Step One
Today’s Sunday Mail leads for the second weekend in a row on questions about the finances of Yes Scotland.
But there’s a paragraph in the online version of the story that doesn’t make the print edition, and it’s a shame, because it’s a very telling one.
This is it, from Yes Scotland’s former marketing director Ian Dommett:
And unfortunately, until the rest of the SNP’s voters join the 414,000 who walked away from the party between the 2021 and 2026 Holyrood elections and contrive to somehow get that key realisation into their thick heads, Scotland will never take a single step closer to independence.
The SNP’s entire reason for existence now is failing to win independence. Failure is what protects their wages and their power. No government as incompetent as this one wins elections on its record. The moment independence was achieved, the Scottish electorate would give someone else a chance at actually running the country after 20+ years of the same party in charge, and the SNP cannot allow that to happen.
Sadly, if even this sort of thing (from The National on Tuesday):
isn’t enough to wake up the loyal, tribal dunderheads, it’s likely that nothing will be.
And on we’ll limp, year after year, in ever-shrinking circles, going nowhere.
The article is excellent. Is there hope our supine press are finally waking up ? Also, the last point that corruption is not a revolution but creeps in got me looking up an old source. The dictators handbook is the reference I think. It explains how these things proceed not as a major takeover but slow, step-by-step, until all is corrupted to the will of the dictator. The SNP exist only for themselves and have created a Scotland further from independence than when they came to power. And in that time they have enriched themselves at our expense. The country needs to wake up (probably too late for another four plus years sadly)
Good wee article, I particularly appreciated the link to Paul Sinclair’s article. It was balanced and accurate.
“And on we’ll limp, year after year, in ever shrinking circles, going nowhere.” BUT, Rev, political parties are not essential to restoring Scotland’s independence. They can help, indeed it would be easier if they were the driving force provided that they were well-supported, but they are not the necessary pre-condition e.g. Bolsheviks were a minority; Estonia got independence without a party in government.
The “Hillsborough Law” might just be one of the straws that breaks the camels back… Just hope it can be applied retroactively. And includes substantial jail time for public servants failing their duties of honesty and accountability… might put the wind up a few around the snap, the copfs and the polis. Here’s hoping!
I was listening to Robin McAlpine video below, He was saying a lot.
We’ve had 12yrs of the SNP dismantling the Independence movement and moving us all on.
I agree with both Wings and Robin that the SNP support isn’t going to be enough come 2031 and the SNP and Greens will not be able to win another Holyrood election and then its another ten years before change can happen if we have a political party wanting it to happen which we don’t.
But the SNP made it perfectly clear a super SNP majority wins a referendum that’s what was on offer. So why should any PM accept anything different, the SNP set the condition and they got the 2026 result they wanted.
All of the people placed in Holyrood in 2026 have been bought and sold their dream of Independence to become a MSP and there isn’t one of them who’s ever going to delivery on what they promised during the election a referendum.
The SNP has killed Scottish Independence and the supporters who have a blind faith in the SNP in the coming years are going to realize what a huge mistake they have made.
The Tory’s have been saying since 2017 that the SNP don’t want a referendum but no one would listen and Peter Wishart was talking about 2026 is when we should go for a referendum and this was before 2021 so now we are in 2026 its now 2031 and will continue until we remove the SNP.
Its time to STOP calling people from England EnglsihScots and saying the SNP is a Nationalist party for Scottish Independence their not and arguing to rejoin the EU without given people a vote isn’t on.
The only hope for Scotland is the next Westminster election. The one thing and its only thing people need to get through their think head is the SNP will never deliver Independence.
So in the next Westminster election we are going to need to either not vote or vote for an Unionist party to remove all SNP MP’s from Westminster, the SNP has become the obstacle to Scotland Independence.
youtube.com/watch?v=y1pmj4ZlPMM
What’s happening with the Alba party fraud?
“After Salmond’s death, MacAskill won the 2025 Alba Party leadership election. In the lead-up to the 2026 Scottish Parliament election, the party suffered a financial crisis and MacAskill announced the party would likely be unable to stand. On 26 March 2026, Alba deregistered and dissolved as a party.”
——————————————
There is no longer an Alba party.
Thanks!
Polis still investigating the missing cash.
I was reading these articles interesting how Flynn been given the task of lower food cost. People say Swinney is a nice man where about the guy a nasty piece.
Swinney is obviously setting Flynn up for a fall
it was sustained civil disobedience and non cooperation that hastened the end of british rule in india not the hot air filled politicians in the indian legislature.
scotland is country where the ballot will always be rigged in favour of the status quo.
as far as independence is concerned party politics is time wasting.
Yes, Turabdin, and now Yes Scotland is under scrutiny, just in case we were to rally behind it and Liberation Scotland, which will be next in the sights. It doesn’t feel to me to be about shutting off all avenues, but, rather, an opportunity to find new ones. Nothing they do up here or down there will stop independence happening, not once the real unrest that is fomenting down there spills out into the streets – which it is doing and which it will do increasingly. It is beginning to feel as if real change is coming to the sclerotic and moribund UK at last, and Scotland should be ready to capitalise on it.
Farage, for whom I have little time, is being attacked on all fronts by those who have most to lose if the UK falls. He and his party will not mourn the loss of Scotland when the chips are down because England is their foremost and only concern – rightly so, as they are the real English nationalists. Restore comes a close second. Neither has, in reality, anything to offer Scotland that will keep her within the Union. I think John Swinney is not a stupid man, just one who is a dyed-in-the-wool devolutionist who should never have been leader – like Sturgeon and those who after her, weak vessels all.
“He and his party will not mourn the loss of Scotland when the chips are down”
That’s odd, Lorncal.
He must be unaware of Alf’s £150+ billion every year.
Strange, when Farage is supposedly all about the money.
Not sure what you refer to when you say Farage is being attacked, though certainly he is seen by some as a threat to the stability of democracy of the UK (e.g., me).
But the point is not that Reform haters ‘attack’ Farage, no, he is being investigated for financial wrong-doing, as have many before him, because there are financial rules that are there for a reason and there is evidence he and / or the party might have broken them. The idea this is an ‘attack’ comes directly from Farage himself to try and discredit the process and people enacting it, and whip up disdain and dismissal of ‘the establishment’, just like Trump has done for years, and yes, fascist regimes have done through the 20th century (though I do not say Reform are fascists, they just like some of their methods; Restore on the other hand are pretty adjacent).
And not only is this desperate ‘drain the swamp’ Trumpian stuff, it is the very thing that those who attack him for are worried about: the undermining of institutions to the extent all trust is lost, threatening democracy itself. And all for what? So Reform can get into power and start rounding up and deporting some of the pesky black and brown people they and their supporters don’t like. Who knows what measures they would take to try and ensure they remain there.
Yes Reform and Restore (BNP re-formed) are arch English nationalists but like Scotland, they have nothing to offer England either, except civil strife and a politics of division: ‘the people verus the establishment’ lie. A lie now fuelling Farage’s latest gambit of playing the victim card big time as a way to distract and somehow counter the financial charges. That and outright aggression; every time Farage is in a tricky situation with tough, legitimate questions, he gets angry, threatening, nasty and is clearly not that in control of himself. He sounded like a two-bit Mafioso when talking to that Sky reporter the other day.
The idea of this grown up school bully who used to go round making hissing noises at Jews, telling black fellow-pupils to go back home to Africa and singing Hitler youth songs ‘for a laugh’ could be the next PM of this country makes me sick to my stomach. It is the very worst path nationalism can take, and we all know where it ultimately leads.
there is a notion that if you are a good guy, do everything by the book, do not resiort to extremist rhetoric, are law abiding etc you will receive your reward on a nice dish.
when dealing with matters of power that does not apply. the power base acquires power it does not dispense it to the «needy».
english nationalism or chauvinism is a growing element, it might be the «gravity assist» required to propel Scotland free of the pull of unionism, who knows.
Still no sign of their 2025 Accounts that were due to be submitted to the Electoral Commission by 7th July
“An insider has now claimed that Murrell “called the shots” at Yes Scotland. It comes amid a police probe into claims £1.5 million went ‘missing’ from the Yes Scotland account, something denied by the group.”
———————————————
If it is denied by the group – simple – show receipts of how it was spent.
‘The law came along to multiply the trespass. But where sin multiplied, grace multiplied even more.’
Romans 5:20.
‘Oh, did it, aye?’
Northcode 22:58
Did you see those two goals by Bellingham. If only Scotland had players of this calibre.
Let’s not get carried away before we’ve checked his religion.
Dan Vevers writes:
« [Ian] Dommett said: “Between 2004 and 2012. Murrell was my best client. […] Dommett added he was flabbergasted when, in May, Murrell pled guilty to embezzling £400,000 from the SNP between 2010 and 2022, including over the campaign period. »
Those pre-2014 dates remind me of how long pro-independence campaigning preceded the 2014 referendum. Indeed I was involved myself back in the 1960s in support of the SNP, as was my father.
Paul Sinclair writes:
« There is always a danger with issues like this – and in every nation – that the public say it cannot be happening here. Corruption only happens in other countries, we think. But malfeasance like this does not happen as a revolution, it creeps in. It is the banality of evil. Institutions gradually undermined. Party funds misappropriated. Trumped-up charges against political opponents. Public money squandered by the millions and billions. Scotland desperately needs these issues properly investigated or our democracy is undermined. »
That last sentence, with all due respect, raises searching questions regarding Scottish journalism’s status for as long as I can remember. Apart from a few stalwart opinion writers, “Worse than AWOL” would be too kind a summary.
During the 2014 independence campaign I was, like so many, in the habit each morning of checking out headlines on local newspaper racks. A dismal routine. Invariably anti-independence headlines stood out on all front pages. The BBC of course duly recycled these headlines daily nationwide in their newspaper reviews.
I noted there was often a striking unanimity regarding headline themes. It was, I thought, as if a daily memorandum was going out to all editors. Personalised attacks on Alex Salmond became the norm. Scottish independence was apparently all about “one man’s crazy dream”.
Essentially it was orchestrated character assassination, of course. And as we now well know that malign project did not cease even after the referendum, but was pursued to wretched completion in the years following. And it indeed festers post mortem, investigation prohibited from on high.
However, the fearless exemplary journalism of Rev Stuart Campbell through all of this has been a lonely raft keeping so many of us afloat. The word “hero” comes readily to mind…
Personalised attacks on everybody is the norm.
You only really notice it when it’s somebody you personally support.
Looking at the subject clear-eyed, the surest counter to the charge that Indy is “one man’s crazy dream” would be if a replacement had come along. Preferably a cohort of replacements – as needed to fill the roles in a serious, competent government for an independent, first-world, European country.
I’m seeing nobody. Who are you seeing?
“…. A dismal routine. Invariably anti-independence headlines stood out on all front pages. The BBC of course duly recycled these headlines daily nationwide…”
Indeed, Fearghas – and if we had had a proper referendum instead of a Mickey Mouse type the result would have been null and void, as per UN rules e.g. ‘no interference from foreign media’, amongst other things.
No doubt the four stooges will appear below informing us it was the best run referendum in the human history.
Very well said, Stuart. The SNP’s existence now depends on failing to deliver independence; for them, failure is success – and they have comprehensively failed the Scottish people.
Would it be fair to say that even if the SNP have “comprehensively failed the Scottish people”, the Scottish people have comprehensively failed to notice?
It’s only 3 months since the Scottish people voted the SNP back into power. Doing the math, I reckon the SNP have another 4 years and 9 months of ruling Scotland. After that, they may just ask for, and receive, another 5 years.
If that’s failure, I can’t envisage what success must look like.
H McH: that is an excellent point. We are often told that independence is around or just over the 50% mark, well below the party’s standing. However, if most of those who voted SNP 1 & 2 at the last election are still willing to envision independence through the auspices of the SNP, surely we need to look at how we can force the SNP to drop its 1 & 2 and start co-operating with other independence parties and movements by indicating that no stone will be left unturned for them to hide under in future. Every wrong move, every discrepancy will be highlighted and magnified.
Either they start looking at co-operation or they will be brought down by their own hubris. This should become the only way they can survive. If they start their campaign for the GE on the same lines as before, letting in Unionists instead of co-operating as the Unionists do and have always done, in all elections, then they should be told that other independence parties/movements will campaign against them and it will be made clear to voters that the SNP does not stand for Scottish independence.
Their very last chance to reform. It sounds like political suicide, but there will be no choice. Oh, and outing, very subtly, those in the party and in the civil service suspected of collaboration (although, obviously, not without evidence, and that should be gathered meantime). The MSM will not help, so it has to be down to independistas themselves.
Thanks, Lorncal.
I believe the SNP and the Greens have to be destroyed as a political force in Scotland.
Whatever replaces them, I believe it has to be very careful about letting any of the “old guard” on board. They’re yesterday’s men and women. Tainted by sleaze, opportunism, entitled indolence and sheer idiocy. No way should they be allowed to clamber aboard the new pro-Indy movement.
As to the timeline, other European countries seem capable of growing fledgling political movements into serious contenders for office in half a decade or less.
I fail to understand why Scotland can’t do the same. Although, some pathetic hand wringers posting bleats about how “it’s because we’re colonised” may just provide a clue!
It’s infuriating that pretty much every UK newspaper and broadcaster has some kind of Scotland correspondent, and yet they have all deliberately looked the other way on this issue for years. We know it’s deliberate, incidentally, because in that time they have all stolen the Rev’s work without attribution.
Meanwhile, Liberation Scotland’s update on the ongoing work at the UN, is on utube. Well worth a listen.
LIBERATION SCOTLAND UPDATE July 2026
link to youtube.com
Does anybody seriously think this will work? Its the political equivalent of Flat earth belief IMO.
All that will be pointed to will be 2014 and its dead in the water and even if pigs fly and there is a decision to pursue it there will be another referendum, which will again be a no IMO.
Liberation Scotland Update.
The game is a bogey. Get a life.
Unless you would like to give us some ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££money.
Scotland will never achieve Independence until there are some honest Politicians who will tell the populace what Independence will actually mean and more importantly what it will cost and what the effect will be on their daily lives.
The dreamers and romantics, though well intentioned, seem to think that all will be fine, by magic.
The costs will be horrendous. No doubt some, like the supposedly learned professor, think that everything will be affordable from the £150B that England steals every year!
Will some politicians even try and issue a realistic SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats), or projected finances, to let educated Scots decide if Independence is appropriate or even worth it. No one ever does and you have to ask why is that?
I have no faith in the current crop of politicians at either Holyrood or Westminster. Where are the competent individuals in waiting?
I appreciate that, to some, the above makes me English or a Unionist, such is the thought processes, or lack of it, involved.
Sadly Chas you’re falling in to lazy Project Fear catastrophism which will be instantly recognisable to many pro independence campaigners from the 2012-14 campaign. British nationalists and Scots unionists in particular were adept at weaponising their un-evidenced claim that Scotland would be uniquely incapable of surviving as an independent state because variously of: *reasons* / fiscal black hole / broad shoulders of the union / you’d be out of the EU / You won’t be able to watch the BBC / you’ll have no pensions.
Few if any of these were accurate, or in many cases even real. The ultimate success of Project Fear was really rather simple: the Yes campaign signally failed to convince enough “soft No” voters that when it came to the cost/benefit analysis of independence, the balance of risks and opportunities was weighted for indy.
The negative campaign won. Britnats managed to control the narrative to an extent that the risks of indy appeared huge, while the risks of staying in the union were underplayed or denied altogether. Given brexit that proved to be a deeply flawed argument of course, but very few in 2014 really thought it was even on the cards.
Similarly, the potential benefits of independence were either downplayed or simply denied altogether. I’m pretty sure that twelve years on there are many Scots who voted No in 2014 who really regret their choice, or at the very least would have to admit that they were sold a pup.
Honest unionists (assuming such a thing exists of course….) would have to admit that the supposed costs of independence now have to be set against the very real and quantifiable economic and social costs of being shackled to an isolated post brexit UK.
There is no point in britnats and Scots unionists insisting that every i be dotted and every t crossed, and that the independence has to absolutely guarantee we’ll be no worse off post independence, because thay can’t and won’t provide similar guarantees or evidence of the supposed benefits of remaining part of the union.
“Sadly Chas you’re falling in to lazy Project Fear catastrophism which will be instantly recognisable to many pro independence campaigners from the 2012-14 campaign.”
So then, belief in the basic need of an actual, credible, OUTLINE costed prospectus and blueprint for independence is “catastrophism”…? Who knew! :DD
Honest to God, you guys…
“There is no point in britnats and Scots unionists insisting that every i be dotted and every t crossed”
No, it’s not a case of “dotting is and ts”, this (dishonestly) implies most of the graft has been done and it’s finishing touches that are needed – you actually have NOTHING, not even since the 2013 White Paper (which itself was wafer-thin and laughably outmoded even as the ink had barely dried).
THIRTEEN YEARS of NOTHING.
Not from anyone. Nothing on currency, defence, healthcare, pensions, education, immigration, legacy/national debt. Not. A. Sausage. Can you really blame actual Scots stakeholders – those with jobs, careers, a spouse, a family, kids, houses, mortgages, pension pots to take such a leap of faith, when you’d be making it up as you went along, “It’ll all be alright on the night” stylee…?
Yeah right.
Easy if you’ve got fuck all, but more of a challenge for folks with stuff to lose (and who could blame them, looking at the current Political Classes, who can barely be trusted to run a bath, let alone navigate a newly formed new country with all the massive problems and challenges that entails).
Seriously, you and your ilk are so removed from reality! Unlike many contributors here, you are clearly a highly articulate bloke, but even you are wholly blindsided by this. Anyone “demanding” an actual PLAN either has supposedly unreasonable expectations and/or is all part of some Yoon conspiracy.
Well, carry on howling at the Moon with much impotent angst and gnashing of teeth, see where it gets you. Until someone up to the (massive) task puts a shift in, nowt will change, which from a Unionist perspective is fortunate indeed, because there’s no doubt that Scotland could be independent with a plan.
Andy-Project Fear has nothing to do with my reasoning. I have set to see any meaningful, realistic projections, financial or otherwise, from any one. Turning your argument around-how do you know that Scotland would be capable of surviving as an Independent state? If ‘Scotland’ wants to change the status quo it has to provide an alternative-where is it?
I disagree with your assumption that ‘there are many Scots who voted No in 2014 who really regret their choice, or at the very least would have to admit that they were sold a pup’. I think that on the contrary there are many Scots who are relieved that they voted no given the performance of the SNP/Greens Scottish Government since 2014.They are the ones who would have been responsible for EVERYTHING in Scotland for the last 12 years. I shudder at the thought. I should say that I was not allowed a vote in 2014 as I was living and working abroad. I probably would have voted yes at that time but no way would I consider doing so now.
The raw emotion has to be taken out of the Independence debate and replaced with some hard, honest discussions with competent individuals. Unfortunately I do not see many of those. Do you?
I do not think anyone is looking for every ‘I’ to be dotted or every ‘T’ to be crossed but, at present, there is nothing out there other than wishful thinking. There is no reason for any ‘soft no’ to change their mind as it stands. Yes-Westminster is shite. Contrast with Holyrood-do you see any difference?
There is no’ supposed’ costs of Independence-they are real.
@Cap’n Caveman
Well one of us is moon howling bud but it sure ain’t me. There is no reasonable defence of the unionist prospectus for retaining the current union on the basis of economic competence given the huge negative impact on the UK and Scottish economies by being wrenched out of the EU. If you were honest (faint hope) you’d admit that we’d all – unionist and nationalist – be better off today if Scotland had voted Yes in 2014 because Scotland and rump UK would still be EU members.
Of course we can’t expect logic from frothing brexiteers and the swivel eyed right of the british nationalist political spectrum, but those in the mainstream of unionist politics haven’t come up with any amelioration or devo-max plus. Northern Ireland got a special deal due to its unique constitutional position, and there was really no earthly reason a similar deal couldn’t have been cute for Scotland.
That was a choice. Scottish unionists would actually prefer Scotland to get a worse deal as long as their previous union is preserved than tolerate a better deal which strengthened devolution.
There was a huge 600 page plan in 2014. We had the Wee Blue Book. What did unionists contribute? Outlandish scare stories about TV licenses, pensions, being out of the EU. The sky was going to fall, despite the fact many other countries with much less going for them than Scotland have managed to make a success of independence.
As for your (justified) complaints about the standards of the political class, that argument again is holed below the waterline because the alternatives you’re holding up are Burnham, Farage and Badenoch. The idea they’re somehow a viable still less a better alternative is as outlandish as your strange attraction to the outdated concept of British unionism.
Here’s stuff previously posted for the pathetic gurners of pish like “Scotland is too wee and too poor”, or stating that “nobody has produced a credible strategy”…
The Kingdom of Scotland has a much better resources to population figure than the Kingdom of England.
(Oldish stats so may not be 100% accurate, and they don’t include many of the recent renewable power generation development stats, but it gives the gist.)
KINGDOM OF SCOTLAND WITH ONLY 9% OF THE UK POPULATION HAS:
32% of the land area.
61% of the sea area.
90% of the fresh water.
65% of the natural gas production
96.5% of the crude oil production.
47% of the open cast coal production
81% of the untapped coal reserves
62% of the timber production
46% of the total forest area
92% of the hydroelectric production
40% of the wind wave and solar energy production
60% of the fish landings
30% of the beef herd
20% of the sheep herd
9% of the dairy herd
10% of the pig herd
15% if the cereal holdings
20% of the potato holdings
90% of the whisky industry
70% of gin production
KINGDOM OF ENGLAND WITH 91% OF THE UK POPULATION ONLY HAS:
68% of the land area.
39% of the sea area.
10% of the fresh water.
35% of the natural gas production
3.5% of the crude oil production.
53% of the open cast coal production
19% of the untapped coal reserves
38% of the timber production
54% of the total forest area
8% of the hydro electric production
60% of the wind wave and solar energy production
40% of the fish landings
70% of the beef herd
80% of the sheep herd
91% of the dairy herd
90% of the pig herd
85% if the cereal holdings
80% of the potato holdings
10% of the whisky industry
30% of gin production
The revenue streams generated by the current UK government policies means the two Kingdoms’ combined resources help to generate revenues to aid serving the UK population of 67 million.
So if Scotland returned to self-governance we could even emulate current UK policies, which are presumably policies unionists are supportive of. Therefore, with The Kingdom of Scotland’s much improved resources to population figures it would mean the larger proportional revenue stream generated by those Scottish resources would only have to serve 5.4 million. and that is with current policies, before they are even tailored to better meet Scotland’s requirements.
Please feel free to reciprocate with suggestions on how an independent Kingdom of England will pay for itself.
And don’t try to divert onto the question of asset and resource ownership, ignoring that my proffered example makes no suggestion of altering the current ownership status of these assets and resources, instead the change of Scotland returning to self-governance would mean that the revenue streams generated by licensing and taxation of these assets and resources in Scottish jurisdictional areas would be diverted to a Scottish Treasury, to be used and distributed across Scottish society made up of 5.4 million folk, rather than them flowing into the UK Treasury which serves 67 million folk.
“If you were honest (faint hope) you’d admit that we’d all – unionist and nationalist – be better off today if Scotland had voted Yes in 2014 because Scotland and rump UK would still be EU members.”
Oh, believe me Andy – I’m honest alright. TOO honest truth be told, and brutally so (said honesty extended to the only too evident and cheerfully admitted limitations of my own abilities, let alone others). 🙂
You have a perfectly valid point re. Brexit. Certainly, in terms of the timescale of a decade, it seems beyond doubt that the c.5-8% GDP percentage points lost due to Brexit (and, it has to be said, the vindictiveness of our “friends” at the EU over it all) is objectively bad. Mind you, what price independence, eh Andy? This would likely be far, far worse for the first decade of iScotland, which is probably why no one is prepared to firm it up and cost it all.
Of course, Brexit is only part of the story; much of what we see in today’s SNP would’ve been running the country, which should be enough to send a shiver down anyone’s spine – even yours! 🙂 It’s hard to speculate (idly) about what would’ve been better and what would’ve been worse; such hypotheticals are unknowable. My guess it would’ve been a right old shitshow, but who knows.
“… those in the mainstream of unionist politics haven’t come up with any amelioration or devo-max plus.”
No, the burden of proof is on YOU, not Unionists: it is you guys, the proponents of fundamental change from the current status quo, who need to convince heads as well as just hearts, and to do that – whether you like it or not – you are going to have to come up with a sensible, credible, competent, believable, grownup plan and blueprint (including in economic and currency terms). That this hasn’t happened for a decade or more speaks volumes, and the longer it goes on, the worse the optics get. Just saying.
“There is no point in britnats and Scots unionists insisting that every i be dotted and every t crossed”
I’m sorry to say it is you being dishonest here, Andy. You know fine well that suggesting that an OUTLINE plan is needed where currently there is none, is hardly asking for the Moon on a stick and/or endlessly (and disingenuously) demanding i’s are dotted and t’s crossed, and that this is all somehow deeply unreasonable. Seriously buddy, no one is fooled.
“Here’s stuff previously posted for the pathetic gurners of pish like “Scotland is too wee and too poor”, or stating that “nobody has produced a credible strategy”…”
Yawn.
“which from a Unionist perspective is fortunate indeed, because there’s no doubt that Scotland could be independent with a plan.“
“the huge negative impact on the UK and Scottish economies by being wrenched out of the EU”
Yet credible economists point out that compared with the costs of Covid, the war in the east, and now the war in the ME, you can’t even find that “huge negative impact” in the data.
Still, pro-EU boys have to shill for the EU. Never mind the optics of eternally bewailing the “huge negative impact” of leaving one economic and political union (Brexit) whilst forecasting the “huge positive impact” of leaving another (Indy).
And then there’s that lazy, partisan interpretation of “Project Fear”. If Project Fear scotched the 2014 Indy referendum by forcing No, then it scotched the EU referendum in Scotland as well, also by forcing No.
There never was such a concentrated, one-sided campaign like the one Remain threw at the EU referendum. As it so obviously worked in Scotland, for consistency, Scots who believe in “Project Fear” should stop eternally repeating the “wrenched out of the EU” canard.
Either in both referendums, Scots succumbed to the feart factor.
Or in neither.
And here we see how and why the pro-Indy, pro-EU pretzels twist themselves into knots.
Dan has yet again produced some ‘statistics’. Honestly you are getting as bad as the esteemed Professor and Cheyne at regurgitating mince. Lets look at the figures that relate to Scotland in greater detail-Firstly I find it unusual that Wales and Northern Ireland do not even exist according to the percentages/mince you once again produce!! When you start with shite it is difficult to take the rest seriously.
KINGDOM OF SCOTLAND WITH ONLY 9% OF THE UK POPULATION HAS:
32% of the land area.-So What?
61% of the sea area.-So what?
90% of the fresh water.-this IS important. If England tries to steal Scottish water, for free, this could be the one factor that drives Independence.
65% of the natural gas production-Scotland, the country, produces no natural gas. The mainly foreign owned companies extract it.
96.5% of the crude oil production. See above for gas
47% of the open cast coal production-doubt it.
81% of the untapped coal reserves.-We are unable to extract.
62% of the timber production-Doubt it
46% of the total forest area-Doubt it
92% of the hydroelectric production-See above for gas and oil
40% of the wind wave and solar energy production-Scotland does not own the wind and waves. Again mainly foreign owned companies involved
60% of the fish landings-Boats can easily land elsewhere if it is more cost effective to do so.
30% of the beef herd-Doubt it-So what
20% of the sheep herd-Doubt it-so what
9% of the dairy herd-So what
10% of the pig herd-So what
15% if the cereal holdings-So what
20% of the potato holdings-So what
90% of the whisky industry-A valuable export I agree. I do my best for home consumption here in Scotland
70% of gin production-Doubt it
KINGDOM OF ENGLAND WITH 91% OF THE UK POPULATION ONLY HAS: For the bulk of the undernoted so what!
(It is not even worth commentating on the figures for England as they are clearly flawed.)
68% of the land area.
39% of the sea area.
10% of the fresh water.
35% of the natural gas production
3.5% of the crude oil production.
53% of the open cast coal production
19% of the untapped coal reserves
38% of the timber production
54% of the total forest area
8% of the hydro electric production
60% of the wind wave and solar energy production
40% of the fish landings
70% of the beef herd
80% of the sheep herd
91% of the dairy herd
90% of the pig herd
85% if the cereal holdings
80% of the potato holdings
10% of the whisky industry
30% of gin production
What is worth noting is that Scotland exports 60% of EVERYTHING to England. Can you honestly see the English people rushing to buy Scottish produce after Independence?
If you are trying to convince Scots with hard facts it is better if the facts are real and not simply made up wishful thinking.
SCOTLAND
Too wee-NO
Too poor-DEBATABLE
Too stupid-DEFINITELY as we keep voting in the SNP.
Chas @ 1pm
Good post !
I was just thinking…any moment now “Dan the dafty” will be along with his daft list….
Honestly Dan! What is the point of posting this drivel for the umpteenth time ?
@Andy – great to see you back again!
But with respect, you can’t just dismiss the very significant post-separation issues like that. I was involved in some of the preparations for Britain to leave the EU, I signed an NDA which remains in force so I won’t talk about the specifics, but the headlines are that is threw up a lot of very difficult issues which were only managed (to an extent) through a substantial amount of expenditure and inconvenience on government, business and consumers alight.
Scotland would face the same issues, but they would be much worse and much more difficult to deal with. The vast majourity of goods that Scotland imports come either from rUK or via rUK. If the proposal is for Scotland to rejoin the EU, then the Trade and Cooperation agreement governs that border, and therefore everything that currently passes the border without even slowing down with be subject to inspection, to significant tariffs, or will be outright banned. It might not be possible to secure a private ferry operator to bypass rUK and even if it is possible, the operation might not be reliable for time critical goods. In the medium-long term, Scotland would pay much more for a much reduced variety of imported goods, and in the short term it’s likely critical goods like higher value fresh foods and medicines would have to be imported, at vast cost, by air.
Then we have professional services. Scotland’s market is totally integrated with rUK and many of the products and services provided in Scotland are contracted on the basis that they are administered within the jurisdiction of the U.K. and denominated in pounds. Of course those contracts could be negotiated, but it’s virtually certain that many customers will not accept the added risk associated with a new currency and jurisdiction, when offered the choice, which of course they will be by large corporations looking to hang onto their clients.
Thirdly, as another example, we have tourism. Over half of tourist expenditure in Scotland is made by English tourists, many of whom come because they don’t have a passport and know that state services (e.g. the NHS) are freely available. If Scotland is forced to join Schengen (as per the Copenhagen criteria) then such visits (and associated expenditure) will reduce placing severe pressure on the sector.
None of those issues mean that an independent Scotland would be a failure or that independence cannot be done. They do mean that there are serious and significant challenges that require exceptional skill and leadership to manage effectively, not only to address transition issues, but also to exploit Scotland’s strategic strengths. If the approach is to wave away demonstrably serious issues by reference to vague campaign slogans then that will definitely be a disaster.
SP3; “…If England tries to steal Scottish water, for free…”
*sigh*, you might as well; you’ve stolen everything else so far…..
It’s worth also noting Scotland would not be part my to the T&C agreement, so even if it were possible to reach a form of agreement between rUK and Scotland to better manage some of the separation issues, it’s ultimately between London and Brussels, not Edinburgh, to come to that agreement. Unfortunately I think we can expect both parties to be extremely belligerent and hard nosed.
It’s not a unionist thing to want Scotland to have a plan. It’s lazy to trot out platitudes like ‘project fear’.
I lived in Singapore. A very small but very successful country that did SWOT analysis for everything. Why not Scotland?
Let’s be honest we do need to create more taxable money here and we need to stop spending so much on government, unless we can create it.
I think Scotland can do more than survive it can thrive as an independent country. But for that to happen, we need a plan and to make some difficult choices about people needing to pull their finger out.
Otherwise it’s just fantasy and charlatans all the way.
@ Aidan 6.57pm
I don’t underestimate the potential challenges posed by independence. The point is rather convincing more “soft No” voters that the short term pain which would doubtless follow is both worth it, and will in the long term be replaced by a society and economy better than the one we would have if we elected to stay in the union. That in the end is the $64,000 question as the Yanks used to say.
The Yes movement failed to make that case in 2012-14. Partly because of Project Fear, but also because we fought a one dimensional, happy-clappy, campaign or relentless positivity.
Things have been rendered more complicated by the madness of brexit, but even there the UK seems to be coming to its senses. Given the dangers of Trumpism and the prospect of having to construct a new European based defence and security system excluding the USA, I’m more inclined now to think that Scotland’s chances of being an independent state are now much slimmer than the chances of a European Federation.
When push comes to shove, I don’t see the Little Englanders wanting to throw in their lot with Trump or his successors and becoming Airstrip One while the EU forms a new super state.
I’d much prefer an independent Scotland, but I’d take a Federal Europe over a semi-detached UK which was Washington’s bitch.
@Andy – I think that’s broadly the point that a lot of posters are making, not that it can’t be done or that it’s not worth the pain but that it’s only worth jumping into what would be a very challenging period for Scotland unless there is competent, credible leadership with a robust plan.
The US leadership might currently be deranged and unstable, but it is also growing much faster and becoming much more strategically important because of its huge tech sector. In contrast, the EU is growing up politically and taking many of its challenges like defence and migration seriously, but it is in long-term stagnation with its biggest economy, Germany, having not really grown since prior to the pandemic. For that reason, I actually think many of the estimates of Brexit economic damage (whilst definitely real), are overblown, because I cannot see how the U.K. economy could have sustained an additional 8% growth over the last 10-years by trading with stagnant economies in Europe. If the EU had grown strongly then it could be possible to make the argument that the U.K., due to its new found trade barriers, had been deprived of the opportunity to benefit from that growth, but that isn’t what’s happened.
So overall it’s not clear either that a choice has to be made or which way would be best if it did. Personally, I would take free movement with the USA in a heartbeat over the EU, but that’s not something that’s being offered. Equally I think it’s vital we offer our complete support to “U” (sorry Rev, but it’s not a complete off topic post). For the moment at least there’s a reasonable argument at U.K. level for maintaining a bit of ambiguity and seeing what pans out.
@Andy
You are doing that Guardian BTL thing of assuming that the EU cries itself to sleep every night because the UK isn’t in it. Meaning that all the UK has to do is snap its fingers and we’re back in.
The reality is more nuanced.
As for Scotland joining the EU, anybody believing we’re a rich wee country will have to believe we’d be welcomed with open arms. Not because we’re cuddly and nice and wear kilts.
Because we’ll be paying generously in, because we occupy strategically important real estate, because we have space for millions of refugees. Because the EU is losing ground to all the other major powers, is strapped for cash, and is now in Year Five of an escalating war with no end in sight.
Most of the criticisms the regulars make about the one-sided nature of Scotland’s relationship to the UK will be made in spades when/if we’re outnumbered by something dozens of times bigger.
We cannot know how many eligible indigenous Scots voted SNP in the parliamentary elections – those data are not captured.
That means we can only estimate how many voted SNP.
However, using census proportions and turnout, a very rough estimate suggests that around 20% of indigenous Scots and around 9% of Scotland’s total population voted SNP in 2026.
The SNP’s constituency vote share in 2026 was 38.2%.
Assuming indigenous Scots voted similarly to the electorate overall (we cannot assume otherwise without data), very roughly, about 500,000 indigenous Scots may have voted SNP.
There were, at the time, 2.48 million “Scottish only” eligible voters… this means that only an estimated 20% of all eligible indigenous Scot voters supported the SNP.
This is not a factual demographic statistic… it’s a mathematical extrapolation based on census identity proportions, turnout, vote share, and the assumption that voting behaviour is evenly distributed across identity groups.
But as a model, it is structurally sound.
“So what, Northcode… what does your model tell us?” you might ask – or not, if you don’t give a damn.
In short, my model tells us that those Scots who identify as ‘Scottish Only’ and may, therefore, be considered indigenous to Scotland have, in great number, abandoned the SNP.
In fact, many didn’t even bother to vote for any party at all now that they’re catching on to the fact that they don’t live in a real democracy and that participation in a corrupt electoral system only legitimises their subjugation.
In shorter shortness… the SNP is buggered as far as getting much in the way of support from the indigenous Scots is concerned.
Conclusion:
I think this approach captures the reality without overstating what the data can prove… the conclusion is mathematically unavoidable.
Counter-intuitively, perhaps, this is good new for the Scottish independence movement.
What exactly, is an indigenous scot?
Is that a genuine question?
Though not… but I’ll give you an answer, anyway.
An “indigenous Scot” is someone who belongs to the peoples historically rooted in Scotland — culturally, linguistically, and ancestrally — across many generations.
This includes:
It’s not a biological category.
It’s not an exclusionary category.
It’s not a purity category.
It’s not a political category.
It’s a heritage identity, not a boundary.
Hope that’s clear, Rob.
Northy reckons that the millions of colonising Scots scattered across the Americas, the Antipodes, Europe, England, etc. are “indigenous Scots”.
Fair enough, I guess. Speak to many of them and they’ll tell you that’s exactly what they are – Scots.
HTH
“What exactly, is an indigenous scot?”
The ‘indigenous Scots’ weel ken oorsels. The dilemma for the colonizer and associated pathology (also affecting the colonized, but in a different way) is the real issue in a colonial society, according to Memmi.
Having habitually described the colony and its native people in mostly negative form, as in there being “no merits in the colonial community, recognizing neither its traditions, nor its laws, nor its ways, he (the colonizer) cannot acknowledge belonging to it himself”.
And, no longer living in his native land, the result is that “the colonialist is unsure of his true nationality (because) he navigates between a faraway society… and a present society which he rejects and keeps in the abstract.”
Thus, the characteristic which completes Memmi’s ‘portrait of the colonizer’, is that “the colonialist resorts to racism…. (as) racism sums up and symbolizes the fundamental relation which unites colonialist and colonized.”
And colonial racism is essentially what we see in repeated anti-Scottish and anti-independence BTL comments here, for “racism is a con-substantial part of colonialism.”
Is Monday racism day then, Alf?
When’s fascism day due?
I have to concede that it must be extraordinarily hard work to infer racism from somebody who simply disagrees with you.
That’s before I even begin to ponder how one indigenous Scot can be “racist” to another indigenous Scot, just by saying “I think your idea is daft – you need to come up with a better one”.
So well done you for putting the graft in.
Of course, alert readers may wish to ponder the obvious fact that by attempting to apply the inappropriate anti-colonialist theories of Fanon, etc to Scotland, you end up making ludicrous assertions of racism against fellow Scots. Thus demonstrating that it’s a fundamentally flawed approach to have embarked on.
I’ll leave it to you to decide if you want to be included in the alert reader category, Alf.
@ Northcode
Your definition of what constitutes an indigenous Scot seems somewhat confused. First you say they have to be someone belonging to peoples historically rooted in Scotland acrsoo many generations (how many suffice…? Five? Ten? A hundred?).
Then you insist the categories aren’t biological, exclusionary, based on purity or politics but on heritage not boundaries.
So how does that work exactly?
Are people born in Scotland, but who have never lived here more Scottish than people who were born elsewhere but have lived her all their lives, or even just for say 10 years, or 20…or what would the acceptable amount be to be considered Scottish enough?
Are the descendants of 19th century Irish immigrants Scottish enough? How about Scots Italians who came in the late 19th and early 20th centuries…? My best mate at high school was born in Nigeria but has lived here all his life: he seems fairly rooted in Scotland culturally and linguistically, so maybe because he can’t claim Scots ancestry he’s excluded from the demos. Seems a tad unfair to me…..
How about all the Scots descendants in the diaspora Northy? Are they, their children and grandchildren around the world more Scottish than the immigrants who have moved to Scotland from Europe, the Middle East, south Asia and other places in recent decades?
I’m not sure you’ve really thought this through. Or perhaps you have and you’re just not brave enough to really own the fact that your nationalism is exclusivist, chauvinistic and purity based.
I’m not sure how well it’ll go down with the movement as a whole, even if it seems to be attractive to some of the worst types who pollute BTL discourse in here.
Pastor Fagat @ 3.19
Well reading that I can see why some refer to you here as franchise Fanny (y’all)..
What next, votes to those here on holiday or landed waiting for a connecting flight?
What do others do, what about Australia for example as they seem to be firm on the immigration front?
Postcolonial theory tells us that if a people are subject to colonialism then they are also subject to racism, Hatey.
No matter that racism has become normalised, institutionalised, and to some extent obscured, racial subordination and discrimination is always ‘a con-substantial part of colonialism’ (Memmi).
Moreover, colonialism is not just any old racism, Hatey; colonialism is described as ‘hateful racism’ (Cesaire), which fits with any imperial history and legacy.
You shoud ken aw this, Hatey.
@ Young Lochinbore
And yet here all the xenophobes, sub Siol nan Gaidheal and Blut und Boden folks still are parroting the same exclusivist playbook talking points.
Still failing to answer the basic questions. Still failing to address Rev Stu’s original fisking from a couple of years back on why franchise restriction is a crap idea, and still refusing to deal with the fact that virtually every other independence vote has used the same or more liberal franchises thqn Scotland did in 2014.
Nativist bigots putatively on our own side are of course more of a clear and present danger to the chances of achieving indy than the clueless britnats and hapless Scots unionists.
Not only will the international community laugh at any attempt to gain independence by disenfranchising several hundred thousand residents who don’t meet your indigenous quasi Nurnberger Gesetze, but swathes of pro indy folk would walk away in disgust.
Luckily it won’t come to pass. Ordinary Scots hate bigots. The nativists in here are just the Loyal Orange Order de nos jours and about as relevant. At least they don’t clutter the streets up with marches supporting their franchise restriction message yet, so we should probably be thankful for small mercies.
Pastor Fagat @ 5.47
Hahahahahaha!
🙂
“Cool tham ther jets Pastor, gonna gone given yoursel an aneurism y’all!!”
I see your hate ridden rant failed to answer my simple genuine question about what others do.
You certainly seem to be carting some pretty unpleasant personal baggage about how you view your fellow Scots.
Comes across as a weird mix of “the cringe” and a barely concealed “superiority complex” replete with all its causal indicators..
@ Young Lochinbore
You’re either new here or just not very bright. Both is of course also an option. There is a whole list of independence referendums in the post WW2 era which can readily be accessed by anyone with opposable thumbs and an internet connection.
Go and do your own homework on the franchises used, and whether they restricted them to “indigenous people” in terms the nativists in here would approve of.
If you’d been around for earlier iterations of this discussion, I even provided a helpful list at the time, as well a verbatim transcript of Rev Stu’s original X thread masterfully demolishing the franchise restriction prospectus.
The moonhowlers hate it of course, even as they piggy back on Stu’s site in a doomed attempt to advance their deeply repugnant brand of nationalism. HTH! [insert waving emoji here].
How tedious you are, Ellis, you unbearable, pretentious fucking bore.
You think you’re clever, but your lack of intelligence flashes through your comments like a garish neon sign declaring “Trust me, I really am Clever… Honest”.
I’ve come across your type before… not a single original thought is ever born in yer empty heid and you constantly appeal to authority in your hand-me-down, second class, uninspiring, and far from persuasive rhetoric.
In fact, your rhetoric is stunted, colourless, and feels as if you’ve borrowed it from actual, bona fide smart people and then ruined it by painting it the colour ‘dull’.
Pastor Fagat @ 6.20
My goodness, you do write an awful lot of words that don’t really say much and avoid the question asked.
“Do your own homework”; that’s a new one in the discussion BTL comments section, wow, just so sneeringly arrogant and adds nothing to the thread. Nothing.
HTH [insert emoji of shaking head while rolling eyeballs and another of a hand doing the five knuckle shuffle]
PS: as far as I can see you have missed out milquetoast (honestly, who talks like that), quixotic (ditto) and tinfoil hats otherwise you’d have a full house of your endlessly repeated insults and put downs that you litter this site with when you appear..
Of course this proposed enfranchisement isn’t designed to translate into an objective and fair legal standard for the administration of elections or a referendum, it’s a clumsy and unsophisticated attempt to deprive English people of the vote, without being honest about that fact.
The use of a ‘local government franchise’ for a people who are also subject to extensive ‘demographic manipulation’ is clearly unacceptable for any national vote, and more especially a constitutional matter.
Moreover, Scots are already a sovereign people/nation and have the right to fully recover their sovereignty as remedy for (unlawful) annexation, i.e. the so-called ‘union’, which is a colonial hoax.
What price freedom?
Here’s what I think…
Freedom costs whatever a people are willing to pay… identity costs even more.
Freedom is worth the cost only if people are willing to remain themselves
even when their oppression demands they become someone else.
In short, freedom is priceless — but only to those willing to pay for it.
The illusion of freedom is often valued more than freedom itself, because real freedom is costly and the illusion of freedom is comfortable.
Most people choose comfort.
However, when the illusion of freedom breaks, a people must choose: remain themselves at any cost, or remain comfortable at the cost of being themselves.
That’s the heart of it… and that’s what Alf Baird is up against in trying to convince the Scots that their Scottish identity is of more value to them than their comfort.
Me?
I’d rather remain a Pict – Scot if preferred… same thing – than put on a suit that don’t fit.
But each tae thair ain, eh?
We’d prefer ye tae pit the suit oan, Northy.
Nae cant wants tae clock yer blue-pented, Pictish erse.
What do you call a Pict in a suit?
The accused!
What do you call a Prick in a blog?
John Main!
[or ‘Chas’, ‘Caveman’, ‘Adrian’ etc – take your P[r]ick]….
What do you call a brainless, jobless, smelly, thick fat twat on a blog?
Answers on a postcard, eh Fatso.
« We have catch’d Scotland and will bind her fast. »
(Speaker of the English parliament in 1707, after the Treaty of Union with Scotland was agreed)
———
McCRONE REPORT:
« In 1974 the UK Tory Government under Edward Heath commissioned a report by Treasury department civil servant Gavin McCrone, asking him to look into the economic viability of an independent Scotland. His findings were incendiary, and after Heath left office the McCrone Report was classified as secret by the incoming Labour government under James Callaghan. The report’s conclusions were so dangerous that it was designated secret and hidden for thirty years before a Freedom of Information request forced the UK Government to reveal its contents. »
link to youtube.com
——
MAP of 1976 UK WHITEHALL PLAN to slash Scotland’s maritime assets:
link to gobha-uisge.blogspot.com
More on McCRONE REPORT
(Despite its title, this 2013 YouTube below actually covers a variety of subjects, with the McCrone Report coming up at 41 mins 15 secs.)
BANNED DOCUMENTARY ON SCOTTISH OIL (The McCrone Report)
link to youtube.com
« Tha paipeirean oifigeil a bha dìomhair ga fosgladh, a’ toirt sealladh air an dòigh anns a robh difir riaghaltasan, Làbarach agus Tòraidheach suas chun na seachadan a’ dèiligeadh air cùl gnothaich leis an iomairt airson fèin-riaghladh do dh’Alba. »
« The story of how successive Labour and Conservative governments up until the 1970s worked behind the scenes to discredit the Home Rule movement and the SNP – as revealed through once secret papers now available from official archives. »
A little internet research reveals that really “dangerous” stuff is hidden for a lot longer than 30 years.
A little logical thought suggests that something “dangerous” that IS published after 30 years is no longer “dangerous”, and hence can no longer be pertinent or relevant.
A little brush with the real world tells most of us that very few people worry about what the people of 1707 might have said. After all, a lot of very nasty and dangerous people have said a lot of very nasty and dangerous things in the 300+ years since, and we don’t dwell on them or that either.
Looks to me, Fearghas, like you’re pining to get the “It’s Scotland’s Oil” band back together and touring again.
You need to start with the SNP and Greens at HR, and the ordinary Scots who keep voting for them. They’re far more hostile to the further development of Scotland’s oil and gas resources than WM is.
FoI request revealed McCrone report in 2005. Bampot.
@Chas 11.34am
I’m sure the Rev did some polling which indicated that there had been a fair bit of switching both ways, i.e. former No voters who now supported Yes and vice versa. I remember being quite surprised by the scale of it, even though it didn’t actually seem to have resulted at the time in any huge change in the headline figures for support of either option.
I honestly can’t imagine that there aren’t more people who voted No in 2014 who now regret it than there are people who voted Yes who wish they’d voted NO, but I’m not sure there are any specific polling figures.
Be that as it may, it seems pretty obvious that there definitely HAS been a shift in that recent polling suggests there is a majority in favour of independence. Whether the increase from 45% or high forties to over 50% comes from disgruntled No voters, supporters of the EU or former non-voters remains to be seen.
Note in particular that support for independence now far outstrips that for the SNP as a party, which again is hardly surprising given the SNP’s baleful recent record and its travails with embezzelment, ring fenced funds and the gender woo fiasco.
Remember Chas, we only have to get lucky once and polls do consistently show that the under 40’s age group (in fact it may even be under 55s) are now overwhelmingly pro independence. Translating that support for the abstract concept in to an actual movement or political force to make the concept a reality is of course a different thing.
Sadly I have a feeling that it is going to take some time. Given that we are now 12 years post #indyref1, perhaps it will be a”real” generation before we get another shot at it. At least that’d shut all britnats and Scottish unionists up wittering on about “once in a generation” though, so…silver linings and all that! 🙂
Andy-I genuinely believe that 50%+ of all Scots want Independence. I include myself in that figure. However I would NOT vote for Independence tomorrow as I would not vote for the unknown. I suspect that I am not alone amongst the 50%+.
It is up to Scottish individuals or politicians to produce some sort of plan/projections to convince us that an Independent Scotland would be feasible, practical, affordable, beneficial and most importantly a realistic alternative to what we currently have at Holyrood and Westminster
Airy fairy romanticism, it will all be fine, simply will not work, except for the gullible and there is thankfully not enough of them.
The first step must be the obliteration of the SNP and I agree that we are in for a long haul.
Chas
I take it you’ve never got into a boxing ring then; “oooooh! I might not win!!!”.
Fearty 🙂
Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh says:
12 July, 2026 at 11:10 pm
‘However, the fearless exemplary journalism of Rev Stuart Campbell through all of this has been a lonely raft keeping so many of us afloat. The word “hero” comes readily to mind…’
=============
Fheargais,
Excellent post!
I would only add that over many years there was a dog not barking here.
As the “SNP first, Indy next” brigade repeatedly whinge, Stuart’s efforts on this could do serious damage to the Sturgeon legacy SNP.
Good.
Why has it taken an independence supporting blogger to do that and not unionist parties or unionist media? Might the answer to that question be they don’t harm one of their own?
The Sturgeonite rump-SNP has been transformed into a devo-unionist outfit . The British establishment and its lackeys cannot be unhappy with that development.
It has taken the conviction of Peter Murrell to persuade elements of the MSM to play catch up with Stuart.
Next April or whenever, the Scottish Press Awards will pat selected establishment journos on the back for their good work in this area.
That’s right, the same people who ignored it for years and some of whom actually ridiculed a real journalist, Stuart Campbell, in print.
“Why has it taken an independence supporting blogger to do that and not unionist parties or unionist media? Might the answer to that question be they don’t harm one of their own?”
That, and Napoleon’s maxim:
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”.
In the tentative steps of emancipation from the colonial overlord (mamas titty) a nation learns the first of many lessons.
Do not give anybody your fucking money.
Please, Mark, “colonial overlady”. She’s the one with the titties.
You’re as mixed up as the gender weirdos screwing things up in HR.
You’ve obviously never heard of Risperidone.
UN Human Rights Committee is likely to be interested in the many UK abuses of human rights: the creation of poverty: food insecurity: for the poorest reduced life expectancies and periods of life free from disability: homelessness.
Social Murder? Austerity and Life Expectancy in the UK (Walsh and McCartney)
The UN Rapporteur on Human Rights has made findings against UK government on these abuses.
A country that colonises is likely to be repressive to its own people (the English). Colonialism prioritises control and exploitation.
There is a long list of abuses of human rights to report to the UN in Geneva and much evidence of it through the Rapporteur and academic research.
Lack of reading comprehension – and comprehension in general, perhaps – seems to be a trait common to colonialists.
I’ll try to make the definition of ‘indigenous’ as simple as possible, one that avoids all exclusionary implications and is fully respectful:
An indigenous Scot is someone whose ancestry and cultural roots lie in Scotland’s historic peoples… whether they live in Scotland today or in the diaspora.
This includes:
It does not exclude anyone based on origin, ethnicity, or background.
It is about heritage, not hierarchy.
Every people on Earth has an indigenous pattern – even the Inglis. Not because of blood, but because of continuity.
“Indigenous” is not a biological category… it’s a continuity pattern.
Across the world, every people who has:
…has what could be called an indigenous pattern.
This pattern is cultural, historical, linguistic, psychological, relational, and symbolic.
It is not racial or hierarchical or exclusionary or about purity.
It is about continuity.
I can trace my Pictish (Scottish if preferred… same thing) ancestry back many centuries.
I am not a ‘new’ Scot. I am a Scot descended from centuries of Scots… I am an indigenous Scot. My ancestry is Scots. My heritage is Scots. My identity is Scots. I am not British (‘British’ is a cultural abyss). I am a Scot.
Continuity is the key.
Every people has a continuity pattern, but each pattern is unique to that people.
And the pattern persists even when people migrate.
Someone descended from Julius Caesar and living in Scotland today would be considered an indigenous Italian in heritage terms.
But they would not be an indigenous Scot unless they also belonged to Scotland’s cultural continuity.
Their heritage signature would still carry the old Italian pattern – the Roman resonance – even if Scotland has layered new geometry on top.
This distinction is essential.
A Scot in Nova Scotia, a Maori in Australia, a Sami in Oslo, a Basque in Argentina (good luck on Wed, Argentina), an English in Scotland… all still carry their cultural heritage patterns.
Distance weakens immersion, but not identity.
The pattern becomes ‘diaspora continuity’ rather than ‘homeland continuity’.
The pattern is still valid, still real, still indigenous.
Still shite.
‘I believe the SNP and the Greens have to be destroyed as a political force in Scotland’
Not sure why John Main – and Lorncal? – believe that Green is a political force in Scotland.
Their HR support has gone from 0.1% in 2007, to 0.6% in 2016, 1.29% in 2021, and on to the dizzy heights of 2.29% in 2026.
What has happened is that those choosing a second option for the list vote have scrolled past their main rivals and put a ‘x’ next to the no-hoper Greens.
The misguided amongst us who denigrate SNP 1 & 2 fail to understand that 200K SNP1/Green 2 voters in 2021 and 250K in 2026 has given us 10 years of disastrous maladministration, whereas SNP1&2 would have given us zero Greens in 2021 and 3 in 2026.
This would have resulted in a minority administration both times with SNP unable to get away with much of the unscrupulousness of that period.
We should be grateful to the 1.7M SNP wasted votes of 2021 & 2026, not for voting SNP, but for ‘both votes’, just as 90% of the electorate do anyway: it is the only way to beat the sham of AMS.
But getting back to the ‘political force’ of the Greens, as the SNP continue to slip in the polls, they are very close to the tipping point in this AMS/D’Hondt system which will first destroy the Greens.
As the number of constituency seats decreases, the number of list seats increases … but only if the voter votes 1&2 for their chosen party. If, for example, a significant number of electors of any given party choose a second party on the list, their first choice will not see the expected increase in list seats.
So, as SNP decline in the polls, most SNP voters will likely revert to both votes SNP, then there will be far fewer list seats for Green, and they will return to the sewer from whence they came.
As can be seen from the figures below, taken from Holyrood election returns, once SNP sink to under 30% they – and Greens – become a busted flush.
Number of MSPs relative to the FPtP % share of the vote: –
69 45.4% vote share; (2011)
64 47.7% vote share; (2021)
63 46.5% vote share; (2016)
58 38.2% vote share; (2026)
50 34% (50 MSPs);
47 33% (47);
46 32% (46);
37 31% (37);
31 22% (31);
27 24% (27);
24 22% (24);
22 22% (22);
18 16% (18);
17 19% (17);
17 16% (17);
17 16% (17);
17 15% (17);
16 16% (16);
15 14% (15);
12 12% (12);
10 11% (10).
So according to some indigenous scot means “someone who agrees with me”
The definitions in the first answer are hilarious, that would include all the daft yanks that theink they are scottish because their great granny came from Benbecula, so Trump is scottish?
It also includes anyone who speaks gaelic, I don’t and have no interest in doing so.
Or those who can trace their ancestory back into the mists of time, never had any interest in doing so.
And excludes anybody who has ancestory that comes from elsewhere, no matter how far back it is.
I really don’t want to be associated with some of the more extreme folk on here, it makes me feel unclean.
Sadly Rob BTL here harbours more than its fair share of ethno-nationalist bigots. They are as ignorant of international law and the many precedents available of what franchises are used elsewhere as they are immune to reason.
Their favourite responses are usually to compare apples with oranges and confidently assert that other countries don’t allow non-citizens to vote, and then when that vacuous argument gets demolished to dismiss those who disagree with them as closet unionists, colonialists etc.
It’s not just you: they make all reasonable people’s flesh creep. A disgrace to the independence movement and to the Scots people as a whole.
“Indigenous Scot means ‘someone who agrees with me'”
Bingo, Rob!
Franchise discussions are a repeating theme on here. They usually end with somebody concluding that in any future democratic determination of Scotland’s status, in or out of the UK, only the votes for Indy will be counted.
That conclusion leads inexorably to where we are now – no plan, no leadership, no policies, no clue. What need is there for these minor details when anybody concerned about them will be excluded from the decision making process?
I must admit I am coming round to the FRANCHISE FANNIES promotion of the 2014 referendum franchise ,I would even extend that franchise tae include any cunt that wanted tae come here fae anywhere, they could even put themselves up for election the minute they arrived here , just think of the diversity and inclusion that we plastic Scots would inherit, we could even boast that we not only have the gayest wee parliament in the world we also have the first parliament in the world to not have a native born indigenous Scot elected to it
It would be such fun having no borders and no restrictions on race, religion or colour, as the Beatles alluded to just one big melting pot where black , white, brown , protestant,catholic, jew ,muslim would all get on like a house on fire ,I bet wee Chas would even invite everyone to join his golf club , wee John Main would have to get on with the decapitators and lassie rapists,the FRANCHISE FANNY would be in heaven with all his new Scots, he would probably invite some of the NEW Scots to come and live with him and his engerlish in laws in his wee mansion in Edinburgh
Marky beggan would have to emigrate to engerland where he can vote for Nige to privatise the NHS, and if engerland wanted to stop all the NEW Scots from pouring over the border THEY would have to build and pay for their isolation, because Scots are a welcoming country EVERYONE from ANYWHERE are welcome to share our resources
“no restrictions on race, religion or colour”
What time of restrictions are you after? Separate carriages on the train? separate neighbourhoods? Worked out great for South Africa so I’m sure it’s the right answer for Scotland.
Could Donald Trump claim to be an indigenous Scot?
Yes — in heritage terms, he could.
Here’s why:
Therefore:
By ancestry, Donald Trump is partly an indigenous Scot — specifically through the Gaelic lineage of the Hebrides.
This is a heritage fact.
Here’s a bit of anthropological clarity…
Indigenous identity is about continuity, heritage, cultural roots and belonging to a historical people.
It is not about citizenship, residence, political affiliation, or current location.
So yes — someone with a Hebridean Gaelic mother (someone like Donald Trump) does carry indigenous Scottish heritage.
It seems the colonialists in this place are especially thick compared to colonialists in general.
Donald Trump cannot claim to be an indigenous Scot because he was born and raised in New York, while the term “indigenous” specifically refers to the original, aboriginal inhabitants of a region—in this case, the Celtic and Pictish populations of Scotland.
While he is not indigenous, Trump has strong Scottish heritage. His mother, Mary Anne MacLeod, was born and raised on the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides, before immigrating to the United States. Through her, he qualifies for Scottish ancestry, but he remains a Scottish-American rather than an indigenous Scot.
Here’s my counter-argument – and to be honest, it’s more than colonialists in this place deserve:
I’m right you’re wrong.… there, sorted.
Odd, Northy.
Most reasoning readers will conclude that the owner of a blog site is right.
Posters BTL are wrong.
No exceptions, not even for 1000 year old, space travelling Picts.
Totally off topic but has anyone heard or seen anything of events in Lebanon,Palestine and those areas which are facing destruction by another (s)?
I know the world cup , Wimbledon , rugby and cycling are important but feel the priorities are a tad askew.
Dinna fash.
They’re still firing missiles every chance they get. Still leaching off and stealing from the women and kids they claim to be fighting for. Still embedding themselves in schools and hospitals, hoping that a big crop of collateral damage will persuade more gullible westerners to feel sorry for them.
SAMUEL RUTHERFORD (1600-1661)
Highly influential anti-monarchist Scottish constitutional thinker.
« Presbyterian minister and St Andrews Professor, Samuel Rutherford in his ‘LEX REX’ (‘LAW AND THE PRINCE’) laid the foundation for the libertarian ideas of the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Indeed, the American War for Independence was referred to by the British as a “Presbyterian Rebellion”. John Locke (‘Father of Classical Liberalism’) was himself much influenced by Rutherford’s ‘Lex, Rex’. »
Antecedent Scottish constitutional thinkers of influence who also argued against absolutism were George Buchanan (1506-1582), John Mair (Gleghornie, 1467-1550), and John Duns Scotus (1266-1308). The thinking of John Duns Scotus is believed to have been foundational to the democratic rationale of both the Declaration of the Clergy (1310) and the Declaration of Arbroath (1320).
Brief (26 mins) survey of Rutherford’s (challenging) book:
link to youtube.com
Archive PDF of entire book:
link to dn790000.ca.archive.org