The Ace Attorney
Posted on
May 19, 2025 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
Despite everything, we almost allowed ourselves just the very tiniest little micro-flicker of optimism when we read Tommy Sheppard’s latest in The National.
Because that much is certainly true, and it’s uncommonly candid to have anyone in the SNP admit it. So what’s the answer?
Oh. We’re going to do some more demanding.
Great. Can’t wait to see how that pans out.
As you were, folks. Sorry for the false alarm.
The Cross Your Fingers Strategy for the umpteenth time.
It’s ridiculous on another more important count:
By simply accepting that the game’s a bogey due to the Supreme Court ruling that the Scottish Parliament cannot hold a referendum under ‘domestic UK law’ Tommy Sheppard, and others like him, have accepted that Scottish people are not sovereign in their own land.
That on its own disqualifies Tommy Sheppard and his ilk from representing those of us who actually want the restoration of Scotland’s full self-government.
Tommy doesn’t understand anything about our history. That the so-called union never happened. The terms of the Articles of Union were never implemented. That it was a takeover by England not the creation of a new entity. That the English Parliament, both Houses, continued as before however the Scots Parliament was abolished. All English institutions of State remained unchanged including unbroken chain of English legislation which is why even today Westminster refers to the Henry VIII rules.
Our institutions were abolished. See Professor Black, Emeritus KC on Scots Law, on this subject. No merger into a new State took place. The term United Kingdom is cosmetic. No union of the Crowns took place. It couldn’t as the English crown is the monarch and the Scots crown is the People. No elections to the supposed new Parliament as there wasn’t one. Scots had half a dozen co-optees to what was essentially the English Parliament.
We became an English colony with every feature of a colony: assets plundered, no investment, institutions taken over, No control of our borders, our energy, our riches. The answer is not to seek permission from the oppressor State. That doesn’t work. The answer is to achieve decolonisation status from the United Nations and create a groundswell of support from the population by educating it about its ignoble status and subjection. The problem is that the so called principal Party of independence which should take the lead on this has consistently failed to do anything, including creating an independence convention and providing every household with a booklet on the advantages of independence… manifesto not delivered. The SNP is no longer a party of independence. It doesn’t even pretend to be.
How does the Union of the Crowns 1603 fit into this?
“How does the Union of the Crowns 1603 fit into this?”
There never was “a union of crowns”. The two crowns remained and remain separated. What happened is that in 1603 both crowns were bestowed upon the same monarch, but mind that this was not done in perpetuity.
When Orange died without heir, Scotland was threatening to pass the crown to a different royal line to the one England had chosen and in fact, it had active laws to this effect. This is what scared the bejesus out of the English crown. This is the crucial point of the whole treaty of union and the reason for the ridiculous urgency by the monarch to force this union through what come may.
The union has always been about preserving the interest of the crown of England and about securing control over Scotland’s territory to stop it electing a different monarch. It was the English crown who instigated the union in 1706 and I am convinced it is still the English crown today who is insisting in keeping this faux union going by actively and forcefully suppressing democracy for Scotland.
The only thing that is keeping the two crowns on the same monarch is article 2 and this pretence of the existence of a Kingdom of Great Britain. Actually, this may not even be true, because neither the present monarch nor the previous one actually swore the oath to take the Scottish crown. So you can say that the crown of Scotland has no monarch.
Please note that nowhere in the articles of the Treaty of union it is established who should hold the crown of the Kingdom of Scotland or the crown of the Kingdom of England. The articles of the union only indicate who should inherit the crown of this fabricated “Kingdom of Great Britain”. The crowns of Scotland and England remain, therefore, separate to this day.
Send Tommy the Manifesto for Independence. I’m sure he will be grateful to be shown the exact steps to take. Won’t he?
And here’s a link to the only practicable route to restoring Scotland’s rightful place in the world
link to peterabell.wordpress.com
I can’t recommend this enough as it spells out our current Westminster/Supreme Court impasse/road block, as outlined in the article, and a ‘possible’ way around…
youtube.com/live/Z2lVgoA6UHQ?
The pertinent bit with listening to is encompassed in the 1hr 50min section…
00:30:00 – 02:20:00
So you’ve got just ten minutes shy of 2hrs of eminent speakers well worth listening to, albeit the sound quality is occasionally poor.
There’s nothing of any visual import therefore I’d recommend, as I did, listening to it on your commute, assuming you have one.
Robert, just to confirm – your link is to the Saturday afternoon SSRG session where Sara Salyers and Prof Robert Black KC, amongst others, proved that the Union is not what everyone thinks it is? That Scotland became subject to England?
sarah…
Apologies… I can’t seem to reply in line to your post (below), but in answer to your question, yes.
Professor Black is quite correct in all his statements about the continuing institutions (of England) after 1707, but is that the whole argument: that Scotland is, therefore, a territory? Only if you ignore everything in the Treaty and the Claim of Right. Was the Union MEANT to be a Union or a takeover, a subsumption? Did it start out as an intended subsumption? Not by Scotland, if you look at all the working and speeches around the Treaty, and not by the monarch.
The ‘trans’ lobby ignored the EQA 2010 and the UKSC clarified what the law had been since 2010, overturning Lady Haldane’s ruling on GRCs. Now, whatever one thinks of the UKSC, it did clarify and underline the law as it was and is, not Stonewall Law. The same thing happened with the Treaty.
If all the workings around the Treaty and the words of the monarch, Queen Anne, are taken into account, it becomes very clear that the Treaty was an international Treaty between two independent states which did not, emphatically, not, imply any Scottish agreement to a subsumption (although they may have feared such) but, rather, to a Union and a partnership, the agreement, by the Scots, to accept English institutions, notwithstanding.
That a whole new British state with British institutions and apparatus should have been created goes without saying, but it was not done, and one has to say that the Scots were either extremely naive or were outmanoeuvred. I would plump for the latter because it happens every time today, as well.
Our government has never understood the English, English nationalism or the dark arts practised by Westminster and Whitehall. Like women, it has tried to fight total unreason and controlling tendencies with reason and compromise when it should have been fighting fire with fire.
It seems to me to be dangerous to accept that Scotland became a territory of, and a part of, a Greater England. Neither the Treaty, nor the Acts can be interpreted that way, to my mind. Rather, the Treaty was wilfully misinterpreted by England, acting ultra vires. As to Scots Law, the negligence of the SNP government in passing blatantly bad laws which are easily overturned on appeal is part of the problem. What is the point in trying to fight UK law, a fight which you will always lose, rather than fighting for independence?
They should have known that England would always contest Scottish laws that attempted to suborn UK laws. There is no solution to our bind than to seek independence and I’m worried that fighting on the stance of actually being subsumed is a huge danger, albeit there are some advantages in international law. Personally, I would choose to fight on the Treaty and the Claim of Right, but that’s my opinion and I may very well be wrong.
The presumption that England’s size automatically gives it legitimate authority over Scotland on a supposed ‘democratic’ basis is just that; a purely English presumption, and one that isn’t worth the parchment it was never even written on.
Nothing in the Treaty provides for the subordination of Scotland’s MP majorities to England’s MP majorities on any matter of UK governance. Their respective numbers do not reflect a formal rank of the authorities of their parent kingdoms. Scotland’s MPs are the sole formal representatives of the entire kingdom, people and territory of the sovereign Scottish half of the Union, and as such, by default, their decisions cannot be overruled by the MPs of a foreign sovereignty on any basis, without an actual formal agreement in the Treaty to that explicit effect.
There is no such agreement in the treaty.
Nor is there any agreement for the use of a flat vote in the new Union’s new parliament. It is that flat vote alone that leverages England’s MP numbers over Scotland’s in any vote, and nor is it a legitimate exercise of democracy even if it had been agreed. England’s MPs do not represent the Union on their own any more than Scotland’s do, and the two sovereignties did not disappear in 1707, and both are entitled to full recognition and respect. Westminster knows all about respect for its own sovereignty!
I agree Mia. So many people, many of whom support independence are ignorant of the truth behind the Scottish Crown. Sadly the rush to a political Union was largely due to religious differences, none of which matter today. Today global corporate power applies and they are also intent in suppressing independence and diversity…and yet again Scotland will suffer. Sadly’The Swinney’ is merely branch office manager to the globalist power merchants. We must rise up and defy the deniers of our sovereignty
“religious differences, none of which matter today”
If only that was true.
I’ve been slow to pick up on this, but it has become clear that the sectarian differences of yesteryear have simply morphed into a more modern and relevant form.
The two sides are as tribal as ever. The excuses they use for their tribal hatreds have changed, but the mutual antipathy remains.
Thomas Sheppard has been one of the most duplicitous SNP grifters ever. He left Labour to follow the money as we all know.
If Labour was doing better governing and up in the polls he would be back there in a thrice.
The man has, and has never had, anything to contribute to the betterment of Scotland.
Listening to him, should he ever turn up to a rally, is a sham of childish and hackneyed soundbites as he throws carrots to the “crowd”
It’s fascinating watching the NuSNP cultists still following him as if he were the new messiah.
Sheppard couldn’t demand a poke of chips from the takeaway.
He should try owning a comedy club…
“One of the most”..
Well aye but what about potty mouth Mhairi ( the Labour Party left me) Black?
One issue pervert pony, dumped by Reese Mogg and slunk back here to make a living slagging off the place she was happy to earn a living and pension from..
Reform will go the same way; lacklustre candidate vetting in the face of elections and popularity leading to the lunatics being in charge of the asylum.
Love it or loathe it; we are chained to the two party freak show in Engerlund and our protest votes go largely ignored.
Do they have the cajonies for anything more radical?
Not a chance!
Devolutionists- Unionism’s gits the whole lot of them and an embarrassment to Scotland..
“You can’t handle the truth”
It’s hard to tell whether Tommy Sheppard is completely thick, totally disingenuous, a ("Quizmaster" - Ed) or something else. Any of these attributes disbar him from representing the independence movement.
Poke of chips for Shepherd
I have heard bullshit, grifter talk and then there is Tommy Shepherd.
The UK aka English government has no say whether Scotland becomes independent.
It’s a choice and the way set out by the true Independistas will eventually get us there.
Asking England for permission never will.
I won’t repeat again the process all colonised countries took.
At least ours is easier than some had.
We need SNP what’s left of them to wake up and see Shepherd , Swinney et al for what they are, grifting money grabbers for themselves.
For as long as any politician who claims to pursue independence continues to hide like a disgusting coward behind the colonial Scotland Act, an English court, England’s MPs and England’s crown, they are not and will never pursue independence. In other words, they are nothing but charlatans wasting our time and abusing our votes to ensure themselves a good paycheck.
Therefore, is there any point in continue to vote for them, then?
Nope. Not even one. We may as well vote to bypass the lot of them or, even better, do not vote at all. Because, what is the point in continue to cast a vote in a system that is flawed from the get go, designed to go against our democratic will?
Absolutely none. The only thing we are doing with our votes is validating this flawed system and extending its lease of life.
Mr Sheppard claims that “The fact that this (the delivery of a referendum) has not happened, is not a wilful betrayal of the Scottish Government”.
I couldn’t disagree more with Mr Sheppard on this. That an independence referendum was not delivered when the Scottish government and party in power had COUNTLESS mandates for it is a wilful betrayal of the Scottish people by that government, a wilful betrayal by the party in control of that government, in control of the largest share of the seats in Holyrood and the party that, until recently, held an absolute majority of Scotland’s seats in Westminster.
What that “Scottish” government has showed, in my view, is a magnificent display of abuse of their position of power to deliberately stop that referendum and the disgusting demonstration by that government of the most absolute contempt for democracy and for the rights and wants of the people of Scotland.
What they had to do is to FIND THE WAY to deliver that effing referendum, independently of what a bunch of England MPs and representatives of the crown had to say. This site gave a good example of how to bypass the obstacle by calling an early Holyrood election.
The last UK general election could have been used as a plebiscite vote.
A majority of pro-independence MPs could have voted to put the Scotland Act in suspension and call the referendum.
A majority of anti-union MPs could have put the Treaty of Union in suspension and reconvene temporarily the Scottish parliament to legislate for the referendum.
There are many different routes, but each of them involves coming out from hiding behind the UK Government, the English crown and England MPs.
Either this is a democracy or it is not. You cannot pretend this is a democracy whey you, systematically, for the best part of 9 years, happily assist the colonial force that is systematically robbing Scotland of its resources to continue to supress the democratic will of the people of Scotland.
Taking that bill to the English court was a deliberate maneuver by the political fraud Sturgeon to stop the referendum. Who did she think she was fooling? The monumental lying coward did not have the balls to tell us to our face that she never had the intention to deliver it.
I had enough of excuses and I had more than enough of attempts to deflect and to take us for fools like the one above spouted by Mr Sheppard. I had enough of useless politicians hiding like cowards behind the UK gov, behind the English crown, or behind an English court.
The SNP has systematically and deliberately failed to deliver that referendum and to move an inch towards independence in 10 fking years. That must be some kind of world record in level of inaction. Goodness, Salvo and Liberation have achieved far, far, far more in just a fraction of the time and without the money, resources and clout that the SNP has. About time the bloody SNP and its bandwagon of dishonest charlatans move aside for once and for all and stop acting as an obstacle to Scotland’s progress to independence.
Mia,
I love reading your comments,.you have that fire inside, along with common sense that all Scottish people sorely need right now,
The problem is actually the duplicate two Colonial parliaments over Scotland,
Confirming that the initial 1707 treaty of union was not ratified, and a hoax sets the unlawfal ‘ Scotland Act’ spinning off kilta into the abyss. Along with every unionist party sitting there and I include the nuSNP as one of those.
It is true that the elections in Scotland are not Scottish elections at all, and are seriously misleading.
We vote to keep the colonisers in a Scottish branch office from Westminster parliament of England.
I would suggest that the number of pro-independence MPs or MSPs elected at any election is irrelevant.
If the wishes of the Scottish people are to be respected, what is requires is a majority of pro-independence votes.
As far as I know, that had never happened, except on the occasion Nicola specifically stated that a vote for the SNP ws not necessarily a vote for independence.
“Confirming that the initial 1707 treaty of union was not ratified,”
The treaty was ratified by the Scottish Parliament when it passed The Union With England Act in 1707.
“I would suggest that the number of pro-independence MPs or MSPs elected at any election is irrelevant”
On this point, I strongly disagree. The UK is a so called “parliamentary democracy”, ergo, it is not the number of votes from the electorate what matters, but the number of votes inside the parliamentary chamber.
In other words, it is the number of representatives inside that chamber supporting a particular idea/policy, etc, what counts, not how many voters endorsed those representatives.
The ridiculously low turnouts of late are a testament to the UK not being a real democracy, but rather a parliamentary democracy. It does not seem to matter an iota how MPs get elected, or how unrepresentative they really are of their constituencies. It does not seem to matter that the majority of the electorate of a particular constituency are disenfranchised or refuse to cast a vote. The vote is still considered valid and “representative”. Because the only thing that matters is how those MPs vote once they are in the parliamentary chamber, not how they got to that chamber.
In 1706, all what was needed to start the union was a simple majority of parliamentarians voting for it. Many of those voting for the union were bribed, others were threatened, and others were pursuing their own self-interest.
The first set of “Scotland’s” MPs to go to Westminster were not even elected by the people of Scotland. They selected themselves from the parliamentarians that were already in Scotland’s parliament at the time, because they feared that, if there was an election, the people of Scotland would only elect anti-union MPs and the union would end before it started. Needless to say that only pro-union parliamentarians were eligible to be selected.
If that “treaty” was held against today’s international law of treaties standards, it would not stand up to the minimum scrutiny. The way that treaty was achieved violated several articles of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties. It was a farce. A farce forced on Scotland by the English crown.
The people of Scotland was never consulted. As a matter of fact, if you read the records of the Parliament of Scotland, you will see that some of the parliamentarians asked in one of the debates about the articles of the union for a consultation of the public at large. This was refused point blank by the pro-union parliamentarians, because they knew the union would be rejected by the people of Scotland.
If a simple majority of parliamentarians is all what was needed to start the union, then, by logic, that is also all what is required to end it. It is not Scotland as an independent state what is the anomaly here, it is a union forced on Scotland under the excuse of a faux treaty what is. What is also an anomaly is that the union parliament, subordinated to the treaty and to the two parliaments who ratified the treaty, somewhat, self-awarded itself absolute power to declare itself permanent and to declare itself above the parent parliaments that created it. What is an anomaly is that nobody in Scotland’s gov appears to see anything wrong with this.
Demanding a majority of the vote is yet another obstacle that is being put in our way. An obstacle that was never there in the first place to enter this toxic union. So why the difference? Why demanding democracy to exit a union which was undemocratically forced on Scotland?
Entering a treaty or ending a treaty is not about a democratic vote by the people. For instance, when were we allowed to vote in a referendum to empower Starmer to re-negotiate a treaty with the EU? Or with the USA so we can get flooded with hormone injected beef and chlorinated chicken? Or with Australia? or with New Zealand, so our Scottish lamb vanishes from the supermarket shelves to make space for the flooding of lamb from New Zealand?
What about that treaty with U that means UK taxpayers have to hand 3 bn pound to U per year for the next 100 years whilst our pensioners freeze here because the sadistic Starmer stopped the winter fuel payments? When did we vote in a referendum for that?
Never. We were never given even the option to choose. So what exactly makes the treaty of union different to any other treaty, then?
Unfortunately, what we currently have “representing” Scotland, are a bunch of self-serving cowards and charlatans. Not satisfied with being simply cowards and charlatans, now they fancy themselves as clever enough to continue to successfully deceive us with more waffle, double speak and shite after we have already realised that they have betrayed. Just like Tommy Sheppard appears to be attempting to deceive in the quotes of the article above.
“As far as I know, that had never happened, except on the occasion Nicola specifically stated that a vote for the SNP ws not necessarily a vote for independence”
The intervention of the political fraud Sturgeon claiming that a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence is a magnificent example of how this UK voting system is undemocratic by nature and systematically and deliberately manipulated on demand to be permanently flawed against independence.
Every poll since late September 2014 until the political fraud Sturgeon made that announcement around March-April 2015 was predicting the mother of all landslides for the SNP. And that was under the assumption that votes for the SNP were votes for independence.
The two faced, lying cow knew this, and as the good empire soldier she was, she quickly applied the breaks on Scotland’s independence on behalf of her imperial masters by removing the teeth and the wheels of the only political vehicle for Scotland’s independence.
But, on doing so, what she was effectively doing was completely disabling the democratic character of the election. Why? Because once our political vehicle for independence was disabled, we effectively were left without any independence party to vote for. So one of the two options was deliberately left out of the ballot. In other words, close if not more than 50% of people seeking independence were left either disenfranchised or with their pro-independence votes trapped in the political fraud Sturgeon’s neo-devolutionist construct. This was very much deliberate and the political fraud Sturgeon was simply the union stooge delivering the blow.
Dreaming that the establishment, some day, will not close ranks and circle the wagons to abuse the political system to systematically deny democracy (as it has been doing for the last 300 years), so this union can be preserved by force, is naive to say the least. When you see the “leader” of the political vehicle for independence deliberately disabling that vehicle in preparation for the mother of all landslides, so the majority is rendered useless, you know you are playing a rigged game and you are going nowhere for as long as you continue playing by the rigged rules.
Mr redactor pen Swinney is showing the same signs of following his imperial masters instructions to deliberately derailing independence by suppressing democracy, just like the political fraud Sturgeon did. Claiming now that we need over 70% for yes by the latest useless unelected “leader” of the SNP is, in practice, very much the same as saying a vote for the SNP is no longer a vote for independence.
The attempts by Sheppard to deflect the responsibility and accountability of the SNP government for deliberately failing to uphold democracy and for deliberately refusing to enact our mandates for a referendum, is another beautiful example of how the imperial minions seek to normalise the suppression of democracy in Scotland.
Effectively, Sheppard is asking us to accept as the norm that an allegedly democratically elected government simply reneges and pisses on the democratic mandates it was elected on, just because it can. In other words, he appears to be doing the dirty work for the imperial masters.
I don’t know who he thinks he is fooling. YOu would expect such crass attitude towards democracy from politicians from pro-colonial parties, but not from an SNP politician. So, is Mr Sheppard one of the unionist plants in the SNP?
Because when a politician is seeking to normalise the suppression of democracy in Scotland to justify the inaction towards independence, you have to wonder if that politician ever supported independence in the first place.
So, did Mr Shepperd ever went to Westminster with the aim to deliver independence for Scotland, or he just went there for the salary, the bars and the opportunity to act as “a good parliamentary”?
“The treaty was ratified by the Scottish Parliament when it passed The Union With England Act in 1707”
That is correct. The Treaty was ratified and the Act of Union with England was passed.
However, if you read carefully the records of the last parliament of Scotland and you read the Treaty itself, article XXV clearly states:
“That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them shall from and after the Union cease and become void and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms”
This article is most interesting because of what it says. Firstly, it tells us that for the treaty to be enacted, it is necessary that laws and statutes in each of the two kingdoms that are inconsistent with the terms of the treaty cease and become void.
This is an step that stands to the obvious, because if you retain those laws, the treaty cannot be enacted without collapsing pretty much straight away.
But, more importantly, article XXV says that those laws and statutes incompatible with the treaty have to be declared void by the respective parliaments who enacted them. That article does not give to the parliaments of England or the new parliament of Great Britain the power to nullify those laws. It is only Scotland’s parliament itself that can do it.
And this is what is most fascinating to me, because something as crucial as declaring void and null any law that contravenes the treaty should be the very first step after ratification.
Yet, there is no record whatsoever of the Scottish parliament having ever done so. This was not done on the day the Act of Union with England was passed. In fact, we know the parliament of Scotland never declared those laws null because those laws were, allegedly, declared null by the very first Parliament of Great Britain on its very first day. However, in line with the Treaty, that parliament of Great Britain was never given the power to do so, therefore this was an ultravires action that violated the treaty allegedly on its very first day.
My question is, was the treaty ever legitimately enacted? I am beginning to have my doubts.
We are told until we are blue in the face that the Parliament of Scotland was abolished. But who abolished it? Who had the actual legitimate power to abolish it? Did the monarch abolish it? If she did, where on earth did the monarch actually got the power to abolish it when she did not even have the power to single handedly enact laws by herself unless instructed to do so by parliament?
So who abolished that parliament, when exactly was it abolished and why?
The REcords of the parliament of Scotland available so far show that the parliament was adjourned, not abolished. They also show that parliament was meant to reconvene at a later date, but there are no records that this ever happened.
If it was abolished, I have found no record of this.
But back to the point. If it is true that the parliament was abolished, it was done so BEFORE it had the chance to declare all those laws contrary to the treaty as void. In other words, the Parliament of Scotland never fully enacted that treaty or the Act of Union with England.
So why was the parliament of Scotland abolished/collapsed before finishing the job so this union could not legitimately start?
Was it that the parliamentarians were having second thoughts?
Was it that the entire treaty collapsed, as everyone at the time other than the monarch expected it would happen, and this information has been carefully suppressed from the history books to create the illusion of a union?
Or was it that something else happened that we don’t know about?
I have been thinking about this for quite a while now and the fact that the parliament of Scotland never declared those laws void bothers me. It bothers me because a treaty cannot start for as long as incompatible laws remain in place. In other words, those laws incompatible with the treaty were the last remaining safeguard against the union.
I am of the opinion that Scotland’s parliament was never legally abolished, but it is very likely it was simply collapsed by forces closed to the monarch because whatever happened between that last session where the Act of Union with England was passed and the day when the Parliament of Scotland was meant to reconvene was threatening the enactment of the union.
I therefore now question the legitimacy of this union and I very much question the legality of the parliament of Great Britain abolishing pre-union Scots laws. Actually, I am convinced it was unlawful because the treaty never gave the parliament of Great Britain, never mind England MPs, the power to void those laws.
The only possible way in which any of this makes any sense at all to me is if the parliaments of Scotland and England remained and operated as separate entities within the so called “Parliament of Great Britain”, each with authority over the pre-union laws of their respective kingdoms. But what is certain is that England MPs or England lords or Great Britain lords had and have absolutely no business nor authority whatsoever to gerrymander pre-union Scots laws.
There is something missing here between the day the Act of Union with England was passed and the first parliament of Great Britain.
If the Parliament of Scotland never declared those laws void, does this mean that what we have here is not a union but rather a take over of Scotland by the Kingdom of England?
And if that is the case, why calling itself “Kingdom of Great Britain” rather than Kingdom of England?
Has it all been a charade orchestrated by the English crown to effect a take over?
You’re quite right Mia.
I’ve yet to hear any politician explain that denying a referendum is denying democracy.
It doesn’t help that licksp1ttles insist that we had a bit of democracy once before, so there’s no need to have anymore anytime soon.
Excellent
Mia
So very well said.
Bravo!
Tommy Sheppard, Ace Attorney, another one of the begging bowl great pretenders, that will ask for a pension from Scottish tax payers,
I think Mr Blake, KC . A man with intellect in comparison Is clearly capable of running circles around him thrice again and again,
I don’t think The Wallace sought a sinecure or pension from anyone.
Therein lies the problem and why the English hate him so much..
Yet we have become so very much like the English..
Eurovision anyone??
Tell us true, Young Lochinvar.
Do you truly believe that “the English” hate William Wallace?
You do know he’s been dead coming up 720 years?
Or are you convinced the film with the midget Australian antisemite is a documentary?
It would be really refreshingly honest if the SNP campaigned as such – English sovereignty over Scots. So even with the Swinney supermajority required, it would still come down to the Supreme Court.
If the Scottish Government had concentrated on good & successfully policies and convinced people of their abilities more people might have been supportive of independence. Their woeful record on squandering millions of £’s does not convince many thousands of people.
100% agree
Then no doubt you voted for Scottish self determination in 2014 because of the good governance of Alex Salmond?
The art(ifice) of the infiltrator laid bare.
The reason for the ( ahem ) Scottish government not running the Scottish policies well is it is not a Scottish government,
So when someone does run it well its time to get rid of them out of the branch office.
That is what they did with Alec Salmond,
Didn’t you read Mia’s comments? It doesn’t matter how ANY party concentrates on ANYTHING! It’s NOT ABOUT NUMBERS OR REFS! It’s about the supposed TREATY and the fact that Treaty was never adhered to by the unionist govt in WM! Which means it WAS NEVER IN FORCE! Thus we don’t need people to vote for or against ending the union! Technically we are NOT IN A UNION! It’s an ILLEGAL piece of flummery that none of us should even be paying attention to, and we shouldn’t be accepting England having the ultimate power! There is NOTHING, ZERO in it that says England gets the ultimate say in ANY ISSUE. And thus anytime England try to force any policy on us, we have the right to sling it back and say ‘NO THANKS. WE DON’T WANT IT’. When did we sign anything about ‘Reserved or Devolved’ in the Treaty? Why do we need a devolved parliament when we are a PARTNER in the main government and have equal say in what happens? If that is true (equal partner) Scotland WOULDN’T NEED a government. Oh, that’s right – it was in the treaty that we were the partner with no voice, no say, no need to be consulted… wasn’t it? I have asked FOR YEARS, for somebody to show me in the Treaty where it says we Scotland, is subordinate.
The Treaty is a piece of nonsense and its time we said so. But that party that took over after the resignation of the man who made things better for Scots, decided that that was enough. That we should get NO MORE. The unionist woman who told us the election wasn’t about INDEPENDENCE, the party that has been paid handsomely with huge salary & pension pot, to back her. It doesn’t matter how much better they run the country, we don’t need people to VOTE for a Ref. We need people to say ‘Enough is enough’ and declare the Union NULL & VOID.
“Technically we are NOT IN A UNION! It’s an ILLEGAL piece of flummery that none of us should even be paying attention to”
OK. As of midnight I am taking your advice.
The union will be dead for me. NULL & VOID.
I’m really looking forwards to tomorrow. Can you give me some pointers to what will change as I go about my usual routine? How will I recognise fellow union deniers? Is there a badge or T-shirt I should look out for?
As you go about your daily life, what are the differences you observe between yourself as a union denier, and the rank and file of everybody else? I’m guessing your life is far better, but how does that manifest itself?
Thanks in advance for your help.
No, Katielass, it was, and remains, legal. That, believe it or not, may well become our way out of the Union – because it has not been adhered to in any sense of the Treaty itself, or, indeed, of the Acts. However we leave this Union, the Treaty will come into play because the English will bring it into play – against us, if they can.
That is why I keep saying we must be prepared by understanding every nuance, legal and constitutional, of the Treaty and the subsequent Acts. It should have been ‘sound’ in law long ago, and challenged on legal implementation as opposed to legality per se, and it would have been money well spent, rather than wasting millions on cases that could never have been won. Just today, we are informed that Police Scotland will not record the sex of ‘trans’ identified rapists. So, this will also end up in the courts at public expense.
Is anyone surprised that these tr@i torous scum are now starting to panic and shit themselves , they would have to be blind and deaf to not recognise that their jaikets are all on a shoogly peg,they think that we are so dumb that we do not see their panic
How many MP’s are trying to be elected to HR as MSP’s in an effort to save their miserable cowardly corrupt skins ,this moron is just an example of the contempt they hold for the electorate and independence supporters,these fuckwits and their cowardice in supporting the head DEVIANT and PERVERT in her quest to destroy womanhood in Scotland only highlights their lack of a SPINE or integrity, they have PROVEN and shown that they do NOT have the courage or INTEGRITY to fight for Scotland’s freedom
It would be interesting to read what “clear strategy” Sheppard proposes? Maybe Kelly’s spurious SNP1&2 will form part of it.
Sadly neither SNP nor Kelly can explain how that will move us any closer…
Some of Starmer’s minor concessions with the EU are built on yet again selling out Scottish Fishing Rights for yet another 12 years when Scotland will be sold out again.
Someone has to ask the EU what happens to their access to take Scotland’s Fish if Scotland should be given access to real democracy and becomes independent.
The Starmer “deal” should see the U.K. economy grow by 0.2% by 2040.
As someone who won’t be around them I don’t give a shi* about the latest Westminster lie, the English Parties or Starmer.
The CEO of Salmon Scotland has this to say about the deal
“It eases the burden on our farmers, processors and the communities they support, and we welcome efforts to implement it at pace. The withdrawal of physical checks is particularly welcome. It means lower costs and quicker deliveries for our customers. Scottish salmon is the UK’s biggest food export, with strong demand in the EU, the US and beyond. We look forward to rebuilding trade ties across Europe and will continue to press for freer access to the US and other markets to support jobs and growth in our coastal communities.”
The traditional right-wing media is certainly portraying it as a betrayal of Brexit. I don’t know if that is true, as I have yet to read any kind of detailed assessment.
Still, with complete predictability, the “dragged oot o the EU agin oor will” brigade are already getting agitated about Starmer possibly dragging us back in.
Evidence, should anybody still need further evidence, that it’s always just gurnin and greetin for the sake of it.
Incidentally, Scottish salmon is the UK’s biggest food export only if you discount Scottish whisky. Which I’m not prepared to do. It’s called uisge beatha for a very good reason.
“CEO of Salmon Scotland”
You mean Tavish Scott, former LibDem Scottish (sic) leader. The committed unionist no voter that wanted Orkney and Shetland to have self determination (the irony) to remain part of the UK if Scotland voted for independence. That Tavish Scott. Supporting England trading away Scottish resources – well quelle surprise!
I note Salmon Scotland have recently had a name change from Scottish Farmed Salmon, which is presumably an attempt to not bring the many negative effects of salmon farming to mind.
But a lot of the Scottish farmed salmon business (like so many other “Scottish” businesses) is foreign owned, so yet another resource in Scottish territory that is exploited.
Of course the NuScotsSalmon gets much of the focus whilst the indigenous wild Scottish salmon and other river life gets a literally toxic deal of piss, shite and many other nasty chemicals pumped into our rivers, because the twats on the big bucks at Scottish Water and SEPA ain’t got the motivation or gumption to clean up their acts and our essential infrastructure.
Scottish Water running shit leccy cars to “save the planet” and giving their bosses big bonuses, when they are still pumping effluent into our rivers.
Watch out
Snp-rubbish
Labour awful
Tories nowhere
Reform will rush thru the gap
“Oh. We’re going to do some more demanding”
Now, now. Be fair tae the boy.
He actually wrote:
“That means demanding and fighting …”
So it’s not just demanding – there’s gonna be fighting too.
Maybe just fighting to deliver the demands with a straight face, but at least the boy will be trying.
Starmer is a filthy brexit Judas. Anas Sarwar is an anti-white racist. Labour are unelectable. And I’m a frustrated Scottish nationalist. It’s a good thing I’m not a twitter troll. As I’d be locked up and thrown in prison. Like Starmer’s Ukrainian rent boy and all of the British males.
The country has been given away by Labour. They are betrayers! And the SNP can’t build ferries. It amazes me that this country runs at all!
We’re paying into the EU army! Brexit betrayal! The deep state Kier Starmer. – 70 disapproval rating: I despise the man with every fibre! Lock him up with Sturgeon and Murrell!
Independence is the wrong word. We were already an independent country when we joined England to create the UK and we now wish to withdraw from that Union and revert to our previous status. England already regards itself as an independent country but does not share that view of rUK . So if you are serious MR Sheppard about another referendum and crave leaving the Union(England) then start disrupting the business of the House of Parliament until it can no longer function properly and is also embarrassed by the constant negative international publicity.
But that would take commitment and some very large balls from an already castrated SNP hence it aint going to happen.
Yet again people commenting are arguing against the SNPs inaction and abiding by The UK supreme court opposing the Scottish Parliament having the ability to hold an independence referendum,make a law saying the contrary and tell the supreme court to abide by it as retention of the Scottish legal system was a condition of the union.
Despite recent attempts by some to degrade and reduce it to an inferior system and bring it into line with England to gain reward,favour and position.
If not ensure it has no authority or jurisdiction and abolish it.
Yet there is a double standard that the party and its sycophantic adulation to another undemocratic and corrupt union (EU) and will not defend the Scottish fishing industry that has just been betrayed again by Kier Starmers (social harmer) deal with Brussels
Wheesht, Peter! The regulars on here love the EU and can think of no better fate for Scotland than for us to be ruled from Brussels.
They’ll even try to keep a straight face when they tell you that when we take our seat at the top table, the likes of Germany, France and Poland will be prepared to grant us equal influence to themselves.
But there is one thing they don’t tell us, although every so-called Indy-loving EU enthusiast tacitly admits it.
The “too wee, too poor” trope must have been true all along, and to that can obviously be added, after the past decade of SNP rule, “too thick, too corrupt” as well. But none of that will matter when our daily lives are determined by those nice, unelected, anonymous bureaucrats in a foreign land.
And after all, not many of them will be English, and that’s perhaps the only thing that counts!
Of course, if an Indy Scotland is going to be as dripping in filthy moolah as is often claimed on here, we will have to transfer great wodges of that dosh to Brussels in accordance with EU fiscal rules. But hey, look on the bright side – maybe our national wealth is a fiction too.
Apart from our fishing resources, of course. They’re always seized by the EU on Day 1 of every negotiations round, so they must be worth a pretty penny.
The most urgent priority is ending colonial rule by Westminster, which is costing Scots around £150 billion a year:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
“ Wheesht, Peter! The regulars on here love the EU …”
======
All of them?
There is at least one veteran indy supporter who, following the LEAVE vote in 2016 posted BTL in The Hootsmon:
“REJOICE! That is one union down; one to go“ – or words to that effect.
@Alf Baird
As there’s a whiff of deja vu in the headlines right now, somebody should paint that on the side of a bus (*) and drive it around Scotland in the runup to the HR 2026 cabaret.
* Or on the side of a motor home
@Cynicus
Good to hear it.
But as we don’t know the identity of that wise, smart and grammatically precise poster, we can’t say if he/she/they/them/cat is a regular on here.
I guess you’re not for spilling the beans.
Interesting that post has lodged in your memory though
Mia says
On this point, I strongly disagree. The UK is a so called “parliamentary democracy”, ergo, it is not the number of votes from the electorate what matters, but the number of votes inside the parliamentary chamber.
Yet Mia also says that the UK does not exist. So how can it be a ‘so-called parliamentary democracy?’
If she truly believes in the sovereignty of the Scottish people, she must believe that we need a majority of people in favour of independence, not a majority of MPs/MSPs.
Otherwise she is simply endorsing the validity of the UK/Holyrood system.
This might answer your question, without answering your question, and sorry for the length.
link to barrheadboy.com
The burning question is when are we going to find out about the charges against Peter Murrell.
All the SNP and its beneficiaries who milk the Indy movement of their houses, donation and hope have no intention of delivering on the constitutional question.
We now know that the Supreme court ruling on the constitutional question was a farce, in order for the SNP to use it as a get out clause.
The evidence that’s been found and the comment from a distinguished KC confirms that Scotland was indeed annexed by England and the new formed country Great Britain never happened and that England and its parliament still exist today and that Scotland is indeed a colony.
So the SNP really cant to use the supreme court to deny Scotland its right, when in fact this court has no affect on Scotland or our people and the SNP really do need to start paying attention were politics is at.
For the SNP the constitutional question is a rotten concept never to be talked about until the day before the election.
Thank god we have other organization who are working for nothing other than doing their best for Scotland and its people. Then you have people going out and buying The Rag and supporting the SNP, for WHAT?
I honestly believe that next year after the Holyrood election the SNP will be in trouble and here is why. When these pollster have been polling for next years Holyrood election they’ve only asked one question, who would you vote for. But if the pollsters asked a two part question, will you vote and then who would you vote for, it would give the pollster a different result every time.
Next year Holyrood elections isn’t going to answer the constitutional question and if you believe it is you’re just wrong it isn’t, but it doesn’t mean we can’t use it to further our cause. If I was leader of the SNP I would go into this election with front and center that the Union was fake and it was never ever formed and that Scotland was annexed by England and its because of this annexation that Scotland isn’t allowed to leave. Let the people know that the election is entirely based on a plebiscite to remove us legally from this Union.
We need to use next years election to educate our people to the fact that Scotland was annexed by England this is the perfect platform to get people to sign up to liberation Scotland.
One of the many problems in Scotland is the relatively new news in terms of timelines is learning about and transiting the minds from the old garbled information on the treaty of union that has been supplied to them basically from one source,
Very few have thoroughly paid attention to Scotlands own side of discovery on information surrounding the treaty of union from the SSRG conference 2025 that is a alternative point of view and source,
No doubt there will be a lot of union minded Scots whom wish to continue believing in the old one sided story because it is attached to there pay checks and pensions or second homes.
This was always the case in Scotland and is a story as old as the faux treaty and one of the original causation of that supposed treaty.
People in Scotland who would sell their grannies or neighbours and hold their hands out in readiness. For greed, for Avarice.
To be able to live with their failing moral actions they will stick their fingers in their ears and keep singing Tra la laa., squeezing their eyes tight shut and holding their breath, all the while hoping that their fellow man, neighbour Scot, never achieves or gets to read the small print of the contracts he hides behind his back,
They say ignorance is bliss,
But deliberate continued gullible ignorance is dangerous if standing so close to snakes in the grass,
For it will consume all in its sight to survive and thrive,
That includes those whom have not learned, read up on the history of the double forked tongue poisonous venom.
For most Scots must re educate themselves on the history of the snake and what environment it favours,
Often languishing together in a vipers nest of many and hidden behind paywalls and pay checks.
Mia,
It is not the number of votes,
But who counts the votes.
Are you insinuating that the UK State deliberately miscounted the 2014 Referendum vote, to such an extent as to change its outcome through fraud? Despite the counts being very closely monitored by independence supporters at the time IIRC?
If so, evidence would be good.
I will let you work that out, its not for me to say why you should be affronted, it is a well known phrase in all political circles around the world,
‘DEFENDING DEMOCRACY: DSF REPORT ON THE REFERENDUM POSTAL BALLOT’ (April 2015)
Andy Anderson, Democratic Socialist Federation Education Officer, introduces the “DUNOON UNIT REPORT: THE POSTAL BALLOT AT THE SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM’ and discusses the background to the decision of the DSF to do this study and draw up this report:
“We are now convinced that the Postal Ballot (PB) at the Scottish Referendum was compromised by a UK Government agency, and consequently that the ballot result is not democratically valid.”
link to gobha-uisge.blogspot.com
“I will let you work that out”
So basically you have nowt. Imagine my surprise. (It was, of course, a rhetorical question).
I’ll use a “well known phrase”, James: Bullshit Klaxon.
@Captain Caveman
Every day is a learning opportunity eh? It is indeed a well known political saying.
Often attributed to Joseph Stalin as having said
“It’s not the people who vote that count, it’s the people who count the votes.”
Snopes [1] claims that what he actually said was probably [translated] closer to
“I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.”
Which, if you know some history, is actually far more chilling.
He routinely had party members dragged off by the secret police to be tortured and executed. By pretending to not know or care how people voted, but potentially having them disapeared for ‘voting the wrong way’ he continued his reign of terror.
[1] link to snopes.com
Mia,
Who counted the 2014 votes?
Who held the Franchise?
The colonial rule will continue as long as we accept the Scotland Act based on the treaty of union, which in turn did not include the Scots, their kingdom or realm.
As nought % of Scots were not asked to vote on the issue of the treaty of union
Why do Scots believe what they now told and presume they now need today a certain number % of votes in a referendum to not be in the treaty? They were not invited in in the first place.
It defies logic.
Once upon a time a bunch of not-very-nice people from a country called England, along with some not-very-nice Scottish people from a country called Scotland, wrote some words down on a bit of paper saying that Scotland (England’s nearest victim) and England were now equal partners in a great union and that all of Scotland’s stuff belonged to England and all of England’s stuff belonged to…eh, England.
And so a treaty of union was made between a couple of dozen folk who said they represented two kingdoms and the English (along with their chums the not-very-nice Scottish people) lived happily ever after at the expense of the nice Scottish people who all went… What? Who? When? Naebody asked me.
But England generously sent some soldiers to Scotland who explained to the confused natives how the new-fangled treaty thing worked and soon the confused Scottish people understood the nature of the treaty and learned to keep quiet about the whole thing for fear of getting a blaw tae the heid fae the butt of a rifle (one of the teaching aids commonly used by England around the world at the time).
The Scotty people are such an ungrateful (some say unattractive but I disagree) people, but hopefully this detailed explanation of what the ToU actually is and how it came to be will persuade them to stop whining about the injustice of it all and maybe hand all their wealth to England with a pleasant smile on their faces for a change.
Suck it up smelly Scotties. Learn to be a bit more English (maybe some rose
flavouredscented deodorant will help – mind nou, it’s no fir drinkin’).300+ years of subjugation from a treaty that doesn’t exist!
Was there ever such a thing, anywhere else, in the entire history of the world?
Truly, Scottish Exceptionalism is a force to be reckoned with.
The Act Of Union With England was passed in the Scottish Parliament by 110 votes against 67. Thus ratifying the Treaty of Union. If don’t like it blame the Scottish Parliament.
The following commissioners were appointed to negotiate the Treaty of Union:
Kingdom of Scotland
James Ogilvy, 1st Earl of Seafield, Lord Chancellor
James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, Lord Privy Seal
John Erskine, Earl of Mar, Secretary of State
Hugh Campbell, 3rd Earl of Loudoun, Secretary of State
David Boyle, 1st Earl of Glasgow, Treasurer-depute
Lord Archibald Campbell
Daniel Campbell of Shawfield, Commissioner for Inveraray
John Clerk of Penicuik, Commissioner for Whithorn
Adam Cockburn, Lord Ormiston, Lord Justice Clerk
Sir David Dalrymple of Hailes, 1st Baronet, Commissioner for Culross
Hew Dalrymple, Lord North Berwick, Lord President of the Court of Session and Commissioner for North Berwick
Robert Dundas, Lord Arniston, Commissioner for Edinburghshire
Thomas Hay, Viscount Dupplin
Alexander Grant of that Ilk, Commissioner for Inverness-shire
Sir Patrick Johnston, Commissioner for Edinburgh
David Melville, 3rd Earl of Leven
George Lockhart of Carnwath, Commissioner for Lanarkshire
Francis Montgomerie of Giffen, Commissioner for the Treasury and Commissioner for Ayrshire
Hugh Montgomerie of Busbie, Commissioner for Glasgow
William Morrison of Prestongrange, Commissioner for Peeblesshire
James Douglas, 11th Earl of Morton
Sir Alexander Ogilvy of Forglen, 1st Baronet, Commissioner for Banff
Archibald Primrose, 1st Earl of Rosebery
William Ross, 12th Lord Ross, Commissioner for the Treasury
William Seton of Pittmedden, Commissioner for Aberdeenshire
Sir James Smollett of Stainflett and Bonhill, Commissioner for Dumbarton
John Dalrymple, 1st Earl of Stair
Dougald Stewart of Blairhill, Commissioner for Rothesay
Robert Stewart of Tillicoultry, Commissioner for Bute
John Gordon, 16th Earl of Sutherland
David Wemyss, 4th Earl of Wemyss
——————————————
Apparently all complete nutters.
“Apparently all complete nutters”
I do not know if they were nutters or not. What I do know after reading the minutes of the negotiation is that those claiming to represent Scotland were self-serving spineless cowards who folded over like toilet paper at the first sign of pressure from their English counterparts. The only thing they were really serious about was negotiating the “equivalent”.
The contingent “representing” Scotland in those negotiations travelled to London with the clear instruction from Scotland’s parliament to demand and negotiate a federal union. As soon as the cowards got there, their English counterparts rejected the proposal of the federal union and the spineless amoebas, instead of standing up for their country and immediately pack and return to Scotland to get a new instruction, chose to bend over and agreed to all what the English counterparts demanded.
Reading those minutes was painful. May all those cowards still burn in hell.
But what could anybody possibly expect when those “negotiators” were selected one by one by the monarch, who was determined to have her union what come may. There was never a fair negotiation. It was a gerrymandering much as Brexit has been a gerrymandering and a stitch up for Scotland.
In those negotiations for the “union” the interests of Scotland were never considered for even the very first second. Only the interests of the English crown mattered.
The same continues today.
When you read the memoirs of some of those “negotiators” on the part of Scotland, you learn that they were far more concerned about the monarch’s gout than actually making the most of the negotiations for the sake of their country. Nutters might not have been, but pathetic cowards that they were.
“May all those cowards still burn in hell”
Hmmmm.
Just because you disagree with it, doesn’t mean they weren’t implementing The Lord’s will.
You’re going to love the coming caliphate, Mia. They’re every bit as medieval as you are.
Haha, just my little joke. You’re going to hate it because I’m guessing that right now you’re a forth-class human (kafir woman). But if you convert, you should be able to bump yourself up a couple of classes to second (woman of the faith). Your antisemitism will get you plaudits and a good reception but you’ll never make it beyond that second class.
Mia
20 May, 2025 at 9:41 pm
>I do not know if they were nutters or not. What I do know after >reading the minutes of the negotiation is that those claiming to >represent Scotland were self-serving spineless cowards who folded >over like toilet paper at the first sign of pressure from their >English counterparts. The only thing they were really serious >about was negotiating the “equivalent”.
This I find interesting and not at all surprising. If I might ask, where might one be able to find such minutes and read them?
They were not nutters: they were, mainly, members of the elite – aristocracy, etc – who had invested in Darien and lost their shirts. They saw the Union as a way to recoup their losses. Few much integrity in relation to Scotland itself when set against their own interests, or to the hoi polloi.
However, did that mean that they plotted in a conspiracy to ensure that, once in the Union, Scotland became a subservient part of a Greater England? No. They all had estates in Scotland, all had tenants, all had a stake in ensuring that Scotland’s interests, enshrined in the international Treaty, were protected.
The Treaty speaks volumes and so do the speeches and workings around the Treaty. I believe that it was INTENDED to be a partnership and that Scotland would remain an equal member of that Union. Was that naive? Well, yes, it was, given England’s past treatment of Scotland.
Did they believe they had gained a good deal? Yes, I believe they did, and I also believe that they viewed the Treaty as binding in both international and domestic law. Did they foresee the fate of Scotland? Probably some did. Certainly some members of the Scottish parliament who were not Commissioners did: ‘the end of ane auld sang’.
Did the Queen collude in the ‘subsumption’ of Scotland? I do not believe so. She goes to great lengths to emphasize that she is head of state of both kingdoms SEPARATELY, and appears to expect a partnership-style Union.
I believe, and have always believed, from the evidence, that, although the Scottish elite, in agreeing to the Union, sold us down the river, in a sense, even they did not foresee the sheer duplicity and leger de main of the English politicians. This has always been Scotland’s representatives’ problem: they either underestimate the sheer cross and blatant manipulation of the English MPs and Lords; or they feather their own nests, knowing that they will never secure Scotland’s future on English MPs’ terms.
Tommy is a foreigner who is quite content with the status quo.
A subject, colonised people (of whom Tommy is NOT a member) does not politely ask, or ignominiously beg the coloniser for its independence. It demands it and it seizes it.
“The burning question is when are we going to find out about the charges against Peter Murrell?”
This trial will take place when it can do most damage to the independence cause”
I’m guessing when the Holyrood election is within sight!
I’m guessing the people rattling around in HR could call an election any time they like. That would always stymie the cunning plan of the Yoons to do most damage to the Indy cause.
I’m also guessing that the counter to my argument will be that the “pro-Indy” parties at HR are secretly pro-Yoon, and want to damage the cause of Indy as much as they can. Maybe that’s why the missing money and campervan thingies happened.
So they will supinely wait and allow the HR 2026 election to be walked by Reform. I’m guessing that the shameless, greedy troughers who make up the pro-Indy parties secretly want to be chucked out on their flabby arses.
OK, I’m done guessing for now. I’m dizzy with screwing up my pretzel logic into tighter and tighter spirals. Beats me how you lot manage to do it so well.
James Cheyne
Dear Mrs Che,
I haven’t been around this place for quite a while (I’ve been exploring our universe in my shed-built starship the Spes Nova; an up-its-own-self name meaning ‘A New Hope’ in the Latin for those who lack a classical education).
I’ve been quickly scanning some of the more recent articles and the btl comments relating to them and was sad to read the news of your spouse’s passing.
Please accept my sincere condolences.
Northcode