law but it is acceptable for England to rule over Scotland and they have removed all avenues for Scotland to escape their clutches.

      A dictatorship of corruption and lies rules over this nation who have never given them a majority in generations but they don’t care.

      Even the United Nations have held England in contempt for taking the Chagos Islands captive as they make money from renting out an Air base to the US.
      We should form a partnership with them.

      For the so called random selection of Scots in the street isn’t it amazing how so many are quite eloquent unionists and the token pro Indy is dishevelled and tongue tied.

      For the unionist worried about losing Colony status, perhaps you might consider our children must want to have a vote that isn’t diluted to be completely negligible and to never have the party who rule over you.

      We accepted Indy ref although we are certain it was a stitch up by the London Media and political parties until such times of major change.
      Exactly, the No won votes as it was stated that it was the only way Scots could stay in Europe. We were dragged out totally against our will so we no longer accept that twice result.

      N. Ireland voted Remain and they are booming as they trade within the EU.
      Special EU relations were granted to the Channel Iselands and the Isle of Man and Gibraltar
      With Scotland the only Remainers to be completely ignored.

      Boris the PM gets to call Scots Vermin and wishes he could put us in a ghetto and eliminate us. How kind of the Supreme Court to grant him his wish.
      Perhaps he can focus on making another 5 women pregnant before he becomes PM again in 2030.

      We are insulted, ignored, tethered and robbed and SNP want to have a meeting in 5 months time. As much of a reaction as sticking their tongue at billionaire Pishy Rishi.

    34. Geri says:

      I’m gutted. It’s like 2014 all over again.

      Why the fck is that knt still in a job?

      Thanks for putting in in laymen’s terms.

      I know tensions will be running high but given the council musical chairs can they block a Plebiscite by refusing the ballot boxes & not appoint a returning officer?

      Given that democracy officially died yesterday – can they now block Holyrood elections & shoe in a Tory FM? Aka, Mr Jack Ass? Now that we’re all officially under Tory rule?

      Apologies if it’s been answered. I’ve no time at the moment to digest everything that’s happened. TBH I can’t fkn bear to look twitter as yesterday the Yoon celebrations at losing thier own right to democracy was too much to stomach. We’ve also entered into the realms of fascism & a totalitarian state.

      I’m so fkn angry cause Mundel & Mayhem both fired Sturgeon & Scotland that the devolution settlement was predicted on EU membership & would be changing with Brexshit. That was 2017! Also the paused but very active convention on a new Act of Union & things are fkn bleak!

    35. Geri says:

      Fired – *a warning shot..

    36. Lothianlad says:

      Sturgeon, blackmailed by her brit nat handles has done what she was told and split the yes movement. Destroyed the snp and delayed indy indefinitely.
      Mission accomplished!!

    37. Jamie says:

      Hello, why do you think EU voters are more likely to vote yes? Has recent polling indicated they have changed their mind? I have not seen that.

      42.9% of non UK voters voted yes.

      62.5% of of 16 – 19 year old voted yes.

      So whilst the young demographic might make up for the no voting EU voters it might not.

      I’m not convinced having a defacto referendum under the Scottish government election format will make a significant difference to the result but I’m not against trying to find out.

      I think a 2 year referendum campaign could be in our favour. It gives time for a campaign to build momentum which is something the “yes movement ” is lacking right now but hopefully this Supreme court ruling changes that.

      Would a short defacto referendum campaign be in our favour and have EU voters changed their mind about independence?

    38. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I remember looking through the rules on nominations for a first minister and there aren’t any that say they can’t be elected without a majority.”

      No, you have to win a vote.

    39. Robert Louis says:

      Solarflare at 147pm,

      Exactly, that is the problem. Sturgeon did it again yesterday, kicking the can down the road for another few months, leaving indy supporters with nothing at all. Oh she did use the well-worn ‘we have work to do to persuade folk about independence’. She has being saying that for eight years, yet does nothing herslf to move independence forward one inch.

      Tommy Shepherd when he spok last night, suggested they had had success prepping for indy, since nobody likes the Westminster government anymore. Is he delusional? It was Westminster that achieved that, NOT anything done by the SNP. The SNP are all quite happy to just sit back and hope things change, whilst every now and then telling the gullible that ‘there is work to do, to convince others about independence’.

      I see no sense of urgency within the SNP leadership at all. None. The SNP, the do-nothing party.

    40. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Excuse the ignorance rev but why 2029 ? Thanks”

      Actually that’s a fair point – I was counting five years from the “plebiscitary” election but of course that’s just UK MPs, not the Scottish Government. But there’s fuck-all chance of them losing Holyrood in 2026 so really it should have said 2031.

    41. Desimond says:

      David Hardie says:
      24 November, 2022 at 1:10 pm
      One thought does occur to me. Under Scottish law …

      Is Scottish Law relevant these days?…does saying The People of Scotland are sovereign even mean anything these days in a legal context?

      I wonder what would the UKSC answer to those questions?

      I sit here wondering at what point will the “Hold…Hold…Nearly there” folk ever wake up and realise they are being played. Spent hours trying to reason with friends of that mind yesterday…they reckon its my impatience thats the problem and I need to see a so called bigger picture and how they will re-assess if this plan doesnt come to fruition as they clearly expect it to.

      Knowing in a few years they will still be the exact same clueless and blinkered souls does not give me any sense of happiness.

    42. Geoff Anderson says:

      There is only one plan – harvest votes for the SNP Business Unit.
      She has created a permanent “Black Friday” sales pitch to roll out after every any and every event. “Vote SNP” and deliverance will be yours…..soon. She welcomed the Greens in as her TransCult allies but not those noisy commoners who are vulgar enough to wave Saltires are a dangerous breed. For good reason she suspects they may not embrace her vision for Scotland.

      That Vision is Short Money for the SNP HQ forever and all she needs do is recycle the carrot.
      Like Brexit she will let the opportunity of current anger be wasted. She should pull the MPs back from Westminster and bring down Holyrood as she resigns as FM.

      I have, to my great shame, been fooled by Sturgeon too many times. I will never vote SNP ever again nor will I turn up at any events because despite the good intent of the organisers they are merely used by her as another harvest event.

      Bringing down the SNP is the only way forward. Sturgeon has a clique ready to take up her mission even if you could remove her.

    43. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Seen this idea floated around a few places since the announcement and I don’t understand it, sorry for being thick. So, why is it a better idea to hold the plebiscite in the parliament we struggle to get a simple majority in, rather than the UK parliament where (supposed) pro indy partys win a majority of Scottish seats rather easily?”

      Because the amount of SEATS you win counts for fuck-all in a plebiscite. It’s about the percentage of VOTES.

    44. Dave S says:

      This article sums up the state we are in now very well, but what do we actually do?
      Its clear the reason the independence movement has dissipated into the ether is because of our now-defined colonial governer, so how do we bring her down and what can we actively do to forward that number 1 objective? We also need to ensure we don’t end up with that podgy ginger arsehole instead.

    45. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Am I banned from commenting? I note my message on demographic has been moderated while latter posts are allowed.”

      If you keep typing your details in differently every time, the system will think you’re different people who each need to have their first post approved manually.

    46. Harry says:

      Great post. I am not sad and I am not amused at the number of people who appear to have only recently concluded that the Scottish people do not live in a democracy – it is what we have always known.

    47. 100%Yes says:

      Straight away Sturgeon refuses to act decisively, instead she’s going to hold a conference next year, that could be anything up to xmas 2023.

      I couldn’t call Sturgeon useless because that would be insulting someone who’s useless and for me her action go far beyond useless.

    48. Jamie says:

      For Alba, the referendum begins now so if you’re not already a member sign up and join the resistance. The answer to 1984 is 1314 and Alex Salmond is Robert the Bruce so let’s flock to the banner and begin the fight.

      http://www.albaparty.org/join

    49. barelybare says:

      Not a ‘colony’.

      Note the words in the dictionary definition you have offered: ‘and occupied by settlers from that country’.

      Please find a different term, to allow worthwhile discussion.

    50. Dubh says:

      Anyone keeping an eye on Angus Robertson tho?

      He contradicted what appeared to be the party line on how voting might go at a plebiscite by saying that any/all indy parties would be included in such an election, not just the SNP.
      And then,he told a reporter that NS might not be the FM by the time the next conference happens.

      And what with the recent murmers of a coup to oust the odious pie man at WM…kind of makes me wonder, could this be the time for a changing of the gradualist guards?

    51. Vivian O’Blivion says:

      Remember the heady, invigorating days of the early Holyrood elections? Remember the lampposts festooned with colourful Party posters?
      By the 2016 Holyrood election, 32 out of 36 Scottish councils had established by-laws prohibiting election posters on council owned street furniture.
      The four “hold-out” councils continue to allow election posters on street furniture, proving that any perceived “littering” issue can be managed rather than resorting to prohibition. It’s no coincidence that all four councils are rural and are substantially populated by independent councillors, free from the admonishments of any insipid, bourgeois, party head office.
      Is the potential for a wee bit litter too high a price to pay for a vibrant, mass participation democracy? The answer from our permanent managerial class is apparently yes.
      To facilitate a successful campaign in the forthcoming Plebiscite election, the 14 councils where the SNP exercise outright control (1), administer as a minority or in coalition, should immediately lift the prohibition on political campaign material on public property.
      Are we to be asked to campaign for independence with one arm tied behind our back?

    52. Andy Ellis says:

      @Dave S

      I’m inclined to agree with Roddy Dunlop in his increasingly (and understandably) irritated tweets in response to the proponents of cunning plans and the “Scotland as colony” narrative:

      There is a route to independence but it requires political will to make the necessary legal changes. Politics is there to change the law.

      To bring Sturgeon down “we” need to stop voting her and her party in to such a commanding position. That requires the movement to convince voters to vote for alternative pro independence parties and/or the SNPs membership to effect root and branch change in their party.

      If we want to avoid the coronation of just another Sturgeonite acolyte to leadership of the SNP should Sturgeon step down or be removed, then again it’s down to the party to stop it happening in the first instance, and the broader movement to prevent them having untrammelled power in the second instance by denying the SNP a majority.

      We get what we vote for. If we don’t vote or vote for eejits, we get government by eejits.

    53. John Connelly says:

      Many years ago I remember being told that Scotland, unlike Ireland, could achieve its independence through democratic means. At the time I argued that constitutional nationalism failed in Ireland because Westminster could always rely on bluster and military might to ensure that the natives would be kept in their place.

      The 2014 referendum only took place because Cameron was convinced it would fail. When it looked like he might have got it wrong his Judas Goat, Gordon Brown, was wheeled out to sway the hesitant “yes” voters back into the Unionist line with the infamous “Vow”. After the Brexit fiasco we can be sure that referenda won’t be on the agenda for the near future as the Westminster Establishment will allow no attempts to alter the status quo.

      I believe it is time for SNP and Alba MP’s to withdraw from Westminster and refuse in future to take up their seats. A Holyrood Election could be a means to muster renewed support for independence, however it is now time to make it clear that Westminster is not going to listen to constitutional nationists. I don’t see any stomach in Scotland for Sinn Fein style struggle, however direct action of some sort needs to be considered to take things forward. Otherwise, it’s time to accept where we are.

    54. Jamie says:

      Ross 2.07 pm

      You could be right. However, Scotland has a big outflow of migration and for whatever reason in 8 years the polls have been fairly static you could argue that yes has gained 3 % in 8 years.

      Surely if 8 years of pro yes voters are now of voting age and old folk who are significantly no voters albeit probably working class pensioners predominantly dying and working class is more yes and if EU voters have changed their mind to yes surely the shift should be bigger than 3%?

      Like I say I’m not against having an immediate defacto referendum, by all means push for it, but I suspect when all factors are considered the impact is negligible.

      If someone shows polling showing otherwise I shall eat humble pie.

    55. Alibi says:

      Agree – why are they procrastinating? They must have looked at the possible court decisions so why not hit the ground running? Always “in the coming weeks”, “in due course”. Never “tomorrow we are going to…”.

      The idea of using a Holyrood election rather than a UK general election is a no-brainer as far as I can see. If NS insists it has to be a UK election, she needs to be asked why she wants to reduce the pro-indy vote by doing that.

    56. Republicofscotland says:

      I’m just wondering how much more damage Sturgeon and Sunak will do to Scotland before the next GE, and in reality, Sturgeon will never follow through on using the next GE as a plebiscitary one, she just isn’t interested in freeing Scots from this antidemocratic prison presented as a union.

      Sturgeon and Harvie will never resign to save Scotland they don’t give a f*ck about it, they only care about their own self-interests and then their parties interests.

      As for the SNP MSPs and MPs, all are gutless and spineless, and they’ll sit back like the Three Wise Monkeys supping from the Scottish taxpayer’s trough. There’s going to be a lot of pain and uncertainty in Scotland for years to come, but come 2026 if we’re still here, we MUST vote the SNP OUT, if we don’t achieve anything else we must achieve that, surely by then even the most ardent Sturgeon acolyte will have woken up to her lying deceitful ways.

      Give Alba our vote from now onwards.

    57. stuart mctavish says:

      On other hand chances are the filler in the middle is only there to explain how the best and brightest at UKSC arrived at their decision and the important bits remain the question under consideration and the answer the judicial panel arrived at.

      In that respect we have :

      Question :
      “Does the Scottish Parliament have power to legislate for the holding of a referendum on Scottish independence?”

      Conclusion :
      1) The provision of the proposed Scottish Independence Referendum Bill that provides that the question to be asked in a referendum would be “Should Scotland be an independent country?” does relate to reserved matters.

      ie the court concluded that ONLY the provision of the proposed Scottish Independence Referendum Bill that provides that the question to be asked in a referendum would be « Should Scotland be an independent country ? » relates to reserved matters.

      Curiously this precise interpretation of the written decision conflicts with Lord Reed’s intriguing verbal summing up* which ended :
      “..accordingly the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence”

      The conclusion to the Court’s written judgement being silent on the power of the Scottish Parliament to legislate for (/for the holding of) a referendum (except in Lord reeds cheeky summing up) necessarily infers that the Scottish Parliament absolutely does have that power and that, in giving it that power, the Court has further restricted the right of the Secretary of State to intervene under Clause 35 to that part of the provision of any such bill that contains the QUESTION to be asked.

      Accordingly, subject to having pulled the plug already, the referendum can still go ahead next October either as planned, or with a suitable modification to the question along the lines of « Should England/UKSC court reporters/Lord Reed, etc be sent homeward to think again.. »

      *presumably worded with specific and patriotic intent to draw closer attention to the ambiguity

    58. Dave S says:

      @andy ellis

      I find it difficult to argue against the statement that Scotland is a colony, to be honest. it does sound reactionary, but it is clearly defined in the dictionary what this means. If I simply perform a box-ticking exercise against the dictionary definition, the conclusion seems quite obvious to me. I’d like to know more about the argument claiming Scotland isn’t a colony, and I don’t think the quantity or quality of actual visible oppression is relevant to that.

      I have also been reading Roddy Dunlop’s output recently, but to me it is almost as if he knows this is the case, but is trying somewhat to be careful given his position and whatnot.

      Regarding Sturgeon, certainly what suggest is true, but we have been this with the Alba ‘project’ and its not going to work for years (at least). I want to see some strategy, and to know what we can do day-to-day to actively speed this up. I am not blaming anybody for not doing things fast enough, because I am myself not doing anything fast enough. I just do not want to wait 20 years for independence, when we have come so close to it, and only never achieved it due to the corruption and willful negligence of a small group of bastards.

      You speak of a route to independence. Do you mean a ‘legal’ route? Because as of yesterday, I cannot see it. Frankly, what we have are politicians with nae actual power. Perhaps it is not possible to resolve the matter legally, or politically; except as in a mass movement, revolutionary sense. But I hear no substantive talk of this, perhaps for obvious reasons, living in *THIS* Scotland. I see no appetite for this in Scotland, either.

      There is a certainly a conflict of interest, given that politicians cling to their sinecures, while mouthing various causes — but this is just the banal unthinking conspiracy of the political classes, which happens everywhere. Independence is, naturally, criminal – because it has become threatening. Until that point (~2012), it was just a bourgeois parlour game. So short of revolt, what do we do? Power never willingly allows the subjugated to secede, we have to take it ourselves.

    59. orri says:

      That’s right. You have to win an STV style vote, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Minister_of_Scotland#:~:text=The%20first%20minister%20is%20nominated%20by%20the%20Scottish%20Parliament%20at,be%20nominated%20for%20first%20minister.
      The trouble is that it’s not Big Brother where you vote against someone. In order to get depose a First Minister they have to be First Minister.

      So the sequence would be,

      Candidates stand. One is eliminated. Next round. Eventually one of them is left. Even if the SNP abstain one of them is nominated. Then they are appointed to the post. Then the SNP and Greens, assuming they can be trusted, call a Vote of No Confidence. There’s another FM election and the whole thing starts again.

      If I didn’t know any better I’d say it was rigged that way because otherwise a simple majority would be all it’d take to call an early election. Holyrood not being able to function would be a bonus to some.

      This is where the supermajority Alba were trying to achieve would have come in handy.

    60. dandydons1903 says:

      Who will England ask if they want to leave Scotland and become independent?

    61. Wally Jumblatt says:

      I’m sure Sun Tsu mentioned that you should always turn your enemy’s mistakes to your advantage.

      Since Sturgeon knew well in advance (indeed she designed the gameplan to that end) that the Supreme Court would reject the petition, she could have spent the weeks writing a blockbuster Martin Luther King type I have a dream speech, to wail from the steps of Holyrood and go down in history as the warrior queen -I’m joking of course.
      She barely gave it a moment’s thought before her standard, bitter whinge.

      The point is this -The Supreme Court has reminded the Scottish ‘Government’ that it is merely a Parish Council.
      It has basically no revenue or taxation powers, therefore it follows that it has no responsibility for external debt. That remains with Westminster.
      Accordingly, this national debt that we hear so much of that Scotland should take it’s share of in the event of independence, is not “Scotland’s”. It belongs to some other entity.

    62. Desimond says:

      In my head all I can see is straight Indy referendum vote working. Just saying an election vote is on one manifesto item seems rather simplistic so can someone clearly clarfify without a resultant “We just tell them that’s how it is and that’s that!” definition

      Using a Holyrood Election sounds like a plan, but how does it work exactly..people vote for an independence candidate on Seat and List? or Indy People wont be looking to use any List vote at all?

      How do you declare a winner, 50% of votes cast + 1 for ALL Indy standees or are we expecting a single Indy standee in each area?

      Who we expecting to decide what winning is so that its respected by everyone?

      What happens to the actual Holyrood Parliament in either result?
      In other words, what happens to actual devolved Parliament…if its a vote based loss, is it then just filled with 1 item candidates who actually lost but were voted in for that one item rather than necessarily for their party etc?

    63. ross says:

      Jamie

      I think it’s inarguable support has increased in 8 years. slowly yes but it has increased. I think you’re being churlish at 3%, I think it’s more like 4 or 5. Not good enough, not nearly good enough but still an increase.

      We were always underdogs in polling before 2014, it’s more like 50/50 now.

      I think we’re seeing a perceptible shift.

      sorry, not sure you understand my point. I’m not advocating an immediate defacto ref via Scottish parliament. quite the opposite for the above reason. the two years is another two years of demographic shift. it’s a gamble but you’ve got to hope with campaigning there will be a consistent majority in favour in two years time. they’ve barely campaigned, now’s the time to do so.

      It may all fall flat but at least we have a basic plan now.

      The main issue is boredom with the SNP rather than indy. I think their party support is not as solid as they think.

      they should probably create a convention and create a Yes Scotland party. this is possibly in the pipeline. Who knows.

    64. James Che says:

      It is a frustrating that ” Scots” do not know their Scottish parliament has been closed since1707.

      It is even more frustrating to see “Scots” don’t care.

      It is Frustrating that Scots can not put two and two together,

      They are so blinded by the shine of the Snp.

      They are so blinded by the English legislated government devolved to Scotland.

      The blinkers that Scots use for their eye’s are institutes of Westminster. Made and played to keep Scots occupied. And it works like a dream.

      Why the heck do you not question How a extinguished Scottish parliament can even be in a treaty of parliamentary union with Englands parliament?

      How can you hold a extinguished Scottish parliament legally liable for that old Treaty today?

      It hangs there like a serpent from the apple tree in the garden of eden,

    65. James Che says:

      dandydons.

      Not the Scottish parliament, thats for sure, it was extinguished in 1707.

    66. Dave S says:

      It doesn’t seem to be very useful to talk about 1707, when all that matters is international recognition – needing some external actor or actors to award us with our independence. If most Scots don’t care or know about 1707, then we cannot expect anyone else to. Lets just leave it in the history books, I say. We live in 2022.

    67. Andrea says:

      I fear that for me the idea that Scotland is a colony is utter nonsense and I don’t see how you can run that argument at all. Reasoning this way, the vast majority of countries can still boast colonies, not least Germany or Italy, but also the USA. In your definition the only country that has not a colony is one that was born like that and never changed borders or acquired more land. Perhaps New Zealand fits this bill? Or Singapore? Difficult to go find a country that is more than an island or a city state. I suppose San Marino, the Vatican, Luxembourg or Liechtenstein should do.

      You think under the assumption that Scotland was annexed by England, but BOTH England and Scotland ceased to exist and in their stead the Kingdom of Great Britain came about, even though for just over 100 years they were already under the same king/queen, which was… Scottish. After the Stuarts came the Hanoverians who were as English as … I don’t know, think of something stereotypically German 😀
      Also, those who would have liked Bonnie Prince Charlie and his kind back on the throne, it would have been interesting to see how they would have dealt with a Catholic King, which was the reason to dispense with the Stuarts in the first place.

    68. James Che says:

      Extinguished from the treaty of union as a active Scottish parliament.

    69. Alan Austin says:

      I am a proud Scot and voted against devolved parliaments and for Brexit. I also think all politicians are liars with no integrity or ethics and will say anything to stay in power.
      The devolved governments have just been grievance talking shops who have delivered nothing to the taxpayers apart from a large cost. If we have 4 parliaments in the UK who are all very poor and deliver nothing I would prefer to only pay for one. The SNP have failed to move the independence debate forward over the past 8 years entirely due to thier incompetence in governing Scotland and this is why they will never win the independence debate. It is a cause going nowhere due to the performance of the SNP government.

    70. ross says:

      Desimond

      “In my head all I can see is straight Indy referendum vote working. Just saying an election vote is on one manifesto item seems rather simplistic so can someone clearly clarfify without a resultant “We just tell them that’s how it is and that’s that!” definition”

      There is no other definition because there isn’t one.

      We can only demonstrate what we can. It’s not in the gift of Scots to tell UK what to do and it never will be.

      I don’t see what a Holyrood election gives you that a UK one doesn’t apart from timing. Why does a Holyrood election work more in your eyes? To me, it means less UK exposure and less pressure on the UK. “Oh there having their parish council elections”, is different to winning in the GE. Just my tuppence.

    71. Dave S says:

      The vast majority of countries may well have colonies, Andrea. The dictionary definition on what colony means is quite clear, though. In what way does this not apply to, eg, Scotland? is perhaps another way to ask the question.

    72. Woodside Wullie says:

      I ken athin aboot delayed No. 23s

    73. James Che says:

      Dave S,

      The history books say we are in a mythical treaty of union,
      And the Scottish people are still fighting that mythical dragon in 2022, thats the connect to the past for them,

      I have moved on from this false picture as a movie production of holyrood and Westminster.

      Sometimes people have to watch the same movie two or three time before the get it.

    74. Jamie says:

      Ross

      In the last few months opinion polling has fluctuated between 42% and 50% support for independence.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence

      The Alba party poll had Scottish independence on 46%.

      So whilst there has been a lot of fluctuation I do think that it could be argued that in 8 years a gain of 3% is being generous considering that for the duration of 2022 only 3 polls have had a lead for yes out of 27 polls listed on wikipedia.

      However, I accept such polling is open to interpretation and I guess it could be argued that there has been gain of 4 or 5 % but I personally do not see it.

      In that time there have been 2 polls putting the Yes vote on 39% and 1 on 38% but they are probably outliers.

      I hear your suggestion about a Yes Scotland party and I would suggest that the Yes Scotland party is Alba and that if you want to join the campaign for Scottish independence it begins now with them so think about signing up, every person makes a difference.

    75. One_Scot says:

      It is heart breaking.

      What do you think about Martin Keatings proposal to have a defacto Independence vote using the Scottish General election next year rather than the UK one in 2024?

      I think it would also give 16 and 17 years olds and EU citizens the chance to vote.

    76. Dave S says:

      Yes, but its not really relevant to the matter at hand. We are a people, much like the Catalonians are a people, or any other grouping you can think of. Under international law we have, like any grouping of peoples, a right to self determination. This trumps any kind of local UK law, since the UK are signatories to it. This is all that matters in 2022.

      In 1707 people were running around with swords chopping peoples heads off, or whatever.

      In practice, this means democratically proving a majority wants self determination, in order to gain international recognition for it. The Catalan’s, through no fault of their own, were unable to do this, but we can. That’s all there is to it.

    77. James Che says:

      Alan Austin,

      Then perhaps we should reconvene the Scottish parliament,
      which never entered the British parliament and was prevented from joining treaty of union of parliaments in 1707.

    78. Liz says:

      Surgeon made the wrong decision going to the SC before the Court of Session.

      She should do the decent thing and resign, but we know she has no decency.

    79. Andy Ellis says:

      dandydons1903 says:
      24 November, 2022 at 2:46 pm
      Who will England ask if they want to leave Scotland and become independent?

      Interestingly Prof. Aileen McHarg made the point in a tweet last night: England could unilaterally secede from the union simply by securing an Act of Parliament to grant independence to England. English dominance of the UK parliament makes that a relatively trivial condition to satisfy. It may not be “fair” that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can’t do likewise, but it is the nature of the beast. In Aileen’s words:

      Formal equality doesn’t always produce substantive equality.”

    80. orri says:

      Alternatively something the SNP MPs could do is resign in order to call by-elections in order to get a mandate for independence. Westminster would then have to explain the democratic process the electorate of Scotland could use if number of MPs is not enough. Which might force them into saying an absolute majority of votes cast would do it. Or that it really doesn’t matter what happens the answer will always be no. A bit like how the steel workers were treated after achieving every last impossible target set them.

    81. prj says:

      The way I read the whole situation is that Scotland has now been put into the same situation as Catalonia. Legally tied to the UK as a territory described as an autonomous community.

    82. mike cassidy says:

      You have to hand it to Sturgeon

      As the ‘kick the can’ strategy neared the end of its life

      (She clearly hated that National Front Page Montage)

      She asks for a UK Supreme Court legal verdict

      with an indy2 referendum if the verdict is ‘yes’ and UKGE plebiscite referendum if the verdict is ‘no

      She knew – like we all did – it was going to be ‘no’

      So now

      She doesn’t have to bother about a referendum

      She doesn’t have to bother about dissolving Holyrood

      The focus shifts to the next UKGE

      And she doesn’t even pretend to be prepared for what it might mean to call that a plebiscite referendum

      Kick The Can 2 – Staying On The Gravy Train

      What a politician!

    83. James Che says:

      Dave S,

      You are correct, the armies sent to the Scottish borders did threaten Scotlands people with Swords and other weapons. Way back then in 1707.

      Not exactly a voluntary union was it,

    84. Dave S says:

      A bit off topic, but I have always found it difficult to believe that Salmond had no idea what Sturgeon would be like when he handed her the reigns. He knew her for years.

      If it was a complete surprise to him, then he must feel really ashamed.

    85. Desimond says:

      Ross
      I don’t see what a Holyrood election gives you that a UK one doesn’t apart from timing. Why does a Holyrood election work more in your eyes?

      Im not advocating for it during a Westminster GE, to be clear, its more that I can only appreciate how a straight standalone 2014 style Referendum works rather than any approach tied into any other Election.

      I cant see how we will ever win playing Westminsters game in all honesty

    86. Dave S says:

      James Che

      Certainly it was an involuntary union. But independence shouldn’t be about seeking justice for that, or even reparations. You have to let these things stay in the history book in order to move on. Independence must have a solid, modern foundation in order for other people in the world (who care little about these ancient local problems) to accept it. You can ommit it, without forgetting about it, if you prefer. But I don’t think its healthy to put that up there on the list of reasons for independence in 2022.

    87. James Che says:

      “The other nature of the beast”

      The Scottish 1707 parliament did not enter the new british parliament in 1707. Instead it was extinguished by Agreeing to the treaty of the union.

      What was the union supposed to be?

      The union of the Scottish parliament and the English parliament.
      This did not proceed to happen.

      For the past three hundred years and more the Scottish parliament has not existed.

    88. Ross says:

      Desmond

      Me neither. I think that’s what the defacto ref is about. Not playing their game and taking the decision to them in a vote they cannot block.

      If it’s a ref youre after, that’s playing their game as they won’t grant one. We’re as well packing it in now.

    89. sarah says:

      @ Robert Louis at 1.33 p.m.: “I do wonder how many SNP MPs and MSPs or the FM know about the details of the claim of right, and the treaty and the acts of union.”

      The SSRG sent them some material a while back, and about two weeks ago Salvo sent them the Edinburgh Proclamation and asked them to sign or give their support. Last I heard only Neale Hanvey had signed!

      I did suggest btl that we email our MSPs and MPs to ask them if they support the Claim of Right. I emailed my 8 MSPs – only the Green, actually her staff, replied, and it was to say Yes.

      So to answer your query, Upton Sinclair wrote that it is difficult to get a man to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it. Could this be the answer?

      Although I would have thought that any politician who gets independence will be made for life.

    90. James Che says:

      Dave S,

      Why not,

    91. Andy Ellis says:

      @Ross

      I don’t see what a Holyrood election gives you that a UK one doesn’t apart from timing. Why does a Holyrood election work more in your eyes? To me, it means less UK exposure and less pressure on the UK. “Oh there having their parish council elections”, is different to winning in the GE. Just my tuppence.

      Firstly it’s “our” parliament, so – at least in my eyes – the political optics are better. We’re not “playing away” in an institution which is weighted against us and is replete with crypto medieval fripperies and processes that shame a modern democracy. A Holyrood franchise also includes 16 & 17 year old voters and those from EU states, who should be more open to pro indy arguments.

      Lastly, it is easier for us to put pressure on Scottish governments than UK governments, particularly if we’re trying to persuade an unwilling SNP administration to precipitate early elections. As it says on Holyrood’s walls:

      “When we had a king, and a chancellor, and parliament-men o’ our ain, we could aye peeble them wi’ stanes when they werena gude bairns.”

    92. Andrea says:

      “Dave S says:
      24 November, 2022 at 3:04 pm
      The vast majority of countries may well have colonies, Andrea. The dictionary definition on what colony means is quite clear, though. In what way does this not apply to, eg, Scotland? is perhaps another way to ask the question”

      Dave, my question to you is in what way it applies to Scotland. Which is the occupying force, England? But then England may will be colonised by Scotland as population migrates naturally. Also, don’t forget that Scotland may vote on English only matters, while England may not vote on Scottish matters. It seems to me that the “colony” is England, not Scotland.
      The point is that the colonising force would be the United Kingdom, not England.
      And anyway, isn’t Strathclyde a colony, too? Or Fife? Orkney and Shetland most certainly are, by the same reasoning given in the article. If one accepts that Scotland is a colony and for this reason must have independence, then all nations states in Europe would have to dissolve because all born from an aggregation of smaller principalities and we end up with 100+ countries in Europe.

      Lastly, colonisation by the United Kingdom is a bad thing, but the same by the EU is OK?

      I always find the article posted here thought provoking, even if I may not always agree, but not this one… 😉

    93. Stoker says:

      Lord Reed, of England’s Supreme Court:

      “The court found Quebec did not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people,’ he said. ‘Nor could it be suggested Quebecers were denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development. The same is true of Scotland and the people of Scotland.”

      No, it is not the same for Scotland. Brexit proved that. The Westminster seat statistics also prove, beyond any doubt, that Scotland only ever gets what England allows. It’s basic mathematics.

      Scotland does not have *meaningful* access to government. Scotland has access to a glorified county council with seriously restricted powers & finances and access to a medieval cesspit where the statistical odds are extremely weighted against the Scottish electorate getting to make any major decisions.

      In what universe is that “meaningful” access to government?

    94. Cringe says:

      Now that door has been closed are there going to be any Wings posts on Salvo/UN route/claim of Right?

    95. Desimond says:

      Ross…
      I know, I know… we have painted ourselves into a corner and I just have no idea how we reach the door. Section 30 will never happen and I just dont see how we assume Westminster will adopt a conscience and willingly accept some declaration from a bunch of MSPs etc.
      Whats our argument, Westminster is unfair…well the count is 57 Scottish MPs to 693 Non Scots MPs…its still clearly democracy and try convincing any Supreme Court otherwise.

      We fucked it in 2014 and will pay the price for years to come as it currently stands.

      I expect nothing unless we get a new Player who finds a new tactic or a new game.

    96. Desimond says:

      **well the count is 57 Scottish MPs to 593 Non Scots MPs

    97. James Che says:

      The mental situation between the Scottish commentator here and the Westminster parliament is amusing if not downright hilarious.

      In Scotland we tell each other not to look back at the mythical treaty of the union 1707.

      In Westminster they hold dearly to that mythical 1707 treaty of the union to Colonise Scotland,

      Perhaps that is why we loose every time, we do not face facts.
      We do not use the same tool as our legal weapon as Westminster is doing, a tool dating back to 1707.
      Doh!

      Wheisst Scotland, lets not talk about the serpent hanging from the tree.
      Wheest Scotland, Lets not talk about becoming a Colony since 1707,
      Wheest Scotland, do not seek reparations.
      Wheest Scotland. Stop talking about how you are trapped in a parliamentary union that did not happen.

      Wheest Scotland, wheest Scotland shut up.

    98. Stoker says:

      Regarding The Supreme Court, Rev wrote:

      “A panel comprising a majority of Scottish judges ruled…”

      As far as i was aware only two of the five are Scottish, Reed and the other who’s name i can’t remember.

    99. Muscleguy says:

      I would have toddled along to the Dundee one but I got a better offer. A date with a rather nice, cute woman of my age in Perth. It went so well there will be a longer one on Sat afternoon. We did not discuss the burning constitutional question of the day.

      My wife was a No, it did not split us up. She admired my dedication to Yes. Out several days a week and at weekends canvassing, stall manning, campaigning, up to wearing the Male Panda suit on a sweltering late summer day.

      If we could continue to rub along well until not then why not? Besides I might be able to convert her. My wife was too scared I might succeed so I was not allowed to broach the subject.

    100. James Che says:

      Andrea,

      The Colony issue was a bit confused was it not,
      Scotland has two parliaments ruling Scotland, both are under english laws of legislation and Statutes.

      Scottish issues coming up through the devolved government are indirectly governed by english law.
      Hence the Snp running to the supreme court of UK.
      Not under Scots law,

      Scotland is Colonised by two parliament of Englands Westminster.

    101. Effijy says:

      The Tories only ever disagreed with around 3% of Bills passed by the EU
      As they mainly concerned blocking corruption such as money laundering and tax evasion
      things close to their supporters heard they had to get out of there knowing it was to the detriment of the working class majority.

      If Scotland was in the EU we would not be a Colony, we would be an equal partner, we would be better off on the worlds largest trading block- just look at N Ireland,
      We could be self sufficient in energy and again receive EU grants to repairs the devastation
      left by the Tories.
      And yes we do want the new laws against money laundering and protected workers rights.

    102. James Che says:

      Stoker,

      Judges born else where can move to Scotland and there fore are classed as judges from Scotland,

      Ehmmm, your right it not quite the same is it?

    103. Ross says:

      Desimond

      They probably won’t adopt a new attitude but we’ve got to at least try, I feel.

      Like it or lump it, we’ve never given a party a clear majority of votes for Independence. We should do it now before giving up.

    104. Lorna Campbell says:

      Nothing is going to change unless something changes. That something has to be our whole attitude to the Union. Both the English and Scottish parliaments were dissolved by the Acts of Union, but it is the Treaty that created the Union in the first place. The Acts translated the Treaty into domestic law. The SC of the UK implied that the Acts (domestic legislation) supersede the Treaty (international law). They don’t. They can’t.

      We are far too ready to look only at devolution – which was illegal under the Treaty terms unless England also devolved – as our hope. It is no hope. We appear to have no constitutional lawyer/expert who is willing to look at the Treaty with anything other than… “wel…l…, maybes aye, maybes naw.. ” A complete and total dereliction of the duty of care that the government owes each Scot and a total dereliction of its duty to find a legitimate route out of the Union. Understanding the power of the Treaty on our behalf is our last hope, and it is a real hope because the case against the UK government’s consistent breaching of the Treaty is very, very provable in law and in fact, and the international legal nature of the Treaty can also be proved by the actings, writings and speeches of the time, which are also very extremely suggestive of its dual, partnership nature, and all accessible. Even 300 odd years cannot obliterate the truth, but Westminster and Whitehall can try to hide it.

      First, or alongside, though, we need the political action necessary, which is not a pre independence referendum of any kind which will be lost again, so either a constitutional convention or a Scottish election – a plebiscitary GE will be a waste of time and effort because the Unionists will boycott it and Westminster will not recognise its result. If the SNP pull that stunt of ‘SNP 1 & 2’ again, it will be a waste of time and effort, anyway. I think we have to accept now that the SNP under Nicola Sturgeon will do nothing to confront Westminster. Time to start subverting or ousting those close to her, while, at the same time, forcing out the devolutionists, cosy slippers types and the wokerati. The devolutionists will continue to prevaricate, the cosies will fight to keep their fat salaries and pensions, but it is the wokerati who are the most dangerous to independence because they are not even devolutionists, but straightforward parasites on the independence movement.

      If they get a foothold with the GRA reform bill, without challenge, we are finished because they will work to undermine all efforts to achieve independence for the simple reason that it is not in their interests to allow it to happen. They want Scotland to be the catalyst for the takeover of the UK. The Westminster cabal have been a far harder nut to crack. We need to scythe the feet from them.

    105. fran says:

      If we can’t have Alex Salmond, then I wish we had Mary Lou McDonald & Michelle O’Neill running things here instead of selfie McElsie.

    106. Southernbystander says:

      Not too terrible an article by Martin Kettle in the Guardian today and one point he made is that the question that remains very much live from this judgement is if there is no legitimate legal route for a referendum in Scotland decided unilaterally by the Scottish parliament, then what is the legitimate route?

      If Scotland is not to be seen as a colony (even if it isn’t actually one) what criteria would qualify for such a thing to be ‘granted’? There have been vague statements about this in the past (consistent 60% polling in favour of independence was one) but surely what the SNP could be doing is demanding to know what would qualify? If it were polling (by far the most obvious) then they could actually pull their finger out and persuade more people with concrete plans and argument.

      True, such a question this could be ignored by WM still but the pressure would be very strong and a good leader could surely make a very strong case, based on this judgement, that it is untenable to have no clear legitimate route?

    107. Doug says:

      Withdraw all pro-independence MPs from Westminster.

    108. Gregory Beekman says:

      James Che says:

      It is a frustrating that ” Scots” do not know their Scottish parliament has been closed since1707.

      It is even more frustrating to see “Scots” don’t care.

      It is Frustrating that Scots can not put two and two together,

      They are so blinded by the shine of the Snp.

      They are so blinded by the English legislated government devolved to Scotland.

      The blinkers that Scots use for their eye’s are institutes of Westminster. Made and played to keep Scots occupied. And it works like a dream.

      Why the heck do you not question How a extinguished Scottish parliament can even be in a treaty of parliamentary union with Englands parliament?

      How can you hold a extinguished Scottish parliament legally liable for that old Treaty today?

      It hangs there like a serpent from the apple tree in the garden of eden,

      As I understand it, the Treaties of Union dissolved BOTH parliaments, ie the English parliament ceased to exist, just as the Scottish parliament ceased to exist. In their place was created the Parliament of Great Britain and it was decided to hold that Parliament in the vacant building that used to hold the English parliament.

      So neither signatory to the Treaties of Union exist! I’m not a lawyer so have no idea how legal they can be when both signatories no longer exist as independent bodies.

      You also mention the “English legislated government” but it’s not English because there is no English Parliament – it ceased to exist in 1707. What we have is a British Parliament, not an English one.

      I guess you could argue both the Scottish and English parliaments of old continue within the new British parliament, which might suggest legally we just need a majority of Scottish MPs to vote to end the Treaties of Union?

      But I’m no lawyer, so can’t say much more than that!

    109. Big Jock says:

      I didn’t go because I really don’t see the point. If the protests achieve diddly squat, then I am not wasting my valuable time waiving a flag.

      I expect most of us are utterly bored with the tiresome circular nature of Nicola’s arguments. Apathy is the result of helplessness. None of us feel enthused enough , or motivated to stand in the rain.

      Westminster is laughing at us. We are a joke to them. Our leader is utterly bereft of charisma and leadership.

    110. Allium says:

      @Dubh

      I agree with you – while there’s always the chance that it is stage managed theatre, rather than genuine opposition (especially with AR) it does seem like the Gravy Bus isn’t such a happy place to be right now. Wonder if the succession to AR isn’t as embedded as it seemed to be six months ago, surely someone in Stirling thinks they could do a better job?

      The Pie Man coup was smacked down with such swift, secretive force that it seems they were really rattled. Will be interesting to see what happens over winter.

    111. Dan says:

      @ ross & Jamie

      The idea that all the old No voters will die off and be replaced by YES voters may not be the case.
      The delayed census and whatever information it contains will be of interest to see if the situation Mia has in the past stated has escalated.
      Jamie, do you not recall that you and I have previously discussed this point? Have you forgot of disregard the situation as having validity.

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-last-ten-seconds-of-life/comment-page-1/#comment-2673159

    112. DJ says:

      Big Jock says:
      24 November, 2022 at 4:33 pm
      I didn’t go because I really don’t see the point.

      I agree. Been to the majority of marches myself. No more. I am not marching up to the top of the hill just to march down again. Enough is enough.

    113. Dan says:

      @ DJ

      Aye, we’ve torn the fookin arse out of marching. The busiest of the AUOB marches in Edinburgh and Glasgow had turnout numbers that are recognised as being tipping points in a society for change, yet the political will to act has always been lacking the initiative to move forward.
      There is no way a “leader” of a movement could have fucked things up so much and on so many fronts. She is a fraud.

    114. Ruby says:

      Colony or country?

      There has been a debate about Scotland as colony going on here on Wings over the past 6+ months. It’s mainly been between Alf Baird & Andy Ellis.

      Alf says colony and Andy Ellis says definitely not.

      The more I read what Alf said the more I agree with the idea that Scotland is a colony.

      We were told during IndyRef1 by the Westminster Gov. that Scotland ceased to exist in 1707 and became lesser England.

      I don’ think ‘anyone’ believed that. According to Derek Bateman 1 in 10 Scots did. ie David Mundell.

      Derek Bateman wrote a article entitled ‘An Auld Sang Gang Wrang’ about this. It is a good article but I don’t seem to be able to find it online any more.

      Say the government is not convinced it’s correct and it was insulting to say Scotland ceased to exist. Why? Because to say so is to deny the very thing they’re fighting for – the Union. I talk about what I call principled Unionism which works only if you accept your country is in voluntary partnership with England. Remove that concept and we become, as the lawyers indicate, little more than an adjunct to England. Derek Bateman

      No Scotland = No Union & No Treaty of the Union.

      Is a colony & an occupied country the same thing?

    115. Doug says:

      Anyone else seen this latest gutless missive from a SNP politician?

      As reported by The national:

      “Stewart McDonald, SNP Westminster spokesperson for defence, took to social media on Thursday while Nicola Sturgeon was taking part in FMQs, to raise some issues about where the campaign goes next.

      “So although the court has made clear the consent aspect of the union lies with Westminster, we must shun talk of being imprisoned or shackled.

      “Our campaign is not a liberation struggle, but one of democratic, social and economic renewal, and empowerment.”

      This is what we’re up against.

    116. scottiedog says:

      The GE ‘plebiscite’ isn’t even a plebiscite, it’s another mandate to ask Westminster the same question.

    117. Andy Ellis says:

      @Dan

      Surely the issue is that the relative %’s from 2014 don’t tell us much about what the actual %’s will be in a future referendum or plebiscitary election. Much like any opinion poll, they are just a snapshot of that particular point.

      From what anyone has been able to produce, we only have one analysis of 2014 voting figures with a breakdown of the origins, ages, social groups, wealth etc. of voters, the one produced by Edinburgh University referred to above in 2015. From memory the detailed figures for that are not publicly available.

      The trouble for anyone trying to extrapolate current figures from what people voted then, or indeed figures at some future date, is that we don’t know the impact of other factors.

      It may well be true that a cadre of older more unionist inclined voters will have died off, but we can’t simply assume that new cohorts of voters coming on to the registers will be pro-indy. We also don’t know what the nett amount of people coming in to Scotland will be, or what their voting preferences will be.

      The only realistic way of judging that is polling them, but I can’t see any MSM outlet queueing up to spend the money required to do properly weighted polling of that kind, can you? Also, as soon as you do it, it’s out of date….so how do you know when to do it, or whether it will be valid or meaningful for long?

      We also don’t know how many people will have flipped from Yes to No and from No to Yes: I’m sure one of Rev Stu’s earlier polls suggested that significant numbers of folk had done both, in fact the %’s may more or less have cancelled each other out from memory. That kind of “voter drift” may have significantly changed for all we know given the omnishambles of brexit and Tory mis-rule since.

      We also have to factor in the turnout in any future vote. the 2014 turnout was pretty good at 84% IIRC, but the Quebec referendums both had turnout in the low 90’s%.

      Lastly, we have the issue of whether – and to what extent- we can persuade more than 52% of native Scots we are told voted Yes in 2014 to switch sides.

      The international community is unlikely to be impressed with an argument that a section of the Scottish electorate have to be dis-enfranchised (contrary to precedent and practice in self determination referendums) because our case and argument for independence is so marginal that we can’t persuade enough native born Scots to vote Yes to overcome the marginal impact of New Scots voting overwhelmingly to remain in the union.

    118. Kenny says:

      Scottish Labour Party celebrate maintaining of union with Saltire.
      Wonder what they did with our national flag after they basically wiped their wealthy arses over it?

      At least we have a genuine pro-independence media now. Cheers, Stu.

    119. Confused says:

      Dan, I believe the new census will not breakdown the numbers by country of origin.

      https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/statementsandletters/statementonpopulationoftheukbycountryofbirthandnationalityseries

      I read this the day after that guy threw 3 firebombs at the migrant centre. Funny, in a dark way; I mean obviously this guy was radicalised by reading ONS statistical data.

      Scotland will follow, likely. And without this separate count we cannot know the “new scots” from the scots; a kind of enforced civic nationalism, a bit like how they mixed in the postal votes with the normal votes at the indyref, just because, and for no reason whatsoever.

    120. Ruby says:

      Doug says:
      24 November, 2022 at 4:55 pm

      Anyone else seen this latest gutless missive from a SNP politician?

      As reported by The national:

      “Stewart McDonald, SNP Westminster spokesperson for defence, took to social media on Thursday while Nicola Sturgeon was taking part in FMQs, to raise some issues about where the campaign goes next.

      “So although the court has made clear the consent aspect of the union lies with Westminster, we must shun talk of being imprisoned or shackled.

      “Our campaign is not a liberation struggle, but one of democratic, social and economic renewal, and empowerment.”

      This is what we’re up against.

      Who do you suppose he thinks he’s talking to Doug The SNP cult?

      In a democracy people are allowed talk about whatever they want and not be dictated to by politicians.

      V Stewart McDonald

    121. S Kemp says:

      Worth reading what the UK actually argued at the ICJ in the Kosovo Advisory Opinion.

      From the summary for example –
      …”international law contains neither a right of unilateral secession nor the denial of such a right. In the absence of an applicable lex specialis, international law does not preclude the creation of States by operation of declarations of independence which properly reflect the will of a people and garner sufficient support to enable the territorial entity in question to function effectively as a State in the international community.”

    122. sarah says:

      @ Doug: “Stewart MacDonald says our campaign is not a liberation struggle…”

      Oh my God. If only we had Margo MacDonald and Winnie Ewing – they would make mincemeat of him.

    123. PhilM says:

      I think it’s better to find language for the govt’s relation to its citizen that doesn’t involve the concept of a ‘duty of care’ because that would imply a defined remedy if a person believed there had been a breach of that duty. Normally if a govt doesn’t fulfil its mandate or its contract with the people, we are so blessed that we can vote them out and all is well. Except for Scotland that is…
      Another problem might be that all these identifiable breaches of the ToU are so long ago that the Scots approach to the law of limitations i.e. prescription, suggests that we sovereign Scots have ‘slept on our rights’ for so long that it isn’t credible to invoke any of those early breaches such as the 1711 Patronage (Scotland) Act and so on.
      I think we should never lose sight of the fact that the 2014 vote was a recognition that we are a people and that we exercised a right as a people to make a sovereign choice. That meaning of that sovereign act can never be excised from UK constitutional history.
      What I would say further to that is to continue to point out that as a people our ties to England are making us relatively poorer as a result. The signs of this relative poverty are everywhere. A people cannot be expected to suffer this indignity indefinitely. One example that I bore people to death with is population. Our population growth has stagnated in comparison to every other country in the world minus those affected by war. Those that are affected always recover and they grow again quickly. Incidentally, when I say every other country I mean literally every other country. a striking example is our North coastline. There are towns on the very north coast of Iceland that have larger populations than Tongue, Bettyhill, Scrabster and John O’Groats combined. Thurso and Wick are tiny compared to somewhere like Tromsø in northern Norway which is comparable in size to Paisley, Scotland’s fifth biggest town. It is not a law of nature that we have four decent sized cities, a densely populated central belt and a desolation everywhere else. There are towns in the Borders that have barely changed in numbers since the eighteenth century. This is really abnormal for a modern country. According to the Supreme Court we are not denied meaningful political engagement etc. but we ARE economically impoverished, tied to an outdated economic model that we have no power to change. Southern Tories can literally fuck to utter exhaustion Scotland’s economic potential and we are powerless to do anything about it.
      I’m going to stop before I burst a blood vessel…

    124. Liz says:

      If there was ever any doubt about Sturgeons agenda, the only religious group Shona Robison spoke to after a point was raised from a Muslim MSP re GRR, is not one from Scotland and has Klaus Schwab as a patron!
      https://twitter.com/trish34139020/status/1595796239240626178?s=19

    125. BrianSJ says:

      Finally occurred to me; Nikkla needs a job with immunity from prosecution. EC has such jobs, but not sure if the UN has them.

    126. Andy Ellis says:

      @Rev Stu

      The court was under no obligation to rule on that issue at all, which did not form part of the Lord Advocate’s referral. It could simply have said “a referendum clearly relates to reserved matters and is therefore outwith Holyrood’s powers, the end” and left the arguments about self-determination to the politicians. …….

      But the unnecessary addition of the reference to colonies ironically simply made it look like an arm of an arrogant colonial power slapping down the natives. It was a tin-eared, ill-advised and nakedly political provocation.

      The SC’s comments on self determination arose as a result of the SNP’s intervention: that’s why they cited the Canadian SC’s findings in response to the Clarity Act on Quebec secession. The SNP begged the question, and the SC responded. It’s not really that surprising that they essentially echoed the Canadian SC’s “traditionalist” view that external self determination only applies in a limited set of circumstances, which don’t fit the Scottish situation any more than it was argued they fitted Quebec’s.

      The SC definitively rejects the claim that Scotland is a colony. Doubtless as Roddy Dunlop has already said that won’t stop the proponents and true believers insisting it is a colony, whether de facto or de jure.

      The logic of the finding however is that it will make it that much harder for Alf Baird, Sara Salyers or anyone else to claim that there is a legal route to independence through appeals to the UN, international courts or other bodies because they simply won’t accept the prima facie argument is a colony in the sense generally understood of colonies which freed themselves from imperial rule post 1945.

      The route to independence is a political one, not a legal one. Scotland isn’t a colony, but we can make a case that British nationalists are not negotiating in good faith if they make it functionally impossible to get out of the current impasse.

      The trouble for the independence movement is that London will simply reply that they are not saying we can never vote without their permission (as e.g. Madrid unarguably IS saying to the Catalans), they’re saying we can’t unilaterally dictate the terms.

      If however we prove that Westminster consistently and in bad faith ignore mandates for referendums and tries to frustrate or not recognise plebiscitary elections, we have a much stronger argument that UDI or external self determination is our only option. In fact, we’re half way there already given yesterday’s decision: if we can’t have a legal referendum, then the next step in the process is plebiscitary elections.

      Bear in mind also that while it is easy to be “glass half empty” about the Canadian SC findings, there IS also a “glass half full” aspect in that the Canadian SC posited a duty of good faith negotiations for both parties and said the Canadian government would be obliged to enter in to negotiations on separation in the event that a clear majority of its populace were to vote in favour of independence .

      That’s the open door the Scottish indy movement should be pushing at!

    127. Rab Davis says:

      As every hour passes,,,the angrier you become.

      Anger at Sturgeon.

      Anger at the arrogant bastards of England.

      And Sturgeon’s remedy to quell my anger is,,,

      “Let’s have a chat about it sometime next year.

      Jesus sufferin’ fuck.

    128. Dan says:

      @ PhilM

      Aye, I too highlight the continual population growth rate disparity over the course of the 300 odd year Union between the two Kingdoms that formed said Union. The Kingdom of England had approximately 5 times the population of Kingdom of Scotland at time of Union, now it is approximately 10 times, with all the economic advantage that brought the KoE.
      As no constituent part of the UK should have an economic advantage over another, and as there has been no political will under London Rule to address this matter, it proves this is far from an equal Union.

    129. Another_Ian_Blackford_Speech says:

      Have a slightly different take on the judgement; colony and country aren’t mutually exclusive. The judges are going for the “region” position. If Scotland is not a colony, or a country, it must be a region of the United Kingdom, the same as Solway or the Lothians. This is obvious pish, Scotland lacks the power to make and sign treaties, this is the only thing that precludes it being a state.

    130. Dan says:

      @ Andy at 5:39pm

      Re. Westminster trying to frustrate matters or put hurdles were there weren’t previously in relation to Scotland attempting to express itself. There’s also the Referendum Super Majority Bill malarkey going on in Westminster early next year.

    131. Rab Davis says:

      The SNP/Yes movement has always been “too nice”,,,”too polite”.

      The detested bastards of England know this of course.

      That is why they walked all over the fuckin top of us.

      We are a shower of fuckin snowflakes.

      For proof just read the SNP Code of Conduct on how we mustn’t get too angry with, or by disrespectful to, our Unionist opposition.

      Well yesterday’s result is what happens when you let yourself be used as a doormat.

      We need to start getting angry with these bastards.

      Get angry with every fuckin one of them who try to impose their SNP/Unionist crap on you.

    132. Shug says:

      Sturgeon needs to be outed now

      If and it’s a big if we end up in a plebiscitary election which would be near impossible to win she will be outed by the security services in the preceding weeks killing any chance of a win.

      The Vietnam group will be toasted as park of the final rush.

      If she uses holyrood elections she has not been turned, if not, she is working for the security services.

      One comment kills my hope she said if the people don’t vote for indy they dont deserve it, so there you go it will be their fault not hers

      Decision time MPs and msps

    133. mike cassidy says:

      Dan 5.49

      Re. Westminster trying to frustrate matters or put hurdles were there weren’t previously in relation to Scotland attempting to express itself. There’s also the Referendum Super Majority Bill malarkey going on in Westminster early next year.

      The instigators of that will have been emboldened by the legal verdict that openly tells them

      “You’re in charge”

    134. Hatuey says:

      “no country can be prevented from asking its own people a question about how they wish to be governed. Any place which CAN be so prevented by the rulers of an external country is a de facto colony of that country, by any commonly-understood definition of the word.”

      Welcome to the National Moon-Howlers Association, Rev.

      Andy Ellis will be along in a minute to swear you in.

      A lot of people have this simplistic definition of colonialism that involves invaders wading ashore armed with swords and muskets; thereafter, the imaginary victim population is held at gunpoint as their treasure and resources are plundered.

      The historical record reveals very few cases of that actually happening anywhere. It also shows that no two countries were the same in terms of how they were colonised and how their colonial relationship developed. It’s complicated.

      One of the most common characteristics of colonies, though, was a compliant and cooperative ruling elite that essentially sold their own people down the river — in some cases quite literally. Scotland’s absorption into the UK Union can be comfortably described in those terms.

      Another commonality was the conspicuous absence of brute force and violence. Actually, in most cases, maintaining imperial rule much more often than not depended on police officers rather than foreign soldiers. Soldiers could always be mustered if necessary, of course. Sound familiar?

      I didn’t buy into the Scotland is a colony argument until May told Sturgeon “Now is not the time!”, and I still can’t believe she took that, given the moral and political mandate we had in the aftermath of Brexit.

      If they refuse to let us establish consent, the UK is not a consensual relationship. Call it what you want.

    135. mike cassidy says:

      Hatuey

      One for your big xmas stocking

      Caroline Elkins – “Legacy Of Violence – A History Of The British Empire”

      https://archive.ph/LKjdN

    136. Dave S says:

      still not seen anyone provide a half-comprehensive argument as to why we are not a colony.

    137. frank gillougley says:

      Scotland: Not a nation or a country or even a colony but a reservation.

    138. twathater says:

      There is much talk about plebiscite elections and how we must do this or do that , or insist sturgeon and her band of morons include this or exclude that , have I landed on another planet , big jock you commented last night that we must all get behind the snp and vote for them if certain conditions are met, you stated that independence is more important than individual feelings about snp or sturgeon which has merit and is true

      Recently we had the return of schrodingers cat who was all mouth and trousers previously about how sturgeon would do this or that then when he was confronted he slinked off to PayPal Paul with the rest of the sycophants, he now must feel nikla has missed his message of how to get indy

      My question to big jock and other possible future snp voters and plebiscite embracers is PLEASE, genuine question HOW are you going to get this disgusting diseased pervert to LISTEN when you keep voting for the LIES, how many times has she promised indy and fucked us , she and her moronic wokerama perverts are LAUGHING all the way to the bank

      YET certain commenters decry and deride the liberation movement as a bonny purple Heather brigade

    139. orri says:

      There was no new election in Scotland after the Treaty of Union. Obviously because they knew they would lose their seats. However the reason put forward was that Westminster is in effect a joint session of both the Scottish and English Parliaments.
      In fact that’s the reasoning behind the Scottish Grand Committee which sat prior to devolution in order to debate issues unique to Scotland. Also a justification for the idea that a majority of SNP MPs is all that’s needed for independence.
      If our MPs are a continuation of the party that signed the Treaty of Union then they can end it unilaterally.

    140. Robert Louis says:

      Before the English pretendy ‘supreme’ court was established in 2009, their was an interesting letter to the Herald newspaper. This highlights the fact that such a court (the one whose judgements Sturgeon says she respects) would be in complete breach of article 19 of the treaty of union.

      The English dominated pretendy ‘Supreme’ court in London, is wholly and completely unconstitutional and in breach of the treaty of union.

      Those who work in it, and those who defer to it, are either ignorant, or do not care about the so-called union between Scotland and England. Which given yesterday’s nonsense ruling, is somewhat ironic. Especially article 19 of union.

      XIX That the Court of Session, or College of Justice, do, after the Union, and notwithstanding thereof, remain in all time coming within Scotland, as it is now constituted by the laws of that kingdom, and with the same authority and privileges as before the Union, subject, nevertheless, to such regulations, for the better administration of justice, as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain; and that hereafter none shall be named by Her Majesty, or her royal successors, to be ordinary Lords of Session, but such who have served in the College of Justice as advocates, or principal clerks of Session, for the space of five years, or as Writers to the Signet for the space of ten years, with this provision, that no Writer to the Signet be capable to be admitted a Lord of the Session, unless he undergo a private and public trial on the civil law before the Faculty of Advocates, and be found by them qualified for the said office two years before he be name..

      Source https://cranntara.scot/treaty.htm

      The pretendy ‘supreme’ court in England is wholly and completely invalid and has no place judging on Scotland’s rights. How ironic that the SC judgement goes on at length about what is or isn’t consitutional, yet ignores its very own illegitimacy. The SNP have stated they fully respect the ruling, clearly exhibiting a complete lack of knowledge of the treaty of union.

    141. sarah says:

      A clear and brief [3m 30s] explanation of Scotland’s constitutional rights is on Iain Lawson’s blog Yours for Scotland. It is the speech by Leah Gunn Barrett at the Holyrood protest yesterday evening.

      Basically, the Supreme Court has got it wrong because they are “overlooking” the preservation of the Scottish people’s sovereignty by the Treaty and Acts of Union. This Claim of Right is still in force having been confirmed in Westminster 3 times in the last 30 years, and of course by Good King Charles III.

    142. Hatuey says:

      Mike Cassidy, I already have it, on audiobook… it was pretty good, especially on Ireland.

    143. Stoker says:

      sarah says on 24 November 2022 at 5:20 pm @ Doug: “Stewart MacDonald says our campaign is not a liberation struggle…”

      “If only we had Margo MacDonald and Winnie Ewing – they would make mincemeat of him.”

      Indeed, they would! I often wish also that we had those 2 women who front Sinn Fein every time i see them, Mary Lou McDonald and Michelle O’Neill. There would be no playing nicey nicey Marquess of Queensberry politics. Play the English at their own game and you will lose every single time.

      Mary & Michelle are more the political cage-fighter types. Mind you, there was a day long long ago when i held Sturgeon and Mhairi Black in the same regard. Wonder what happened that turned them from being Rottweilers into Dachshunds? Just goes to show how appearances can be deceiving.

    144. Rab Davis says:

      frank gillougley. 6.23pm


      Scotland: Not a nation or a country or even a colony but a reservation.”

      It’s what they done with the Aborigines in Australia and native American Indians,,,send them off to the reservations.

      Scotland could be classed as one huge reservation.

    145. Viscount Ennui says:

      “A NICOLA Sturgeon ally has said a de-facto referendum would be “more likely” to lead to a plebiscite rather than triggering talks to end the Union.”
      https://www.thenational.scot/news/23148508.nicola-sturgeon-ally-win-de-facto-vote-likely-lead-indyref/

    146. Republicofscotland says:

      Right with this section below by the Rev in mind.

      “It is wholly within her power to stand down as First Minister, have the SNP and Greens block the election of a replacement and thereby force a new Holyrood election which could serve as the plebiscite, and would have the considerable benefit of including two demographics (EU citizens and 16/17-year-olds) who statistically favour independence and would be able to vote in a Scottish election but not a UK one.”

      Get E-mailing your SNP MSP or Green MSP if you have one and explain in the E-Mail why we need Nicola Sturgeon to resign for the good of Scotland and how important it is that she does so. So that a Holyrood election will be used as a plebiscite next year and not in two year time.

      Find your SNP/Green MSP here just enter your postcode

      Good Luck.

      https://www.parliament.scot/msps/current-and-previous-msps

    147. Robert Louis says:

      So, based on yesterday’s ruling from the English dominated pretendy court in England.

      If Scotland wants independence, England can say NO

      If Wales wants independence, England can say NO

      However, if England wants independence, they can just carry right on, and don’t even need to consult Scotland, Wales or N.Ireland.

      What an epic, stupid ruling. I do hope those so-called judges don’t get paid very much.

      Scotland and Wales are England’s last colonies. The English court yesterday made that very clear.

    148. Alison Rollo says:

      Can’t help but wonder what Alex Salmond would have done immediately after the SC announcement? Would he have even taken it to the SC or would he have had England take the SC to us?

    149. Garrion says:

      Heh. We’re Schroedinger’s Colony.

    150. Mark C says:

      Ok. This is not wrong.

      What we need though is a plan of action going forward.

    151. Republicofscotland says:

      Mark C.

      Check my 6.44pm comment and if you have a SNP/Green MSP get E-mailing now.

    152. John Main says:

      @Andrea says:24 November, 2022 at 3:30 pm

      Lastly, colonisation by the United Kingdom is a bad thing, but the same by the EU is OK?

      Oh dear Andrea. You won’t make many friends on here (apart from maybes myself), by pointing out that particular elephant in the room.

      But, as it happens, the “Scotland as colony” narrative usefully explains the belief by many that iScotland can’t possibly exist outside of the EU.

      It’s the colonised cringe (too wee, too poor), transferred from the small UK stage to the much bigger European stage.

      Once we recognise it for what it is, we can call for iScotland to be what it says on the tin, independent.

    153. Breeks says:

      BrianSJ says:
      24 November, 2022 at 5:36 pm
      Finally occurred to me; Nikkla needs a job with immunity from prosecution. EC has such jobs, but not sure if the UN has them.

      Foreign Legion. Join to forget.

      With Sturgeon’s capacity to forget stuff, she’d be special forces in no time.

      Probably a bad idea to give her a weapon though.

    154. Stoker says:

      Dan says on 24 November 2022 at 5:49 pm:

      “Re. Westminster trying to frustrate matters or put hurdles were there weren’t previously in relation to Scotland attempting to express itself. There’s also the Referendum Super Majority Bill malarkey going on in Westminster early next year.”

      FFS! This place is really depressing at times. Suppose that’s a price you have to pay if you don’t want to operate blindfolded. Sturgeon truly has sat back and let her London masters turn those screws ever tighter. Hasn’t she!

      I’m not understating anything when i say i never thought i’d see the day when i’d detest a “pro-indy” politician more than i detested Thatcher. At least Thatcher knew exactly what was required for Scottish indy, she’s on record stating as much.

      Dan, i didn’t know anything about that ‘super majority’. That’s so depressing, and it’ll pass, even more depressing. I’d be stunned if it didn’t. Using democracy to prevent true democracy. The Westminster way. (Super angry emoji thing)

      I’m beginning to think our only way out of all this is for a top legal team to take the case to a higher authority. Pro bono! LOL!
      __________

      Talking about legal stuff, folks, here’s an organisation i follow via subscribing to their weekly E-bulletin. There’s usually a lot of interesting articles in it so some of you may want to sign up and follow them too. You need to scroll down to the bottom of this link to sign up to their E-bulletin:
      https://www.siaa.org.uk/

    155. John Main says:

      @Republicofscotland says:24 November, 2022 at 6:44 pm

      Get E-mailing your SNP MSP or Green MSP if you have one and explain in the E-Mail why we need Nicola Sturgeon to resign for the good of Scotland and how important it is that she does so. So that a Holyrood election will be used as a plebiscite next year and not in two year time.

      Care to explain your working RoS?

      In what way does the defenestration of NS lead to the plebiscite next year?

      Maybes it will simply lead to a new leader, put in place via backroom deals with no minutes taken, and happily pursuing business as usual until the current HR term expires.

      More than happy to be proved wrong, so please do so if you can. Thanks.

    156. Dan says:

      @ Stoker

      Ignorance is certainly bliss.
      But spare a thought for those who keep an eye on what’s really going on in Scotland.
      It feels like perma-living this 30 secs clip from the film Airplane…

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm8fYf53SMg

    157. Ruby says:

      Republicofscotland says:

      So that a Holyrood election will be used as a plebiscite next year and not in two year time.

      It might be too difficult for them to figure out how a D’Hondt referendum would work. 🙂

      My MSP would like the idea of Sturgeon resigning. Old Angus is very ambitious and so is his wife?

      Did we every hear the results of any of these police investigations into leak to D.Record. disappearance of referendum funds, perjury during A.Salmond trial etc?

    158. Xaracen says:

      James Che said;
      “Supposing that there has been no completion of the treaty of union because the Scottish parliament closed in 1707.”

      James, you are completely off the base with this line, it has no rational, legal or constitutional basis. The completion was done when both Parliaments ratified the Treaty of Union with their Acts of Union and associated Acts to preserve their religions, and in Scotland’s case, to also preserve the Scottish constitution and sovereignty of its people. There is no doubting that those ratifications happened.

      The ratifications done, neither parliament had any other part to play in any governance of the future United Kingdom of Great Britain because their roles were given over to the Scots MPs allocated to sit in the brand new UK Parliament as the representatives of Scotland, and to the English MPs as representatives of England, for the joint governance of both Kingdoms. And strictly speaking, neither of those old parliaments ever sat again once the new one initiated its first sitting.*

      Even before then, Scottish Parliaments never sat constantly as permanent institutions, as modern ones do; years could go by without one being called by the King or Queen. They were only called into being when the King needed them to do something he couldn’t do by himself. Scotland’s constitution applied limits on both the monarch and the parliament, and still does. So the gap between the last meeting of the Scottish parliament and the inception of the new GB parliament meant nothing. It certainly didn’t mean the Treaty ceased to have authority once the Scottish parliament no longer sat because there was no role for it to play anymore; the ratified Treaty mandated the transfer of its authority to the Scottish representatives in the new GB Parliament, as it also mandated the transfer of the authority of the old English parliament to its representatives, at least in principle if not in practice.

      The ratified Treaty became live on the agreed date of the inception of the new Parliament in May 1707. This was a brand new Parliament created de novo by the Treaty and housed in the palace of Westminster, although it didn’t meet as such until the autumn.

      * In practice the English establishment merely retained the old English Parliament and made space for the small handful of Scots, changed its name and stretched its English constitutional authority up over Scotland. That was due to the arrogant and abusive entitlement of that establishment, which took the view that England had now conquered Scotland with a pen instead of a sword, and as the Speaker of the House at the time declared, ‘We have catched Scotland, and we shall hold her fast.” England’s bad faith already had a long history, and it certainly hasn’t diminished in the slightest since then.

      The so-called joint governance of the two kingdoms never happened, because that would have required the joint agreement of the two Kingdoms’ representatives, and the English establishment had no intention of allowing the Scots MPs to get in the way of whatever that establishment had in mind for Scotland. So what we actually have is joint agreement of only England’s MPs while the Scots MPs might as well not be present because their distinction as the sole representatives of the sovereign Scottish partner is flatly denied, and that is a brazen and direct breach of a fundamental obligation of the Treaty.

      It is that denial of Scotland’s sovereignty as one of the two founders of the UK which is the real reason the Treaty has no legitimacy, but it suits the Westminster establishment to pretend that the Treaty is still current and that it fully authorises the UKP to do anything it likes with Scotland. It is a black lie, and has been for more than 300 long, long years.

      You would be far better off, James, looking into how exactly that grievous actuality came to be, because it has infinitely better odds of being useful.

    159. Republicofscotland says:

      “In what way does the defenestration of NS lead to the plebiscite next year?”

      Main.

      Try reading the article, then the penny might drop.

    160. John Main says:

      @Hatuey says:24 November, 2022 at 5:56 pm

      A lot of people have this simplistic definition of colonialism that involves invaders wading ashore armed with swords and muskets; thereafter, the imaginary victim population is held at gunpoint as their treasure and resources are plundered.

      The historical record reveals very few cases of that actually happening anywhere.

      You must have access to a different historical record to most people then, Hatuey.

      If we look at the Americas, we have the Aztec, Incan and Mayan high civilisations, all destroyed at gun and sword point, their treasures looted, their peoples impoverished and enslaved. Further north, dozens, possibly hundreds of first nation tribes, each of them unique, speaking their own languages, with their own cultures and traditions. Contemptuously lumped together as “red Indians” whilst being herded off their lands.

      Similar bad things happened to the many tribal nations of the Caribbean islands.

      All of this on just one continent.

    161. Republicofscotland says:

      Ruby @7.25pm.

      I’m of the opinion that we gotta ask, if you don’t ask you don’t get, SNP/Green MSPs might ignore the E-mails or give some limp wristed replies in return, but we’ve gotta ask, that way we’ll know for sure where we stand with SNP/Green MSPs.

      Sturgeon was supposedly going to hold an indyref next year, so why not a Holyrood election in its place.

    162. Tinto Chiel says:

      @Sarah 5.20:

      “@ Doug: “Stewart MacDonald says our campaign is not a liberation struggle…”

      Oh my God. If only we had Margo MacDonald and Winnie Ewing – they would make mincemeat of him.”

      I thought the same thing. Seems he cares more about the unmentionable state between Poland and R_____a than Scotland. As one of the “settlers-in” so despised by Winnie he is a prime example of the SNP problem. Margo would have gralloched him for breakfast, incidentally, and then enjoyed a pleasant lunch.

      And as Robert Louis said above @6.34, the very act of a UK “Supreme Court” sitting in judgment on or attempting to qualify Scots Law is in itself a breach of the Treaty of Union. We were promised in 1707 two separate and independent legal systems in Scotland and England. The fact that the legion of house-jocks in the Scottish legal profession have gone along with Blair’s pretendy SC is no defence and is of no significance.

    163. Graham says:

      I hate to even suggest it and it’s certainly clutching at straws, but, might England winning the world Cup help?

      Don’t hate me

    164. Tinto Chiel says:

      @Sarah 5.20:

      “@ Doug: “Stewart MacDonald says our campaign is not a liberation struggle…”

      Oh my God. If only we had Margo MacDonald and Winnie Ewing – they would make mincemeat of him.”

      I thought the same thing. Seems he cares more about the unmentionable state between Poland and R_____a than Scotland. As one of the “s*ttlers-in” so despised by Winnie he is a prime example of the SNP problem. Margo would have gralloched him for breakfast, incidentally, and then enjoyed a pleasant lunch.

      And as Robert Louis said above @6.34, the very act of a UK “Supreme Court” sitting in judgment on or attempting to qualify Scots Law is in itself a breach of the Treaty of Union. We were promised in 1707 two separate and independent legal systems in Scotland and England. The fact that the legion of house-jocks in the Scottish legal profession have gone along with Blair’s pretendy SC is no defence and is of no significance, however infuriating.

    165. Rab Davis says:

      Dildo Main has his fishing rod out.

    166. George Gannon says:

      Hi folk, just watched Alex Salmond do interview with Ponsonby on STV. I’m sorry can’t do links, a bit thick, but maybe one of the ALBA people on here could link it. I got alerted by email from Alba. Listen to it and you can see a giant amongst Pigmy’s. No disrespect to pigmy folk.

    167. wullie says:

      Not so much Englands colony more like Englands colon given the amount of shit the SNP has made us take from them.

    168. JUDGMENT
      REFERENCE by the Lord Advocate of devolution issues
      under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act
      1998

      before

      Lord Reed, President Scottish
      Lord Lloyd-Jones Welsh
      Lord Sales English ?
      Lord Stephens Northern Irish ?
      Lady Rose English

      JUDGMENT GIVEN ON
      23 November 2022

    169. Hackalumpoff says:

      @ Tinto, Sarah etc
      We still have Salmond, see interview here.

      Hope this link work youtu.be/HPdDs5NhUD4

    170. John Main says:

      @Republicofscotland says:24 November, 2022 at 7:28 pm

      Main.

      Try reading the article, then the penny might drop.

      I already read the article.

      So I read it again. Here’s a direct quote:

      It is wholly within her power to stand down as First Minister, have the SNP and Greens block the election of a replacement and thereby force a new Holyrood election which could serve as the plebiscite

      OK, so after years of posting about NS’s tractor status, you suddenly think she could/should/will sacrifice herself for the good of Scotland. And the rank-and-file SNP/Green troughers will jeapordise their income streams in sympathy.

      I thought it was just yet another call from you for her to go. No ifs, no buts, no delay.

      You (and Rev Stu) of course have a point. But I think I do also. She could be booted out as untenable by the party, a new FM put in via the same class of fix that gave us Sunak, and then it will be business as usual until January 2025.

    171. Breeks says:

      https://news.stv.tv/politics/alex-salmond-calls-for-snp-greens-and-alba-to-unite-for-independence-at-next-general-election

      This is excellent. Credit to Alex Salmond, and Bernard Ponsonby was excellent too I thought…

      18 minutes, but well spent.

      Apologies to whoever I lifted the link from, seem to closed that page and not sure where it was, but thank you.

    172. JB says:

      From the referenced legislation, a SP Election can be avoided if the King appoints a FM, (46(3)b after the ‘or’).

      So if say upon advice of the PM, the King appoints the Scottish Labour Leader as FM, what happens?

      Equally we have the case of the King refusing to accept a tendered FM resignation, possibly on the advice of the PM…

    173. Republicofscotland says:

      Right GET E-MAILING NOW.

      Right with this section below by the Rev in mind.

      “It is wholly within her power to stand down as First Minister, have the SNP and Greens block the election of a replacement and thereby force a new Holyrood election which could serve as the plebiscite, and would have the considerable benefit of including two demographics (EU citizens and 16/17-year-olds) who statistically favour independence and would be able to vote in a Scottish election but not a UK one.”

      Get E-mailing your SNP MSP or Green MSP if you have one and explain in the E-Mail why we need Nicola Sturgeon to resign for the good of Scotland and how important it is that she does so. So that a Holyrood election will be used as a plebiscite next year and not in two year time.

      Find your SNP/Green MSP here just enter your postcode

      Good Luck.

      https://www.parliament.scot/msps/current-and-previous-msps

    174. Big Jock says:

      Colonialism usually involves cultural erosion and brainwashing of natives.

      We have had a gradual destruction of our unique Scottish culture since 1707. In the old days the toffs were educated in Scotland, and actually had Scottish accents. Now they grow up like Alistair Jack with estuary English accents and Cambridge educations.

      In Sport Andy Murray had to give up his Scottishness to be accepted. He took a knighthood and happily runs about with Union flags. Our athletes have to compete under the English flag and anthem.

      Our media are run from London. Our universities are rammed with majority English lecturers and some with majority English students. Our young people are going to Uni to be educated by English professors.

      We had the Queens death take over every TV channel. Our commonwealth games run from London.

      The World Cup commentary is English.

      We have the annual poppy day celebration of the empire.

      Even our pubs are taken over by English companies like Green King and Wotherspoons.

      All these things and many more have led to the destruction of Scottish culture and colonial mindsets.

      We the 50% are the ones determined to keep Scotland alive. The other 50% have sold their country and culture out. They are the colonists. As far as I am concerned. If you don’t want Scottish independence, then you are a plastic Jock.

      We will not go gently into the night.

    175. Mark Smith says:

      James Che, you are talking nonsense again. There is no longer a sovereign Scottish Parliament or a sovereign English Parliament. There is now a sovereign British/UK Parliament.

    176. sarah says:

      @ Republicofscotland: Your suggestion of emailing SNP/Green MSPs to ask them to persuade the FM to resign in order to force a Holyrood election is a very good idea.

      I may have lost their good will, however, with my emails yesterday telling them to resign because they are complicit in the FM’s failure to progress independence in the last 8 years!!

    177. Rab Davis says:

      O/T

      Watching Brazil game, and some English prick of a commentator says,,,

      “Well so far I’ve not seen anything in the tournament that should worry England. There’s nothing to stop them going all the way.”

      Jesus fuck,,,the tournament has just started. No wonder you take great delight when the arrogant bastards get kicked out on their arses.

      Those English accents are one pain in the arse as well,,,I try using subtitles.

    178. Viscount Ennui says:

      I hope that this is permitted, but it is a genuine question.

      What % of WoS contributors believe that NS is compromised in her position as FM? By which I mean, that she is deliberately conflicting her stated ambition with her true ambition.

    179. Dave S says:

      @andrea

      ask the people of fife if they feel themselves to be a nation, or even a ‘people’. im from fife. i can tell you we dont feel that way. we are scots. so we can’t be colonised by scotland.

      I think you are just playing devils advocate or something.

      Now, big jock above completely and unequivocally outlined exactly why we are colonised. If thats not a good enough reason to convince people that we are, yet you still agree with what big jock says (which is demonstrably true), then i don’t know what to tell you.

    180. Big Jock says:

      Nicola has stated she wants to serve all of Scotland. What she forgets, is that only 50% of Scotland elected her. The majority being nationalists.

      So in serving the unionists, she ignores the very people who put her in her position. What she hopes to achieve by this, is beyond comprehension.

    181. Ruby says:

      Breeks says:
      24 November, 2022 at 7:59 pm

      https://news.stv.tv/politics/alex-salmond-calls-for-snp-greens-and-alba-to-unite-for-independence-at-next-general-election

      This is excellent. Credit to Alex Salmond, and Bernard Ponsonby was excellent too I thought…

      Thanks for that Breeks. Agreed that was excellent.

      My feeling has always been that Sturgeon & the SNP have done nothing to get us a section 30.

      It was interesting to hear Alex Salmond confirm it.

      I could listen to Alex Salmond all day Sturgeon on the other hand I can’t listen to for even 10 seconds.

      There is absolutely no chance of me going to any protests/meetings that include Sturgeon or any member of the SNP.

    182. Big Jock says:

      Andrea how the fuck does the EU even compare to direct rule from London!

      Do our TV channels come via Strasbourg. Do our newspapers get published in Brussels. Are EU citizens running our universities and businesses?

      Are our interest rates set from Brussels.Is it the EU telling us we can’t have a referendum.

      Did the EU insist on covering our buildings in their flags? Did they force a nationality on us?

      Are our arts run by Spanish and French. Do all our exports get credited to Brussells.

      Is it the EU telling us we are not a nation.

      The UK is and always was sovereign. Its Scotland that isn’t sovereign, and that has bugger all to do with the EU.

    183. Dave S says:

      it stings a bit when you see Salmond talking so much sense, and with thought. Then you switch on the telly to hear Sturgeon and co parroting on their feeble excuses. Its disrespectful to the people of Scotland.

    184. Republicofscotland says:

      Sarah.

      I was hoping for a deluge of E-Mails to SNP/Green MSPs that might trigger the conscience of some of them, and that it might be catching, it only takes a couple of minutes to E-Mail your MSP SNP/Green that is.

      We found out yesterday that our nation (Scotland) is a prisoner in this so called union, and that according to Westminster we cannot begin to find a way out of it without their permission, which as we all know will never be forthcoming.

      Sturgeon is our FM we elected her to do Scotland’s bidding, to put the welfare of its people and our country before anything else, she has failed miserably, and I was hoping that maybe, some of her MSPs might ignite a fire in the bellies of the rest and redeem themselves there’s still time for them to do the right thing, by calling for Sturgeon to resign and trigger a Holyrood election that will be ran as a plebiscite.

      We know SNP MSPs read the Rev’s excellent articles, I say to them there’s still time to do the right thing, to save Scotland and its people, you know what needs to be done put self-interest and the party aside and think of our country, we need you to do the right thing.

    185. sarah says:

      @ Hackalumpoff: thanks for the Ponsonby interview. Class act on both their parts compared with the rest of the “interviewers”.

    186. sarah says:

      Republicofscotland: “hoping for a deluge of emails to MSPs..might trigger their conscience…calling for the FM to resign and trigger a Holyrood election run as a plebiscite..”

      I hope for the deluge, too, and will certainly email my Green/SNP MSPs.

    187. Stoker says:

      Aye! Despite Rev debunking this sort of crystal ball bullshit many moons ago the BritNats have started spewing it out all over again.

      Newly independent Scotland would see living standards decline, academic warns
      https://archive.ph/RDZwE

      aca who? Goodnight, Troops, sleep well.

    188. Hatuey says:

      Actually, John Main, I’d be interested to know what books on the colonisation of the Americas you had read. Most that I have read make clear that disease killed more natives than Spanish swords — significantly more (so many more that Spanish swords are hardly worth mentioning).

      In terms of conquest, every major milestone you care to mention, from say the domination of Aztec Mexico to the expansion north and south, accounting for about 100 years of history, relied completely on cooperation with local factions and their willingness to supply labour and warriors, and would not have happened otherwise.

      Cortes is a good example. The army he led into Mexico consisted of a few hundred conquistadors and tens of thousands of native warriors. There’s conflicting accounts of that story and good evidence to suggest it was far from the Machiavellian success most lazy historians would have us believe… ‘a comedy of blunders and errors’ seems a more accurate description — see Matthew Restall’s “When Montezuma met Cortes”.

      The ultimate colonisation over decades that put most of south, central, and good parts of North America into Spanish hands, depended more on an influx of settlers than combat; something like half a million from Spain and Portugal in the 100 years after Columbus.

      That overwhelming settler invasion, combined with disease which wiped out millions, did most of the heavy lifting — not violence, although Europeans were typically violent and cruel too.

      You can’t generalise much about colonisation though. Every case is unique, including ours.

    189. Viscount Ennui says:

      WTF???
      They were never preparing for a referendum, were they?

      Sam Taylor
      @staylorish
      ·
      3h
      Scot Gov’s slapdash attitude exposed yet again. I asked for: modelling of the potential increased transaction costs to consumers & businesses due to an independent Scotland having a different currency to rUK

      FOI response: we don’t have that, & we never even discussed doing it.

    190. Derek says:

      “Breeks says:
      24 November, 2022 at 7:11 pm

      Probably a bad idea to give her a weapon though.”

      That’s ok, she probably self-identifies as one. Or a spangle, at least…

    191. John WALSH says:

      We are phuqued . Sturgeon has neither the intellect or the testicular fortitude to take on England. Surrounded by woohoo sycophants rather than strategists.
      The idea of a Holyrood plebiscite makes sense, but add in specific WM MP’s to stand in seats a stronger Parliament with better talent. Ie Philippa Whitford for Health
      .Others in key positions. If they lose they still keep their WM seat so no financial loss for 2 years.
      Can be MP’s and MSP’s ( Dross) so can’t be argued.
      Win a majority of seats on the Scotland is a colony ticket.

      a high-risk tactic. But In 1320 Robert the Bruce sent an emissary to Rome bearing a
      ‘Letter from the barons and freeholders, and the whole community of the kingdom of Scotland to Pope John XXII’ ,
      better known as the Declaration of Arbroath, asking the Pope to recognise Scottish sovereignty.
      Originally in Latin, it is one of the most rousing documents ever written in support of a nation’s freedom, It details the ancient history of the Scottish people and lists the oppressive activities of the English.
      At its heart is the following defiant, stirring and justly famous section:
      ‘ for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.’

      Maybe the UN and other International friends instead of the pope but we are waiting for a Hero.to oust the Sturgeon’s clique .
      The Colonial press would shit themselves.

    192. James Che says:

      Xaracen.

      How do you round the square,

      The english parliament ratified the Scottish parliaments side of of the treaty of the union in 1706 english Calendar in 1706.

      The Scottish parliament agreed to the treaty of the union in 1707, and ratified the english side of the treaty in 1707. Scottish Calendar which was in keeping with most of the rest of europe at that time.
      As the Two Calendars were not synchronised until years later, Westminster ratified Scotland Scotlands side of the treaty of the union prior to Scotland agreeing.
      Thats one point.

      A second point which you mention was the completion of the treaty was done when both parliaments ratified the treaty of union and associated Acts,

      After these ratifications were done neither parliament had any other part to play in any governance of the future united kingdom of great Britain
      The english parliament in Westminster was in session prior to1707, and did not end the english Old Wedtminster parliament session until 1708.
      Meanwhile the British parliament officially opened in 1707.
      The English parliament was the British parliament of the united kingdom, there was no election to elect New British parliament members in 1707 from the english old parliament.
      The Westminster English parliament of 1706/1707 entered successively without break into the British parliament and without the Scottish parliament,

      As the Uk state on their site 2022 that by Agreeing to the treaty of the union the Scottish parliament had extinguished itself in 1707.

      This raises the question after the articles and ratifications were signed, and the Scottish parliament closed its doors in 1707 as was agreed.
      But the english Westminster parliament broke its word and signiture promise as it entered an became the British parliament on its own.

      The English Westminster parliament breeched the treaty of union before it had become the joint parliaments ( Scotland & England, respectively) of Britain.

      The 1707 Scottish parliament however, was extinguished by the ratifications and never entered the British parliament as active joint parliaments.

      The treaty does not exist other than the prior old english parliament entered the new British parliament on it own as the English Westminster parliament in the same building

      It cannot be honestly claimed that neither parliament had any other part to play in the governance of the future United Kingdom.
      As the english parliament was still in Session when it amended the Treason Act in 1708 for all of Britain,

      That was a english parliament still in session altering the laws of Scotland .
      Which it was not meant to alter even if it not breeched the treaty by entering the British parliament as the english parliament on its own.

    193. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Note the words in the dictionary definition you have offered: ‘and occupied by settlers from that country’.”

      Preceded by “typically”, meaning “not necessarily”. Also, please define “occupied”. What percentage population qualifies as occupation? How many German soldiers occupied France?

      (I am OF FUCKING COURSE not drawing a parallel between those things, merely seeking clarification of your definition.)

    194. James Che says:

      Xaracen.

      With this information that the old english parliament continued its parliamentary session from before the treaty of the union until 1708 and into the new british parliament.

      I Have a question for you,

      Due The Scottish parliament closing its doors in Scotland in 1707, it has not reconvened right up to todays date.

      For three hundred years there can be no Scottish parliament representatives from Scotland in Westminster.

      According to Westminster parliament site 2022 the Scottish parliament was extinguished in 1707. Where do you presume Westminster have Scottish parliament representatives from sitting in Westminster to day?

      Perhaps the Westminster english parliament is plucking them from the trees on our behalf,

    195. The Oui Coupar says:

      Crowd at Inverurie was nothing like 250 suggested earlier in this thread. However good to see Salmond with a spring in his step. He did make a few points which were repeated in the Ponsonby interview. Seemed a bit like the questions were well conjured up between the pair of them.
      I’m lately finding with my SNP supporting acquaintances that hatred of English Tories is the source of blindness to Sturgeon’s shortcomings. We need some more Ponsonbys to get it through to Indy supporters that “she” will never get them to the promised land. Glenn Campbell is a half wit. Or he’s only allowed to use half a wit.

    196. Derek says:

      Or a half-stoned cowboy, to quote the birthday boy.

    197. Daisy Walker says:

      I put the crowd numbers at a healthy 200 at Perth… and it was a group that stayed the full 2 hours.

      The photos of Glasgow and Edinburgh look a healthy turn out also.

      Given we’ve had weeks of pissing rain, and snell wind to chill the bones… AND… the events were all over and not singled on one city… I’d say, and I felt, it was a positive turn out.

      Not to mention the cost of petrol at the moment and Christmas coming up… lot of folk only using the car for essential journeys just now.

      I saw many auld faces, from the SNP, returning to the frae, and getting back in the campaign saddle, more than a few told me they were angry.

      They are still SNP, they have not and may never see Nikla in the same way I do. But, I get the feeling they are not prepared to hang about any more and will campaign. AND they are determined to stand united for Indy, even with the enfant terrible that is Alba.

      They were clear, that the SC has clarified Scotland is an English Colony…. and Plebiscite Election is now the way to go.

      Compared to where we were a few years ago, it is bad, and if I had a choice, I certainly wouldn’t start from here.

      But here we are.

      On a positive note, all the difficult stuff re currency etc… Alba have done and produced in the WAB.

      Where we are in 2 months time, when Nikla works her ‘magic’ on this momentum is unlikely to be good. But one step at a time.

    198. Taxi for Sturgeon says:

      Brilliant read. Summed up perfectly. That picture of Graham Campbell and Anne McLaughlin and some more gravy train lovvies is why we’re are not making the right Indy decisions under queen sturgeon. It’s all a big crony tea party and the disturbing thing is, sturgeon sycophants are happy to keep promoting for it and vehemently defend their queen

    199. Maxxmacc says:

      I’m not trying to be overtly negative, but anyone who thinks the wider world cares about Scottish independence is sorely mistaken. Even our First Minister and her representatives aren’t that bothered.

      Look at the Catalonian vote – it was 90pc ‘yes’, but did it deliver independence? Nope, because the Americans weren’t interested. Even if we had 90pc in favour, nothing would happen unless the Yanks were keen, as they control the ball game.

      It sounds a bit weird, but if we removed NS and adopted a plan to leave Westminster in favour of becoming an American state, it might actually gain some traction.

      We will only be released from Westminster’s grip by a more powerful hand. As much as i detest the American state, at least we might get a fairer say in our lives, and plan a future free from the stranglehold that London has upon us.

    200. Shuggy says:

      Your quote of a “heat of the moment” channel 4 opinion poll sums up the issue facing the UK government. If they hand over the choice of holding future referenda to the SNP, what will happen?

      Will the SNP choose their moment? Perhaps during a recession to take full advantage of people’s drop in living standards? Certainly not when the economy is booming, people would vote to stay in the Union. And if the referendum fails to get independence, run another as soon as it is convenient (i.e. wait for another recession, etc). That is not democracy, it is manipulation of the masses.

      Besides if this portrayal of the “colonisers” was correct, they would never have granted a referendum in 2014. Why did they do that?

    201. Confused says:

      dead right maxxmacc; I have tried to explore such themes in many of my posts.

      “realpolitik” – how the world really works and the art of getting things done, which is rarely about truth and justice and right; it is a dirty game where you need to be a pessimist, a cynic, a skeptic, paranoiac and ruthlessly pragmatic, comfortable with doing deals and occasionally, tactical compromise.

      The UK deep state is our true opponent and it has at its disposal the full power of a modern technological state; sure the UK may be falling to bits, but there is always money for weapons, spying and the tech necessary for it. It’s vastly more powerful than we are, and if they want they can shut us down like that – unless someone stops them. And they don’t give a shit about democratic rights to self determination, that’s just empty words teenagers write in their modern studies essays; bullshit no one really believes in.

      So, you need someone more powerful to back you, the only candidate for which is the US; NB the only way we can get indy is if the US, at the very least, decides to stay neutral and is a guarantor of fair play; the UK is a master of dirty tricks but would never cross the americans, not since Suez, where they got slapped down for their imperialist games.

      For example – this means, much as I despise it, we need to be in NATO (I mean, you don’t just give it up, you negotiate), because the USA remains, for some time yet, the dominant world power, we in their sphere of influence, in a strategic position, with a lot of US business interests; Lockheed and JP Morgan are here. They only care about “doing business” and actually treat the UK with contempt.

      We could negate the UK hard power, with the right friends; back in 2016 I suggested cultivating a half-Scottish golf-nut who had become President – now, the man was a loathsome boor, but so what? – the world is full of absolute cunts, are you going to wait until you like everyone before you do business? The art of diplomacy is about getting what you want from people you don’t like, that don’t like you either.

      – this was not well-received, to put it mildly.

      The last person to kick the heads in of the UK deep state was Harold Wilson (and it was a close thing) – he did secret deals with the US to support the pound as the city threatened to create a bank run, i.e. financial warfare. Wilson was notoriously clever, a different league from almost all current leaders (Salmond is a big Wilson buff) – keeping the UK bases open east of Suez was the price, but also in the deal was – no British troops went to Vietnam; “collateral damage” was the Chagos Islanders, who lost their home.

      – see what a dirty business it is; Wilson is a “good guy”, but he shit all over those people, who did not deserve it.

      Wilson’s cleverness and political success held off the hyper aggressive new religion “neoliberalism” (which was being formulated just then) for about a decade. Not that Wilson was in any way a friend of Scottish independence, but I am talking about how he played “the game” – you got something I want, I got something you want, whats in it for me, etc.

      Catalonia – everyone’s lovely little guys – we see a lot of the bella crowd going nuts for the catalans, they are just so righton, so good, so progressive; now, not saying this is right since I don’t read that much about them, because frankly I don’t care … but it seems to me they thought they would “do their thing” and the EU would come in for them against Spain. The EU did nothing; it has no hard power, it has nothing – you can tell the EU to fuckoff, they have nothing – Orban does it all the time.

      – but there is something even dirtier; there had been a debt crisis, and supposedly the Spanish had “worked out a deal” with the EU, and Catalonia was the richest part of Spain, producing the highest revenue. So, not only did the EU have no power, they had a vested interest in supporting Spain. Now, I hope this is -wrong- because it makes the catalans look dumb and naive, but – that’s what I heard.

      On the flipside, the oppositie of righteous, we have the narco-terror phoney country, Kosovo, which exists just because the USA thought it was a good idea.

      And back to ?1947, when the jewish s3ttl3rs made their takeover of Palestine, no one really knew what to make of it – but the americans came in very early and recognised “Israel”. Some people say this was down to 2 million dollars in cash that was given to Harry Truman when his election campaign was failing. Favour for favour.

      Geopolitics is more akin to gangsterism than anything else; priggish appeals to “international law” for example, really bore me; international law can be powerful, with the righteous force of the almighty – when the US is behind it, and as weak as a puppy’s fart when they are not.

      I dont see indy as the “end goal” – it is merely the beginning of something good; but we need to win. Rid yourself of Pollyanna-thinking, and do the opposite; assume the worst is true and act on that basis.

    202. Scott says:

      Confused says:
      25 November, 2022 at 2:12 am

      dead right maxxmacc; I have tried to explore such themes in many of my posts.

      That’d be nice with some gravy n peas.

    203. James says:

      Too many Rangers fans who will blindly vote pro Union because that’s what they think they should do.

    204. FionaN says:

      I have no snp msps or MP, and only one green. Last night I emailed every one of them, tories and labour and green, requesting that they demand Sturgeons resignation at Holyrood on the grounds of her serial failures. I listed 11 failures ranign from ferries fiasco, to failure to mitigate their WM colleagues’ life-threatening policies to her failure to take her referendum permission petition to our own highest court, the Court of Session, but instead went to the illegal supreme court in england to have her country declared a colony. No replies of course. I also pointed out that I have been snp supporter and activist all my life. I hope that if they do raise the question of turdgeons resignation, that they can also point out that she is alienating her own one-time support.

      I dont know if it was the right thing to do to hand enemies of indy ammo to attack the snp, but I hope that it might make some of her snp dependents think about where she is leading them and what the consequences will be of losing activist support and membership.

    205. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      ” A NICOLA Sturgeon ally has said a de-facto referendum would be “more likely” to lead to a plebiscite rather than triggering talks to end the Union.

      Mhairi Hunter, who is the organiser for the First Minister’s SNP branch in Glasgow, said a victory for pro-Yes parties in the next General Election would not necessarily begin separation negotiations – but could be the basis for a referendum.”

      And further up the side street we are taken…

      https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenational.scot%2Fnews%2F23148508.nicola-sturgeon-ally-win-de-facto-vote-likely-lead-indyref%2F

    206. Iain mhor says:

      The ruling was legislatively correct – they could only rule on what was in front of them -the additional comments are drivel of course.

      The whole UK constitutional and legal aparatus operates on drivel though, so even their comment is in keeping with it.

      Tomkins (and the plethora of other ‘constitutional lawyers’) is well aware of this – otherwise they’d have nothing to debate about skinning cats otherwise.

      Off the top of my head such skinnings include:

      UK legislature derives its legitimacy directly from the “Crown” (which one?) because beyond the old ‘Extinguished’ trope, it requires the ‘Suzerainty’ trope as well – The English Crown claims Suzerainty over the Scots Crown.

      The “Crown” has never claimed that publically (if anything, the opposite) Scotland has direct representation to the Scots Crown and not just via a Privy Council – (refer Her Maj’s opening speech to Hoyrood for a flavour of that) – so just ask away anything you like to clear it up.

      Or *cough ‘instruct’ the Scots Crown

      Or, if Scotland is not a Colony, or a Country, you could claim the Federated Dominion route and have the Statute of Westminster 1931 (a la Balfour Declaration 1926) folded in to your crippling Scotland Act(s) and with a bound be free.

      The Scotland Act(s) is basically just a copypasta of the India Act 1935 before the Statute of Westminster was incorporated.

      (India Act 1935, Part V Chapter 2 Section 108 (2) – Legislative Powers)

      “…there shall not be introduced into, or moved in, either Chamber of the Federal Legislature, any Bill or amendment which…repeals, amends or is repugnant to any provisions of any Act of Parliament extending to British India’ etc.

      But that changed after Balfour and the ‘Statute’ was folded in:

      “No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion shall be void, or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the Law of England, or…any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom…the powers of the Parliament of a Dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of the Dominion”

      That power to “Act” India used in short order!

      (NB. India Act 1935 was only removed from UK statute in 1998 – in case more copypasta was need anent Scotland probably and maybe they just couldn’t let go of India)

      Anyway that’s an aside –
      Republic is another good one.

      Everyone from the Irish Free State to South Africa and beyond knows that – No monarchy/ rejection of same = no UK legislation runs.

      I think the last Wings poll showed 50% in favour of Scotland retaining the monarchy – that was a long time ago though and things have changed a lot. Be interested what a new poll of Scots would say

      Relatedly, Australia and other Commonwealths shit their trousers in 2014 because they all know this truth:

      The legitimacy of all UK legislation is derived directly from the “Crown” – without it (more importantly defining it)
      they would have been plunged into a constitutional & legislative nightmare which could only be resolved (if at all) by the ‘Crown’ itself.

      tl;dr Which Crown is ‘Crown in Right’ in X country.

      The last time there was anything of that magnitude was Eddie the 8th & the the ‘Succession of the Crown’ shenanigans- how they all got their panties in a bunch over that!

      tl;dr The collective ‘Commonwealth had to weigh on the ‘Crown’ succession and UK legislation because… “Crown in Right”

      Anyway, rambled enough – there is more than one way to skin a cat indeed and being familiar with any of the above, makes you as competent as Tomkins and the rest to call yourself a “constitutional lawyer’

    207. Xaracen says:

      James, re your first point;

      “Westminster ratified Scotland’s side of the treaty of the union prior to Scotland agreeing.”

      No, it did not! Chronologically, Scotland’s Parliament ratified the Treaty seven weeks before the English Parliament did. You have confused the years.

      In Scotland the year 1707 began on January 1st, whereas in England the year 1707 started on 25th March.

      The Scottish Parliament ratified the Treaty via its Act of Union on the 16th of January 1707. But in England that same day was 16th January 1706. Seven weeks later the English Parliament ratified the Treaty via its own Act of Union on the 6th March, which was still in 1706 in England, but 1707 in Scotland.

      Circle thoroughly squared.

      Re your second point;

      “the completion of the treaty was done when both parliaments ratified the treaty of union and associated Acts.

      After these ratifications were done neither parliament had any other part to play in any governance of the future united kingdom of great Britain”

      And neither did. The authorities of both those parliaments passed to the new GB parliament, each parliament’s authority passed to their representatives as MPs of the Parliament of Great Britain. That Parliament was never supposed to consist of two distinct sub-parliaments under the hood.

      Re your third point;

      “The english parliament in Westminster was in session prior to 1707, and did not end the english Old Westminster parliament session until 1708.”

      The brand new UK Parliament of Great Britain acquired formal authority on the 1st of May 1707, but it didn’t meet as such until October 1707. At that point the English Parliament clearly ceased to have any legitimate authority anywhere, but it shouldn’t have had any authority anyway from the 1st of May. I’m not aware that the English Parliament passed any legislation between those dates, so maybe it didn’t really matter, but it could be considered an indication of how little respect it gave to the Treaty even at that point.

      Because the new parliament replaced the two old parliaments, neither of them had any continuing authority and no reason to exist beyond the 1st of May 1707, and were expected to abolish themselves. In the event, however, neither did so in any formal manner. The Scottish one was under siege from rioters outside its doors and its members fled and never met again, so no formal shutdown took place; town criers were sent out to announce the prorogation of the Scottish parliament instead.

      The English parliament never had any intention of abolishing itself, it just renamed itself the new Parliament of Great Britain and adopted all the new powers that came with that name. It still boasts about its ‘unbroken continuity of 800 years’.

      “The English Westminster parliament breeched the treaty of union before it had become the joint parliaments ( Scotland & England, respectively) of Britain.”

      Agreed.

      Everything else you’ve said after that is just unsupported and obvious blethers, sorry to be so blunt about it.

    208. James Che says:

      The old english parliament session entered the new British parliament until 1708,
      The Scottish parliament and its session closed in 1707.

      You have one officially closed parliament ( Scotland) that was extinguished before the new official opening of the parliament of UK of Britain parliament opened.

      Not my words Xaracen, these are the words on the UK parliament site 2022.

    209. James Che says:

      Xaracen,

      As is shown by dates of session and the UK parliament site 2022, the english Westminster parliament was not replaced by the New British parliament, rather the english Westminster parliament simply slipped into the head position of being the New British parliament by default of not ending its session in Westminster parliament in 1707
      And not electing new members for the new British parliament in 1707,

      They were to all intent and purposes legally or other wise the same old Westminster English Parliament and members as before the treaty of union.

    210. James Che says:

      Xaracen,

      “Without two distinct parliament under the hood”

      “Without two distinct active parliament under the hood” there is no treaty of the union.

    211. James Che says:

      Xaracen,

      Indeed.totally agree with you
      The english Westminster parliament has continued for 800 years. As they rightfully boast. Not cancelled,

      The UK parliament site in 2022 however also boasts that the Scottish parliament ended by Agreeing to the treaty of the union,
      NOT by being active in the New British parliament,
      and the old 1707 Scotland closed parliament therefore cannot have Scottish representatives from a extinguished parliament inWestminster today.

    212. James Che says:

      By dissecting history we discover that the English parliament has been continued in Westminster parliament for 800 years. ( ie ) is the British parliament.

      The 1707 Scottish parliament was extinguished officially from the treaty of the union (by) Agreeing to the treaty of the union, (see) UK parliament site 2022.

      It could not enter the new British parliament in its official capacity.

      The Scottish parliament sits in Scotland under “Sine Die” Scots law.
      But is cancelled and extinguished in England from the parliamentary treaty of union of the British parliaments According to the statements of the UK parliament site 2022.

      The British parliament is still the English parliament of old for the past 800 years with no union of parliaments have taken place,
      Hence the conclusion that the articles and Acts of the treaty of union were not completed in the manner promised by Westminster parliament of cancelling both the Scottish and English parliaments of old to create a new union of both parliaments into the British/ UK parliament.

      England is in Westminster parliament and the the treaty of non union on its own.

    213. James Che says:

      Xaracen,

      The Scottish parliament is not in the treaty of parliament union as it was supposed to be when the Acts were ratified.
      When one parliament is extinguished, (Scotland) and the other parliament continued (England).

      there can be no treaty of union, it cannot legally be recognised or a completed treaty that was signitured as the treaty of union of parliaments as did not fulfill its acts or articles by the Westminster parliament then or now.

      This is why my conclusion is the British/ UK parliament is solely a english parliament ruling Scotland under a mythical treaty of union of parliaments that never happened,

      The promise of a union happened, but the real event did not take place of a union of parliaments, it never came to pass.

      And no union between Scotland and Englands parliaments. Just a english westminster parliament Colonising Scotland by deceit for Three hundred years.

    214. Liz says:

      Alison Rollo says:
      24 November, 2022 at 6:56 pm
      Can’t help but wonder what Alex Salmond would have done immediately after the SC announcement? Would he have even taken it to the SC or would he have had England take the SC to us?

      You can see here what his thoughts on this whole sorry debacle is:

      https://news.stv.tv/politics/alex-salmond-calls-for-snp-greens-and-alba-to-unite-for-independence-at-next-general-election?fbclid=IwAR37Q-FLlJvZr5FTIgxezmhdWcpLma2mP5_QhueukGczUl9R3Ljs9Q3nvhs

    215. James Che says:

      Liz,

      Thanks for the info and the links, that helps many others learning.

      I wonder what AS thinks about a English continued parliament for 800 years.
      But a extinguished Scottish parliament in 1707,

      I may get in touch with him over the next week or so.

    216. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Besides if this portrayal of the “colonisers” was correct, they would never have granted a referendum in 2014. Why did they do that?”

      Because support was at 30% and they thought they’d win a crushing victory and put the issue to bed.



    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