The Blindness Of Hatred
Warning: despite the quite zingy title this is actually going to be a very dry stats post, readers. It is, on the other hand, based on a man having something disturbingly close to a complete psychotic mental breakdown, so there’s always that for a bit of colour.
Because the paragraph above, and in particular the highlighted part, is without a doubt the most dishonest, diametrically false and wildly extreme lie about Scottish politics that we’ve ever seen anyone tell in the 13.5 years of Wings Over Scotland’s existence.
And folks, that’s a high bar.
The constituency vote in the Scottish electoral system is conducted on the basis of First Past The Post, and an absolutely key fact about FPTP compared to most other electoral systems is that it does not care the tiniest jot what size your vote share is. Whether it’s 65% or 25%, FPTP only cares whether it’s higher than everyone else’s.
We know this because last year Labour won a general election landslide – securing a vast 174-seat majority, the 4th-biggest of all time – on just 33.7% of the vote, when just seven years earlier it had been comfortably defeated on 40% of the vote.
The most recent Scottish constituency-vote poll puts the SNP on an even lower share than the 33.7% that won Keir Starmer his mega-majority.
But all FPTP cares about is that that’s still 14 points above its nearest rival. The SNP’s opposition is split four ways, and what that absolutely inevitably means is that the SNP will win the huge, overwhelming majority of Scotland’s 73 constituency seats, because in a five-party system there’s simply no way of distributing 19% or 11% of the national vote that enables you to win more than (at best) the odd isolated seat here and there.
If you manage to concentrate that vote in a tiny handful of strongholds – like Orkney and Shetland in the case of the Lib Dems, or the Borders in the case of the Tories – you can pick up a few seats, but the corollary is that you’ll be absolutely nowhere in the rest of the country, mostly trailing in 4th or 5th.
(In 1974 the SNP got a hefty 30.4% of the Scottish vote, but won just 11 of 72 seats. Four years later the Liberal/SDP Alliance got 25.4% in a UK election and won just 1.4% of seats – nine out of 650.)
On the numbers in that poll, you end up with a map like this.
That’s based on our own calculations, but we invite anyone to provide examples of seats they think we’ve got wrong. Labour are the opposition in most of the 62 constituency seats currently held by the SNP, and we cannot think of a single one they could credibly hope to capture.
(Indeed, even the Dumbarton and Edinburgh Southern seats we’ve projected them as holding are pretty fragile and could very well fall to the SNP. Jackie Baillie’s majority in the former is under 1,500. But we’re bending over backwards to be reasonable here so we’re letting Labour keep both. As far as the party’s former strongholds go, there’s only one seat in Glasgow in which the SNP’s defending majority is under 7,000 and the story is much the same in Central. Those seats aren’t going anywhere.)
Similarly, with the Tory constituency vote in the True North poll having been HALVED from the 22% they got in 2021, there is no sane way to imagine them either holding the four seats we’ve turned SNP yellow on that map (highlighted in a slightly darker shade with blue borders), or capturing any that are currently held by anyone else.
And as far as we can think off the top of our heads, the only seat anywhere in Scotland in which the Lib Dems are in 2nd place and might therefore have a realistic chance of taking it from the SNP is Caithness, Sutherland and Ross. The SNP’s majority there in 2021 was a fairly comfortable 2,500 but with the SNP vote in decline and the LDs’ on the up it’s definitely possible, so we’ve given them it on our projection.
That gives the SNP 65 constituency seats. The idea that that represents “the [best] opportunity for the SNP to take a substantial number of list seats” since 2007 is manifestly, obviously, indisputably idiotic. What it actually does, on current polling, is make taking even a SINGLE list seat so astronomically unlikely that it would constitute little short of a bona-fide praise-Jesus miracle.
The True North poll puts the SNP regional vote on 29%.
On our constituency projection above, that means that under the AMS electoral system, the SNP’s effective share of the list vote in each region (adjusted to account for regional fluctuations based on 2021) would be as follows:
CENTRAL: 3.2%
GLASGOW: 3.2%
HIGHLAND: 4.1%
LOTHIAN: 2.6%
MID SCOTLAND: 3.2%
NORTH EAST: 2.6%
SOUTH SCOTLAND: 3.2%
WEST SCOTLAND: 2.8%
(They do relatively well in Highland because we’re only giving them six of the nine constituency seats, which means their 29% list share gets divided by seven before the allocation of seats begins.)
It’s a fairly universally accepted fact that the ballpark percentage you need to take a list seat in a scenario where the SNP have swept most of the constituencies is about 6%. We can check this by looking at 2021.
Those numbers suggest that the Tories should have won roughly four list seats per region (because there are very nearly four multiples of 6% in 23.5%), Labour should have won roughly three per region, the Greens one and the Lib Dems none.
Compare those rough numbers of “expected” seats with the actual numbers and it’s almost bang on – the system works as it was designed to. (Labour and the Tories got slightly fewer because they did win some constituency seats, which correspondingly reduces the expected list returns.)
Lib Dems: 0/0
Tories: 28/26
Labour: 21/20
Green: 7/8
(The same is true of 2016 and 2011.)
So we can already see that it’s going to be very hard for the SNP, with around 3% of the list vote after it’s been reduced to compensate for all their constituency seats, to get anywhere NEAR that 6% threshold and take any list seats.
But wait. It’s actually much harder even than that.
Because let’s take another look at that regional poll.
If we apply multiples of 6% again, Reform could expect around three list MSPs per region (because they have three blocks of 6%), Labour the same, the Tories two, the Lib Dems one and the Greens one.
The problem is that that adds up to 80 (3+3+2+1+1=10, multiplied by eight regions), and in reality there are only 56 list seats to divvy up. So in fact the threshold for a list seat is likely to be quite dramatically higher than 6% next year – on those figures, it’ll probably be something closer to 8.6%.
How big would the SNP list vote have to be to reach that threshold in each region after it’s been divided by their likely constituency seats? Let’s do those maths.
If their current post-adjustment share according to polling in Central, for example, is 3.2% and they need to get to 8.6%, that means they need to multiply their current share by around 2.7 times (8.6/3.2). And 29% times 2.7 is 78%. The full list comes out like this:
CENTRAL: 78%
GLASGOW: 78%
HIGHLANDS: 61%
LOTHIAN: 96%
MID SCOTLAND: 78%
NORTH EAST: 96%
SOUTH SCOTLAND: 78%
WEST SCOTLAND: 89%
Good luck, SNP list candidates in Lothian and North-East!
Now, clearly all these figures are approximations (as well as arithmetically impossible – they’re illustrative, not literal, James, because obviously the SNP can’t get 96% while the other parties also get 70%), but we’ve made every adjustment possible to get them as accurate as they can be, eg accounting for regional variances because the SNP list vote is relatively strong in Central and relatively weak in Lothian, and even if a few constituencies don’t go the way we’ve predicted it’ll only make marginal differences.
You can quibble and nitpick around the edges of the data all day long, with a local vote variation here or a surprise constituency result there, but our margin for error is VAST, because every single region needs the SNP to at least double their current support, and in some cases more than triple it. And readers, that just ain’t happening.
They’re also based on current polling, and there’s still a year to go until the election. Things could change. But the assertion made by the lunatic at the top of this article is also based on current polling, and he knows how the system works just as well as we do – indeed, rather audaciously professes himself an expert.
So either he’s deliberately lying, or he’s been utterly and finally deranged beyond the last remaining point of any reason by seething, obsessive hatred of one man, or both.
The SNP has in fact NEVER in the entire history of the Scottish Parliament had so little chance of winning list seats as it does in this election. The odds are massively, massively stacked against it by two things in particular – the size of its lead in constituency polling thanks to Labour and the Tories’ UK-wide collapse, which means it’ll once again take the vast majority of those seats regardless of its own decreased support, and the five-way split in parties who can reasonably expect to reach the markers that get you one, two or three list seats per region.
(The resurgence of the Lib Dems, from a below-threshold 5% in 2021 to an above-threshold 10% now, is a particularly big problem for the SNP, as is the introduction of Reform to the equation.)
All our calculations could be out by 50% and the SNP would still be a million miles away from a plausible chance of ONE list seat, let alone “a substantial number”. (And of course, even somehow managing to fluke one or two would still be an appalling waste of list votes that could otherwise have returned 20 or more extra pro-indy MSPs if given to ANY other indy party.)
To anyone who wants a “pro-indy” majority, voting SNP on the list next year is – long before you start considering any other alarming signs of serious mental disturbance – a strategy that’s demonstrably insane to the point of requiring psychiatric intervention.
I guess indy has never been closer
Again
The sentence above the True North list voting intention graph should say “List” rather than constituency, shouldn’t it?
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU MEAN.
Thank you for your work on the maths. You made it easy to understand why it’s insane to vote SNP on the list. Even Kelly should be able to understand it. Let’s see if he produces the statistics to support his own theory. I won’t wait.
look – its simple – James is now a member of the SNP – if he didn’t say stuff supportive of their strategy he’d get expelled – again – so give the guy a break
I’m not Scottish and have never had a vote in Scotland, so Scottish tactical voting is not something I know much about. But I did look at some of Kelly’s stuff years and years ago – enough to be able to observe how dishonestly he deals with any criticism or replies. I didn’t know he is now SNP, nor did I know he has been party-hopping. But I do know he is a chancer.
I responded to something he wrote about Catalonia (I no longer remember the details, but I have copies of the entire exchange somewhere). He responded in a way that totally distorted what I had said, so I responded to that. I suppose there may have been about three contributions from each of us. Then I noticed that he would delete (without saying so) some of my contributions, but not, of course his own. Thus falsifying the record – a deeply dishonest procedure. Scanning a bit further, I could see that his site had more or less daily, quite abusive contributions from a particular far-right unionist. So it wasn’t that he deleted stuff from people whose views he disliked. No: he deleted sections of a to-and-fro, to hide the fact that he had not had the better of the discussion and to delete anything that pointed out his distortions of other people’s views.
So I timed my final contribution to a time of day when I could see he was not in the habit of updating his stuff – so that it would at least be visible for a few hours. And I bade farewell. Don’t think I’ve come across any of his stuff since.
Dishonesty is the hallmark of how he handles all interactions with anyone.
I used to work with a guy fae Erskine who had an unshakable belief that weasels could, and did kill cows. He was sane in comparison to Kelly.
Vivian O Blivion,
And I was just speaking to someone on Rev’s previous thread that conceded that the union does not exist,
Beliefs can change apparently.so maybe the cows will be able to go about their business without worry in the future.
Supposing people in sufficient numbers did vote for another party on the regional vote where does that get us? How would that bring independence any nearer?
Not really
As you need to convince the soft NO voters
And Brexit taught us
Don’t believe people promising you infinite riches and real democracy if their plan involves leaving a union
SO
To win over people like me
You need to show competence and intelligence in running scotland to win trust and votes
and unless you’ve been asleep under a rock for the past decade
Their ain’t been much evidence of that
What we have seen in the last decade is the result of people thinking the English electorate know what is best or else a misguided idea that they are in some sort of union – the Sturgeon/Swinney team is totally opposed to independence they are your team.
Scotland has never been in a treaty of union with the parliament of Great Britain.
However westminster have had over three hundred years to try make the England-Scotland treaty of union work, but they keep forgetting that Scotland WAS the other half and in it to.
Like when they ended it in 1801/02.
Maybe it is time for Scotland to take back the reigns of running Scotland, we could not make any more of the mess of the shared Island of Great Britain than Westminster parliament has after 399 years.
Ireland in chaos, Wales is not happy, and now Englands people are not happy..
Whoops.
That other parliament down south needs to show some competence at running England with intelligence before winning trust and votes in Scotland.
James
To make the union fair
Should Scotland have as many MPs as England?
Yoon: there are no soft NO voters. Well, there may be up till the moment they have to vote. Oh, we need to show competence and intelligence, do we? Didn’t Alec Salmond’s government do just that, and still, the 2014 referendum was lost?
I don’t blame anyone who is an independista for not wishing to vote for the SNP because they really are a lost cause, but Unionists can happily vote for them to ensure that there there will never be independence, no? Alternatively, you could vote for Reform and ensure the eventual absorption of Scotland into a Greater England. Which, of course, is what you are all about, anyway.
“Alternatively, you could vote for Reform and ensure the eventual absorption of Scotland into a Greater England. Which, of course, is what you are all about, anyway.”
You really show your true colours with that remark
You are utterly obsessed with being scottish
You hate the English/british with a burning passion
You would happily see scotland as a 3rd world poverty stricken hellhole if you get to say up yours to us britnats cap doffing lick spittles
Now
I’ll let you into a little secret
I voted for the SNP in 2011 as they where making a damn fine job of running Scotland
I was going to vote YES in 2014 until I encountered the true face of scottish nationalism
As listening to Moon howlers put me off
“Fuck off back to england you fucking tory cunt” was the answer provided to me by one lovely scottish nationalist when I questioned what plan B was for a currency
As to you saying there is no soft NO’s
Then why the fuck are you campaigning
it’s 55% NO at the moment and we are all so bigoted
You can’t change our minds
And I will be voting reform
because they are the only option I have if I don’t want open borders and the completely death of the North Sea
As none of the rest of the shit are worth my votes
“You would happily see scotland as a 3rd world poverty stricken hellhole if you get to say up yours to us britnats cap doffing lick spittles”
Britnats has acquired a pejorative flavour, perhaps it would be better to call yourself a TransBrit.
(ie you’re Scottish but think you’re British, while the English regard you as a lowly jock.)
We’d let you stay because we know how mean the English are to refugees.
“You would happily see scotland as a 3rd world poverty stricken hellhole if you get to say up yours to us britnats cap doffing lick spittles”
Scotland is a wealthy country. Do you think Britnats deny us democracy out of concern? LOL! No, it’s because the North Sea holds up their central bank & they know it & the North Sea doesn’t belong to them – bummer! It’d be England that’d be 3rd world poverty. Not much need for financial services these days as they lose shipping insurances by the hour – oh deary.
Every country that boots out the coloniser THRIVES & guess what? No one ever wants them back. I know!! Whit a shocker eh?
Imagine voting No cause someone upset you LOL! Why didn’t you “Fuck off back to england you fucking tory cunt” anyway? It’s clear you don’t like this country, Scots & our parliament so it was sound advice imo.
Imagine the scene back in blighty – some Muslim brown immigrant approaches a total stranger & moans about everything English & what the English plan to do about making HIS life better there & how to vote in elections – do you think a nice cup of tea & a jam sandwich would be on offer? No, I don’t think so. Cause see – they’re a fucking guest with manners & wouldn’t be so arrogant to poke their noses into someone else’s business.
There was no currency question. We’re already IN a currency union & Carney admitted that would still have been the case after a YES vote.
Scotland would have its own central bank with its own abundance of natural resources to back it up. That’s how it works. It’s not rocket science.
Colonialism is over & with it the $. There’ll be a return to Gold cause colonisers can’t steal that as easy.
“To make the union fair, should Scotland have as many MPs as England?”
No, it just needs a Dual Majority Vote in the parliament’s Houses.
That is, Scotland’s MPs provide the Scottish Yes or No to a proposed matter, and the remaining MPs provide the English Yes or No to it. If both votes are Yes the matter is entitled to pass as a legitimate Union decision, otherwise it is not.
That is how two sovereign entities can have both of their sovereignties properly respected despite having vastly different sizes of representation in their shared parliament. Being sovereign, neither party to the Union is obliged to subordinate itself to the other party, and nothing in the Treaty or Acts of Union requires it of either body of their formal representatives.
This is not rocket science, it would be extremely simple to implement. It just needs the will to see it done, and the integrity to understand why it must be done.
That this simple correction to the current abusively undemocratic voting system has never been entertained in the Union’s parliament for 318 years tells you all you need to know about the rotten English establishment and their rotten Scottish lackeys.
I begged JK to seek help. He blocked me! lol
He’s devoted another lengthy blog to whining about Stu. The sooner Eurovision starts and he can lose himself in cheap tar and drag queens the better.
Cheap tat,bloody autocorrect.
Tar would be pretty good.
Stu, as to the votes required for the ruling party to win list seats, I think you are very wide of the mark. Under the glorious leadership of Kim Jong Swinney, the Women’s* Party of Scotland will clearly do much better than the foreign reactionary polling companies predict. With their allies in SGP (no, not that one, the other one) it is clear that the promised land of true devolution will be reached, to replace the discredited one foisted upon us by a foreign regime.
The first act after this victory will be to turn over the soil in Grangemouth to plant and grow carrots that will be free to all at point of need.
What if Scotland decided to govern itself before the next election, which it has a right to do,
and decided not to vote / with held their votes in subsstantsial numbers.
Due to the glitch that Scotland never entered into a treaty of union with the Westminster parliament of Great Britain. Just the parliament of and monarch of England.
I wonder what would happen to votes demographics on the map of Scotland
My apologise Stu, just a bit of fun an musing to what would happen if Scottish people took an alternative path to the prescribed system that can easily get screwed up in some peoples heads as you have pointed out.
He could’ nt get so mentally confused if there were no Scots votes on the map of Scotland to count.
Thanks for all you’re hard work on clearing the air on the numbers.
Well filth like me will immediately be deported and should us britnat scum hang around of course we won’t be allowed to vote as we aren’t Scottish
meanwhile
Mohammed who just got off the boat and doesn’t speak a word of English
He’ll get to vote as he is Scottish
enjoy your future
I’ll deport you myself if you don’t give this tiresome “YOU HATE THE ENGLISH!” pish a rest. We get it, mate.
I’ve still never worked out why Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem (and now Reform) don’t agree to put up a single unionist candidate per constituency.
But then I also can’t work out why almost nobody voted Alba last time.
Well lets look at the reasons
1 :- Protecting the union isn’t that important to most folk. While you lie in your bed every seething over the injustices of those English bastards who died 300 years ago. Most normal folk
Couldn’t give a shit
So it wouldn’t attract any votes.
2 :- They are politicians they want power power and more power so won’t share it with the other parties
PS
You do understand that every single NO voter isn’t a rangers fan?
“you lie in your bed every (night) seething over the injustices of those English bastards who died 300 years ago”
Get lost! It’s the ongoing injustices those English bastards are still perpetrating today that has me seething in my bed every night!
So what’s the analysis if all 33% SNP vote for ALBA on the list vote?
Alba would get 20+ list seats.
Wow. 65 seats to the SNP and an unbroken sea of SNP yellow across the length and breadth of the land.
How we Scots do love the SNP.
That’s how it will be spun, and I’m thinking it will probably be true enough.
I’m also thinking there’s only one more thing we need to make this utopian vision complete and picture perfect.
The return of Scotland’s Mammie to her rightful destined place, leading us once more to the promised land.
A question to the NATs
Do you think that NO voters number 1 concern is staying in the union
And if YES
Why do you think this
No. At a guess I’d think their number one priority would be if they’re facing conscription or not cause the mad colonising pirates are itching for
(yet another country to lootanother war despite having feck all army, weapons or sense.Brilliant news for all those ‘patriotic’ Britsnats. Go stand, shoulder to shoulder, with..ummm.. immigrants LOL
It must be great being a no voter & a fully paid up member of the yoonion. All yer old enemies, head choppers, war criminals & Nazis, are all yer best friends now & even receiving the Royal Welcome. Imagine that! What could possibly go wrong?
PS I hope you & Hatey are signed up already?
If us English are so pathetic, useless and snivelling cowardly pieces of subhuman shit
How do we have our boot on your throat?
A 10-to-1 numerical outnumbering might conceivably help.
Aw, Barbie, that’s so sweet.
All the time you’ve been “away”, you’ve been thinking of me.
Rev, could you just deport him/her/it anyway – pretty please!
Will britnats be returned to england after indy?
Okay, enough. You were warned.
Yup Yoonscum this is getting silly now
So only conclusion for a chance if independence majority is both Alba on vote 2 the list.
Alba are polling under 2% right now. Chance of winning list seats is approximately nil.
Oh for fuck’s SAKE.
Yes, they’ll get no seats if nobody votes for them. The point is that if you want more indy seats, you SHOULD vote for them.
Who do you suggest all those redux SNP voters choose instead? Better an XXX-good message rather than simply SNP-bad. I’d go green were it not for their pimply position on many important matters. Or would you have us vote Labour? Starmer’s such a principled bloke. As is Sarwar.
Reasons to vote for the Scottish Greens
1 :- You hate Scotland and want to see the entire country destroyed
2:- You are clinically insane
Any additions to the list would be welcome
ANYWAY
I know as a disgusting YOON the only party that doesn’t fill me with horror is the lib-dems
For planet NAT you have loads of options if you ONLY concern is telling the English to fuck off
if you want to tell the English to fuck off and you don’t want to vote for incompetent loonies then you have no options
What Scotland really needs is a party whose number 1 priority is ensuring Scotland is run well
And this party needs to be 100% neutral on the whole indy question
As >pick a name< only use it to draw attention away from their utter incompetence
Del you strike me as a snp apologist or sycophant with your snp good pish, where have you been for the last 11 years where the ONLY things they were concentrating on and still are is the deviance and pervert charter, independence or competence in governance was completely and totally ignored and sabotaged
FFS Del even now you have the ex tr@ itorous and betrayer of Scotland FM publicly DENYING that the SC had got it right, the same piece of OFFAL who was ecstatic that the SC had RULED that the colonised administration didn’t have the power to run a referendum
YOU need to step back and analyse just what the FAKE independence party has been doing for the last 11 years and it certainly hasn’t been ANYTHING to do with independence
YOU are like the other sycophants and apologists who DENY reality,YOU and the other CULT members are why we are NOT independent,the snp betrayers will keep promising indy BUT they will deliver NOTHING,NADA,ZILCH and TBQH YOU and the other sycophants are BETRAYING Scotland and Scots with your stupidity and refusal to see the TRUTH
As Yoon’s cum seems to be going for a period on the naughty step I wonder what cunning new name he will pick for his regeneration. The world wonders. Complete tool would be my choice.
@ David Holden: Yoon’s Cum seems pretty appropriate to me. Doing a LOL!
Where is it written, “Dave”, that only the rabid, dyed-in-the-wool, blue-ersed Indy supporters are permitted multiple identities?
Is it adjacent to the place where it is written that you don’t HAVE to have the smutty outlook of a pimply 13 YO who’s just learned to wank, to support Indy? But you’ll never really fit in if you don’t.
It would appear James Kelly is a frequent visitor here.
Lord Palmerston once said:
“Only three people have ever really understood the D’Hondt method list vote system –
the Prince Consort, who is dead – a Belgian mathematician, who has gone mad – and I, who have forgotten all about it.”
It is very worrying that so many people don’t understand the Holyrood voting system.
Even more worrying, that the SNP high heid yins DO understand [surely?] but will not explain to the public, and persist with deceiving the voters by calling for SNP 1 and 2.
Is Alba correct to leave the constituency seats to the SNP and only stand on the list?
And why doesn’t Alba join the umbrella group where the smaller parties/candidates votes would count for more? I fear that by standing alone, Alba will not succeed in gaining seats and the independence list vote will be split, thus ruining our chances yet again.
Is it true that list-only parties don’t get invited to hustings?
The umbrella group of ISP and Independents4Independence [under the name Liberate Scotland, not to be confused with the UN de-colonisation campaign by Liberation.scot] are going to stand in constituencies AND the list. This will indeed split the independence vote but, given that the SNP will not change their tune, does it matter?
Alba has to work with the resources it has. Yes, it would be great to stand in all 73 constituencies and fight a proper campaign in each region but small (for now) parties must work with what they have.
The bottom line is that independence will not be achieved in 2026 and probably not in 2031. The first task that all independence supporters must achieve is the removal of a devolutionist party at the head of the independence movement. Once we achieve that, we can work towards electing an independence-supporting party (or parties). Once we achieve that, independence will come quite quickly.
Well, Skip NC, for heaven’s sake why doesn’t Alba come under the umbrella grouping? It would mean no wasted votes and plenty of list seats. [I know you’re not responsible for Alba’s decision – I am just asking what you and others think.]
Sarah, ach, I wonder if Alba senior leadership is still struggling with Alex’s death. There is a lot of talk coming from the top about “pursuing Alex’s strategy.” So I don’t see us actively working alongside others as part of a formal grouping. However, all I’ve seen from Liberate is that they are standing in ten constituencies (so far). Alba has determined to stand only on the regional list. So perhaps there will be a de facto pact. Ultimately, I don’t care which independence-supporting candidates get the votes, as long as we get them and as long as we commit to treating a majority of votes as the trigger for independence negotiations to start.
Voting at Holyrood on the assisted killing bill on Tuesday,
the bill is being forced through by LibDem MSP Liam McArthur,
who has been funded by shadowy charity Dignity in Dying,
this is a pogrom of the old and vulnerable this is the Spartans throwing the weak children over the cliff,
Canada has killed 75,000 of its citizens since they introduced it in 2016,
they have plans of opening the murder franchise to mental health as well as physical health.
Oh absolutely. The nation state can’t possibly be burdened with the mentally ill as well as the physically ill. THAT would never do!!!!!
Well, Marie, I’m stumped.
It’s more-or-less an article of faith on here that after Indy, we’ll all be rolling in filthy moolah.
So there should be ample dosh to pay for the care of everybody, whatever the causes of their infirmities.
Why not just add that one to the list of no-brainer reasons for supporting Indy and move on?
Could it be (whisper it) that the politicos have counted the cash, factored in the complete unwillingness of the tax-paying cash cows to be milked any deeper, accepted the reality of a lazy, flabby-arsed, entitled, gimme gimme electorate (your good 17.5 hours work per diem self excluded), and concluded that something somewhere has to give?
Or is that too simplistic for you? Do you much prefer to believe they stood for office becaue deep down, they want to legally and untouchably start in on slaying people?
They’re a’ Barbie’s noo!
the bill is being forced through by LibDem MSP Liam McArthur
“Forced through” apparently being a synonym for “put to an unwhipped vote of members of parliament”.
If I was in charge I’d make all who voted on this to volunteer a family member first.
Same with wars. Put them up front first instead of killing millions from the comfort of their ivory towers.
That’d soon have everyone think before coming up with ways to waste money & Parliamentary time on bullshit no one voted for.
Or, better still, Holyrood should pass a bill on exactly who is behind introducing this shit here & who is funding them.
Lie Dumbs ‘I did it for you Beth’ have done absolutely feck all for Scotland but introduce division & despair. Typical colonisers – that is always their aim. Have they ever introduced anything that’s actually a benefit to Scotland? Yet they’re championing Scots to kill off their own family members or fry their internal organs through voluntary sterilisation. Got to hand it to colonising bastards – they always think of novel ways to kill off/ drastically reduce a population under a new shiny title.
Lest we forget their tosser leader stated Scotland should never be allowed to exist again. Who voted for this gobshite to collect a salary here in the country he doesn’t want to exist?
Vote anyone but yoons at next yrs election. (I include SNP & Greens as yoons too) FFS Scotland – wake up. I’d vote for the janitor at this rate. Get these death cultist eejits out of Holyrood or it’ll be reintroducing the Gallows that’ll be up next. Remember, Starmer has head chopping new besties now & the establishment do love funding a bit of extremism & terrorism to noise up the natives.
I would HAPPILY vote for assisted dying
Knowing it would be for myself or my family
As I don’t fancy a long horrible death when instead I could just have a nice quick and painless death
If you want to have a long horrible and painful death
be my guest
That’s quite a post, Barbie, from somebody who only a few weeks back was enthusiastically volunteering to “man” the Scottish mobile gas chambers.
You were very keen then on the cheap and immediate elimination of those Scots you calculate as being “surplus to requirements”.
Still. No alert reader is going to hold any of your contradictory, self-negating witterings against you. Few Scots these days are unaware of the dreadful scourge of Alzheimer’s in all of its sad and sorry manifestations.
You take care, Barbs.
THE PAID TROLLS ARE ON YOUR EVERY POST GERI. YOUR INDEPENDENT CAST OF MIND DISTURBS THEM. THINK LIKE ENGLAND GOD DAMN IT!
The nurses of the NHS do not want to kill off the sick and elderly and the mentally ill.
There must be over, 1,000,000 Scots on SSRI anti-depressant drugs – and there’s not a doctor out there that will encourage the patient to stop taking them – There’s an FOI request worth looking into.
How many Scots are on anti-depression drugs? Thanks for your concern.
We should pass it and give it to yoons
Not just yoons.
Anybody who even looks like they might not see eye-to-eye with you on everything.
Why take chances?
Thanks for the nudge – I will email my MSPs now.
Great idea sarah, i think i will too.
@ The bastard tax MOAN 13th May 7.15am I will gladly step forward as a guinea pig johnny boy right after you, just think of it ya miserable tax paying hater they might even give you a freeby
TBQH I support the dignity in dying bill as long as proper rules and regulations are adhered to, I am sick of listening to people spouting that we should have better palliative care, the greens are using that trope to try and garner votes, FFS the current palliative care is funded by DONATIONS to charities and every political lying bastard party promises increased funding which never happens
Then you have the likes of BASTARD tax MOAN who DESPISES paying ANY sort of tax immediately having a heart attack at the mere thought of contributing more to ease someone’s pain and suffering
We have too many selfish arrogant miserable bastards who want every conceivable public service to be run perfectly and efficiently BUT they want everyone else to pay for them, AFATC their contributions should be minimalist but they will use those services as and when they need them but don’t ask them to pay more for them
You’re 74 TH, so surely ideal guinea pig material. Why don’t you step up to the plate and give the process a trial run. You can keep us posted here on your progress. It should make for compulsive clickbait, maybes even tear jerking, as your date with destiny looms ever nearer.
Or do you see yourself as more comfortable in the Confused and Barbie camp, when they plan their mobile gas chambers for those they deem “surplus to requirements” in Scotland?
Maybes totally in favour of assisted dying, just so long as it’s others who end up deid.
I’m not voting SNP until they come out and say they will back Independence Super Majority and ask us to share the vote with other Independence candidates.
So I’ll be spoiling my ballot, like I spoiled it before rather than vote for the SNP. I’ll vote Alba if there in my region or an Independence candidate on the list.
But John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon’s ilk will never get my vote. the Indy Swindlers.
The real issue is that most Scots who vote SNP don’t actually understand how the List system works. They’ve been persuaded that “SNP 1 & 2” is the only route to victory, when in fact it often wastes the second vote and reduces the chances of a pro-independence majority.
Stu’s article is—as usual—comprehensive, accurate, and well researched. But let’s be honest: it’s dry, and most average SNP voters would probably give up after the first paragraph. What we really need is a clear, simple message that cuts through all the complexity: if you want independence, you need to use your List vote wisely.
If we reluctantly accept that, for now, the SNP remains the main vehicle for any chance of independence, then we must be smart about how we use our votes to maximise our chances of securing a pro-independence majority.
I wish I had a flair for slogans… but here are some ideas that might help get the point across:
SNP in your Constituency. Vote Smart on the List.
SNP 1 — Indy 2: Use Your List Wisely.
Two Votes for Indy? Don’t Waste One!
One Vote for SNP. One Vote to Build the Majority.
List Votes Matter — Split to Win Independence.
SNP in the First, Pro-Indy in the Second.
Vote SNP Local, Vote Indy Global.
Want Independence? Max Your Vote.
A Second SNP Vote Helps the Unionists.
Unity Means Strategy: Be Smart with Your Second Vote.
Maybe Stu or someone else with the right platform can help get a version of this out that lands with ordinary voters—before we hand the List seats back to Labour and the Tories again.
Great idea, every household a week before the postal vote goes out must get a leaflet explaining the whole process.
Good ideas. Yes, it is essential that the message gets out across the whole of Scotland – the sooner, the better.
What is a pro-independence MSP? All MSPs swear loyalty to England’s Crown to administer England’s imperial power in a colonial puppet parliament.
I4I and ISP candidates for Westminster said they wouldn’t take the oath. I don’t know their position at Holyrood nor if the same rules apply i.e. no salary, expenses only.
King Charles is not entitled to demand allegiance from any Scot for any reason, and no-one is entitled to demand it from any Scot on his behalf. Scotland’s formal representatives in either parliament should be swearing their allegiance solely to the Scottish Crown*.
If that is unacceptable to the English establishment then the Union is clearly not the claimed ‘voluntary Union of equal partners’, but an unlawful hostile takeover of Scotland by England. The Treaty provides no basis for any such arrangement, making the current governance of the Union fundamentally dishonest.
Constitutions and sovereignties matter, and Scotland no more gave up hers in 1707 than England did.
*
‘The Crown’ does not mean the same thing in Scotland as it does in England. In England, the Crown refers to the English monarch, but in Scotland the Crown refers to the Community of the Realm of Scotland, that is, to its sovereign people.
Nothing in the Treaty or Acts of Union changed that, and even if it had claimed to, no-one involved in negotiating, agreeing, signing and ratifying the Treaty possessed the necessary authority to legitimately strip the sovereign Scots of their sovereignty, or to subordinate them to any other person, body or nation.
It is therefore a serious breach of the Treaty to demand any such oath of allegiance from any Scot nor from any formal representative of the Scots to any monarch or governmental institution, and is constitutionally ultra vires of the body demanding it.
The concept of the ‘sovereign Scots’ is interesting. Can anyone tell me when in history the sovereign Scots were ever asked their opinion about anything? The earliest example I know of was the General Election of 1929.
“The concept of the ‘sovereign Scots’ is interesting.”
It is, you should look into it.
A Real and Ancient Constitution
“liberate-announce-their-first-10-candidates-for-holyrood”
link to barrheadboy.com
10 independence umbrella [Liberate Scotland – not to be confused with Liberation.scot] constituency candidates announced today:
I4I: Clackmannanshire and Dunblane – Eva Comrie; Ayr – Denise Sommerville; Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley – Sean Davis; Dundee City East – Allan Petrie.
ISP: Coatbridge – Julie McAnulty; Bathgate – John Hannah; Argyll & Bute – Fiona Nelson; Hamilton Larkhall Stonehouse – John Forbes; Glasgow Central – Paul Steele; Eastwood – Colette Walker.
I am going to brave up and admit I do not understand the twists and turns of the voting system used here. And I think it was designed to be complicated to ensure Scotland did not achieve and struggled to get the required independence votes.
What I did understand was the brief explanation that Skip-NC explained above, to basically vote out devolutionist parties.
In the past I took advice from Alec, Stu and my Spouse,
or I did not vote at all because there was no one standing in my area I thought was not a union vote.
And that will always be a problem for many of us in Scotland.
Regarding that particular issue my spouse and I held discussions with Alec on a number of occasions as we both thought that only metaphorically fighting for independence through one front was limiting.
Especially as the voting system and counts of votes is often moved from outside our view.
Alec was aware, and spoke of many large anomalies that riddled the treaty of Union from the beginning of its existence that he said had he had read in the down south parliamentary library
And those that have taken place over the many years since..
In this regard wether agreeing with Salvo or not, Alec choosing the politician route in the past.
, Stu with his important site contributions holding the Scottish parliament to account and working at the Statistics while under constant fire.,
,plus all the learned and educated Scottish people here keeping each other up to date in relevant news around Scotland
Or myself researching an banging on about the treaty of union with its glitches..
It is a rewarding effort by everyone and all around concerned,
On Scotland Speaks this last Saturday there was a pair of helpful videos discussing how D’Hondt works. One is the video from 2021 and one (the more helpful one, in my view is for 2026.
James Kelly very much comes across as an individual driven by hatred against Alba and Wings Over Scotland and his blog very much focuses on that to the virtual exclusion of all else.
But what drives him to do this. First he was SNP before he ejected. Then he was Alba before he ejected. Now he is back with the SNP.
The guy certainly isn’t any nationalist so what is it that makes him tick, makes him spout the rubbish that he spouts?
Not difficult to think that he is a full time spoiler. A full time detractor. But on whose behalf, under whose commission does he proceed.Clearly, he is more than just a loon ball a amateur spoiler.
We may at some time in the future find out on whose behalf he so viciously and outrageously mounts his day and daily diatribes.
One thing for sure is that whoever commissions him to do what he does fears both the rise of Alba and the reach of Wings over Scotland. Now who could that be?
James Kelly refuses, ever, to be wrong and he positively hates it when someone points out even a small error. He seems to get immense pleasure from sitting on committees to inflate his own sense of self-importance. The blog is an essential part of that. It is a useful tool to get him known, which helps his chances in being elected and appointed to various committees.
I think he thinks he is a nationalist but anyone who moves from the upper echelons of Alba back to the devolutionist SNP has clearly lost the plot.
Am I the only one who noticed the ‘Churchillian’ misnaming of the Rev as ‘Stew’? These tells are always illuminating.
I noticed that too. As you say, telling.
Skip-NC,
Thanks for providing the information on where to find the D,Hondt explanation, I will try find it on this limited old system.
Cheers.
No, you’re not the only one. Kelly does it to indicate disrespect.
I used to think it was quite quaint the way he referred to everyone as “Ms This” and “Mr That”; it seemed very formal and a bit old-fashioned. He almost never used people’s first names.
Then he started leaving out the salutations for people in Alba whom he didn’t like. He took great offence at being referred to as “Kelly” in an Alba e-mail (which he published), saying it was disrespectful. Therefore, I assume his own increasing omissions are deliberately(/i> disrespectful.
I also assume that he genuinely does not see that all this only serves to make him look juvenile and vindictive. It was possibly wrong for Alba to suspend him, but his reaction to that guaranteed his expulsion. He then commented that “McEleny” was shooting himself in the foot in reacting to his own suspension, without any self-awareness that he had done the exact same thing.
Re – The assisted Killing / murder bill going through Holyrood.
The problem with these bills going through Scotlands parliament is that by default it is still under the legislation and statue’s of Westminster.
The same as the gender bills and Hate Crime bills for Scotland people.
Due to this anomaly the Parliament in Scotland wears two hats, serving two masters, imposition the Scots both of which target Scotland, we hear of labours two tier justice,
Well this has been applied to the people living here by the Scotland Act.
However the extended reach of Westminster parliament as a Holyrood faux colonising parliament into Scotland is detrimental to Scots as it applies two sets oflaws through the back door passing laws claiming to be Scots Law.
There should be a conversation held in Scotland on how to convert the colonising parliament that is passing faux Scots law bills and additional two tier justice laws on Scots to a genuine parliament of Scotland,
The building that holds the Devolved Scottish parliament from Englands Westminster parliament is an neutral entity inof itself.
However it does Breach the treaty of union whereby it states the following.
There will be ONLY ONE and the SAME PARLIAMENT of GREAT BRITAIN,
If Westminster parliament are acknowledging “Holyrood” as a Scottish Parliament able to pass Scots Law separately from the law of Westminster Parliament of Great Britain or Westminster parliament of England whilst it passes laws for England and Wales,
There is and can be seen a separation of powers the “One and the same Union parliament” surely.
We need to identify the actual identity regarding what this parliament in Scotland that is passing Scots Laws separately from England is.
I would like to draw attention to the book:
‘SCOTLAND’S RUINE: LOCKHART OF CARNWATH’S MEMOIRS OF THE UNION’ (Edited by Daniel Szechi with a foreword by Paul Scott. Published by The Association for Literary Studies, Aberdeen, 1995.)
The fly leaf reads:
« GEORGE LOCKHART, second Laird of Carnwath (1681-1731) was a prominent member of the Scots parliament throughout the debates leading to the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland in 1707. At a time when the Union between Scotland and England has again become a major political issue, Lockhart of Carnwath’s incisive and witty account of the political process which brought it about is an essential historical document which should be known to more than just specialist historians. »
The foreword to the book edition is by the excellent late Paul Scott (died 2019), writer and broadcaster, author of many books on Scottish literature and history, including the Union of 1707. He writes in his 1995 Foreword:
REASONS FOR THE COMPARATIVE NEGLECT OF THE MEMOIRS
« Why then has there been no new edition since 1817? This is indeed very puzzling and it is very satisfactory that this serious omission is now being made good. The historian Hume Brown speculated in his Ford Lectures in Oxford in 1914 about the reasons for the general ignorance among Scots of the events leading to the Union, ‘one of the most fateful periods in their national history’. The first reason, he thought, was a sense of shame, ‘an unconscious instinct’ which made us try to forget it.
« The Union was a subject which the Scots ‘must regard with mingled feelings, among which pride is not predominant… A people does not gladly turn its eyes to a period when its representative men, whether from their own natural failings or as result of temporary circumstances, compromise the national character in the eyes of the world.’
« Hume Brown may well be right that the subject was simply too painful, but he goes on to suggest an additional reason. This is that the general ignorance of the circumstances of the Union might be due to the absence of a contemporary account which could ‘permanently stamp its characters and its events on the mind of posterity’
« Although Hume Brown denied it, I believe that Lockhart’s Memoirs are precisely such an account. The trouble from the point of view of those, like Hume Brown, who wanted to try to justify the Union (and that was the predominant attitude in the nineteenth century) was that Lockhart gave the game away in an unflinching exposure of a very sordid transaction. If you wanted to conceal the facts and maintain that the Union was an act of enlightened statesmanship, then you certainly did not want to encourage people to read Lockhart.
« His book has been suppressed by tacit censorship. For this reason, it has never received the recognition which it deserves as a work of literature as well as an important historical source. »
____
A search online for ‘THE LOCKHART PAPERS’ provides a few sites where the original material itself can be freely read, eg at Electric Scotland here:
link to electricscotland.com
Holyrood usage As a secondary ( even a sub-parliament ) by extention from Westminster, passing “Scots law” bills separately in a entire different Country that still retained its Scottish borders, from the rest of Britain is in Breach of the Treaty of union.
And has been since Westminster created it.
It has to be by default of Westminster ignorance or arrogance over the articles of the treaty of union an imposter parliament in Scotland passing fake Scots Laws.
OR
Scotland now posses and is in control of a active Scottish parliament passing its own laws which Scots voted for
For Westminster parliament down south cannot hold / legally control a parliament of Great Britain and a sub extended parliament in Scotland without breaching the treaty of union,
Scotland has to be more discerning and remember it never had or entered into a treaty of union with the Westminster parliament of Great Britain,
And the treaty between the old parliament of Scotland and the old parliament of England never allude’s to there ever being more than one parliament of Great Britain or it would automatically end the treaty.
So there can be be no such vehicle in the treaty of union articles to allow for a devolved parliament in Scotland.
By deduction, adhering and understanding what terms, conditions and Article were ratified by both sides of that 1707 treaty,
What we have is a genuine active Scottish parliament passing Scots laws separate from the rest of Britain.
Is it not about time Scotland’s recalled its old union politicians and made the required adjustments to its parliament.
As introduction and tribute to Paul H. Scott (mentioned in my Lockhart post above) please visit the following Sir Walter Scott Club webpage which features an audio of a speech Paul gave in 1996:
link to walterscottclub.com
Is it any wonder that people are confused about how the Scottish voting systems work when there are three different ones at work simultaneously?
OK, they’re familiar with FPTP from General Elections.
Then there’s the Holyrood elections with a complex mix of FPTP and Additional Member System (the list) counted by the d’Hondt formula.
But we also have local council elections which require a ranking of candidates under the Sjngle Transferable Vote system.
Especially confusing are the ‘list’ and the AMS/d’hondt.
You might even think that this was designed in a deliberately complex to confuse the population.
Today marks the 4th blog in a row from James Kelly about the man he says is obsessed with him. He obviously doesn’t do irony.
Does Starmers immigration announcement apply to the English in Scotland?
Fearghas,
I will look for those snippets of information.
Here is another one of those glitches to Scots being in a treaty of union with Westminster parliament England,
They state that they never asked the Scots to join because in all probability the Scots would have said No,
Scots are not in the Treaty of union according to Westminster. So why extend a devolved parliament from England to pass Scots lawsover the Scots.
You can find that on the present Westminster parliament site. About the ( their ) history as one of the oldest parliaments in the world boast.
For God’s sake – the head of the Royal Navy cannot bonk a willing WREN.
What on Earth is the World coming to?
No wonder Scots don’t understand their voting system.
Anthem.
Only starmer knows what goes on in his head, not even the rest of the labour party know.it took him ages to understand what a women was. And understand the equality act, and him having been employed in law.
The only thing for sure, the immigration is controlled by the parliament of Westminster, or not as the case may be, and the small boats cannot cross the north sea directly from France.
, the easist access from France, into Ireland Scotland and Wales and the rest of England is via the shores of England,
And all four of those Countries are not happy bunnies at the moment with the parliament down south,
If anyone causes the starting pistol for the independence cause in all four nations nobody does it better than Westminster.
Although I personally have believed for a long time now that there is no such union between the Scots and England.
England has its parliament and monarch and Scotland has its own parliament.
Totally agree James. I’ve suggested many times that it will be English mps at Westminster that’ll cause the union to end due to a huge clusterfuck.
MaryB,
When we get around to running our own parliament perhaps it would be wiser to just count a single vote for each person.
There is no need for the complicated adding and subtracting because of this or that.it simply a cheat method.
If your votes added up are more than someone else’s you won,
Do you really want a system where two main parties take turns at being an elective dictatorship? It’s all very well having to justify yourself to the electorate every five years but that does nothing for good governance in between.
Of course, one might reasonably point out that there are more than two parties capable of forming a government if an election were held tomorrow, but the electoral landscape is an anomaly just now as the parties re-align and, in some cases, face demotion to minor party status.
Good article Stu on the Electoral Stats. One thing I would have commented on was the win versus expenses ratio. The average win spend of the SNP candidates was around £2.5k. Absolute complacency from them. Look at Andy Wightman expenses to get re-elected when leaving the Scottish Greens as an Independent. Not a very inclusive political system.
I’m appreciative of a lot of Leah Gunn Barrett’s output.
link to dearscotland.substack.com
It sure beats a pair of dung beetles argybargying over the electoral prospects of the hunk of NuSNP shit.
But without focus and effort to put together something to replace the hunk of NuSNP shit, the epic dung beetle battles will likely continue.
Was YS Baboon’s Bum actually jist JK spamming this site with mentalist pish spoutings to turn folk off and reduce readership stats.
Yes, a good writer. I don’t know here bu A genuine person I believe. I read her articles.
Today’s vote on the assisted dying bill will hold up a mirror to the true opinions of our legislative elite.
The trope of an immensely rich post-Indy Scotland, with low taxes and a massive sovereign wealth surplus, is not a scenario where the state would be unable to afford end-of-life palliative care.
If our elite vote to provide state assistance to those who are seen as a “burden” to society, it will provide open acceptance that Scotland will never be the rich nirvana plenty on here still claim to believe in.
And the tenor of BTL discussion will have no choice but to change accordingly. Haha – I do like my little jokes.
Scots don’t decide anything – they haven’t decided anything for hundreds of years.
Actually, Marie, I’m not sure they have ever decided anything.
You can’t really make a decision on something you haven’t even been asked about, and I’m not clear when in the whole of recorded Scottish history the adult population was invited to express an opinion about anything.
Neither the Scottish Parliament nor the Convention of Estates were elected by ‘sovereign Scots’, so what practical value has the phrase ever had?
Haven’t you decided we’re all doomed?
It’s obvious enough that your real gripe is that you disagree with what a majority of Scots HAVE decided on.
There’s absolutely nothing stopping around 100 true, Sovereign Scots setting up a new political movement and standing for HR office. There’s still a year to go until the election. Bags of time.
And from HR capture to Indy. It’s doable, and with majority support, Indy would be in the bag.
But that majority support isn’t there, which is why nobody is doing anything other than greet and gurn from the sidelines.
And pretend we never get to decide anything.
Skip-NC,
No Skip I do Not, Iam am just suggesting that we simplify the system in Scotland so you actually get who you voted for.
And perhaps think harder about having a official method of removing a government that is damaging the Country,, via the all people.
The elite politicians for long enough think they are untouchable, can lie through their teeth and spend tax payers money on a whim or ideology
There has to be a better safe guard for the people by the people.
For instance no government should be allowed to sell parts , bits or all of the peoples land from under their feet, the land belongs to the people,
Not to government.
Scotland people need better safety measures and protection against their government if it goes rogue,
Simplify the voting system so you get who you voted for into the Scottish parliament, that would be a first step of protection.
For a very long time now that has not happened for Scottish voters.
Ah, but it depends a lot on how you define “get who you voted for.” Local? National? Mixture?
If local, that is simply first past the post in each constituency. So a plurality (maybe even a majority) would be happy.
If national, it is single transferable vote, like the local elections, either in a single nationwide constituency or in a number of multi-member constituencies. The Irish parliament elects 174 members from 43 constituencies. That system is highly proportional so the nation as a whole gets what it voted for.
If you want a mixture, ie, a local representative and some form of proportionality, it is broadly what we have now. The problem, I think, is that parliament is too small. 129 members = 65 for a majority. Thirty or so government appointments means half of the majority party (or coalition) are getting paid extra for being in government. Most of the other half want to be in government. So independent thought is suppressed.
There are no easy answers but if we want simplicity, I wonder if moving to STV for parliamentary elections would result in people voting better in local elections, simply because we have one electoral system for all elections.
Governments are there to govern the people within reason, not to make a personal profits from the proceeds of selling the Country, selling its fishing, farming, and minerals.
Thats a rogue government, and there should be a better system in place in Scotland parliament that differs from the Westminster parliament activities.
At the moment governments tend to think that they own the peoples assets, the peoples land and the people on that land,
This needs turned around in Scotland whereby the sovereignty of the people is returned to the people.
Government is meant to work for us. Not own us.
And they must be accountable and Scots as a nation together must be able to remove a rogue government.
The voting system would be one of the most important criteria’s in Scotland for a Scottish parliament to run and work with accountability and efficiency unlike the present ones in Britain.
Are folk here making the claim that the existing SP voting system works and is somehow better than WM?
Really?
Which hat will the parliament in Scotland be wearing when it votes for the assisted dying bill in or out today to pass a law over Scots,
The back door of the extended devolved Parliament from England one, or will it be actually be a genuine parliament of Scotland that is able to pass just Scots laws and bills separately.
With Two tiers of governance over Scotland and Scots law take your pick, which is it.
Scots law devolved from Westminster or the law of Westminster from London. That will decide on life and death of Scottish people in Scotland,
But surely Westminster/English based parties can’t vote on Scottish only matters. As in the similar unwritten rule in Westminster?
If they want to vote on Scottish matters in Holyrood then they should join a Scottish registered party.
Simples, no?
Anthem,
It is the ability of Westminster having two two governing bodies over Scotland bringing in two tiers of laws that enables it to have it to have two slices of cake and eat them both them in Scotland,
Which if the treaty of union fundamental foundational main articles are to be upheld and believed it breaches the treaty of union in a major way.
One and the same parliament hereafter.
It is not one and the same parliament because they are in two different Countries, both of which have retained their borders.
That is why it could be suggested that the parliament in Scotland is and cannot be devolved, but the Scottish parliament reinstated for the first time since it Sine Jure’d in 1707.
And perhaps time to recall an election of our timing, system and choice.
Blinded by power and control. The only cure for the far left is the far right.In the land of the blind a one eyed man is king.
Xaracen.
How do you square the voting system for Scots to have representatives in the parliament of Great Britain,
Westminster parliament of Great Britain state it did not ask the Scots into the union as they would probably have voted no,
That leaves the remaining old parliament of Scotland members only entered into the treaty of union separate from the people of Scotland.
That old Scottish parliament and its Scottish parliament members was then dissolved.
And in 1801/o2 the 1707 treaty of union that was once between the two above said parliaments ended when Westminster parliament acting as a English parliament made the Anglo – Ireland treaty of union .
Where do the Scots people acquire their representative from when the Scots were not invited to join the union., in which parliament?,
The last time the people of Scotland had representatives was in 1707. Before the parliament of Scotland was dissolved.
The Westminster parliament of Englands Great Britain still passes English laws for England and Wales acting as Englands parliament separately as it always did and has continued to do,
That also clears the air on Westminsters statement, “That Westminster parliament is one of the oldest parliaments in the world today,”
The building is not the parliament,
If it is the one of the oldest as a parliament it supposedly began in 1707 and ended in 1802.
And the Scots were not included.
@James Cheyne;
I don’t ‘square’ the voting system at Westminster at all, James; it is illegitimate and inappropriate because it utterly ignores the sovereignty of the Scottish half of the Union, a sovereignty it did not formally give up, or transfer to England. Scotland’s MPs do not take up seats in the Union parliament to represent the old Scottish parliament, and neither are England’s MPs there to represent the old English parliament.
Article XXII of the Treaty makes it crystal clear that the Scots MPs are the sole formal representatives of the entire country, nation, territory, and people of the sovereign Kingdom of Scotland in the Union’s parliament, in exactly the same way that the MPs of the Kingdom of England formally represent their entire sovereign kingdom. Prior to the Union, that is what both bodies of MPs did in their respective former parliaments; represent whole kingdoms. All that the Treaty did was make them share joint governance within the same building so that they could face each other to negotiate that governance.
As such, neither body has any legitimate authority over the other, precisely because of their nations’ still separate sovereignties. Sovereignty is absolute authority, and cannot be overruled, by definition. Since both kingdoms were equally sovereign in 1706, then by default they were still equally sovereign in 1707 unless the Treaty obliged one of them to subordinate itself to the other. But that obligation is completely absent from the Treaty or the Acts of Union.
Someone, Aidan, I think, made the argument recently on Wings that since both former parliaments used a flat voting system internally then it was entirely legitimate that the new Union parliament should use a flat vote, too! But to make that work, he had to set aside the very idea of sovereignty, which neither he nor the English establishment was ever entitled to do.
My counter argument was simply that both former parliaments were specifically governing single-sovereignty nations, and so a flat vote among its MPs was natural and fair; whereas the Union parliament is explicitly governing a dual-sovereignty nation. And that distinction is crucial, since a nation’s sovereignty is obviously extremely important to any nation. Since neither kingdom formally gave up or demoted its sovereignty, then neither kingdom, nor their formal representatives, can be obliged to defer to the other kingdom or its formal representatives, and the Treaty makes no provision of any kind for any such arrangement.
Thus the use of a flat vote in Westminster’s chambers in conjunction with such a huge disparity in the two bodies’ MP numbers is abusively undemocratic, egregiously unconstitutional, and must constitutes a fatal breach of the Treaty.
“in 1801/02 the 1707 treaty of union that was once between the two above said parliaments ended when Westminster parliament acting as a English parliament made the Anglo – Ireland treaty of union”
No, James, the Treaty of Union of 1707 was not ended by the Anglo-Irish one; Ireland was already a territory of the English Kingdom in 1707, but unlike Wales, Ireland was permitted to keep its own parliament, so they never sent any Irish MPs to Westminster. In 1801, the English parliament amended that arrangement, closing the Irish parliament, and Irish MPs were subsequently admitted into the Union parliament. It was an entirely internal rearrangement within the English half of the Union.
“Where do the Scots people acquire their representative from when the Scots were not invited to join the union., in which parliament?”
James, it’s not that the Scots were not invited to join the Union, it’s that they weren’t asked for their approval of the Treaty, as they should have been, as the formal owners of Scotland’s sovereignty as a nation. They weren’t asked, because they would clearly have voted it down, and being sovereign, their decision would have been fatal for the Treaty, and England would not have permitted that; England had already threatened war to force Scotland to the negotiation table, and had employed trading sanctions as well for the same purpose.
The Scots’ 45 original representatives at Westminster were selected from the existing elected MPs at the Scottish parliament.
“abusively undemocratic, egregiously unconstitutional, and must constitutes a fatal breach of the Treaty”
That’s great news, Xaracen.
Why don’t you tell us all of the manifold laws that have been laid down in the last 300+ years that you ignore, flout, refuse to be bound by, and generally delight in breaking?
Then we can all do the same.
I mean, they’re undemocratic, unconstitutional, and in breach of the treaty, right?
So, as Sovereign Scots, we can show them, and the unconstitutional people who try to enforce them, two fingers.
That just has to be how you live your life, am I right again?
@Xaracen – it was me, and the problem with your argument is that it isn’t supported either by the treaty of union, or by any subsequent case law. Not only that, it appears to be in direct opposition to the most important clause in the whole treaty: Clause 1. I think you use the term “sovereignty” really to mean state, since without the institutional and legal character of a state there is no practical way an independent Scottish sovereignty could be exercised. If that’s true, then why does Clause 1 explicitly say that the two states of England and Scotland will become one state. It really stretches the imagination to believe that those drafting and agreeing the treaty wrote a lot of things they didn’t mean (in clause 1), but intended to create a whole parliamentary and legal structure that they didn’t write down.
@Aidan;
you said, “the problem with your argument is that it isn’t supported … by the treaty of union”
My argument is based on the obvious pre-existence of both sovereignties in 1706, and the lack of existence of any Treaty agreement that subordinates Scotland to England in 1707, making my conclusion perfectly valid and sound. Thus my argument doesn’t need to be supported by the Treaty of Union, being a true statement that is not refuted by the Treaty of Union.
Clause 1 doesn’t mandate the subjugation of Scotland’s sovereignty to England’s in either the Union or within the Union’s parliament. And any case law that presumes English superiority over Scotland and her MPs is patently wrong, for precisely the same reason. Case law that starts with the premise of the superiority of English sovereignty over Scotland’s is broken before it starts, as it presumes its conclusion, making it a circular argument that proves nothing and renders its conclusion invalid and unsound. It is a bogus argument. Thus again, the Treaty does not support your conclusion, and case law based on claims that it does is therefore plainly wrong.
Also, your “I think you use the term “sovereignty” really to mean state” actually changes nothing, as follows;
Scotland the state was not subordinate to England the state in 1706, and when Scotland ceased to be a state in 1707, so did England. And again, as I have made perfectly clear, nothing written in the Treaty subordinated Scotland’s MPs to England’s MPs within the Union’s new Union parliament, and you have still shown no actual evidence from the Treaty that unequivocally backs your assertions up.
Scottish sovereignty is every bit as real as English sovereignty, though they are very different in source and nature, and England’s establishment is not entitled to pretend that only England’s sovereignty was preserved by the Treaty, but Scotland’s was not. If you are going to make such outrageous claims you need to back them up properly with the relevant texts from the Treaty that actually and visibly support them!
As for your “there is no practical way an independent Scottish sovereignty could be exercised”, that is utterly disingenuous of you. It could be exercised perfectly easily through the use of the Dual Majority Vote in the Union’s shared parliament that I have argued for here many times.
Your tricksy arguments are obvious shams, Aidan.
@Xaracen – Sovereignty is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “ the power of a country to control its own government”. Given that definition, I don’t see how you can possibly claim that Scottish Sovereignty was preserved by Clause 1 , given that that clause expressly merges the Kingdom of Scotland into a new United Kingdom. Secondly, when you say nothing “subordinates” Scottish sovereignty to England, I think you mean here that the treaty does not provide that legislation supported by a majority of MP’s from England but opposed by a majority from Scotland can become law. Again here, you are flat out wrong. Clause XXII states how many MP’s would be elected from the geographic territory of Scotland to sit in the House of Commons and the Lords, and that number made Scottish MP’s a minority group without providing for a veto for that minority. So contrary to what you say, the Treaty of Union explicitly does provide for the situation you describe as subjugation.
The not that the Scots were not invited to join into the union!
Actually it was.
The Westminster parliament from the beginning and still at present day made a decided decision after discussion not to give the Scots a Vote to join the union, fact,
That deliberately separation of the Scots from their old 1707 Parliament of Scotland procured the following.
The old parliament of Scotland entered on its own without the Scots people into the treaty of union and therefore cannot represent the Scottish people..
@Aidan;
Firstly, Scotland’s sovereignty was owned by its people, and it still is. It was not owned by its monarch or parliament, nor by its 31 commissioners who negotiated the Treaty of Union with England’s 31 commissioners. Thus none of them could presume to subordinate Scotland and especially its sovereign people and their constitution and territory to England or to her MPs, and England’s establishment cannot pretend that they did. Neither can you. It wouldn’t matter even if the Treaty did oblige that subordination, because it would clearly have been ultra vires of its Scottish Treaty principals and their monarch and parliament to agree to it without the approval of Scotland’s actual sovereigns. That it is nowhere stated in the Treaty confirms that Scotland’s subordination cannot be warranted by it, even by implication.
Secondly, Article I didn’t ‘merge Scotland into a new United Kingdom’, it merely placed Scotland into a Union club along with England. The only merging was of the two parliaments. Their territories didn’t merge, because they had different sovereign owners, their people didn’t merge, because one population was sovereign and the other was not, and critically, the people weren’t even mentioned in the Treaty. The two constitutions didn’t merge, see later, the two monarchies didn’t merge any more than they already had in 1603, the two legal and justice systems didn’t merge, and even in the merged parliament the two MP bodies didn’t merge. That last is because the two bodies formally represent entirely different and incompatible sovereignties, constitutions and peoples, and that’s the kicker, because the two sovereignties didn’t merge either, because nobody had the authority to make them.
All of those things that didn’t merge was because they were fundamentally incompatible and irreconcilable. As a result everything about the Union is a clumsy fudge, and a highly asymmetric one because the English establishment presumed and insisted that every fudge bent the way that suited them.
The clearest example is that of the two constitutions, in which England’s constitution was imposed on Scotland despite a formal obligation accepted by both parliaments’ Acts of Union, that Scotland’s constitution was to remain permanently in force in Scotland. Naturally, Westminster being the very epicentre of perfidious Albion, that obligation was thoroughly ignored.
One of my adversaries on another blog a few years ago went so far as to confirm the incompatibilities of the constitutions, and asserted therefore that obviously only one constitution could prevail in the Union or havoc would ensue, and then said that if Scotland’s constitution was to be preserved then that would have to be stated in the Treaty. It never occurred to him that exactly the same requirement would equally apply to England’s constitution! Worse, he was unaware that Scotland’s constitution as cited by Scotland’s 1689 Claim of Right actually was formally preserved, by dint of the Tenor appended to Article XXV, and ratified by both parliaments in 1707.
Alex Salmond, the longest serving member of the Privy Council at the time, had this to say on King Charles’ recent accession;
“In any event it can hardly be argued that the Claim of Right is merely a historical curiosity when one of the first acts of the new King is to be required to swear an oath to uphold it!”
The king did this live on camera for the entire world to see, and thus was the formal standing today of both Scotland’s sovereignty and constitution clearly demonstrated to be alive and kicking.
Another example is Scotland’s territory, which was owned under the Scots’ constitution by the Scots people, and not the Scots’ monarch or parliament. But the British monarch and his parliament presumed, again without warrant, that the English monarch’s territorial rights somehow now applied to Scotland’s territory, despite neither monarchical capacity owning such rights over Scotland’s territory in 1706. Essentially, that’s how Scotland’s oil was deemed to be England’s oil, and sold out from under the Scots’ feet! When Alex Salmond claimed in the ’70s, “It’s Scotland’s Oil”, it was no mere slogan; he was stating a constitutional fact.
Thirdly, Article XXII specified MP numbers for the new Union parliament but it did not specify at all how those numbers would be used within it. It is no more than an another unwarranted presumption by the English establishment that the new parliament would use exactly the same flat vote that England’s former parliament employed. Without even a mention, let alone an actual formal agreement to use that flat vote in the new Union parliament, -a brand new entity with no prior existence, the huge size of England’s MP numbers relative to Scotland’s is rendered democratically meaningless and constitutionally inappropriate, being grossly and obviously unfair to the Scottish representation precisely because it would enforce Scotland’s subordination to England in direct breach of Scotland’s formal sovereignty, and of Scotland’s guaranteed constitution.
Scotland’s subordination is quite obviously not at all warranted by anything in the Treaty, not warranted by MP numbers, and not warranted by the absence of Scotland’s sovereignty or constitution. It is not even warranted by ‘democracy’. Thus any exertion of English MPs’ authority over Scotland and her MPs, on a solely numeric basis, is patently ultra vires, and Westminster’s ‘unlimited sovereignty’ over the UK is thus demonstrably bogus, fraudulent, and unlawful.
@Xaracen – you are arguing in direct opposition to both the historical record and the explicit language of the treaty, in particular Article 1 of the treaty which states: I. ‘That the two Kingdoms of (fn. 1) Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May
next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name
of Great-Britain, and that the Ensigns Armorial of the said united Kingdom, be such as her
Majesty shall appoint; and the Crosses of St. Andrew and St. George be conjoined in such a
manner as her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards, and Ensigns,
both at Sea and Land.
I don’t know what you mean by “union club” or what meaning in the context of law or constitutional history that could possibly mean, but it is abundantly clear from the language in the treaty that it intended to merge the states of Scotland and England into a single state of the United Kingdom, and then that is what did happen. Even if we accepted your argument that the concept of popular sovereignty made the ToU ultra vires, the creation of the U.K. as a state with a single Parliament in London has been the universally accepted constitutional position for a very long time, and that passage of time makes that argument irrelevant, even if it had some merit in 1707.
I don’t know how to respond to the majority of what you’ve written because it’s a classic 2+2=5 argument. You’re saying that things which have happened could not have happened, which is a self refuting argument.
Ultimately, we have to think about how this might be resolved, and who has the authority to resolve it, and as a legal matter that is the courts. No judgement by any court affirms your view in any way, but entirely accords with mine. You say that the judgement of the courts isn’t legitimate (because it doesn’t support your view) but then what can give your views legitimacy, if not the courts system?
Amthem
some of my posts are being delayed or not appearing at all, but I did respond to your last comment?
“some of my posts are being delayed or not appearing at all,”
——————————————————–
As you seem determined to take over the comments section that may not be a bad thing.
Stu.
Is everyone having problems posting today, or just a few, do you know,
I cannot imagine ever voting in a general election again, I am sick of being lied to, a person can only take so much BS in one lifetime
Day 5 of James ‘I’m not obsessed’ Kelly posting about Rev Stu rather than independence. Thankfully, Eurovision should take his mind to his happy place soon.
on a vote share of circa 30% there are plenty seats more up for grabs than you are making out here, surely?. I’d say in central belt especially.
it’s only a matter of months since Labour and SNP were on virtually the same polling. It can happen again quite quickly once campaigns start.
On possible miscalls in the opening constituency map I feel like if the Dumfries and Galloway seats have stayed SNP free since 2003 they’re not gonna win there this far down the line
Green shoots of recovery. Things may be starting to change in the Indy movement. Here on a pile of rocks off NW Jockistan ISP will have a candidate for 2026 so I will not have to spoil my ballot with a sketch of Johnboy Main. Barrhead Bhoy former anti Salvo attack dog for ALBA after a Saga holiday to Damascus is now endorsing Liberation etc so baby steps in the right direction. SNP none and noo is the way to go.
Assisted dying Bill passed at first stage.
That should get rid of a lot of old NO voters!
“That should get rid of a lot of old NO voters”
Let me correct that for you, x:
“That should get rid of a lot of old voters”
Nobody will be asking the old whether they vote YES or NO. Obviously, unless they are doolally, they will all claim YES, so there would be no point.
Still, as I pointed out this morning, the fact that Scotland’s governing body has fessed up that there is no chance that Scotland will ever be able to afford end-of-life palliative care for our old-timers holes the case for Indy below the waterline.
Indy was supposed to make us all rich, remember?
Now we’re being told we’ll be just as skint as we are now. So skint in fact, we’re gonna have to start slaying our old folks just to balance the books.
Assisted dying bill past first stage today you say, blimey some on here are still debating laws from the 17 th century.
At Last!Legislation that will change lives for the better, assuming that it is not butchered on route by some of the half-wits in the wee pretend parliament. It’s way past time to allow people to suffer horribly because of religious maniacs and the faint of heart.
Only ever on Wings BTL, folks.
Read how death changes your life for the better.
To be scrupulously fair, I guess that if you’re the one inheriting the house, then it defo does.
Still, how far the movement has come since those heady promises of 2014, eh?
FFS John Hatey Main, if death means folk won’t have to endure reading your endless hypocritical dross, then that’s quite possibly a price worth paying.
As you hate paying taxes so much, topping yersel would be a great tax avoidance strategy.
But if life is so precious to you, then why are you so supportive of paying all that tax into the military industrial complex, who are so keen on assisting ending the lives of so many prematurely.
The runaway monkey takes time out from scratching beneath his pelt to tell the world that if I’m against assisted dying, then he’s all for it.
How’s about I keep posting then, Dan?
Assist you with your passing and that.
Might be worth it to further reduce the ranks of those who like to virtue signal about how much they enjoy paying taxes.
It’s usually the case that those loudest in their enthusiasm for tax paying are those least likely to ever pay any. Haha, usually. I meant universally.
Still smarting that some nationalists, patriots, freedom lovers, whatever, think that fighting in defence of these things are worthwhile, eh Dan?
Still gonna stick with your plan? Sit quietly with the begging bowl out and wait for A N Other to gift you Indy.
I don’t know about religious fanatics but Sturgeon opposed it and the only religion she seems to believe in is transgenderism.
Oh shit.
If Sturgeon opposed it, that means that assisted dying will have to become the official policy of Wings BTL.
Cos that’s how their “minds” work.
Tribalist. Binary. Black & white. Every subject debated with all the nuance of a blazing Neanderthal hurling vitriolic abuse from the terracing at an Old Firm cup final.
Harold Shipman
visionary
maybe time for a pardon
and that lass Letby which is just coincidence
terrible times for all these auld yins living in big houses, mortgage free, with their quality of life and that
it was for the best
I have never understood those who think it’s fine to watch someone going through agony begging for death to release them.
This bill should have reached fruition when Margo McDonald brought it all those years ago.
AFAIK Margo was against assisted dying until her own illness became unbearable then she became an advocate for it
I received responses from my Labour reps about my enquiry how they would be voting for the bill, they were opposed to it and would be voting against it, their argument was that better palliative care was more important and more humanitarian than assisted dying
I responded that it was nice to be caring and sanctimonious BUT unfortunately ALL parties REFUSE to fund proper palliative care,which was left to charitable institutions and private enterprise , I also said that it was their leader Starmer who had stopped the WFA which would add considerably to the deaths of more pensioners
I also said that Starmer utilised the savings of his egregious act by promising the money for more munitions to the war in Ukraine adding to the death toll
I am shocked and horrified by this vote to allow assisted dying
I have realised we need to leave the union
As then the magic unicorn will keep everyone alive and no true scot will die
END THE UNION NOW!!!!!!!!!
So the people we vote into power to keep us safe and help us out are now scheming to kill us off when we become a nuisance.
I guess it’s an idea whose time has come.
I guess the people in power have private health care. Not for them some harassed functionary turning up at the door, 20 minutes late because she couldn’t get parked, and pushed for time because she has another 6 to kill before she can get home to put the kid’s tea on.
I see Harvie & Slater are in favour. At least they’re consistent. Every environmental threat arises from there being too many people. Cull us. It’s the right thing to do.
The pictures of the protesters in favour are, how shall I put this, white, white, white. Of course. Those who stand to benefit from the great replacement aren’t so daft as to want themselves killed off. Naw, save that for the chumps who are on the way out. But isn’t it great to see how the demands for equal or even over-proportionate minority representation don’t apply everywhere?
In other news reported this very day, the bill for NHS medical liabilities clears £58 billion. And it looks set to continue to rise with no end in sight. So we can understand the pressure governments are under to do something about this enormous drain on the public purse.
Ergo, don’t treat sick people – kill them. Haha, let’s see them sue us for negligence now
And we can ditch all these complicated machines and the expensive people we need to work them.
But I must apologise to the Wings BTL community. I’ve over complicated things.
I’m against assisted dying. That’s all most of you need to know. So now you can enthusiastically support it.
Maybe if I could just ask one wee favour though. As you go out and about today, if you maybe see some unfortunate in a wheelchair, bravely trying to lead a functioning life in the face of the difficulties God or nature has put in her way, spare her a smile.
You won’t have to thole her existence for much longer.
Out of interest, John Hatey, have you ever had to look after someone 24/7 with a horrible terminal ailment?
Maybe if you’d had to continually administer the most intimate of palliative care to a once full of vitality loved one who was enduring chronic pain and wasting away, you’d think twice about the merits of prolonging their hellish suffering longer than needs be.
Go on, give it a try and see what you think, the bed bound patient has so much dignity and quality of life as you carefully try to bed wash them without breaking their crumbing bones, and be careful cleaning around and dressing those open bed sores.
During this protracted time the individual feels terrible and nauseous due to all the strong pain medication. And be very careful trying to administer all those regularly required meds because the individual can easily choke on them.
If you’re against assisted dying but aren’t willing to step up and look after the ill directly, then it’s our collective taxes that will be paying folk to do that much-needed work.
Tax is the price of living in a civilised society. Imagine how much healthcare could be paid for in these supposedly austere times if we weren’t spaffing billions of our taxes a year away on weaponry & war, and giving money to foreign countries.
“Out of interest” your blue painted arse.
Start by admitting it’s out of personalised animosity.
Like always.
Assisted dying is right up there with the abolition of the death penalty and the right to abortion.
They too started off as “exceptional cases” totalling a bare handful of occurrences each year.
Murderers would be locked away for life so we would still all be safe.
Now many do 7 years. Quite a few see the “deterrent” as such a trivial hurdle, they kill again.
Whilst hundreds of thousands of babies are aborted every year, because their mothers and fathers are too idle, feckless and ignorant to use contraceptives.
But, sure, by all means you insist that a state that lacks the guts to kill somebody who takes a knife to a bunch of dancing lassies, should nevertheless kill off some innocent granny who has never harmed a soul in her life.
We can all see that granny won’t ever fight back, so let’s kill her. The knife wielding terrorist might have mates – best leave him be, eh Dan?
Still not convinced? Trot out the “we can’t be sure, the convicted killer might be innocent” trope. Then pretend the certainty of innocence in the granny’s case magically doesn’t matter.
Well why not? The innocence of every aborted baby ever has never counted either.
You are wrong, I genuinely inquired out of interest because I cannot believe anybody that has had firsthand experience of caring for an individual who is enduring a highly debilitating ailment with chronic pain and extremely low quality of life would be supportive of prolonging that suffering.
You bring up the example of a vulnerable granny, well just where are her loving family in the care process. Are her offspring “too idle, feckless and ignorant” to oversee her welfare and health treatment requirements, or are they hands off and expecting the State to provide cover paid for by their taxes.
The State has quietly and effectively been assisting premature deaths through various other policy failures for decades. High energy prices with folk not being able to afford to live in reasonably warm housing, or facilitating the selling of crap low grade food, causing all manner of health compromising conditions.
And that’s pure whataboutery trying to bring knife wielding terrorists into the equation. But that issue has undoubtably been caused by the UK’s antics on the international stage.
If the UK wasn’t such an antagonistic and hostility provoking entity, and actually bothered to have a properly run immigration system with adequate conditions and vetting, it would go some way to reducing the despicable events you mention.
Normally I agree with much you say, Hatey, but this time we are at odds somewhat.
When all is said and done, how can it be considered humane to force someone with an appalling, terminal illness to linger on until finally – after much avoidable pain, indignity and suffering – they die a “natural” (probably deeply unpleasant) death? We wouldn’t do this to a dog, we’d put it out of its misery long, long before that stage. We’d all agree, surely, that to do otherwise would be needlessly cruel and selfish, to allow the poor animal to suffer, possibly for the sake of our vanity, selfishness and/or denial of reality. So why not people?
Of course, the whole thing is fraught with danger – who can “trust” this numpty government to do the right thing (and not for nefarious reasons like saving a few quid when some quality of life can still reasonably be had etc., as others have already noted). Notwithstanding, the principle still stands, if only we can do things the right way. Not beyond the wit of man.
Personally speaking, if I had the choice when the time comes, I’d take a dignified, pain-free death surrounded by my loved ones, for their sakes as well as my own, and not being a burden to them.
Ah yes, CC, it’ll all be grand on the day.
The wit of man, and the paving with good intentions.
Interesting analogy with the dog. What is it we do with killer dogs again? Anybody? Anybody at all?
But not with killer humans. Whoops! Maybe dogs aren’t relevant here.
Somebody said something that resonated with me just the other day.
The same people who are telling you they can fix the climate are the ones who can’t fix your local river being flooded with shit and piss.
But never mind. Now they are telling you there will be a humane, dignified, last resorts, painless, no pressure route into the great unknown, and this time they’ll get it right.
So ignore the shit and piss in the river. Ignore the potholes. Ignore the unsolved crimes. Ignore the waiting lists for life-saving treatments. Ignore the uncompensated victims of medical malpractice. Ignore the lies.
Past performance is no guide to future success. We all have been taught to believe that.
Sign up to let them kill you. This time it really will be different and nothing bad can happen.
My main concern on assisted dying is the leglisative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Stage 1 general principles is one thing it’s the Stage 2 phase that is the difficult bit. After all the Scottish Government has lost over 10 Court Cases in ten years. Hardly an inspirational legal track record. Looking at evidence from other Countries for example Canada and their MAID system. 4.7% of all deaths are medically assisted or (including a recent rise) approaching one in 20 now.
How can anyone welcome giving the state the right to kill you,
the corrupt incompetent self serving state,
75,000 killed in Canada since they introduced it in 2016,
they can`t turn back and say `oops sorry` they have to bash on killing more and more.
Assisted dying Subject very recently effected me personally twice.
My mum in 2022,
After the injection she went into coma an died ithin 24 hour, with out her consent.
My spouse was ill but had not had medical treatment for his illness by doctors or surgeons, and did not want to be bumped off like my mum he said.
How ever the medical team provided end of life box in case my spouse felt any pain.
He had no pain just a little uncomfortable.
The medical team were quick to suggest this injection from the box, for his mild discomfort and convinced my spouse it would just make him feel a bit better,
However he passed away within 48 hours of having the second injection.
Up until the injections point he was relatively fine and did not need pain relief, fully alert,
he had had his toe amputated for trench foot and took no pain killers, refused painkillers in the hospital and took none at home,
He was a person whom had always a high pain threshold.
That was in december and healed and recovered well from that operation.
But not from the injection.
I personally think there is too for room for error, and definately room for circumstances whereby the patient can be persuaded when they are at a vunerable time by medical staff and not told the full truth what the final injection result does.
It also has the possibility for medical teams to avoid giving treatment or full diagnoses to save money so the patient medically will end up at the end of life lethel injection stage.
Too much room for happy trigger fingered medical authorities to persuade vunerable patients to have a morphine injection,
Especially people whom live on their own at home,
Who will dispute their cause of death, very similar to the care home covid? ..deaths scenario where many died, relatives were not allowed near them at the time, no witness and no post mortem’s, no inquests.and not buried.
No questions asked, no full inquiries.
James Cheyne @ 09.40.
Just to extend my sympathy, James. My partner & I cared for her mother for some 10 months in our home as she passed away from liver cancer.
I believe you are fighting on through this experience so bravely, and can only offer prayers and support through this bleak period.
Wishing you well.
Sven.
Sven,
I am sincerely sorry to hear of loss you’re mother, she obviously meant a lot too you and admire you and your partners loving attitude in caring for her until the end of her life,
So many do not have the time or sometimes the inclination,
It is hard work 24/7 , but can still be filled with special moments and memories,
Took the time to care for and look after us for many a year when we were young and incapable of doing so,
Giving emotional and often financial support unseen, contributing to the next generation and all that follow.
Living with the right partner or spouse later on in life brings as much support love, equal financial sharing and laughter the way, along with those special moments that create memories,
Each and everyone to their own way of life which ever form it takes,
Like you and your partner I could not detach or dispatch those years of memories or love and caring for me so naturally it fell into place automatically, no questions asked to return it when they need us most, as you and your partner did for youre mother.
Their loss leaves an inevitable void for a long time and a lot of unforeseen work simply because we do not leave without belongings or paper work as we did when came into this world.
It is perhaps a little bit more difficult this time around due to having lost my brother to a road accident, my father also to liver Cancer, my mother to gangerine after a fall, and my spouse to a illness not diagnosed but after death to suspected bowel cancer.
Family members are dwindling away each year.
And my son and grand children live in New Zealand,
But You have to cope, have to get through the day, and try live again. Without feeling to guilty. Time will pass and it will eventually heal once again.
Thank you so much Sven for your kind wishes and thoughts especially from someone like yourself that is aware of all it entails.
Like wise, my thoughts are with you and yours and wish you all happier days Ahead.
Unless this is a genuine full Sovereign Scottish parliament in Scotland , this Assisted dying Bill is not a Scottish bill,
But a Devolved from Englands Westminster bill extended over Scottish people.
Unless this is a genuine full Sovereign Scottish parliament in Scotland , this Assisted dying Bill is not a Scottish bill,
But a Devolved from Englands Westminster bill extended over Scottish people. And a very profitable business if people from other Countries wish to come to Scotland for that purpose.
We need to understand and decide wether Scots laws and bills in Scotland can be passed in Holyrood parliament as Scots Law, which was to remain separate from English law.
Wether the Scottish Hate crime bill was legal in its application as Scots law separate from England.
Wether the trans laws up here was even real law under the parliament in Scotland.
It is becoming more detrimental than ever for well being and the welfare of People in Scotland to be able to untangle the laws and bills being passed as “Scots law” through a parliament in Scotland that is Not supposed to be Sovereign at all under the Scotland Act, to pass legal Scots Law.
We are so accepting of these two tier double standard bills, passing stymie laws on us in Scotland,
It never fully came to our attention before that the Holyrood parliament acts as a Sovereign constitutional parliament passing Scots laws over Scots.
But is incompatible trying to wear and to be both heads of English and Scottish constitutional law.
It is inevitable that the legislation, bills and laws passing through Holyrood parliament if recognised as constitutional Scots law with legality, that the Holyrood parliament itself is acting as a Sovereign parliament from Westminster parliament and in a different Country.
James: the problem with your theory, while awe remain in the UK, is that UK law will supersede Scottish law where there is a clash. That there should not be a clash is, perhaps, more to the point.
Those ‘legal experts’ at Holyrood who advise the government should be aware of potential clashes and seek to make them as few as possible in order to avoid court cases which cost the taxpayer a heavy financial price.
Anyone reading the GRA 2004 and EQA 2010 should have understood the very real problems for female people in allowing men – any men – into their spaces. That the Scottish government’s lawyers failed to either spot the flaws and/or did nothing to highlight them, is unconscionable.
It either shows gross incompetence or a total refusal to acknowledge that women and girls require single sex spaces. Saying that no one objected in the years previous to the Bill is completely disingenuous. Women’s groups did object and, because men are far stronger physically than women, most females would have been too scared to challenge a man in their space even when they deeply resented his presence.
The UKSC ruling was essential for female rights, just as the ruling on referendums was necessary in order to head off any future clashes based on spurious evidence. The latter forces us to look at other ways to challenge the status quo and to question the SNP’s commitment to independence. In the former case, women’s rights have been saved from a SG hell bent on removing them and delivering them into the hands of the ‘trans’ lobby, the ‘trans’ already having exactly the same rights as everyone else.
I, for one, am far from being sorry that the SNP SG has been humiliated yet again. What is the point of being different from Westminster if you are so incompetent that you cannot distinguish between a real battle for statehood and a pretend one that destroys your society before it even reaches that stage?
The SNP needs to be challenged now in the polls, and, at last, we are starting to look at other ways to do that and overcome the entitlement and sheer lack of ability of the SNP BEFORE we enter into independence. Imagine this lot being in charge of an independent Scotland? Our economy would tank on the first day; our society would be riven end to end by illegal and immoral laws; and we would be having our throats cut in the pursuit of unachievable green goals. God help us to rid ourselves of these people. Have you seen their candidate list?
ames: the problem with your theory, while awe remain in the UK, is that UK law will supersede Scottish law where there is a clash. That there should not be a clash is, perhaps, more to the point.
Those ‘legal experts’ at Holyrood who advise the government should be aware of potential clashes and seek to make them as few as possible in order to avoid court cases which cost the taxpayer a heavy financial price.
Anyone reading the GRA 2004 and EQA 2010 should have understood the very real problems for female people in allowing men – any men – into their spaces. That the Scottish government’s lawyers failed to either spot the flaws and/or did nothing to highlight them, is unconscionable.
It either shows gross incompetence or a total refusal to acknowledge that women and girls require single sex spaces. Saying that no one objected in the years previous to the Bill is completely disingenuous. Women’s groups did object and, because men are far stronger physically than women, most females would have been too scared to challenge a man in their space even when they deeply resented his presence.
The UKSC ruling was essential for female rights, just as the ruling on referendums was necessary in order to head off any future clashes based on spurious evidence. The latter forces us to look at other ways to challenge the status quo and to question the SNP’s commitment to independence. In the former case, women’s rights have been saved from a SG hell bent on removing them and delivering them into the hands of the ‘trans’ lobby, the ‘trans’ already having exactly the same rights as everyone else.
I, for one, am far from being sorry that the SNP SG has been humiliated yet again. What is the point of being different from Westminster if you are so incompetent that you cannot distinguish between a real battle for statehood and a pretend one that destroys your society before it even reaches that stage?
The SNP needs to be challenged now in the polls, and, at last, we are starting to look at other ways to do that and overcome the entitlement and sheer lack of ability of the SNP BEFORE we enter into independence. Imagine this lot being in charge of an independent Scotland? Our economy would tank on the first day; our society would be riven end to end by illegal and immoral laws; and we would be having our throats cut in the pursuit of unachievable green goals. God help us to rid ourselves of these people. Have you seen their candidate list?
One and the Same parliament of Great Britain is no longer,
It has now reverted back From a union parliament, to, a parliament in Scotland and a parliament in England,
both passing constitutional bills and laws of their separate Countries.
Assisted dying is what I would want for me , I realise not everyone would . I have no desire to make a journey to Switzerland to die , I would much prefer that my choice was recognised here.
I do not intend to deprive anyone else of their choice .
Fair point Diabloandco but assisted dying is anything but clear cut.
Far be it for me to rehearse the arguments but with the costs of care, the lure of inheritance, and the possible burden of the terminally ill, whatever terminally ill means, the potential for ‘ assisted ‘ dying becomes a very real possibility.
And then of course with the procedure of legalised killing in place one has to wonder to what extent the argument will next move on to the severely disabled, who like us all are all terminal. Potentially, the disabled give greater opportunity for care costs and suport reduction – something that would be very welcome these days as we cut social and care support, cut heating to pensioners.
But hey, far be it for me to rehearse the arguments again. My own personal view is that our two bit pretend low brow parliament got it wrong.
But they got it wrong with woke and trans too that folks did not vote for and its the same clown circus that voted this through.
Oh and just in the passing I read today that Fergusson Marine yesterday advised MSPs that the will now be delayed by another 9 months and cost another £22.5 million.
Why oh why is nobody being held accountable for this. Hundreds and hundreds of millions over budget, years and years late, and these problems sit alongside other boats with huge technical and cost problems.
Indeed, the MV Hallaig procured at a relatively huge cost, and proclaimed as world leading, is now scheduled after a major battery fire and a dreadful operating record to be replaxed by a ship now being commisioned in Poland.
And the Hallaig’s two sister ships also had to be pulled from sevice for emergency safety repairs – but there is not yet at least any admission that these two boats are being scheduled for replacement.
You have to laugh the laugh of the demented clown to put up with this nonsense. The friends and fools are certainly doing their best in the SP to sink Scotland as a basket case. It’s criminal and they say money is short.
@stu
You should challenge him to a bet that SNP win no list seats
At 29% of the list vote if SNP get more than half of the constituency seats (a mere 36) they’ll likely get no list seats at all. They’ll have been allocated their quote already from the constituency vote