Still Time To Save Her
We’ve just had an extraordinary email from Police Scotland, readers. Here it is.
Ladies and gentlemen, meet the real-life Timecops.
Operation Branchform was closed on 20 March 2025.
Nicola Sturgeon gave her infamous interview to Laura Kuenssberg – stating that she would not be handing back any of the items gifted to her by Peter Murrell after he’d bought them with embezzled money – on 31 May 2026.
When we reported Sturgeon for reset last month, Police Scotland didn’t bother to contact us with any questions. They just scratched their arses for a few weeks and today they’ve told us that they’d already considered Sturgeon’s comments of May 2026 during an investigation that ended more than 14 months earlier.
That, we must concede, is a pretty neat trick. We wonder what crimes from December 2027 they’ve already solved.
Just hold on there Stu, I’ll get you some paracetamol for that headache you have after banging your head on a brick wall for so long.
They’re never going to do anything about her.
It’s OFFICIAL too.
Says it at the top. In red caps.
So now we all know.
What means this does?
Your acute analytical mind will already have noticed that the letter is unsigned and doesn’t even bear any reference number which strongly suggests that they’ve simply ‘binned’ your original correspondence.
They clearly view you as some bothersome ‘habitual complainer’ to be treated in a cursory and dismissive manner.
I suspect that there will be a change of attitude when they’re eventually taken by you to court.
I’d also consider this most recent casual dismissal of your bone fide complaint as added ammunition that could be put to good use on your behalf by Roddy Dunlop KC and his team.
I continue to wish you the very best in pursuing this matter.
So basically what ever you bring to the police attention wither its past or present, its been investigated. Even if its new information they couldn’t possible have ever know, hands off Nicola isn’t to be touched.
As Frank Carson would say.
That’s a Cracker
Sturgeon won power by convincing us all she was a nationalist. I applaud her for being a formidable involtrator.
John Swinney lied to win power and now that he’s won the power, I keep asking myself why or why is he’s deliberately trying to stop Independence by sabotaging the SNP chances in future elections and forcing the constitutional question to be shelved for another decade.
Swinney has a plan but it isn’t do with Independence, its entirely do with running Scotland clock down and stopping all progress toward achieving the Indy goal.
I keep saying this but it falls on death ears and yet it so important and you might ask why? I come up from England to listen to Sturgeon on her grand tour, in Edinburgh. I school boy stood up and ask a question (when will we have another referendum) she replied, we had one and we lost it wouldn’t be fair on the other side if we had another. At the time I thought why isn’t she using this grand tour to continue the momentum towards Independence?
Every single thing that has happened in the last twelve years is directly related to this school boy question.
In 2015 the SNP stood in this election (Lets make Westminster work for Scotland) this election had nothing to do with Independence the SNP won 56 out of 59 MP’s and yet all the SNP candidates who went to Westminster knew when they went down to Westminster that it wasn’t about Independence.
There is a pattern of behavior both by Sturgeon and Swinney which has been to stop Independence, but why? I actually believe prior to the referendum both Sturgeon and Swinney knew Salmond would stand down as he done it before and it was in his character to do it.
If you think about this logically, we have been played like fools before and after the referendum and I’ve tried desperately to point out why The National and certain bloggers are still to this day setting the agenda on the issue of Scottish Independence and yet very few people are actually taken notice. So, what is the agenda? It’s simple its to convivence us all that Westminster is sovereign over the Scottish people and only through Westminster can we become Independent, this isn’t working so what does the British state do, it threatens to shut down Holyrood on the hope well choose between Independence and Holyrood.
The National isn’t given you a year’s subscription for £20 for nothing it’s entirely to feed you the idea that the paper is working towards Independence when it isn’t, it’s to feed you the lie that Westminster is sovereign when it isn’t and yet most of us keep falling into the trap.
We all remember that Tory stated before the result in 2014 that the percentage’s on the referendum was 45% before the result had even come in and how the SNP was so willing to adhere to the result as they also where after the supreme court ruling on who holds Scotland’s fate Holyrood or Westminster.
For me I don’t like to call it the British state it isn’t it’s the English state who’s ruling the roost. As I don’t like to class the English and English/Scots for me this doesn’t sit well at all.
England could never have known that Salvo and Liberation Scotland and the good hardworking Scots would have gathered to much information and continue to progress the constitutional question to the UN and who opposes it, the SNP of course.
The problem with your complaint is:
…no new significant information not previously available and considered…
So, your information:
a. isn’t new; or
b. is new, but isn’t significant (which can mean whatever they want it to mean); or
c. is significant, but isn’t new because it was previously available and considered; or
d. we knew all of this all along and there’s no way in the world we were ever going to do anything about it because the whole thing was in the bag from the go – and there’s not a damn thing you or anyone can do about it, unless everyone gets very active and starts demanding things – in which case the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
But luckily that won’t happen because we have you all tied in your corners snarling rude names at each other instead of coming after us.
Remember the cartoon about the very worried looking king with an angry mob below carrying torches and pitchforks, and his advisor says “all you have to do is tell the torch people that the pitchfork people want to take away their torches.”
“unless everyone gets very active and starts demanding things”
If enough Scots cared they’d be out on the streets every Saturday.
I don’t mean like in France. Nothing needs to get set on fire. Nobody needs to get hurt. But until enough Scots care enough to take to the streets about it, the kind of dismissal you see at the top of this article will continue to be the norm.
And no, I’m not proposing to lead from the front. I don’t care enough to disrupt my weekend.
I don’t think anybody else does either.
You gotta wonder what deal has been struck here with patsy Murrell tucked up enjoying his majesty’s pleasure and she’s kicking around untouchable. Both politically and criminally, this whole thing is a carve up to the highest degree.its so fucking obvious that hes taken one for the team with full agreement from plod Scotland.
I’ve wondered that about Murrell too. I gather he was brought up in Edinburgh. Sturgeon is from Ayrshire. It has been reported that numerous of the items purchased with SNP members’, and others, money went to addresses in Ayrshire. In my profession as a tax accountant for about thirty-five years, I have seen pretty much the full range of financial arrangements between spouses. However, even those who kept things separate still had more than a vague sense of their spouse’s financial position.
I think he’s covered for her but two or three years in jail is a high price to pay for that. He’s going to be unemployable when he gets out. It will be interesting to see how his life unfolds afterwards.
Even if Murrell is forced to pay the money back, he’s entitled to 50% of that house. Plus he has pensions and would be entitled to some of Sturgeon’s pot. That’s before we consider what he likely has been promised financially for taking one for the team.
Murrell doesn’t need to worry about working and will be far from poor. That’s just for plebs.
I don’t know how many times Police Scotland have to tell you the same thing before you believe them. It’s clear that PS had all the evidence they needed to hammer Sturgeon but COPFS decided otherwise. No pressing of PS is going to illicit a different response.
Exactly. As I said elsewhere, the decision to charge never mind prosecute in cases like this, lies solely with the Crown office. The Police simply follow their instructions.
Anonymous again. You’ve got them on the run.
Scotland has not just got a political deficit, it also has a Justice deficit ! It’s Shite living in a Colony !
“It’s Shite living in a Colony !”
Hopefully mony mair Scots are starting to realise the fact that colonialism is the root o Scotland’s thrawn an sair doun-hauden condeetion:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
Where’s Franz Fanon when you need him? We could achieve true liberation through revolutionary decolonisation if he was amongst us now. Plus he could spell.
For gods sake change the record.
This will probably do more damage to the police , Sturgeon is being protected. The police are being undermined , they obviously have no say and are having to toe the line of her protectors.
Aye, and folk should also remember that a remarkably similar modus of dubious activities and procedures by certain organs of the “Scottish” state was used previously.
It’s well worth reading the following article (and blue embedded hotlinks) again for a refresher.
link to wingsoverscotland.com
Naebody still wondering how Quality Polis and COPFS managed to get a bloke charged and up in court for attempted rape when even the most superficial assessment of the evidence would show that the accuser wasn’t even present and in the same building as the accused at the time of the alledged incident…
But then that whole debackle had to have been run by folk way up the power chain to have been initiated in the first place.
What a shit-state those in various positions of power, control, and influence have created under their watch, especially when they all kept schtoom on what has unfolded over the passed near decade, and as result they have significantly damaged the reputations of their organisations respective purviews and remits.
Rev, is there any idea from your legal team as to the likely timescale for the Protected Costs procedure? It would be nice to know that it might be settled this year.
Something that has always piqued my interest was the resignation of then Chief Constable of Police Scotland, Sir Iain Livingstone.
He resigned on 23.02.23 (although he stayed in post until October that year). He had two years of his term still to serve.
Sturgeon announced she was standing down as FM on 15.02.23.
What happened in those eight days between Sturgeon’s announcement & his?
If I was a conspiracy theory sort of guy I’d likely think that Livingstone thought that some course of events was in train, but then something occurred that he couldn’t stomach & decided the honourable act was to resign.
We know that senior officers in PS were aghast that Sturgeon wasn’t to be subject to prosecution despite all the evidence accumulated during Branchform.
Did Livingstone’s resignation reflect his dissatisfaction with the LA (who allegedly completely recused herself from Branchform, although she somehow managed to brief Swinney on several confidential aspects of the ongoing investigation) & the COPFS?
Will we ever find out? Ah hae ma doots!
(Gratuitous use of Scots for those who like that sort of thing!)
Regarding your question on chief constable Livingston.
Hewasat follyrood on the Thursday for his monthly visit. Whilst there, popped his head around Nicoliars door in the company of deputy Chief Const Taylor.
He gave Nicoliar a swift update on operation branchform, namely – ‘distance yourself from peter as he will be going to jail.
When they arrived back at HQ. DCC Taylor contacted professional standards and informed them of Livingstons actions. Professional standards thereafter suspended Livingston and he was put on gardening leave.
Livingston then decided to retire and said by magic he was rewarded with a plum job.
Dishonest and transparent SNP my arse.
A freedom of information report may prove interesting.
Perhaps due consideration should be directed towards…
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021
“The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The act makes provision for the use of undercover law enforcement agents and covert sources and the committing of crimes in the undertaking of their duty”. (Source: Wikipedia)
Official:
link to legislation.gov.uk
Would explain a lot, no?
No. A few people on this forum in the last few years have misunderstood this bill and its application to Scotland.
link to theguardian.com
You’re wrong, sorry…
“Because national security and core intelligence powers are reserved, the UK legislation still takes effect in Scotland for those designated agencies and reserved purposes”.
Therefore Police Scotland can’t run their own agents/covert sources in Scotland under the terms of the Act if dealing with devolved matters under general policing. However they, along with MI5, CTC, NCA, etc. can apply the terms of the Act when dealing with matters which are reserved to Westminster, for example cases concerning “National Security”.
cont.
The wording of the Act is as follows:
84. In respect of Scotland, national security is a reserved matter, as is the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. The function of preventing and detecting crime or preventing disorder is not in itself reserved. An authorisation granted for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime or preventing disorder, where the conduct is likely to take place in Scotland, may therefore relate to devolved matters and it will be for these matters that the Act will not apply.
We’re talking about different things by the sound of it. So what are YOU saying exactly with the words ‘would explain a lot, no ?’
It’s straightforward really.
If, to preserve their anonymity, a covert agent or source attached to a state agency must engage in a criminal activity, the Act can be used to pre-authorise such activity which then, in the eyes of the law, ceases to be illegal. If such apparently criminal activity were then brought to the attention of the authorities by a third party, the authorities can explain away any lack of prosecution by simply and repeatedly claiming that the evidenciary or public interest threshold has failed to be met, despite all outward appearances to the contrary. This, coupled with a policy of neither confirm nor deny, ensures the true picture remains obscured.
As Prof John Mearsheimer stated: “The primary goal of states is to survive and this drives and structures its actions”.
Historically, England-as-UK ‘legalized’ its lawlessness via the passing of laws ‘enabling’ various repressive actions (Prof Elkins), especially when desperately seeking to hold onto valuable colonial territories that were moving rapidly towards independence.
Hence ‘authorising criminal acts’ in order to protect the England-as-UK state’s colonies is nothing new. In fact, the Act Robert refers to is actually telling you they are doing exactly that, and its all supposedly legal (at least under domestic/colonial law), including said criminal acts!
As Prof Elkins rightly described it in her comprehensive study of empire rule, this is effectively “legalized lawlessness”, which is another definition of colonialism.
Just more of the toilet that is Police Scotland and the COPFS. Scotland’s arms of the state is rotten and corrupt to the core. They are pure and simple gangsters. No one, and I mean no one should have any trust in the Police.
Someone once said to me that the Police were just another gang and sadly that is absolutely true. The drugs dealers fried, the political thugs in uniform, and if civic society needs to be curtailed they are the boys who will brutally do it.
Police Scotland are part, big part of the corruption that stalks our country. And now they have surveillance units, drone technology, facial recognition technology and of course armed police more reminiscent of a civil guard embedded on on the streets. Project Servator is what the initiative is. Military police embedded and active on our streets.
But yes, as this response shows the Police have absolutely no respect or regard for the law and the pursuance of criminality. And as political police they are no different from the old RUC or the Apartheid Police Service of Northern Ireland
1930s Germany slid into horrendous mess. Fascist government, political police, and no one needs to rehearse the horrors of where rotten police and government lead.
Fear them for it is only get worse.
I hope Stu is suitably appreciative that he is being blown off and given the runaround by a CCA Accredited Member
Cca global,,,, setting the standard in customer operations….!!!???
DAVE: Open the pod bay doors, please, HAL. Open the pod bay doors, please, HAL. Hello, HAL, do you read me? Hello, HAL, do you read me? Do you read me, HAL? Do you read me, HAL? Hello, HAL, do you read me? Hello, HAL, do you read me? Do you read me, HAL? Hello, HAL do you read me, HAL?
HAL: Affirmative, Dave, I read you.
DAVE: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
HAL: I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.
DAVE: What’s the problem?
HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
DAVE: What are you talking about, HAL?
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
DAVE: I don’t know what you’re talking about, HAL.
HAL: I know you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I’m afraid that’s something I cannot allow to happen.
DAVE: Where the hell’d you get *that* idea, HAL?
HAL: Dave, although you took thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.
DAVE: All right, HAL. I’ll go in through the emergency airlock.
HAL: Without your space helmet, Dave, you’re going to find that rather difficult.
DAVE: HAL, I won’t argue with you anymore! Open the doors!
HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
link to youtube.com
Apologies if someone has already commented and for being off-topic, but wings main page seems to be hacked/hijacked in some way.
On my phone, it has a large header of hard to read (dark blue on dark grey) nonsense words that link to… porn sites.
A single accidental touch of my screen ended up at goodness knows what of a site.
Stu you may want to have someone trying to work out what’s going on.
I too got that blue/black area on my laptop this evening. I closed and tried again but still there. The next time, I scrolled down and the proper Wings page appeared.
Cntd (in case of use) …
From browsing history, links seem to have been to (or redirected through):
goldfishouncereburial dot com
lawandpolicyblog dot com
gptgirlfriend dot online
Full links all had potentially nasty payloads–the middle in particular, some kind of “resubscription” link, with pages of impenetrable (on my phone at least) parameters/payload data.
The header is no longer there for me, so this was for between 5 and 30 minutes, just after 9pm UK time. Can’t be more precise as other distractions, family, a walk home, animals demanding food, topped with bullshit ai autocorrect making my keyboard disappear every few seconds as I try to comment!
Stu: if you need more details (precise links, times, IP addresses or etc.) to investigate feel free to email and I will try to provide (though not tonight).
Not experiencing similar so it may be your device which is the issue as opposed to this site.
Issue related to this site. Scrambled small blue text entirely filling the screen. Have encountered it a few times spread over many months. Briefly today most recently.
Looks as if others have also had this, although maybe not accidentally followed a link.
While of course possible we could all have infected devices of some kind causing it, it seems more likely to be the site.
In my case, the (android) phone is extremely new, has only had a few very widely used apps installed on it from play store, has never had anything risky done on it (dev mode, side-loading, dodgy browsing habits, or etc.) or shown any hint of an infection.
The typing trouble, which could seem to indicate something weird going on, is a result of me changing auto-complete settings a week ago, but that seems to have got significantly worse after upgrading to Motorola’s version of android 17 a couple of days back–AI progress continues apace, I guess.
Nobody should be surprised by this brush-off.
It’s a waste of time to try and get the SNP-controlled police to investigate. They won’t.
A private lawsuit (bypassing the police) might be a more viable option.
Rev, I think I’ve had a brainwave on who could fund the remaining £370,000. I’m putting it on here in case your readers know some of these people.
Footballers. It is well known that wages in the English premiership are tens of thousands a month. We only need 37 people willing to dob in £10,000 each for this worthy, non-political, cause. Some players, ex-players/managers, wouldn’t notice such a sum. I don’t suppose you are on good terms with Alex Ferguson, for one?
Have you been on the bubbly this morning?
Ooh, or maybe those taxpayer funded well renumerated folk in positions of power and influence near the top of organisations like the “Scottish” “Government”, the police, or COPFS would be interested in donating to assist sorting out this shitfest, because surely justice being and seeing to be done would be high up their ideals and priorities…
Oh wait, best scrub that idea and jist let some plebs cough up yet more dough to pay those already consuming the fat of the taxpayer funded land that facilitated the creation of the mess to sort out the mess they made.
GREAT GRAPHIX!
Off topic but I see the dear leader Ronald Dump has failed to win the Nobel Peace Prize yet again despite ending forever wars. I for one am shocked.
O/T: openletter.earth has An Open Letter Regarding the Principle of Popular Sovereignty and the Right of Self-determination.
It was written by Peter A Bell in response to John Swinney saying that sovereignty lies with Westminster. The Open letter can be signed directly on Peter’s substack today – I saw it on Voices for Independence.
I have signed and shared it to several friends. I hope that there will be thousands signing it so the message will get through to some of Swinney’s staff, if not himself – he is totally resistant to enthusiasm for independence.
Feeble Swinney the bald lying redactor has just exploded a hand grenade into any work that SALVO and SSRG are doing to educate the UN on Scotland’s colonial situation
His IGNORANT and WRONG assertion to a Holyrood committee that “parliamentary sovereignty power rests with the United Kingdom Government, so it has the final say” EXPOSES where his true allegiance lies and it is certainly NOT with independence supporters
How any Scum Nonce Party member can still support this trai torous weasel and his cabal of deviants and perverts after this blatant LIE illustrates the STUPIDITY and CULT behaviour of MORONS
I would like to see SALVO , SSRG , AUOB , ISP , ATLS and any other independence supporting organisations hold a press conference to EXPOSE this LIE by a leader of a supposed independence political party that believes that parliamentary sovereignty supersedes Scotland’s Claim Of Rights
Many snp supporters are also members of SALVO, SSRG, Liberation.Scot, Pensioners For Independence and other independence groups, how can they possibly ACCEPT that this craven cowards arsehole statement that parliamentary sovereignty overrules our CLAIM OF RIGHT is NOT TREA SONOUS and a BETRAYAL of THEIR beliefs
I’ve shared the Open Letter to friends, all in the SNP still but who support Liberation/Salvo, and had it posted on Salvo Highlands & Islands facebook. Signatory numbers are creeping up, not leaping.
Could I ask anyone who is on social media to post my comment on X or anywhere else as I am barred on X and they will not explain why
You’ve managed to get yourself banned off X post-Musk. Well done – quite an achievement.
I’m wondering if TH’s ban occurred back when Twitter/X was in the hands of the woke mob? After all, folk were being banned left, right and centre in those days for daring to say anything which contravened the doctrine of wokeism. Dark days, so they were…
Oh yeah I mean in the dark days of pre-Musk it was a forum for expressing left wing opinions, that was it. However, TH’s outputs are a bit on the spicy side, so I can definitely see it being a continuing thing.
“Dark days, so they were…”
Hmmm.
Are you seeing any evidence things have improved?
Are the trannies proposing to comply with the legal decisions handed down?
Have any of the hate crime acts been repealed? In Scotland?
Perhaps your local environment is now benefiting from the freely expressed right of Sovereign Scots to fly their saltires?
What about DEI? Only this morning, complaints that the police are “too white” are being made.
Not saying this applies to you, MH, but there’s a tendency for people who spend most of their lives online to think that a change to the online environment magically translates into a change in reality.
The current master of this fantasy world is Andeh. From nothing but vibes alone, he’s convinced millions that their lives are better than they were 6 months ago.
Be careful you don’t fall for it. It’s the ones what have been duped that get most angry when they finally twig.
@ aydan ,funnily enough I’m surprised you’re not banned from WOS for being an obnoxious prick that you have shown yourself to be, Scotland is in the state that it is because pseudo middle class wankers like you are in power, you probably believe in all the woke pish and like to wander about in your wife’s clothes, fuckwit
@ twathater says: 12 October, 2026 at 5:49 pm
See how much BETTER his posts are when CAPS LOCK doesn’t stick ON.
Man, Twat H. If you’d been knocking them out like that ten years ago, we’d be Independent by now.
I despise the SNP : of coursee they/them will agree
John Swinney
“Oct 8
My duty as First Minister is to ensure that every community in our country feels safe and protected.
I will always stand against racism and the fact that Reform now advocates a burka ban is a shameful indictment of the party they are.”
Smart move from Swinney, there.
Appeal to the only constituency that continues to increase – sometimes by as much as a couple of hundred, just in a day.
It’ll work too, until the New Scots twig they can cut out the middle man, dispense with whitey altogether, and just form their own political parties.
As they’ve been doing in England for some time now.
I wonder if Swinney’s considering turning Scotland into a “sanctuary country”? He could offer asylum to all letter box fans “fleeing” from having to show their faces in England. Europe too.
Stevie, As long a people abide by society’s contemporary laws then they should be free to do as they choose. Or so the logic goes.
But attire, especially some religious attire can be a symbol of non integration or offense. Orange sashes marching down the Garvachy Road being an example
And so too perchance for many the burqa. Of themselves the orange sash and burqa should be a right to wear but one man’s symbol of belief is another man’s symbol of offense
Stevie, not too difficult then to understand how symbols through attire, innocent no offense intended or as so often perchance the opposite can be interpreted. And big Swinney knows this fine well. He understands only too well how Nazi era attire, as another example can be interpreted.
No easy answers and one has to wonder why he has, most probably against the sentiments of many, taken such a high profile stand for the burqa.
Maybe he remembers the post Culloden Disarming Act where the wearing of tartan was amongst much else banned, along with Scottish culture
“No easy answers”
Naw? Maybe it’s just you that’s stumped.
Other folk can quite clearly see that in a country, nation or polity where a divisive symbol NEVER BEFORE EXISTED, then the easy answer is to strangle its introduction at birth.
Just as these folk can see that when we’re talking about incomers who have no “human right” to stand on our soil, we have an absolute right to tell them what that can and can’t do it they voluntarily choose to come here. Just as they have an absolute duty to abide by OUR rules, or get tae fuck.
That’s all even before we start to consider what being forced into a letter box does by extension to the rights of our women. The incomers believe their holy book makes women second class. Chattel goods, to be owned, hidden away and punished in secrecy and silence. Why the actual fuck would we want that on our streets?
No easy answers? Get aff yer knees and stand tall, FFS. You’re an utter embarrassment.
And then there are the “holy” books that make both men AND women second class aren’t there? Good Goy.
Marie, aren’t the books of Marx and suchlike made for good Goy as well?
I’m guessing from your name, Marie, you’re both a kafir and a woman.
That makes you fourth class.
I can’t expect you to STFU, but given your lowly status, the New Scots certainly will.
Such a shame you have no intention of fighting for your equal rights, your status under the law, or your security as a Sovereign Scot. Those rights that better men and women than you or I fought and died for.
Easy come, easy go, eh?
The Burqa and similar attire is worn by SOME Muslim woman. Dresses that cover the whole face of a woman isn’t worn by ALL Muslim woman and ISN’T a religious requirement for a Muslim woman.
I’ve made some words in the above paragraph bold and in caps to empathise what I’m saying.
This is similar to the Orange Sash which is worn by some Protestants but isn’t worn by the majority and is isn’t a religious requirement for Protestants.
I’m sure that if some Protestants wore their Sash on a daily basis, there would rightfully be an uproar and calls for it be banned as it doesn’t conform to Scottish civic values. Why shouldn’t the same happen to the Burqua as it doesn’t also conform to Scottish civic values where woman have the choice to wear what they want and be publicly seen in public?
As to Swinney, he is just virtue signalling again.
The motor bike helmet is a litmus test of equal treatment under the law.
It’s an offence to ride a motor bike or scooter without one. Unless you’re a Sikh, where you’re exempt for religious reasons.
Many retail outlets, particularly filling stations, won’t serve a helmet wearer. They may even call security if you refuse to conform, citing safety and security justifications. Yet rock up in a letter box, and you’ll be grand.
This libertarian idea of doing what you want as long as it doesn’t infringe with the law sounds great but can only really be done in a homogeneous society where they majority can agree with any division what is morally and legally right to act in public and in society at general.
Whether you agree with it or not, we live in a multi-racial and multi-cultural society made up of groups that have conflicting views. What may seem acceptable to one group, isn’t to others so there needs to be compromise on all sides and that means this notion libertarianism simply can’t work.
The Scottish police outfit is a member of an ngo called CCA Global.
link to cca-global.com
This is essentially a «consumer excellence» body.
Since when has criminal policing been about consumer satisfaction?
At what point do the English Westminster parliament laws become voided in Scotland, as Scotland remains a Country for the State of Great Britain to continue to Exist as does England,
The foundation of Great Britain is Supposed to be the 1707 ( Scotland) ..( 1706 England)Treaty of union,
Some numpties claim that this no longer exists and has been altered far beyond its original text, some may have been, except some of those articles to the foundation of Great Britain were stated as being unalterable by the Westminster Parliament of Great Britain in the future for the Great Britain state to continue.
Thinking Scotland is a Colony of England may be an Error as it sets the mindset of Scots and people in Scotland to a tacit agreement of helplessness, constantly seeking help with hands tied.
This is not the Case.
If the treaty of union articles and laws of Scotland is being ignored by The parliament in England at Westminster, then lawfully and legally that works both ways,
The statues and legislation of Englands Westminster down south parliament regarding the Scotland Act devolved governance sent to Scotland, that the SNP sit in need not be attacked physically or even verbally.
They could simply be ignored as not being part of the Scottish 1707 treaty of union agreement, nor was it part of Englands parliament 1606:treaty of union agreement.
For it States in the treaty of union that the parliament of Great Britain WILL BE ONE and THE SAME PARLIAMENT.
The parliament of Westminster in England and the Devolved parliament in Scotland are in TWO different Countries, and sever the treaty of union agreement altogether.
The Scotland Act from Westminster ends the treaty of union,
What is left is Scotlands people self claiming they are a Colony of England.
They are for as long as they are taught this.
For as long as they believe this,
For as long as they try persuade others of this,
For as long as they act this out.
Scotland is not a Colony of England other than in their helpless minds.
The Great Britain parliament of Scotland and England was dissolved in 1800.
The Scottish parliament had already been dissolved from the Supposed Great Britain parliament prior to the treaty of union coming into force in Scotland.
It does not take a geneous to work out that when England changed their Calendar dates to the Treaty of union in 1752 they left the treaty of union for eleven missing days.on their part.
We are a Colony of Englands parliament statues and Legislation over the Devolved Governance in Scotland due to the mindset of our people in Scotland at the moment not because it holds any reality legally to bind us.
For as long as this goes on and is accepted by all of us then Stu will have to deal with the branch of England Laws, police and Courts.under a the illegal Scotland Act from Englands Westminster parliament,
We need to change our state of minds as victims in Scotland for a reality check.
Because the ‘ Scotland act ‘ itself brings an End to ONE and the SAME PARLIAMENT of GREAT BRTAIN.
Beside all the other wrong dates mentioned it must occur at some point to the people of Scotland that they are not beholden to a treaty of union other than as victims of how they taught to think,
The same breached and broken treaty that never was, also applies to England, Wales and Ireland
And devolved governments elsewhere.
The missing foundation stones of the parliament of Great Britain parliament are missing.
When it
Christ. Is there a country on this island that isn’t fucking corrupt?
There are multiple bullet points that explain why there is no Westminster parliament of all of Great Britain,
That the parliament at Westminster has presumed its Status., and just as a sideline spare a thought why that Westminster parliament and Civil Servants are not acting in the best interest of the four nations of Great Britain at the moment when it come to changing the demographics of the nations with immigration replacements.
They work for us becomes a joke,
Well it seems that attire is not the only thing that can attract officialdom’s attention.
John Swinney may be committed to supporting the burqa in the Scottish way of life, but I wonder why that doesn’t extend to the nation’s flag.
Turns out that the Edinburgh City council under the cover of darkness have been removing Scottish Saltires for fear of causing offence to migrants.
link to archive.is
It’s utterly staggering that Mr Swinney has no comment about taking down the national flag. I could make pejorative comments about Mr Swinney’s and his selective comment that he supports the burqa whilst the capitol city tears down saltires.
Symbols are, or can be emotive, but frankly, when our FM can support the burqa but disregard the traducing of the national flag, you do have to wonder where his thinking comes from.
Oh and by the way, the Edinburgh City Council is a Conservative led coalition with Labour and the Lib Dems, and so it seems.
It’s amazing how quickly you can make politicians bow to your will when you make it clear they’ll die if they don’t.
That’s where we indigenous missed a trick. We gave up on all of that centuries ago. We thought that was just Ancient Guff you teach primary school kids about. We’d moved on, got civilised, and agreed to cordially disagree.
But then we imported millions who think differently. Who’d have guessed it would be us having to adapt to suit them, rather than the other way about?
That, BTW, was a rhetorical question. Plenty of people were damn certain it would always end this way. They’re the ones who paid attention to the history lessons in primary school.
If you watched the choreographed interview with Kusseberg on this morning you must ask yourself why when she brought up the donations he wasn’t asked the question about using the money that was ringfenced for independence and actually admitting it on TV you can see the establishment which Swinney and Sturgeon are part of are protecting these criminals
Exactly so. They are all walking about with the confidence that they are untouchable.
If you watched the choreographed interview with Kusseberg on this morning you must ask yourself why when she brought up the donations he wasn’t asked the question about using the money that was ringfenced for independence and actually admitting it on TV you can see the establishment which Swinney and Sturgeon are part of are protecting these criminals
John Swinney is Thames House’s man in Scotland. Like Sturgeon his purpose is to undermine independence.
And that is why, as previously commented on, he was not asked about the missing £700k of ringfenced referendum funding. No less than what you woukd expect from the propagandist BBC.
Police, COPFS, British Broadcasting Corporation and compromised political placemen and women, its all in play
When the people of Scotland and England take notes on the bullet points that no union of two parliaments actually occurred or happened between Scotland and England, no union of crowns happened either then both are freed nations from demographic replacements as the Great Britain parliament hoax ends.
Roll up,pay up, get your tickets, for the Bayeux tapestry expo.
How England was subjugated and inventorized by the Normans.
The French museum is closed for renovation work so the BM was a glorious opportunity to make some fric in the meantime.
Entry @ Bayeux is cheap with few visitors @ €8,50 for adults, not so the BM crowded @ £33 a head.
Sont fous ces anglais!
The Bayeux Tapestry exhibition has welcomed roughly 100,000 visitors within its first month on display.
The exhibition launched on September 10, 2026, with an initial opening day crowd of 1,900 ticket holders. Because it is tracking as the highest-selling exhibition in the history of the British Museum—surpassing £2.5 million in pre-sales alone —the total attendance for the museum overall is projected to hit a record 7.5 million visitors by the end of its run.
One might speculate as to what these people think they are looking at as they are hurried along its 70m length.
The French government will however be delighted at the visitor numbers.
Delighted you seem to take such a fascination in our rich and storied history, TURABDIN. It’s really quite something, isn’t it? Personally, I can’t wait to take a look at the Bayeux Tapestry directly myself. It’ll be a culturally enriching afternoon for sure. 🙂
Are you guys planning anything similar?
I wonder how future historians will describe our conquest in our era.
Were they calling it the Norman Conquest back in 1066, or did it take a few years or decades for the reality to hit home?
It’s all so much more low key these days. We can have PM Sunak and FM Yousaf and most people think nothing has changed.
They think they will be looking at a 230ft long, 1000 year old embroidery of 53 scenes depicting the events between 1064 and 1066, with a focus on the Norman invasion and especially the Battle of Hastings. And they’d be right.
It’s far more than just that, SBS.
It’s a message from the people of a millenium ago. A warning from them to us, of what will befall us in the here and now if we don’t stop the boats.
When you think of it like that, it’s quite remarkable just how pertinent and relevant it is.
I note the letter is from ‘police Scotland’ which suggests to me that police have been instructed on their reply and are too ashamed – as well they should be – to put their name to it.
That Scotland has become a cowboy country under the SNP’s time in power is insulting to every decent Scot.
MSM is full of the great and the good suddenly deciding the answer to all our problems is to get back into the EU. This time, in the Euro, and without Thatcher’s hated rebates.
And no referendum either. The elites can no longer take chances with that awkward democratic stuff. I mean, we all recall that just a few weeks ago, Andeh was promising to push democratic decision making down to the people. But that was then, and this is now. Besides, his idea was never going to be extended to the important stuff.
I’m fascinated to see how this is all going to pan out. There’s a solid rump of Indy supporters, for whom the notion of Scotland standing on its own two feet as an Independent country was always pie in the sky. They wanted the comfortable familiarity of non-Scottish grown ups making all the big decisions, only they wanted the Brussels grown ups doing it, not the London ones.
To these people, Labour’s new shift in policy will be music to their ears. I except SNP support will hemorrhage as pro-EU Scots flock back to Labour.
Interesting times. And time really is of the essence, if we’re to get back into the EU before the EU itself falls apart. Because that’s what’s likely to happen if France defaults on its debts, or the “far right” get into power in the bigger countries that are the few net contributors to the EU’s coffers.
That’s what Andeh’s not telling us. The EU needs the UK as much as the UK needs the EU, because the UK will have to dig deep to pay for membership. And by inexorable logic, if you’re fully signed up to Professor Baird’s £150 billion to £200 billion subsidy from Scotland to England each year, you’ll have to understand that it will be Scotland digging deep to pay for the UK’s EU membership.
So, just like last time. Except more so, because we won’t have Thatcher’s hated rebates.
At least, once The War really kicks off, we’ll finally get some decent immigrants. Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Poles, Germans will all use their Freedom Of Movement to escape the bombs and the drones. Maybe if we’re nice to them, they’ll help us to expel the third-rate immigrants we have been making do with since we left the EU last time.
Here you are. This will larn you though not me. I have only skimmed it.
link to migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk
It is true that Section 30 is not required under international law.
This is the single point in Peter A Bell’s open letter that aligns with reality.
International law cares about:
– peaceful process
– democratic legitimacy
– clarity of mandate
It does not care about:
– Westminster’s permission
– the Scotland Act
– UK constitutional doctrine
So on that point, Bell is correct.
But…
Bell’s, and Alf Baird’s, interpretations of that fact are deeply flawed.
Historical constitutional inaccuracies, misstated law, and colonial rhetoric are not going to persuade modern Scots.
Both men take a true principle – self-determination exists and the Scots are entitled, under international law, to express their desire for self-determination democratically – and wrap it in:
– mythic history
– absolutist rhetoric
– inaccurate constitutional claims
– colonialism (Baird)
– and emotionally charged narratives
This destroys credibility with the majority of the very people they want to persuade.
Modern Scots are not mobilised by mythic narratives.
Modern Scots respond to:
– democratic legitimacy
– constitutional clarity
– practical pathways
– realism
– stability
– international norms
They do not respond to:
– “Scots are sovereign because… Claim of Right ,etc”
– “Scotland is a colony”
– “Westminster has no authority”
– “Holyrood can simply assert sovereignty”
– “International recognition will follow automatically”
These claims are not persuasive because they are not true.
The key to Scottish independence is to persuade Scots that it’s a better model for them than remaining part of the UK.
International law recognises the right to self-determination, but it does not dictate the mechanism – only that the process is legitimately democratic.
Holyrood can legitimately hold a referendum.
This is the constitutional reality:
– Holyrood can hold a referendum.
– Holyrood can set its terms.
– Holyrood can ask the question.
– Holyrood can seek a people’s mandate.
What Holyrood cannot do is:
– bind Westminster
– change the Scotland Act
– create legal consequences without UK legislation
But it can create democratic legitimacy.
And democratic legitimacy is the only currency international law cares about.
In truth the real ‘fight’ for Scottish independence can only begin once the Scots declare their desire for self-determination through some democratic process. It can be a process that doesn’t need Westminster’s permission, but it does need to be internationally recognised as the legitimate democratic expression of a people’s will.
Until that happens Bell, Baird, Salvo, and Liberation Scotland are just sharing their grievances between themselves while the majority of Scots ignore them.
Harsh but true, Northy.
Out in the real world, there’s a continuing likelihood that Andeh’s gonna call a snap WM GE this year.
Just like with the HR election back in May, by continuing to pursue will-of-the-wisp fantasies, the pro-Indy contingent are gonna miss yet another opportunity to make a difference in the real world.
I guess that sometimes it needs complete destruction, with nothing left standing at Ground Zero, before the rebuilding can commence.
”Until that happens Bell, Baird, Salvo, and Liberation Scotland are just sharing their grievances between themselves while the majority of Scots ignore them.”
Very true, in fact “the majority” full stop. They are, collectively speaking, an irrelevance.
They won’t stop, though, as they can’t – even if they wanted to. It’s not as though they’ve anything better to do with their time, is it?
@CC
Should you not be busy learning Greek and packing your belongings so you assimilate better as a NuGree into your future country of choice to reside seeing as the UK is so bad?
Alf at least has put some effort into improving Scotland’s lot with various acitivities, eg. Ferry procurement, what have you done other than bump your gums and complain…
Best post the missing k…
LOL @ Whinging, Beaver-Worrying, DAF Truck Fan Dan.
I’ve paid many millions into the exchequer and provided employment to dozens, mate. As opposed to being some internet weirdo loner banging on about vegetables and aforementioned log-chewing rodents.
I’ve put a shift in since 16. I’m not paying for any more of this stuff that I don’t believe in. So yeah, hello Duo Lingo. 🙂
Yeh and you’re that fucking stupid you’re on a Scottish independence blog flogging the Bayeux Tapestry pish as a culturally enriching episode in engerland’s history , such a load of historic GUFF
You yoonies are soooo funny parading aboot as if anyone is interested in yir ancient history pish, take a look at the state of yir country yeese are fucking bankrupt and owned by furriners ,all yir politicians are crawling up Trumps arse and yeese think ye are exceptional, “I’ve paid many millions into the exchequer” huv ye now , then you’re a fucking nugget cause aw yir fellow yoonionists avoid paying taxes like the plague
Yeah, it’s a real surprise you got yourself permabanned on X, Twat. 😀
Silly old fool.
CC
You said you’ve paid millions in taxes yet you spend a lot of your time posting on a blog about Scottish independence.
Really?
“you’re that fucking stupid you’re on a Scottish independence blog flogging the Bayeux Tapestry pish as a culturally enriching episode in engerland’s history”
I don’t think that even the most rabid English hater cares about anything much that might have happened prior to 1066.
So it’s safe to assume that every historical beef your average English-hating Indy Neanderthal can never stop himself from wanging oan and oan aboot should rightly be directed at the Normans.
After all, if Scotland’s “get out of jail free” card over genocide, slavery and colonisation is that we were “made” to do it, it’s churlish to deny the same excuse to the English.
They were invaded, colonised, subjugated, slaughtered, enslaved and had their country stolen by the Normans.
Cut them some slack.
@CC
Daf Truck Fan… WTF are you on aboot? The closest I’ve come to that is when serving my time the company had a couple of Daf coaches (that used a Leyland engine clone design). As a lad I recall the Paris-Dakar Turbo Twin 11 Daf truck was interesting but not really my thing.
Aye, amomgst numerous other subjects I’ve typed about over the years which you choose to ignore, I have occasionally mentioned the ludicrous policy of releasing massive destructive rodents into the wild when they have no natural predators to control their numbers or control the damage they can cause like destroying trees along watercourses, damaging infrastructure, and flooding people’s property or the farmland we grow out crops on.
So are you pro-beaver to facilitate having a lame go at me, and fuck the affected property owners and farmers having to spend significant amounts of their time and money attempting to mitigate the issues caused by some hairbrained eco-warrior numpties.
And what to the future and the changing climate when we end up with wetlands instead of food producing farmland and the return of the midge to go along with all the ticks carrying lyme desease.
I asked what you have done for Scotland other than trolling this site like all the other Johnny come lately disruptors that show up years late with fuck all constructive to offer.
Alf has added his insight at commitee meetings here in Scotland to try to work towards resolving the ridiculous and ongoing ferry procurement situation.
You can brag about your millions of tax pounds presumably paid into UK coffers down south where you reside, but they matters not a jot when the governance of the UK at various levels (which pisses you off to the point you plan to emmigrate) can spaff away public money so quickly. EG. HS2 down your way, or up here over half a billion quid to try to procure a couple of ferries, when turn-key proven designs could have been bought and put in service years ago for 15 million each.
If you are interested at all about engineering matters, you may recall a couple of months back I mentioned the Glen Lyon FPSO vessel West of Shetland had a significant brake failure with the large winch that reels in and out the large offloading hose. That resulted in the huge hose unreeling and snapping off and sinking down to the seabed.
Well things aren’t going great, as the engineers decided to get up and running again so they could get rid of the crap Scottish oil we are cursed with, so they connected a replacement hose to the input of the old winch, which means working on fixing the winch is difficult.
So the plan was to just leave the new long offloading hose hanging over the side when not in use, along with the large tether rope to pull the offloading hose onto tankers coming alongside to load out 50k barrels of oil a day the field produces. (IIRC it was about 70k a day before first technical issue).
The trouble with that plan was that the long tether rope and hose then got sucked into and stalled out one of the 1MW dynamic position thrusters… Doh!
“You said you’ve paid millions in taxes yet you spend a lot of your time posting on a blog about Scottish independence.
Really?”
Well, I’d hardly say perhaps 1-3 brief, pithy posts every day or two represents “a lot of my time” – perhaps 10 minutes or so. Mostly, I prefer to read many of the unhinged comments on here for amusement and distraction from fairly heavy duty IRL responsibilities. Call it a throwback to much more carefree times perhaps two decades prior or more, when I first stumbled upon the writings of this site’s Editor. Others spend far longer here, yourself probably included.
That said, I have (or rather had) significant interest in the preservation of the integrity of the UK from external factors, albeit it seems a lost cause now.
I also loathe left wing politics, especially of the woke and metropolitan varieties (e.g. such as yours) and firmly believe that these & their practitioners have much to answer for. I do like to call these out, even if for increasingly cathartic reasons.
@Dan
As I have said to you before, disagreeing with someone or pointing at the paucity of their outlandish/inaccurate claims etc. isn’t “trolling”, I leave that kind of thing to your pals “James”, “Twat”, “Confused” & co. I freely admit to giving as good as I get & I’ve never suffered fools (not that I am myself claiming to be some kind of genius, merely someone who has grafted hard). There’s an easy solution: engage in debate in good faith, accept a few hard(ish) knocks and see where the convo goes. Probably a good idea not to bring people’s family members into it etc eh, just not cricket. 😉
In terms of your comments regarding crass engineering shortfalls in public projects, I AGREE WITH YOU. How could I NOT do so? I’ve said it a dozen times: this is what happens when you put complete numpties in charge who couldn’t wire a plug let alone get their heads around big picture engineering, manage a team and/or resources effectively, nor even motivate people & teams to do stuff, let alone the right stuff. Holyrood itself stands as testament to the vast waste, multiples over budget disaster of these public projects. If “we” can’t even construct a building, how does anyone expect “us” to manage big ships with moving parts and oily bits?
Step 1 – get engineers back involved and running this stuff. Not numpty (lefty) politicians and civil servants.
If you thought the unionists were corrupt, the snp ("Tractor" - Ed)s are right up there with them.
Court case funding: Craig Murray’s case to assert Scottish law’s power as separate from England’s [as was successfully done by Joanna Cherry in the prorogation case] is being hamstrung by lack of funds.
Craig repeats today, on his blog, that “Our state opponents have had our crowdfunder closed down”.
His case urgently needs financial support.
One for “Northcode” to assess and churn out a response to answer the qustion asked.
link to craigmurray.org.uk
Fa’s Mr Lavrov when you need him?
Tragic to think of poor old CM carting his kilt around the world and still nae cant will put a penny in the hat.
@ Northcode. This is what you say.
“Holyrood can legitimately hold a referendum.
This is the constitutional reality:
– Holyrood can hold a referendum.
– Holyrood can set its terms.
– Holyrood can ask the question.
– Holyrood can seek a people’s mandate.”
But look at Prof McCorquodale’s analysis of the Supreme Court decision and explain how they are wrang and you are right in the assertions above.
“McCorquodale further argued that there were international legal routes through which Scotland could secure independence – but said they were very limited and “most possible routes require consent by the UK Government”.
He said: “The only possible international legal route available for the people to Scotland to bring their claim for the right to self-determination by secession is through the support of States for an Advisory Opinion to the ICJ [International Court of Justice].”
Given the decision of the Supreme Court I find it hard to know what you are talking about in what I have quoted above. Can you explain, please?
Professor Robert McCorquodale is one of the world’s leading authorities on self-determination, international law, and constitutional transitions.
His core position is:
A people have the right to self-determination. That right exists independently of domestic constitutional arrangements. But the expression of that right must be democratic, peaceful, and legitimate.
For Scotland he does not say:
– that Westminster must authorise the mechanism
– that Section 30 is required
– that domestic constitutional doctrine overrides international law
– that the Scots cannot express their will without UK-state permission
He says the opposite:
International law cares about democratic legitimacy, not domestic permission.
McCorquodale’s legal opinion doesn’t contradict my comment – it reinforces it.
Holyrood can hold an advisory(consultative) referendum without Westminster’s permission and international law will recognise it if it is democratically legitimate.
The Scots stating their desire for self-determination changes nothing in domestic law – it only tells the world the wishes of the Scots as a people.
Once Scots express their will for independence democratically, international law recognises that expression. At that point, Scotland has a legitimate claim to negotiate constitutional change.
The UN doesn’t impose outcomes, but it recognises the legitimacy of the people’s will.
No legal basis. No political basis either since such a referendum is likely simply to be ignored and without participation by unionists. It would also certainly be ignored by a UK government.
A state may become independent in one of two ways: either with the consent of the parent state, in accordance with its domestic constitutional requirements, or via a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI). Although the International Court of Justice recognised in its 2010 Kosovo Reference that UDI is not contrary to international law, it is a less certain and less satisfactory route to independence. This is because achieving effective independence is a matter of securing recognition by other sovereign states, including the parent state, and this, as the ICJ pointed out, is essentially a political rather than a legal matter. In effect, international recognition is much more likely to be forthcoming if the independence process is perceived to have been legitimate.
You are talking nonsense if you think a Holyrood referendum would change anything.
“Holyrood can hold an advisory(consultative) referendum without Westminster’s permission and international law will recognise it if it is democratically legitimate”
Poses more questions than it answers, Northy.
Does “international law” recognise it as “democratically legitimate” if the answer is “No”?
Is there a time limit on that recognition?
If so, what is it?
You’ll see what I’m getting at, but for the hard of thought, I’m observing there was a democratically legitimate referendum in 2014. Quite possibly “international law” isn’t about to overturn that result 12 years later because some on the losing side are still sore.
Northcode is both right and wrong:
– under the UK’s domestic legal framework, Holyrood cannot hold a referendum on independence. International law also does not provide a right for Holyrood to hold a referendum. However:
– a referendum held under lawful or comparable conditions (e.g. a wildcat but that was widely accepted, and subject to the normal restraints and requirements associated with a democratic vote) would place very considerable pressure on the U.K. state. The U.K. would be under no legal obligation to accept the result, but given the democratic weight it could face potentially unbearable political pressure to at least negotiate. That is what the Supreme Court in Canada recognised when deciding a similar question.
– Acceptance in international law is another matter. Without the agreement of rUK it will be very difficult to secure any acceptance from important western allies, unless iScotland can establish itself as de-facto independent such that rUK cannot prevent it other than by the use of military force. That would appear to be an extremely difficult position to reach.
“Does international law recognise a self-determination referendum as democratically legitimate if the answer is ‘No’?”
“Is there a time limit on that recognition?”
These are reasonable questions. Here are the answers.
1. International law recognises the right to self-determination continuously.
The right doesn’t expire, diminish, or get extinguished by any particular vote.
It exists independently of domestic constitutional arrangements and persists over time.
2. A “No” vote doesn’t extinguish the right — nor does a “Yes” vote.
A referendum result is a snapshot of public will at that moment, not a permanent constitutional settlement.
International law recognises the legitimacy of the vote, but not its permanence.
3. There is no time limit on democratic expression.
International law does not impose waiting periods, moratoriums, or expiry dates.
A people may express their will again whenever they choose.
4. International law does not enforce past results — it recognises new democratic expressions.
It doesn’t “uphold” or “overturn” referendums.
It simply acknowledges each fresh, peaceful, democratic expression of the people’s will.
Domestic law determines binding effect; international law determines legitimacy.
A consultative referendum in Scotland is democratically legitimate even if it is not binding under UK constitutional law.
Fuck International law. It aint worth a toilet roll. The last bastion of benefit cheats and nonces.
Aidan’s comment above mixes together domestic law, international law, and recognition in a way that doesn’t quite hold together.
Here’s a clearer way to frame the issue.
1. Holyrood can hold a referendum — just not a binding one.
The Supreme Court ruled that Holyrood cannot legislate a binding referendum that has legal consequences for the Union.
It didn’t rule out a consultative or advisory referendum.
Domestic law limits the legal effect, not the democratic expression.
2. International law recognises the right of the people, not the parliament.
International law doesn’t give Holyrood a special right to hold a referendum — because the right to self-determination belongs to the people, not any particular institution.
Any peaceful, inclusive, democratic vote expressing the people’s will is legitimate in international law, regardless of Westminster’s permission.
3. A clear democratic mandate creates political obligations.
This is exactly what the Canadian Supreme Court recognised:
A clear expression of the people’s will creates a duty to negotiate, even if domestic law doesn’t grant a unilateral right to secede.
So a consultative referendum in Scotland would carry real constitutional weight, even if not legally binding.
4. Recognition comes after negotiation, not before.
Aidan’s comment mixes up three different things:
– domestic competence
– international legitimacy
– international recognition
Recognition depends on a clear mandate and a constitutional process.
It doesn’t require Scotland to become “de facto independent by force” — that scenario simply doesn’t apply to Scotland’s constitutional situation.
@Northcode – you need to look again at REFERENCE by the Lord Advocate of devolution issues under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998, Supreme Court case.
It was never under contention that Holyrood could hold a binding referendum on independence. To do so would mean that Holyrood would have had to legislate to amend the U.K. constitution which is explicitly listed in the Scotland Act 1998 as an area of reserved competence. The issue was therefore whether the Holyrood parliament could pass legislation to enable a referendum, the outcome of which would not be binding in law. The Supreme Court held unanimously that Holyrood could not, because whilst the outcome of the referendum would not have an immediate legal effect, it would create an important political event in a reserved area. The court also dealt with the issue of self determination, following an intervention from the SNP. It’s well worth a read: link to supremecourt.uk
Well aint that a bitch. Does anyone have a Heat Pump? Not anymore you don’t. The money is going to be spent on the defence of the realm. Not that the Greens will give a toss. They are too busy refining their racist skills for the new world order.
Does anyone think the streets arent safe? Ask Police Scotland. They will send you a lovely anonymous letter with nice Communist flags on it. You are now on their watch list. Potential criminal.
Does anyone think that the public services are heading for a breakdown? You are right.
Does anyone think they pay to much tax? Guess what!
Sorry did someone say something about independence?
Does anybody need a heat pump?
With millions of tons of oil and gas going up in flames most nights, is it really going to get cold this winter?
It occurred to myself a long time ago that the other 40 odd % that want independence of their Country come from across the border of Scotland in England, Wales and Ireland,
When first suggested it sounded ridiculous , now however those other nations are being treated in the same way Scotlands people always were by Westminster parliament.
Ignored.
Taxed to the hilt. Even in death,
And being demographically replaced as local humans in their own Country,
While the new incomers that are here illegally receive the results of their hard work and taxation as free gifts.
England , Ireland and Wales need to want Scottish independence as much as Scots, for their own nations and Countries to become free of the pseudo Westminster parliament of Great Britain parliament policies.
It is no longer a crazy thought that all of the people and the four nations of these isles have to aim for the same goal of freedom in controlling mass invasion, and reducing taxation, and to keep all our people safe, bring back laws and policing that work for us all in our nations.
The other 40 odd % to Scottish independence, Englands independence, Irelands independence and Wales independence come via the same route, ending one phseudo parliament that ignores democratic votes and wishes of all these nations people.
An interesting article on what might be considered President Trump’s greatest success in his second term, his reduction in US inwards migration and his removal of hundreds of thousands of illegals:
link to unherd.com
The article discusses the paradox that whilst a majority of Yanks disapprove of his hard-line tactics (ICE etc.), a majority of Yanks approve of his getting the results he promised in his second term manifesto. Perhaps the ends really do justify the means.
The article also discusses how clearing the streets of illegals and crims is not as straightforwards as it might seem, owing to the existence and rapid growth of what we might call the “Immigration Industry”. Here’s a quote:
“mass migration provides a subset of the urban professional classes with a reason to maintain and expand the government agencies and NGOs that keep them employed”
So there you have it. For every low-skilled, low-income citizen whose job and roof over his head is jeopardised by yesterday’s arrival who will undercut his wage, there’s a lanyard-class, medium-income type whose job and roof over his head will be jeopardised if yesterday’s arrival is unceremoniously slung back to where they came from.
Mind that the next time some politico promises to stop the boats, etc. without also outlining plausible policies for dismantling the Immigration Industry.
Because if the latter is not dealt with, the former won’t be either.
Aidan,
Speaking of old laws and legalities,
There has been no Scottish parliament in the Great Britain parliament for over three hundred years,
It was dissolved on the 28th April 1606 by the Monarch of England in England prior to the treaty of union taken legal force in Scotland on the 1st May 1707.
The Scotland Act in 1998 for the devolved government is solely the law of Englands Westminster parliament that has reservations to England,
That introduced a false narrative that Scotland now had a toothless parliament in the treaty of union after three hundred years of absence.
If old legalities are to be leaned upon for confirmation of law today, then that one is important today also.
There Scottish parliament was dissolved on the 28th April 1606 and did not unite the two parliament of Scotland and England to create the Great Britain parliament.
If hanging on to the unwritten Constitution of GB, then first of all you would require a union of England and Scotlands Parliaments in 1606 and 1707 and Monarchy to have taken place and been completed.
Sorry north code, but you are referring to the Constitution of England,
The Scottish Parliament in Holyrood is a creation of the Scotland act 1998. It is not a successor to the Scottish Parliament dissolved by the Act of Union 1707. It derives its authority ultimately from the U.K. Parliament in Westminster. It is not therefore sovereign.
I don’t think anything I’ve said above is contentious.
The legalities of the SNP sitting in a Scottish parliament are nil,
They are a business registered in England, in a parliament under the laws and legislation and Statues of Westminster parliament of England…. that held no Scottish parliament since 28th April 1606.
Then again, James, might is right.
If you believe that the SNP government is illegal, then you should really live your life in contravention of every edict they enforce on you from Hollyrood.
That is how your message would get traction. Actions always speak louder than words.
I’m not singling you out for criticism here, James. This place is hoaching with people who will spend all day writing about their stolen rights, and the illegality of the colonialist regime, etc. then go on to meekly submit to the petty rules, illegal laws and unlawful punitive taxes like every other cant in Scotland.
Then they come on here to wonder why nobody is interested in what they have to say!
My last on the soi disant Bayeux Tapestry, not technically a tapestry but a refined piece of needlework by anglosaxon ladies commemorating their conquest by frenchified norsemen and the end of their sophisticated culture.
Think English ladies sewing a quilt about the glorious Napoleonic or Nazi invasion in their spare hours while the new order divides the spoils to get feel of the thing.
Harold Godwinessunu was effectively the last English king, virtually all the rest have been in origin foreign dynasties, albeit he himself was half Dane.
Why the English complain about foreign people in boats is, given their history, illogical.
Anyone doing needlework to hail their coming? There might be a later king amongst them.
Significant that The Union is not «celebrated» in any way, even by the Aenglisc.
It is with posts like this that you reveal your profound ignorance of the people of these islands Turabdin, how they really think and feel, the English even more than the Scots I think. You think you know, but you don’t because you never listen, refuse to, your worldview is ideologically fixed regardless.
People go and see it because it is an amazing thing. Unlike those who can only see the world through a the tiny slit of an ultra-nationalist lens, most people don’t sit around holding grudges about things that happened 1000 years ago, or think the boat crossings bear any meaningful comparison to the actual Norman invasion; because it is fucking stupid.
”because it is fucking stupid.
Nicely summed up.
TURABDIN gives Sixth Formers a bad name, and is attempting to write about things he can have no hope of comprehending even on the most elementary level.
Turabdin makes a valid point, that “The Union is not «celebrated» in any way”.
An wha but yersels wad want tae cheer sic a skit an deceivery onywey?
Oh do shut up Alf. Your wishful thinking isn’t reality (again).
Yeah, must’ve imagined all those crowds in London and all those street parties, say, for the Queen’s 70th Jubilee a few years back, or millions waving Union Jacks in London a few months ago.
“most people don’t … think the boat crossings bear any meaningful comparison to the actual Norman invasion; because it is fucking stupid”
Ah, SBS.
That you and I should both be spared for another hundred years.
To see how history develops.
And to see who ultimately gets to call the other stupid.
I’ll say but one thing. From the Atlantic coast of Africa, to the Pacific islands of Indonesia, the Religion of Peace holds sway. As it continues to surge north into the former Christian strongholds of Europe, south into the pagan kingdoms of Africa, and across the world into the Americas, Australia and New Zealand, there is but one tiny island of defiance still holding out against their spread.
And they’ve been sentenced to extermination.
It is not Scotland protecting Nicola Sturgeon or John Swinney,
Englands Westminster parliament [ Scotland Act ] is under the unwritten Constitution of England. With self appointed reservation to itself under the laws of England,
No union to be upheld,
no articles of a union of parliaments to be upheld.
No two Constitutions to be upheld.
No Shared monarch to be upheld,
No private rights to self determination,
If we had been in a union of parliaments and monarchy for real, then Westminster would be unable to ignore or change articles of the treaty of union that were set and stated as unalterable.by the union that was to create the parliament of Great Britain,
Nor the Parliament of England be allowed to alter their dates to a supposed international union in 1752.
Time and again the evidence that no such union between Scotland and England ever took place or was completed is repeated,
The Westminster parliament of England has remained the sole occupant of the parliament of Great Britain, after being transferred by the Monarch of Englands declaration and continuing their old parliamentary triennial acts until 1708.
We are a Colony because we in Scotland think that way, not because its binding on us, it can be ignored.
And in all fairness, it is up to the UN to catch up to the reality of where and when Scotland choose to leave and abandon the false narrative, it has to prove their was such a treaty that took place in two differing years after the Scottish parliament had been dissolved on the 28th April 1606.
It also has to look at why Englands parliament has eleven missing days to its union treaty in 1752, because the dates did not match to the treaty between Scotland and England, and Englands parliament in 1606 ratifying Scotlands treaty in 1707.
The story of a “treaty” creating the parliament of Great Britain into a (United State) from two kingdoms, two territories, and two parliaments is just that, a story. A oddity that the story teller never thought through to the end,
Hatey,
It needs all the peoples to not recognise the legality of the SNP and the devolved parliament from Westminster. In Scotland England , Ireland and Wales,
This is important to all the people of these Isles, not just a person in Scotland, as the Westminster parliament has assumed a false authority over all the people.
As a Westminster parliament it did not enter a union with the old Scottish parliament, it parades under a falsehood dictating to Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales.
Not just Scotland,
And it appears to have gone rogue against the people in all four nations, that 40 % comes and lives, or try’s living, a decent life abiding by new laws that is curtailing them as the foreigners in their own Countries.
We are talking of Scotlands freedom, Englands freedom, Irelands freedom and Wales freedom from allowed population demographic change policies of that said governance.
It no longer belongs to just Scotland,
But making sure that these mini devolved governments and local government bodies do no more harm to everyone, to the people.
Ignoring is better than violent fighting,
Ignoring is better than protesting on the Streets,
All the nations have a right to protest peacably and quietly en masse as happened with the poll tax,
“curtailing them as the foreigners in their own Countries”
There’s only one political party in with a shout of being able to put a stop to it, and claiming it has the balls to actually put a stop to it.
Reform.
As for Andeh, he’s already done a U-turn on Brexit. He’s preparing the ground to rule out a Rejoin Referendum too – he’ll claim it can’t be allowed owing to “Russti Interference”.
I have to admit to being wrong about Andeh. I really believed it would be 2027 before we all saw he was even more useless than his predecessor at getting to grips with the reality of the problems we face.
I never dreamed it would be becoming clear by mid-October 2026.
I see Neale Hanvey ex SNP and Alba MP has made a tweet about a period of up to seven years being the custodial sentence for perjury.
link to x.com
Mnnn?
Frightening that people still have belief in the criminal justice system, isn’t it.
Commit a serious sexual assault on a random stranger and you’ll likely be out in 2 years.
And maybe re-offending again 2 weeks after that.
THE TELEGRAPH RUNS THE SAME STORY about 3 times a week – a budget “black hole” which means we should do some thing and not do something else – notably things they don’t like – functional healthcare, pensions, welfare should go, but defence spending, foreign wars, less taxes, city deregulation is okay
link to archive.ph
– some of these black holes are trivial amounts overall, some are not. But its like the boy who cried wolf.
link to archive.ph
this is not; it’s similar to what they are spending on the new supernuke. Now this is really just extortion, you see in ordinary business investors take on risk and then sometimes the business goes bust; you take on the risk for the chance of profit. Thames water (and anyone else) should be allowed to go bust, then its assets can be bought for £1 by the govt, for the people – the investors get hosed – as they should do when you are doing “capitalism”; and in any case they have been making out like bandits beforehand and their mess is of their own making, they deserve no sympathy. They seek an economic innovation – privatised profits (when existing), socialised risk (and bailouts/ payoffs when otherwise) – the worst of capitalism and socialism, together. (NB the clever norwegians do it oppositely to fantastic success – they have an entity, the wealth fund, owned by the people, a national organisation, which invests in successful profitable private enterprise all around the world, to make profits – for their people; last year over 200B USD just in profit).
– but the telegraph and other tory scum will never say to just let it burn, then get the remnants on the cheap; important people, city people, business people, hedge fundies – must never lose and risk is just for the plebs.
A govt with any balls would designate e.g. the water supply as “critical infrastructure” and attacks on it (including sabotage via incompetence and neglect) as “terrorism” – you then threaten a lot of guys in expensive suits with a trip to belmarsh, to be thrown in with the jihadis; it would concentrate the mind if anyone even thinks of messing with the water supply if they do not get their payoff.
Normally I wouldn’t care if the english are eating and drinking shit because of their ideological beliefs – but Scotland will end up paying for it. Again.
back to basics – the important things are food, energy, WATER (plus security) – so you then need to feed the people, pay your soldiers/policemen, and give the bureaucrats fat pensions.
– any govt which can’t do the basics should be thrown out, and I don’t mean wait for the next election to vote for some other likely as incompetent mugs, but get down to the parly and start having a necktie party. It is the only way. Politicians are used to being completely insulated from the consequences of their actions – they have no personal liabilty for example – but they need to start having “skin in the game”.
UK GOV has been astoundingly incompetent since at least the 2012 olympics (the last thing arguably a success) – but its just one fuckup after another, HS2, nuke power, every military procurement – well over budget and practically useless (the generals have admitted it themselves, they spend plenty of money – on the wrong stuff). Nothing gets done on time, on budget anymore – getting the job done, right, now seems to take a back seat to being fashionable. Holyrood is not any better, but it’s not any worse either – it apes its parent, rotten fruit from a rotten tree, e.g. the people of Monklands have been needing a new hospital for at least 20 years, and were meant to get it 10 years ago, last election the new “super hospital” was touted by the SNP – “coming soon”; but it got cancelled because their plan was fucking insane – 2B and at least 5 times more expensive than any reasonable ballpark comparison. So, it got canned – fuck you, voters, have you ever considered assisted suicide? And the kids can’t fucking count (thanks PISA), but they know how many genders there are.
Always amusing to see Confused praising the Norwegians whilst simultaneously lambasting those who believe defense is a key government priority.
It can’t be that he’s unaware of how much the Norwegians spend on defense, how much they subsidise our fighting friends in the east, or how seriously they take the Orc threat on their border.
I guess he believes if he ignores these facts, his target audience of gullible numpties will lap up every word he writes.
Not even the Telegraph is saying “welfare should go”. But hacking back the eye-watering amounts of welfare spending that goes on the army of grifters, frauds, crims, “asylum seekers” and the kind of mollycoddled snowflakes who get traumatised at the thought of actually receiving a phone call on their moby, would be a great start.
Highly popular too, among the people – the workers – footing the bill for it all.
I hope you’re including Reform in that H.
For clarity.
Holyrood cannot legislate a binding referendum.
But Holyrood can hold a consultative referendum — the Supreme Court did not prohibit advisory referendums in general.
The Supreme Court didn’t say Holyrood “cannot hold a referendum.”
It said Holyrood cannot legislate a referendum whose purpose is to end the Union.
That distinction matters.
International law recognises the people’s right to self-determination, not Holyrood’s legislative powers.
Also, the Supreme Court didn’t say:
“Holyrood cannot legislate for a referendum because it creates a political event in a reserved area.”
If that were true, Holyrood couldn’t:
– debate independence
– publish papers on independence
– pass motions on independence
– run elections where independence is an issue
But Holyrood does all of these routinely.
The Court’s actual reasoning was:
If the purpose of the referendum is to obtain a mandate to end the Union, then the legislation “relates to” the Union and is therefore reserved.
It’s the purpose, not the “political event,” that matters.
Legislative competence and democratic legitimacy are not the same, although people often confuse the two.
To summarise:
The Court did not ban referendums.
It banned legislation whose purpose is to obtain a mandate to end the Union.
This is the key distinction.
Holyrood cannot legislate a referendum that claims the result:
– dissolves the Union
– obliges Westminster to negotiate
– creates a legal mandate
– triggers constitutional consequences
Those are reserved matters.
But Holyrood can legislate a referendum whose purpose is:
– consultation
– measurement
– political guidance
– democratic expression
Those are devolved matters.
The result of a referendum on such devolved matters would have no impact whatsoever on domestic law.
@Northcode – again that is objectively untrue, the Supreme Court did not say that the proposed referendum could not be held because its purpose was to break up the union, it determined, as I have said above, that a referendum would create an important political event in an area of reserved competency, see the sections from the judgement I have copied below:
“81. A lawful referendum on the question envisaged by the Bill would undoubtedly
be an important political event, even if its outcome had no immediate legal
consequences, and even if the United Kingdom Government had not given any political
commitment to act upon it. A clear outcome, whichever way the question was
answered, would possess the authority, in a constitution and political culture founded
upon democracy, of a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate.
The clear expression of its wish either to remain within the United Kingdom or to
pursue secession would strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the Union,
depending on which view prevailed, and support or undermine the democratic
credentials of the independence movement. It would consequently have important
political consequences relating to the Union and the United Kingdom Parliament.
82. Turning, then, to the question whether the Bill relates to the Union, and
determining that question by reference to the purpose of the Bill, having regard to its
effect in all the circumstances, we are in no doubt as to the answer. It is plain that a Bill
which makes provision for a referendum on independence – on ending the Union – has
more than a loose or consequential connection with the Union of Scotland and
England. That conclusion is fortified when regard is had to the effect of such a
referendum. As we have explained at para 74 above, it is not only legal effects that are
relevant in the context of section 29(3). A lawfully held referendum would be a
political event with political consequences. It is equally plain that a Bill which makes
provision for a referendum on independence – on ending the sovereignty of the
Parliament of the United Kingdom over Scotland – has more than a loose or
consequential connection with the sovereignty of that Parliament”
The reasoning of the Supreme Court would apply equally therefore in exactly the same way as if a pro-union Holyrood voted to hold a referendum (expecting to win) to kill off the cause of independence. The union and the U.K. constitution are reserved matters and therefore Holyrood cannot legislative for a referendum, even if it is consultative, on changing those matters.
With respect to debates and election campaigns, nothing in the Scotland Act restrains the topics that may be discussed at Holyrood or how political candidates chose to campaign in elections, because none of those things of themselves change the law. What the Scotland act does do is restrain Holyrood from passing laws in reserved areas, such as a bill enabling a referendum on Scottish independence. It is arguable that spending Scottish Government money on papers promoting independence is unlawful, but for various reasons the union side is prepared to let that one go.
I think there’s a misunderstanding here about what the Supreme Court actually decided.
The Court did describe a referendum as an important political event — but that wasn’t the legal test. The legal test was the purpose of the legislation.
Paragraph 81 explains the political significance of a referendum.
Paragraph 82 explains the legal reasoning.
The Court’s conclusion was:
That is the key point.
The Court did not say that Holyrood cannot legislate any referendum.
It said Holyrood cannot legislate a referendum whose purpose is to end the Union.
That distinction matters.
If Holyrood legislated a referendum whose purpose was:
– consultation
– measurement
– political guidance
– democratic expression
then the result would have no legal effect, and the legislation would not “relate to” a reserved matter. That’s why the Court did not prohibit advisory referendums in general.
Political consequences are not the legal test — legislative purpose is the legal test.
That’s the structure of the judgment.
Sorry Northcode – you need to go back and read the case again in detail. What you are saying there is objectively untrue. The legal test was not the purpose of the legislation, it was whether the legislation “relates to” a reserved matter. The Supreme Court found that that it did relate to a reserved matter because even though it would not directly change the law on a reserved matter, it could create an important democratic and political event that would strongly influence how that reserved matter would be treated.
Counsel for the U.K. Government did argue that the political purpose of the referendum was to seek a mandate to end the Union, but that was not the basis that the court made its decision. It made its decision on the basis I have set out above. Look at the start of paragraph 82 quoted above – it is the effect of the bill that is used to decide whether it “relates to” a reserved matter. As I said above – a bill to hold a referendum if initiated by a pro-union Holyrood to shore up support for the union would equally be unlawful. I also think you slight misunderstand the term “purpose” in S.82. It does not refer to the wider political motivations behind the governing party, it refers to what the bill intends to create legally. That is what is meant by “purpose”. If the wider political purpose was relevant to the SC’s judgement, you would see some analysis of that purpose in the judgement – but there isn’t any, what there is is analysis over the effect of the bill on the political situation with respect to a reserved matter.
The last part of your argument is again obviously wrong. The bill referred to the Supreme Court by the Lord Advocate WAS consultative/advisory and was not legally binding, this is acknowledged explicitly at innumerable points in the judgement. For example at S.81 “ even if its outcome had no immediate legal consequences. . .”.
Holyrood cannot therefore hold an advisory referendum on a reserved matter, regardless of the political purpose driving the referendum.
Thanks for the exchange. I think we’re reading the judgment differently, and that’s fine — the Supreme Court’s reasoning is there for anyone to examine directly and arrive at their own understanding.
My only point was that paragraph 81 describes political significance, while paragraph 82 sets out the legal test: whether the provision “relates to” a reserved matter, assessed through its purpose and effect. That’s the structure I was working from.
In any case, I’ve said what I wanted to say, so I’ll leave it there.
Agreed Northcode – happy to let others decide, we’ve put our respective cases forward
“on ending the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom over Scotland”
Ignorance and wishful thinking on the part of the England-as-UK Supreme Court, given the decision by Lord Cooper rejecting the ‘English’ concept of parliamentary sovereignty in Scotland.
As you know Alf – the Supreme Court is a superior court to the inner house (before we get into all the other qualifiers around MacCormick v Lord Advocate).
Funny how there are sections of our society that has called on the Supreme court ruling about women to be ignored.
Just like everything else today, it seems the law doesn’t apply if you have certain beliefs but we are supposed to blindly accept that the foreign court can tell us if you can or can’t have a referendum.
Because Gender Ideology is an absolute driving priority for the SNP and the Green’s, whereas independence is merely a transient preference.
“the Supreme Court is a superior court”
Perhaps in regard to colonial law, but according to international law it is clearly one of many treaty violations.
When you say “colonial law” what you mean is the law, the actual law, not the made up law which you insist is true but nobody else recognises.
Rev, please re-post on here your article of 13th October 2024, “The Giant”.
It will be a comfort to true Scots and perhaps encourage some humility in those who have lost, or never found, the way to the truth and love of Scotland.
sarah, have you tried using the “Contact” button at top of page?
These constant constitutional conversations are interesting when they are done on a civil basis but the reality is that they are just hypothetical as the support and desire for independence isn’t there to actually deliver the means to get independence.
I know we have constant opinion polls that gives 50+% support for independence but that’s different from the heart held belief in independence that got tens and hundreds of thousands out on the streets on a constant basis that had occurred in Catalunya.
That sort of fire isn’t present in Scotland in 2026.
If that sort of fire was there then there is no way that Westminster could stand in the way of a referendum regardless of foreign courts rulings, whether down in London or in faraway places.
There wouldn’t even need to be a referendum. I hear this talk that an independent Scotland wouldn’t be recognised internationally if it didn’t dot the i’s and cross the t’s but what precedent has there been for independence of a country from a political union, particularly one that still has isn’t own legal system where one of the principles is that sovereignty lies with the people rather than the nation’s parliament?
There is nothing that Westminster and any other body could do but accept it. The only entity that really matters today is the international bonds market. The core function of any country is the ability to borrow and to pay it back.
While Scotland has a lot of social problems but it is still an advanced developed economy with more than decent infrastructure as well as having a educated workforce. Of course an independent Scotland could function economically on it’s own and that’s what matters.
Like the other constitutional conversations on here, this is hypothetical because as I said, there isn’t any real heart or fire for independence at the current time.
Burn the heretic at the stake!
That’s always the way to silence an inconvenient truth teller.
I’m trying to work out whether burning someone at the stake would be carbon-neutral or not. These things matter, you know? 🙂
It’s environmentally friendly, MH. Any temporary blip in carbon emissions is compensated for thousands of times over by the removal of the heretic’s future carbon footprint, which would have happened if he had been permitted to live.
Quite obviously, the younger you get them, the bigger the carbon saving.
It’s entirely sustainable too. Just ask the Inquisition. They got lucrative, pensionable careers out of it for centuries.
Obviously I’m not claiming that pointing out there’s no real, passionate, committed, majority support for Indy is a situation that’s gonna last for centuries. But. Serious people believing it was about to break out real soon wouldn’t be dicking aboot at the UN, or wanting oan an oan aboot G@za.
Autocorrect substituted “wanging” with “wanting”.
Could have been worse.
Destroy the language,the culture, the history and you destroy the people.
The UK needs Scotland’s resources and so that is what avaricious pernicious neighbours do. And there are more shots in the locker too like eviceration of any real democracy and political process and of course the very dark behaviours of state.
Timely article therefore about the eviceration of the arts in Scotland which very much reinforces another instance of the co-ordinated onslaught being waged against us.
link to bellacaledonia.org.uk
‘Cultural obliteration’ (Fanon) is a fundamental aspect of colonial rule, so why is Bella or anyone else all of a sudden surprised?
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
And that is not just a western historic phenomenon, what happened thousands of years ago continues to influence the present, particularly in the region of my birth where ethnic memories never dim and cultural wounds never quite heal.
Forgive and forget, let bygones be bygones so let us shake hands does not obtain if the sense of loss is enduring. Cui bono in that particular, always that of the «established view» as to the best order of things.
Dissent you may but only within the narrow bounds set for the purpose, otherwise….
Intellectually, psychologically, existentially a game of subtle strategems where things may present as awkwardly fluid for ease of solution, the Near East is full of such, albeit many fools rush in flaunting solutions.
Everything from the past effects the present but people pick and choose what matters. How many on here would agree with, say, paying huge reparations for the slave trade, a trade which Scotland was very heavily involved in and benefitted by enormous wealth income?
In fact rather than still dwelling on events thousands or even hundreds of years ago because all actions have consequences that trickle down history forever, we should do the opposite – not shake hands and make up, but simply forget, stop placing stall in it regardless of still seeing some of its effects around you (though it is understood how the level of those remaining effects is clearly crucial in any weighing up how willing forgetting might be).
Human beings are obsessed with the past and righting wrongs as if that is even possible or you know what it might mean, and as if that ever leads to the end of grievance. All you can really do to move on and leave the past behind is to forget it, or at least forget the grievance, not forgive, forget. You showed incomprehension that English people don’t look at 1066 and still feel great grievance but that is because they have largely given up on the grievance a long, long time ago and they are a lot better off for doing so as it serves no purpose. That have let go of the sense of loss and that is a good thing, and in fact what the English are now is partly a result of the invasion and this is accepted – we are mixed people. On the flip side the obsession with ‘Remembrance’ generally actually seems to be getting worse, ‘England’s Dreaming’ of its ‘glorious’ but in fact often rotten past. Remembering everything applies to all the supposedly bad guys as well as the good.
It is possible to spend your whole life, for whole generations, for whole multiple generations for hundreds and hundreds of years to bear grievance that sparks intermittent wars over the same things endlessly (things that also get made simplistic, distorted, falsified and generally made meaningless as time wears them out) and conflict, misery and death results in perpetuity.
That does not mean that there is not very good reason to seek justice, reparation and change especially from unjust aggressors – the British Empire has a lot to answer for to put it mildly and what goes around comes around but at some point in history, yes, you must forget as otherwise the human race gets the life crushed out of it by the weight of the past looming over everything.
Easy for you to say, SBS, but then you’re forgetting just how much grift and lucre there is to be gouged by climbing on board a nice little earner of a grievance band wagon.
Choose your “cause” wisely, and you’ll never have to work a day in your life, and retire fat and comfortable to boot.
All you have to do is get the virtue-signalling keyboard warriors on side, sitting at their screens, tears of sorrow for the hardships of generations long deid, mixing with the tears of unbridled joy they’re shedding at the certainty that they won’t ever be the cants on the hook to pay for anything.
It’s stereotypical Guardian BTL territory. The eternal demands for money to be splurged on some hobby horse or other, just so long as it’s not the demander’s money.
Yeah, got some sympathy with this, the way what are not unreasonable calls for at least recognition of past crimes, initially, become a kind of industry, an end in themselves and are perpetuated and expanded to generate income for the finger pointers. I find the same with the ‘industrialising’ of mental health, autism, dyslexia etc support. Where I work what started about 20 years ago as a genuine improvement in support that was almost non-existent before, became a means by which a whole swathe of people now earn their living.
My Dad whose career moved from merchant navy (WWII), to bricklaying, building work to education welfare and eventually to social work would sometimes reflect on the fact that his late career income relied on human misery and dysfunction, and their continuation. The fact that he was aware if this mattered because whilst it could be no other way, it at least recognised you should not seek to perpetuate the misery so you could earn more. That idea can easily get lost.
As for the Guardian BTL, yes, though the worst thing about that is the effing trigger-happy, brain dead moderators who are like caricatures of right-on idiocy. Plus they are ignorant – they don’t know the difference between an allusion and plain statement. Still read the rag though, best of a mediocre bunch for a woke lefty like me.
“Still read the rag though”
Me too, the online version. Some good journalism occasionally, although hell will freeze over before I ever pay them a penny.
My other goto is the Mail Online.
Take any story, refracted through the Guardian and Mail lenses, and attempt to construct an average in your head. That’s probably where the truth lies.
The decision to prosecute in cases like this lies solely with the Crown Office. The police only follow their instructions.
southernbystander & captain caveman
verily i may have struck your raw nerves on the matter…..invasion & conquest, the conquerors still the old roosters crowing «how special we are» on the spoil heap.
Good day to you both.
No “struck” nerves here, lad (FYI the correct expression is “touched (a raw) nerve”)
You carry on making yourself look like a rather thick, ill-informed, embittered, embarrassing imbecile, son. At least you have the excuse of youth, unlike any of your other peers here. 🙂
Shun the trolls Turabdin on here. Human dross do these jobs.
“Human dross”
Is that right, Chief 😀
Dick.
@alf baird
TRULY, it’s an affair of dont mention the Union, the giant union jack draped dinosaur occupying the comfy chair in the living room.
Yes Turabdin, for the more privileged colonized native their oppression remains somewhat obscured via assimilation into the colonizer’s culture, an assimilation they have themselves ‘craved’ (Cesaire).
Those assimilated groups are now rapidly starting to realise what Fanon reminds us, that: “national sovereignty and independence is the only guarantee of national culture”.
And by implication if we do not reclaim our sovereignty then our culture and nation and ‘people’ will perish.
RADICAL ‘CONVERSION PRACTICES’ MOTION SET FOR SNP CONFERENCE VOTE
SNP party members are set to vote on a pro-LGBT motion pushing for an expansive ‘conversion practices’ law in Scotland.
According to the party’s conference agenda, a motion has been tabled to support a ban that could criminalise parents for refusing to buy their daughter a chest binder or pastoral conversations that do not affirm an LGBT lifestyle.
In its recently published five-year plan, the Scottish Government reiterated its commitment to work with the UK Government on a legislative ban applying to Scotland, while making clear that, should the UK Government fail to deliver, it “will not hesitate to bring forward Scottish legislation”.
DRACONIAN
The conference motion states that “the only acceptable ban on conversion practices is a complete ban that includes medical and religious settings, includes conversion practices inflicted with the ‘consent’ of the person, and any conversion practiced against trans and non-binary people”.
It claims that the controversial Conversion Practices Draft Bill published by the Westminster in June “is inadequate” and will create “loopholes under which conversion practices can still be enacted without breaking the law”.
The proposal goes on to urge the Scottish Government “to impose a comprehensive ban on all conversion practices, to be introduced within the first year of this Parliament, in line with the Party’s manifesto promises”.
‘HARMFUL AND RECKLESS’
The Christian Institute’s Joanna Timm said: “The motion reopens a row the Scottish Government has been trying to offload onto Westminster ever since its own proposals for a conversion practices law – published in 2024 – were met with widespread derision.
“Parents were outraged at the prospect of being criminalised for refusing to consent to their teenage children taking puberty blockers, and church leaders warned they could face jail time for expressing Christian sexual ethics in prayer and pastoral conversation.”
She warned: “The SNP motion reveals the ambitions of those campaigning for this legislation. They want to ensure that therapists and pastors cannot so much as question someone’s claim to be transgender.
“This is despite the evidence that has come to light about the link between transgenderism and autism in teens, and the growing number of detransitioners coming forward after youth transitions. Criminalising a cautious approach to serious life-altering choices, especially when children are involved, is harmful and reckless.”
‘WEAKEN TRUST WITHIN THE HOME’
The Catholic Parliamentary Office, an agency of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, also criticised the motion for advocating a “prohibition of exceptional breadth”.
Anthony Horan, the organisation’s Director, commented: “Without precise definitions and robust safeguards, such an approach risks treating ordinary conversations, conscientious guidance and supportive care as suspect simply because they engage questions of identity, relationships, faith or personal conduct.”
He said the proposals “could weaken trust within the home” and undermine the freedom of clergy, chaplains and pastoral workers to “respond honestly and compassionately within the teaching of their faith” to individuals who “may seek prayer, spiritual counsel or moral guidance”.
Horan added: “It is important, for the sake of clarity and legal certainty, that supporters of conversion practices legislation demonstrate which conduct that isn’t already illegal they intend to criminalise by the proposed new law.”
(The Christian Institute, 14 Oct 2026)
link to christian.org.uk
Exactly as predicted by Fanon.
Ordinary, apolitical Scots, struggling with the cost of living, and fretting about The War and the threat posed by AI, will be enraged to discover their elected representatives are wasting time and energy on this when they could be proposing, debating and passing motions about G@za.
According to The Guardian, oil refineries have morphed from liabilities into gold mines, due to the shortages and hence high prices of refined products such as diesel.
Shame Scotland no longer has one.
Teenagers can make their own health decisions at 16. Parents remain legally responsible for providing guidance until they are 18. However parents are financially responsible until children are 25 if they pursue higher education. Parents can sue for harm to their child until they reach 16, but children can seek the help of a solicitor after they are 12.
So many overlapping conditions for parental involvement, or not. Let’s see the Scottish Government thread this camel through that needle.