The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The blockage

Posted on September 01, 2020 by

Well, imagine our surprise.

If only we’d been telling you for the last two years, eh?

We’d honestly love to hear some of the “have faith in Nicola!” loyalists explain this one away, and we’re sure we will. We’re sure they’ll find some tortured justification, and the gullible will swallow it because the reality is just too painful to face. But any lingering shreds of credibility for the defence just died in public and everyone knows it.

And of course it shouldn’t have been for Martin Keatings to stand in those shoes. It was the job of the SNP, to whom voters and the Scottish Parliament have now given EIGHT mandates to do something about independence, and who have stood twiddling their thumbs and looking the other way and filling their pension pots for four long years since England and Wales voted to drag Scotland out of Europe against its will and into an endless hell of English nationalist Tory rule, which will have been 15 years long by the end of this Parliamentary term and very likely to be another five after that.

But in a statement so pathetic, so craven and so arrogant that it would boil the blood of anyone who genuinely wants independence, the party proudly announced that it had done absolutely nothing, and reasserted its blind, idiotic lie that Boris Johnson – who has happily ignored eight mandates already and has a huge majority until 2025 that he won on a manifesto that plainly stated it would not allow another indyref, and who has literally nothing to gain and everything to lose if he was to allow Scotland a second opportunity to leave – will suddenly crumble in the event of a ninth.

Be assured, readers, because we absolutely promise you this is true: the SNP doesn’t believe that any more than Wings Over Scotland does.

They’ll win next year’s election, they’ll put on a big show of indignantly demanding a referendum again, they’ll get the same answer they’ve been getting since 2017, and they’ll harrumph and blow and bluster and then they’ll sit back down and settle in for another five cosy years in power and get on with letting rapists into women’s toilets and changing rooms and prisons and arresting anyone who objects for a “hate crime”.

By the time they’re done, Scotland won’t be worth fighting for, which is probably why nearly a quarter of the party’s MSPs are standing down at this election despite the supposed impending arrival of their entire life’s goal.

If they had a plan to do something about Johnson’s absolutely certain refusal, they’d have done it by now. What was stopping them? It’s not like it wasn’t urgent. The BEST-case scenario now is independence being delivered years into Brexit when much of the damage will have been done and will be largely irreversible. Getting back into the EU will be much harder than staying in it would have been.

And it’s not like there weren’t options. This court case could have been started the day after the Brexit vote and we’d have known back in 2017 whether Holyrood had the power to hold a referendum or not. Imagine the power a victory would have put in the Scottish Government’s hands. Westminster could have been held to ransom all the way through the Brexit negotiating period.

But even if that didn’t work, for the whole of 2018 and 2019 the SNP held arithmetical leverage at Westminster anyway – which is, ironically, a once-in-a-generation scenario. It could have offered the Tories the votes to pass a soft Brexit deal – doing the rest of the UK a great service by avoiding the vastly worse no-deal exit that was utterly predictable and is now basically inevitable – in exchange for another vote.

This site consistently advocated both of those things, and was relentlessly attacked by party loyalists for it. Even if they hadn’t worked neither could possibly have left us any worse off, and there are no bettter plans. All people have left to desperately cling to is that a woman who couldn’t even see the exams fiasco coming is a galactic genius who has a super-secret cunning plan up her sleeve so astonishing that not a living soul has been able to imagine it, and which for some reason has to wait until we’re already out of Europe and half-ruined to be executed.

Simply not doing either thing would have been useless enough. But to have actively OPPOSED one of them, to have openly stood in the way of actual independence campaigners, for the supposed party of independence to deliberately see the wasting of a six-figure sum raised from the pockets of hard-pressed ordinary Yes supporters who are frustrated past endurance, is a betrayal almost beyond words.

(Incidentally, the party’s 2019 accounts are due to be published a week tomorrow. If there isn’t at least £700,000 in the SNP bank account – and perhaps there will be, but we’ll be astounded – then they’ve literally and directly robbed you to boot.)

There is no longer any room for the benefit of the doubt. The greedy, power-hungry, careerist New SNP has become the biggest obstacle to independence.

So go on, loyal Sturgeon fans. Defend it to us. Give it your best shot. We’re all ears.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 01 09 20 12:57

      The blockage | speymouth

    276 to “The blockage”

    1. ScottieDog says:

      It’s us they’ve held to ransom, not WM. Very sad.

    2. Capella says:

      Define “imminent”.

    3. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Define “imminent”.”

      Seriously, fuck ALL the way off. You’ve been made a fool of and I’m tired to the pits of my soul of watching you go “LA LA LA LA IT’S NOT HAPPENING NICOLA WILL SAVE US ALL”.

    4. A C Bruce says:

      The SNP are just as slithery as the Tories/Labour/LibDems. None more slithery than the Wishy-Washy Wishart types. I’m reluctant to give them my votes next year (if the election happens).

      The UK will be a economic basket case next year after Brexit and still in the grip of Covid but the SNP have no intention of fighting for independence. We’re stuck with Westminster for the very long term.

      The SNP think we’re mugs. Maybe we are to put up with them.

    5. Josef Ó Luain says:

      Many of the loyalist will fail to see the problem—explaining quite nicely why they remain as loyalists.

    6. susanXX says:

      Terribly sad Stu, I’m disgusted with the whole charade. Vote for us and we won’t give you a definite date for a referendum but we will continue with our unpopular social engineering experiment to turn Scotland into an irrational hell on earth. Wow! I really want to vote SNP now.

    7. Polly says:

      Lots of people will be disappointed I’m sure. I wasn’t initially keen on the Keatings case feeling it wouldn’t advance our position much, but if it does at least does clarify our situation it will have been more than worth it.

      Good article Stuart, thanks once again.

    8. kapelmeister says:

      Do these stupid bastards think having the initials MSP after their name makes them akin to Olympic deities? That they can look down on fellow Scots as lesser beings.

      “…not the appropriate person..” . Disgusting remark for an SNP govt to issue.

    9. Vivian O'Blivion says:

      Slight, pedantic correction. The next Westminster GE is scheduled for May 2024 because they don’t want another Winter election.

    10. Capella says:

      @ Rev Stu – I’ve never said that. But I am sick and tired of all the hysteria. There’s a pandemic. Nobody is campaigning imminently. Keep the heid.

      Here’s a link to the whole Times article for those who still know that the unionist media lie.

      https://archive.is/Nr1iu

    11. kapelmeister says:

      If the SNP leadership looks down on us as peasants then we might as well be revolting peasants.

    12. Polly says:

      I think we all know when unionist media lies now but some have still to learn when the party lies – some don’t even believe it capable of it.

    13. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Here’s a link to the whole Times article for those who still know that the unionist media lie.”

      The top fucking image above is already a link to the whole fucking article, as you really ought to sodding well know by now. They have not lied. The quotes in this piece are DIRECT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT QUOTES.

      And fuck the pandemic. This has been going on for FOUR YEARS. The pandemic showed up six months ago to save Sturgeon’s bacon. It’s got fuck-all to do with campaigning. You can win the right to hold a referendum, then actually hold it whenever you like. If you wait until the pandemic is over before you even start TRYING to win that right, you’re just wasting years for nothing.

    14. montfleury says:

      I need to read the French Code Civile to check the exemptions from the normal residency rules for the acquisition of nationality by naturalisation. I’m pretty sure I’ll qualify. One of us has to expose ourselves to the other’s immigration system and I can’t ask Madame to go on here knees to the Home Office.

      The game’s up here, sadly.

    15. MWS says:

      We need a new independence party. One that actually *wants* independence. The current SNP ( or at least the current SNP leadership) wants to retain power. It has absolutely no interest in actually progressing independence. It has done hee haw on that front since 2014. I’ve came to the conclusion it’s only gradualists ( ie no vote for the next 100 years), the careerists and the exceedingly gullible who still back them here in Social Media land.
      But of course a lot of the Scottish population will continue to vote for the SNP. Those who don’t actually want independence but who see the SNP as competent administrators and to be of no threat of actually delivering it. And of course Indy supporters who have ‘nowhere else to go’ vote wise.
      I’ve been a fervent independence supporter since I was barely out of nappies. I’m nearly 55. I always assumed I would see an independent Scotland in my lifetime. As the years go by I no longer have that same certainty. Depressing days.

    16. Dave Llewellyn says:

      They should bbe aware that legally Scottish sovereignty is in this order .

      THE PEOPLE
      Scottish MPs
      Westminster
      Scotland Act 1998
      Scottish Parliament
      MSPs.

      Guess which row Martin Keatings and his supporters are in ?

    17. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Lots of people will be disappointed I’m sure. I wasn’t initially keen on the Keatings case feeling it wouldn’t advance our position much”

      Me either, because the original case was total bollocks, but then it suddenly morphed into something completely different and much more worthwhile. Martin Keatings, I’m afraid, has communicated it abysmally from the word go.

    18. Bob Mack says:

      Accepting you have been made a fool is much harder to digest.

      The easiest solution to your ego is to doggedly keep on defending your position despite al! evidence to the contrary.

    19. Black Joan says:

      Wings proves as prescient as ever. Thank you, Rev.

      Any idea what can be done now? If anything.

      The disgusting, arrogant complacency of the NewSNP, hell-bent on social engineering, sitting on, or squandering, our “ring-fenced” indyref donations, is hardly deserving of our votes and needs to explain itself now or die.

    20. Thomas Dunlop says:

      Frankly, I think it is a tactical move. The SGs presence on the petitioners side might prejudice the Judges opinion and judgement of the case.
      If it wins, then the SG can bring forward a bill without fear of being shot down. If not then it gives the green light to make the case for a plebicital general election.
      Any roads Indepdendence is coming, with or without the SNP, but all other issues such as the upcoming acts can be held and dealt with after independence has been won, and the SNP will be swept aside if it does respond to voters well documented concerns.

    21. David Mogg says:

      Alex Salmond, who you support), got Indy to 45%. Nicola, who you don’t support, raised it to 54%.
      The SNP. has the best leader in UK politics and it is her leadership which is winning over the doubters.
      I’ve read “Wings” since the beginning and was grateful for the information It provided. Now that we are approaching the end game it would be useful if you could recover the positivity of your earlier years.

    22. Shug says:

      If the court decided Westminster had the power (no Scottish court would over rule their masters in Westminster) what then??

      The ruling that “it is Westminster Decision” an end To it all short of a war

      I am not disputing there have been times when the SG could have called one, or withdrawn from Westminster

      I would like to see departure before brexit but the fishermen and farmers need to see Westminster will not protect them. They need the revenscraig lesson.

      If Nicola does not follow through in may she is toast and I don’t think a ref2 at the end of next year is soon enough. I would not give Westminster the time

      Has she been compromised?????

    23. Fionan says:

      Given that the court case is to determine that Scotland doesn’t need a section 30 to hold a referendum, and has been launched in the face of Boris’ refusal to consider section 30, I would interpret ‘imminent’ as all the time from now to the end of Boris’ premiership, which could be 2025 at earliest.

      In view of this statement, and the attempt to block Keating’s case being heard, as well as the blocking of marches and jailing of march organisers in tandem with legal action against journalists and bloggers for questioning the attacks on AS, I think the evidence that Sturgeon is actively anti-independence is now overwhelming.

      It leaves a majorly sick feeling in the gut to be betrayed by the party that you have supported all your life since childhood. The YES movement must dissociate now from the SNP and let these tractors fall from grace and power as they deserve.

    24. Capella says:

      I contributed to Martin Keatings fundraiser. But I don’t expect the decision to advance the cause very much. If the Court of Session agrees that the Scottish people have the right to hold a referendum – then what?
      If they say no – then what?

      We already are sovereign. We already have the right in international law to become independent. What we haven’t had until recently is the backing of a majority of the Scottish people. It’s tenuous but heading in the right direction.

    25. Sharny Dubs says:

      “Define ‘imminent’”

      Jez is there no end to your blindness!!! Surgionite to the bitter end.

      My blood was all gone to steam when I first read this, thanks for highlighting it Stu!!

      One thing is for sure the Tory’s are quite happy for the SG to create “a Scotland not worth fighting for”, don’t disturb your opponent when they are busy alienating the majority of their supporters.

      Do I want to live in an independent Scotland run by the wokerati?

      It sairs the heart to watch our movement being pissed up against the wall.

    26. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Frankly, I think it is a tactical move. The SGs presence on the petitioners side might prejudice the Judges opinion and judgement of the case.”

      Oh Jesus Christ fuck off.

    27. Bob Mack says:

      @David Mogg,

      Alex Salmond GOT 45% in an actual referendum. There is a difference between that and opinion polls for something that may never occur.

    28. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Alex Salmond, who you support), got Indy to 45%. Nicola, who you don’t support, raised it to 54%.”

      Alex Salmond got us a referendum, without which all the polling in the world doesn’t count for the steam off a freshly-laid dogturd. If you want me to cheer the destruction of the Yes movement for one woman’s power-trip, you’re on the wrong website.

    29. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “If the court decided Westminster had the power (no Scottish court would over rule their masters in Westminster) what then??”

      Then we’d be exactly where we are now, because that is the de facto current position.

    30. Richard says:

      Sign the Scottish Digital Covenant on Independence,if the majority of the Scottish voting public sign it then declare independence simples!?

    31. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “What we haven’t had until recently is the backing of a majority of the Scottish people.”

      Which counts for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING if you don’t have a way to enact it.

    32. Beaker says:

      Great article, can’t think of anything to add to it.

      @David Mogg says:
      1 September, 2020 at 11:34 am
      “Alex Salmond, who you support), got Indy to 45%. Nicola, who you don’t support, raised it to 54%.
      The SNP. has the best leader in UK politics and it is her leadership which is winning over the doubters.”

      What needs to be asked is why the polls are only at 54%. Sturgeon is not a great leader by any measure. She only looks good in comparison to her opponents.

    33. Bob Mack says:

      @Capella,

      Who says we are Sovereign. According to Wolfe we are not able as Joe public to take actions that only an MSP can. Ie, ask for a referendum. Doesn’t sound as if Scottish sovereignty is accepted by those in positions of power.

    34. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Sign the Scottish Digital Covenant on Independence,if the majority of the Scottish voting public sign it then declare independence simples!?”

      Oh aye, an online petition is what’ll get us independence.

    35. Effijy says:

      I can define imminent- it’s just about to happen.

      As far as the SNP leaders are concerned it certainly cannot happens inside 1 year or if you prefer no where near immanent.

      Martin isn’t looking to hold an independence referendum. He wants to uphold our Scottish constitution where the people Of Scotland are Sovereign and not answerable to any parliament or crown.

      As the Rev states, Holyrood has 8 mandates already, they know from the polls that a 55% of Scots want independence now and they know 62% of Scots voted to remain in the EU.

      Are they waiting for a burning bush or a parting of the seas before leading us to Freedom?

      We may need to acquiesce reluctantly if they go for a referendum next year but there needs to be a clear out of the Westminster plants in the party who will be replaced with independent minded politicians who can focus on Scotland’s future.

    36. kapelmeister says:

      Don’t worry. The Dreghorn Divinity’s going to call on Westminster again sometime for a Section 30. Because their position is, you know, untenable.

    37. SilverDarling says:

      Hmm. I wonder what it will take for the scales to fall from the eyes of the most devoted here.

      What will be left of Scotland?

    38. Ian says:

      I wish I could disagree with you, I really do.

      But, I can’t.

    39. James Che. says:

      We been saying this for such a long time , It is the people who are sovereign, not a political party, it is the people that have to organise, either to vote, or to stand in a very long continuous line holding a placard saying we the people of Scotland , are adament that we are ending the treaty of the Union by not participating in any English rules, laws, directives, statues, stop paying for anything that goes south of the border or anything that is imposed on us from south of the border,
      A long as you, we continue to participate in England’s rule you are agreeing to be subjecated in the Union.
      We could and should do this.
      A government can be held to account for udi.
      But can the people that are recognised as having the right to selve determination or written
      evidence that the people are sovereign above king or government.
      It would not be a march, not be a protest, it would not involve anyone meeting indoors without face masks under covid, it would miss any imposed representation laws,
      We’re just all waiting on each other to organise or to get past the idea that we don’t have a voice,
      A standing still, peacefully statement, that the people of Scotland are ending the treaty of the union, and are about to choose a new government,
      Anyone is welcome to pick this idea apart or to build on it,
      We must take it out of the politicians hands, that are both sides of the border.

    40. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “What needs to be asked is why the polls are only at 54%. “

      Precisely. She’s been leader for nearly six years and the polls basically didn’t move in all that time until coronavirus, despite the most astonishingly shambolic UK rule in living memory. We should be at 65% by now.

    41. Scott says:

      What are the chances of a combination of the court case being successful in providing that the Scottish Parliament can legally hold a referendum and the aftermath of the Salmond inquiry leading to a necessary fundamental change in the SNP?

    42. Graeme Hampton says:

      Nicola would have made a half decent branch manager for Wernham Hogg Paper Merchants but when it comes to making any politcal change, or leading a campaign for anything other than her own re-election she is firmly in the chocolate fireguard dept.

    43. fillofficer says:

      jeez
      this reminds me of the scotland v holland match
      world cup 1978
      a slim chance of success
      NS as archie, individually performed well but team ultimately failed
      the national trait, eh
      nae boz 🙁

    44. susanXX says:

      Sharny dubs, my opinion exactly. Just imagine a woke Scotland where you can’t believe the evidence of your own eyes, doing so will constitute a thoughtcrime, actually SAYING it will get you jailed! No thanks.

    45. Corrado Mella says:

      Well, I have a plan.

      It’s called “one way plane ticket”.

      If by the end of 2020 I’m not satisfied with what’s happening, I’ll give myself a Christmas gift of a long holiday abroad. A very, very long one. Lifelong.

      Whatever may be worth staying for will go to shit anyways, with or without me. And what’s left after that can GTF.

    46. Capella says:

      @ Rev Stu – we do have a way to enact it – through a democratically elected parliament committed to enacting it.

      Alex Salmond got a referendum and the sovereign Scottish people voted NO.

      The current SNP announced at the start of 2020 that a referendum would be held this autumn. The Referendum Bill was passed in parliament and received Royal Assent. The question was sent to the Electoral Commission for testing.

      Then the Coronavirus arrived and everything has been shelved. Are you seriously suggesting that Covid 19 is somehow Nicola Sturgeon’s fault? She has many failings and has supported policies I flatly oppose. But she did not invent this virus. In fact, her calm competent handling of the health emergency has earned her a daily briefing on BBC and rising support from the public. That’s why opposition parties are demanding that the BBC stop broadcasting.

      Yes I do realise that you, and Craig Murray, believe you have proof that NS is opposed to independence. If/when I see the evidence then I will change my mind.

    47. A Person says:

      In politics, just like in dysfunctional relationships, there really are none so blind as will not see.

    48. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “What are the chances of a combination of the court case being successful in providing that the Scottish Parliament can legally hold a referendum and the aftermath of the Salmond inquiry leading to a necessary fundamental change in the SNP?”

      My current opinion is 40% and 75% in that order.

    49. Paul Hampton says:

      We have only started polling above 50% this year.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence
      The gains are pretty much because of the pandemic, the mess that the tories have made of it, and the perception that NS is doing a good job.
      If we had gone earlier for a referendum, we would have lost.
      If we had won the challenge n court to hold one earlier, we would have been goaded into having one, the way AS was goaded in to having one, and we would have lost.
      Now, we have the upper hand for the first time ever.
      At no point ever, have we consistently been around and above 50% in the polls for 6 months.
      Have you considered the fact, that if SNP had not spent time opposing Brexit, and instead supported the tories getting a soft brexit, SNP would have slumped and the hope of independence would have died?
      The strategy is working, albeit with a boost from the pandemic.
      Admittedly, it will be tricky now to move the primary focus of the day, the pandemic, back to indy, without cries of opportunism and general derision. We need a comfortable majority, to ensure we still have a lead after a loss of maybe 5 percentage points.

    50. Angry Weegie says:

      If there’s a plan, they’re certainly hiding it well. So well that they’re not only fooling the unionists, they’re fooling their own support as well.

      With each passing day, a few more independence supporters give up hope and decide that the SNP are no longer worth voting for. Is the plan to prevent getting a majority in 2021, providing the next excuse?

    51. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “The current SNP announced at the start of 2020 that a referendum would be held this autumn.”

      No they fucking didn’t. What an utterly ridiculous thing to say. The SNP’s repeatedly-stated position is that a referendum can only happen with UK government approval, which had not and has not been granted. I refuse to believe you’re this stupid, which is beginning to lead me towards the only other possible explanation.

      “Are you seriously suggesting that Covid 19 is somehow Nicola Sturgeon’s fault?”

      Although, maybe you ARE that stupid. But no, that’s a comment so absurdly moronic it definitely points again to deliberate trolling.

    52. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “If we had gone earlier for a referendum, we would have lost.
      If we had won the challenge n court to hold one earlier, we would have been goaded into having one, the way AS was goaded in to having one, and we would have lost.
      Now, we have the upper hand for the first time ever.”

      God, what a monumentally stupid argument every single word of that is. So our leader is a tactical genius but she’d have been “goaded into” having a referendum she wouldn’t have been smart enough to win, despite starting from a couple of points behind at worst?

    53. Andrew Davidson says:

      There’s nothing tactical about what the SNP are doing except insofar as it’s keeping them in power. Good managerial stuff, cult of personality on the side of a bus with lip service to the cause of independence.

      I’m over the Sturgeon / Murrell / Stirling Uni brand of SNP, and I used to like Peter. Awful.

    54. Ottomanboi says:

      This independence ‘prick tease’ is a meg yawn…
      The SNP is nothing but a delusional old slapper*
      *the term is gender neutral and fully non binary & consequently cannot be ‘sexist’.

    55. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “NS as archie”

      If she’s anyone in that team it’s either Alan Rough or Willie Johnstone.

    56. William Habib Steele says:

      “If they had a plan to do something about Johnson’s absolutely certain refusal, they’d have done it by now. What was stopping them? It’s not like it wasn’t urgent.”

      Has the divergence of the trade arrangements for Northern Ireland from those for the rest of the UK violated the Treaty of Union? If so does the Scottish Parliament have the authority to resile the Treaty? It seems to me that the Treaty has been violated, but I’m not a lawyer. I’d like a legal opinion about this. Do you know a lawyer who might willingly give an opinion free of charge? If the treaty has been violated the inaction of the Scottish parliament seems to be inexplicable.
      Article 6 reads:
      “That all parts of the United Kingdom forever,from and after the Union, shall have the same allowances, encouragements, and drawbacks, and be under the same prohibitions, restrictions, and regulations of trade, and liable to the same customs and duties on import and export; and that the allowances, encouragements, and drawbacks. Prohibitions, restrictions, and regulations of trade, and the customs and duties on import and export settled in England, when the Union commences, shall, from and after the Union, take place throughout the whole United Kingdom excepting and reserving the duties upon export and import of such particular commodities from which any persons, the subjects of either kingdom, are specially liberated and exempted by their private rights, which after the Union are to remain safe and entire to them, in all respects, as before the same; and that, from and after the Union, no Scots cattle carried into England shall be liable to;”

    57. Bob Mack says:

      What if support for Indy in the polls is 75%?.Is that automatic Independence ? No it isn’t because Nicola has decreed that the SNP will only countenance a Section 30 option as valid legal and binding.

      In other words Westminster who are trying to recoup financially the money spent on Covid measures would have to agree to allow Scotland with al! it’s resources to leave the UK and let England take that financial hit.

      It’s fairy tale stuff. I can think of few English Mps on any side who will allow England to be so exposed financially.

      Section 30? Laughable!!

    58. Derick fae Yell says:

      It’s a bit grim to see that patrician arrogance set down in black and white,and how very ‘Westminster’ to claim that only politicians can take such action. ‘We, the MSPs’ doesn’t really have the same ring as “WE, the People…”

      It felt a little strange, at first, to be out of the SNP after 30+ years. Wasn’t sure I’d done the right thing. But when internal democracy has basically been neutered, and the rules are being manipulated to favour a clique, and exclude others, then an ordinary member has no way to influence matters, except by withdrawing personal and financial support.

      Increasingly happy with my choice to join ISP. If we have a magical referendum and Scotland becomes independent in foreseeable future, we need more Scottish parties for the new state. If it doesn’t then we need more parties to soak up the votes the SNP will eventually lose, and to ensure that effective one-party rule (never healthy) does not extend indefinitely.

    59. Capella says:

      BBC 29th JAN 2020:

      MSPs have backed calls for a new referendum on Scottish independence in a vote at Holyrood.

      First Minister Nicola Sturgeon wants to hold a new poll later this year, and wants UK ministers to agree to this.

      But Prime Minister Boris Johnson has rejected her call for a transfer of powers, saying the 2014 vote was a “once in a generation” event.

      MSPs voted by 64 to 54 to agree that circumstances have changed since then, and that “a referendum should be held”.

      The vote is not binding on the UK government, and Scottish Secretary Alister Jack told BBC Scotland that its position was “not remotely” changed by it.

      Ms Sturgeon is due to make a speech on Friday setting out the “next steps” in the “campaign to secure Scotland’s future as an independent nation”.

      https://archive.fo/8SKin

    60. Effijy says:

      FYI

      I am fully aware of the article in the Times today
      https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottish-independence-vote-is-not-imminent-snp-ministers-tell-court-28b7xzlpt
      I have been aware of the leak for a few days having been approached for comment. There are only three things I will say.
      Firstly, I am utterly disgusted by the actions of whomever disclosed this document. I have been requesting since the beginning to have this public, however, before it calls in court the only way to do that is with the agreement of the other parties. The Advocate General, Lord Advocate and Scottish Minister’s all declined permission – so you can understand how angry I was to find out that one of them decided to just release it themselves.
      Yet again political operators act like petulant children. One rule for them, one rule for the rest of us!
      Secondly, as the comment “It is not for the pursuer to attempt to stand in the shoes of those parliamentarians” is in the public domain because of the article, let me comment on that just briefly.
      The “pursuers”, albeit it is my name on the paperwork, are stipulated in the summons in the first paragraph to be 2000 ordinary members of the electorate (now nearly 8000 people). So what this basically says is that it is not the place of the electorate to hold parliamentarians to account.
      So let me convey my sentiments in 3 word – YES IT IS! and if politicians and pundits alike don’t like that, Tough!
      That one sentence for me was what made my decision about Holyrood 2021. It is as arrogant a statement as can be made and smacks of privilege and automatic self-entitlement.
      It is not the place of parliamentarians to stand in the shoes of the ordinary electorate and tell them what they can and cannot hold parliamentarians to account for.
      On everything else, that hasn’t been said – I will simply say this – The closed record is still being re-written due to the Scottish Ministers withdrawal, any queries on the submissions of the other parties should be directed to them.

      Sincerely,

      Martin Keatings

    61. Marie says:

      I think Scotland should have an unofficial vote.

    62. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Has the divergence of the trade arrangements for Northern Ireland from those for the rest of the UK violated the Treaty of Union? If so does the Scottish Parliament have the authority to resile the Treaty? It seems to me that the Treaty has been violated, but I’m not a lawyer. I’d like a legal opinion about this. Do you know a lawyer who might willingly give an opinion free of charge?”

      Andrew Tickell has repeatedly detailed how and why all strategies based in any way on the Treaty Of Union are non-starters.

    63. Breeks says:

      David Mogg says:
      1 September, 2020 at 11:34 am
      Alex Salmond, who you support), got Indy to 45%. Nicola, who you don’t support, raised it to 54%.
      The SNP. has the best leader in UK politics and it is her leadership which is winning over the doubters.

      David, I respectfully invite you to draw up a list of things which Nicola Sturgeon has actually done to shift the polls, and do the same thing with Boris Johnson.

      Then, draw up another list of things which Nicola Sturgeon has done to disillusion, frustrate and divide the YES movement, and again, do the same thing for Boris Johnson.

      Nicola hasn’t raised a finger to support Independence, (other than her middle finger). The rise in the polls is down to the gross mismanagement and arrogant insensitivity of Boris Johnson and his catastrophic Brexit Circus. The polls do not reflect any positive initiative coming from Bute House, (because frankly there isn’t one to support), but the Tsunami of negative initiatives being forced upon Scotland by Westminster and Brexit.

      That the SNP seeks to claim the credit for it speaks volumes of their rank opportunism, opportunism which seems an ephemeral commodity which suddenly disappears when the opportunity knocks for Scotland, not the SNP.

      And to be pedantic about the 54%, Scotland was already polling those kinda numbers back in 2015, but all the impetus and roll-over momentum established by Alex Salmond and YES movement was dissipated and then squandered… I leave to guess by whom.

      And before you quote the support for Nicola’s personality, because I know you will, I’ll ask you to provide credible evidence whether that support is coming from true Independence supporters or Unionists who recognise there is no threat to the Union while Nicola Sturgeon remains First Minister.

    64. Polly says:

      I’m not sure myself whether the Keatings case, even as now stated, will get us very far, even should it succeed. Any judgement will probably amount to no more than you can have a referendum as a poll. It’s what happens should yes win that’s vitally important and will any judgement ever say it has legitimacy and must be abided by since all referendums are supposedly advisory. Still it will increase pressure if a vote is yes, so morally and politically that has weight. And coming to court means we should have transcripts so some of the misinformation so far going out around the case will cease and everyone will have the wonderful Aileen McHarg to decipher it for them. So roll on the case.

      @Beaker

      ‘What needs to be asked is why the polls are only at 54%.’

      Indeed! Especially considering everything that’s happening it should be far higher and I think would be if there was any sense of the party actively campaigning, there’s much could have been done during lockdown in preparation for a physical campaign. That it hasn’t leaves us so far behind. Westminster hasn’t stopped trying to incorporate Scotland to being merely north Britain.

    65. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      What part of this are you pretending you’re too stupid to understand?

      “First Minister Nicola Sturgeon wants to hold a new poll later this year, and wants UK ministers to agree to this.

      But Prime Minister Boris Johnson has rejected her call for a transfer of powers, saying the 2014 vote was a “once in a generation” event.”

      I fucking WANT to marry Scarlett Johansson, that’s not the same fucking thing as announcing that it’s happening, booking the castle and sending out the invitations.

      “Ms Sturgeon is due to make a speech on Friday setting out the “next steps” in the “campaign to secure Scotland’s future as an independent nation”.”

      And how did THAT go? What were those steps, exactly? What was the great plan?

    66. Patricia Spencer says:

      And to think that absolute inrpt non entities like my msp would never have been elected had it not been for the carrot of independence!

    67. Dan Watt says:

      Fight amongst yourselves all you want. Not one of you has picked up on the single most important thing out of all of this.

      If the Keatings cases loses, then our own court conceeds the legal point that ONLY westminster can GRANT Scotland the ability to hold a legally binding referendum. It sets a precedent that effectively snufs out any chance of Scotland ever gaining it’s independence as all the shitheads in WM will have to do from then on is cite our own court’s judgement on the matter. It would make “once in a generation” more like once ever.

      It makes fighting about Nicola Sturgeon seem pretty trivial, eh.

    68. Osakisushi says:

      Unfortunately, once again Rev Stu has been proven correct. I say “unfortunately”, not as criticism of him but rather, for confirming that sick feeling I’ve felt about the SNP for the last few years.

      How many times has NS promised a date for IR2 to be announced, only to somehow forget her statement. The relish with which the party tried to become the “anti-Brexit” party was disgusting, allowing them to fog the main reason (or so I thought) for their own existence, our independence.

      Hopefully there is a viable “List” party next year, one which shall eventually become an official opposition to the SNP and their Jam Tomorrow politics.

    69. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Not one of you has picked up on the single most important thing out of all of this. If the Keatings cases loses, then our own court conceeds the legal point that ONLY westminster can GRANT Scotland the ability to hold a legally binding referendum.”

      Which is the de facto position right now. We have literally nothing to lose. We “picked up” on that two and a half years ago.

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-elephant-in-the-courtroom/

    70. Angry Weegie says:

      @Paul Hampton
      “Now, we have the upper hand for the first time ever.”

      Is that not a good time to be taking advantage, or do you want to wait till we no longer have the upper hand? What do we do if Westminster takes away our advantage in January?

    71. Derick fae Yell says:

      Dan Watt says:
      1 September, 2020 at 12:14 pm

      “If the Keatings cases loses, then our own court conceeds the legal point that ONLY westminster can GRANT Scotland the ability to hold a legally binding referendum.”

      No, losing means that the Scottish Parliament (not ‘Scotland’) cannot hold a legally binding referendum.

      It has no effect on the ability and constitutional position of Scottish MPs to act as representatives of Scotland. Which returns us to the position set out in the SNP Manifesto in 1997 (and before back to the founding of the Party) – that a majority of Scottish MPs constitute a mandate to begin independence negotiations. There’s no formal need for a confirmatory referendum afterwards, but it would be good practice.

    72. Stu hutch says:

      We need to vote for the snp to control hollyrood.what we desperately need as a counterbalance is for alex salmond to head a list party.at the moment the snp are doing what’s best for the snp they will just ignore us
      its like westminster they want to run the clock down .iv looked at the AFI ISP great idea but the only person that can make it work is AS. So looks like we need to look outside the snp to achieve what we all want.sad state of affairs but looks like that’s where we are now

    73. Bob W says:

      Former SNP councillor David Mogg??

    74. Ian Foulds says:

      Rev.

      So on the ball today.

      Well done.

      Nice to see your ‘cage’ has been rattled at last.

      Onwards and upwards.

      Thank you.

    75. Stan Broadwood says:

      Capella

      I bet Nicola just loves you.

      I am sure there is a framed picture of you on her Bute House fireplace.

      Capella, you have been calling me out as a Unionist Troll for a long time,,,I would say that it is you who is the Troll, on behalf of your beloved Nicola.

      It is becoming so obvious.

    76. Michael says:

      You’ve missed a couple of important points, rev. Firstly the SNP always said that they’d propose an alternative to brexit for Scotland ONCE THE SHAPE OF THE PROPOSED DEAL IS KNOWN. It never has been yet and arguably still isn’t. Meanwhile the polls only tipped in favour of independence due to coronavirus, not the incredible series of brexit incompetencies. You can take that up with the people of Scotland. Finally, the SNP MSPs who are retiring are all at or around retirement age, other than Gail Ross who is stepping down for entirely understandable childcare reasons. They are making way for a new generation. What do you suggest that they do instead, desperately cling to power until they drop like Robert Mugabe? For the record I’d rather we had avoided brexit altogether, but once they deal is done, then a definite alternative to a definite proposal will be offered, and the EU will not be so reticent to interfere because we’ll no longer be a member state. Again its wouldn’t have been my preferred route but you can see the logic, surely?

    77. Capella says:

      I can understand it perfectly. There are many factors which dictate what politicians can and can’t do – public opinion, international pressure, the need to have trade agreements, party rebels etc. Boris Johnston may not be the PM in 6 months time. But even if he is, he lies.

      @ Bob Mack 11.44 – I don’t agree with James Wolffe. He is using a common tactic in law which is to argue that the petitioner has “no standng”. He might point out that Martin Keatings has not been elected by anyone to take his case forward. Which is true ATM.

    78. Polly says:

      @Paul Hampton

      ‘The gains are pretty much because of the pandemic, the mess that the tories have made of it, and the perception that NS is doing a good job.’

      Yes, I would agree with that bit. I have relatives who are older and with health concerns and they now hang on her every tv appearance BUT they’re really unionists to their core and still are and will be in any referendum. They’re not stupid though, they vote SNP in Holyrood since they like a lot of the free stuff their families get.

      So, no, the rest of your argument doesn’t add up to a real increase for independence. Not yet at least, it would probably take a disaster of brexit and real pain for them and their families, and since they’re reasonably comfortable they won’t be first to feel it, and one of them at least I already know will go back to blaming any problems on SNP.

    79. pa_broon74 says:

      Depressing.

      Difficult to accept that a leader (Sturgeon) who has seemed so effective in other ways is being so ineffective in another, so very intrinsic way.

      So this must be some kind of agreed detente then?

      It does explain why opposition at Holyrood is so hilariously terrible – they simply don’t need it if all the SNP is going to be do is fritter around with devo powers.

      Presumably if they (the SNP) under NS’s tenure were never going to seriously pursue independence, they (unionist parties) needn’t bother making any serious effort to defend the Union.

      Looking at oppo party leaders before and after 2014(ish), might be an interesting study.

    80. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      I’m giving up on this thread now, because just like there are Unionists who’d react to Nicola Sturgeon personally discovering the cure for cancer by saying “STURGEON CREATES PENSIONS TIMEBOMB”, there are Yes supporters who’d react to her going on telly in Ian Murray’s fucking Union Jack suit and singing “Rule Britannia” by saying “Brilliant, another stroke of tactical genius to win over soft No voters” and frankly life’s too fucking short.

    81. Michael Hughes says:

      My view is that this case (at this time) is a strategic error insofar as the international legal process is concerned. This case should have been raised next year after we seek a mandate. Why? Because a positive result with no impending referendum allows the WMG carte Blanche to amend the Scotland Act. If however, they were to attempt that after refusal of a section 30 agreement after next year then it looks to the international community as if they are stopping the momentum of a democratic process with a mandate. That is helpful to the process. While I am curious as a lawyer about the outcome of this case, I believe it is misguided and is playing AGAINST the strategy that is required under international law.

    82. Bob Mack says:

      @Capella,

      You have to be elected before you can exercise your rights a s Scot? When did that happen?

    83. Stan Broadwood says:

      I have been saying recently that if Sturgeon and her SNP government don’t lay out a clear and consice plan for when indyRef2 will be held, then I will not be voting for them next year.

      No more faffing around.

      It has to be an idiot proof plan so that even the thickest Coronation St fan can understand it.

      Covid-19 hasn’t derailed Boris from Brexit,,,so it shouldn’t derail Sturgeon from her indyRef2 plans.

      And if it means a Unionist majority next year, then the blame for that lies at the door of Bute House.

    84. Famous15 says:

      I left the SNP months ago as I did not wish another of my hard earned pennies paying the salary of party officials supporting and advancing Tory policies on land ownership and planning. Now I feel I should rejoin to cleanse the Aegean Stables .

      But I will not. My fear is that frustration may lead to madness. OK Stu ,where do we go from here?

      Independence is normal and so is the perfidy of Albion. They must be in on this bourach!

    85. Look says:

      Is it even worth giving the SNP a vote anymore.

    86. mountain shadow says:

      With regards the Court case on a section 30.

      There are risks and I understand the Scot Govs attempts to block it.

      However, I just want to know legally where we stand.

      Both parliaments have on numerous occasions reaffirmed that Scots are sovereign. Is this just words or does it actually mean something. I just want to know.

    87. Paul Sweeney says:

      Who does Alyn Snith think he is anyway?

      Not sure then let me tell you then? A self-entitled careerist who used his influence within the party to get Grandaddy Bear Bruce Crawford to fix it by getting rid of previous MP and candidate, Steven Paterson, so he could be the sole candidate for Stirling.

      Outgoing MSP Crawford did this by using his staff, who are all office bearers at City of Stirling SNP branch, to engage in a nasty vicious smear campaign led by Grant Thoms (Stirling branch secretary/vetting Committee member/NEC member at the time) and Lee Robb (Crawford’s comms manager/ now Smiths/ General branch sweetie wife) against Paterson.

      Stirling branch is now the rotten core of the party with most of the office bearers being on Crawford or Smith’s payroll. Stirling University is also the home of the wokerati, those who are bullying and intimidating anyone who does not support the GRA reforms all with the approval of Daddy Bear Alyn Smith.

    88. Robert Graham says:

      As I have previously posted with no comments

      We are in a political Trap by design or by Accident you choose

      The English Government don’t have to do anything apart from saying NO it won’t matter what it is about just say NO and there is not a thing Independence Supporters can do

      The SNP Management have boxed the Independence movement into a corner because they have made sure they, and only they, are the only game in Town , anoyone wanting Indy Ref2 has no where to go , no alternative route because that’s Sown up ,

      By setting out to effectively Muzzle trouble makers Alex,Craig and anyone who dares to Question WHY , why is this not being done, Why is that being done , they have been a more effective block to a second Referendum than this Tory government could have ever been , our own trusted representatives doing exactly what the English Government want, well bloody done eh Judus would have been proud of the ones involved , but we won’t forget , Ever ,

      Aye a well laid out Trap and still people can’t see the Deception ,this joke that they are trying to push for independence can’t be hidden any longer it’s there in bloody print, I wonder how much money or favours have changed hands , so history repeating itself how many times has our own side been bought and sold for English gold, aye we are our own worst enemies ,

      Bloody sickened by the whole Charade and the Lying Deception, at least the Tory mob are up front about it , but our own side now that’s hard to Stomach , Disapointed you can’t begin to Imagine how much , the damage caused can’t be quantified , bloody betrayal on a grand scale

    89. I was pretty dissapointed when using WriteToThem.com to contact my MP (and MSP’s) to ask them to promote the crowdfunder for the case from the one reply I received, from my SNP MP;

      “I have not posted support for the AS30 case as I am not convince it is the best way forward.

      One of the things which concerns me is the fact that is challenging the right for the Westminster Government to withhold a Section 30 Order.

      As a Party we have never acknowledged that they have that right and the judgement in this case may confirm that they do. I think it would have been better left uncontested at this stage.”

    90. Stan Broadwood says:

      What has Sturgeon done for Scotland???

      She took over as leader after all the ground work had been done.

      She has got the Yes Movement going in reverse.

      Divisions are appearing that weren’t there before.

      Well done Sturgeon, your english Granny will be proud of you.

    91. jfngw says:

      I don’t think you are ever going to see opinion polls wildly higher than they are currently. My feeling is there is around 30% that will vote for the union even if they had to kill their first child and 10%-25% that are fence sitters (there is probably still some of them in the 54%), they can swing either way depending on their mood for the day.

      These fence sitters are the ones we need to drag over the line during a campaign. Although 50%+1 is good enough, 60% for Yes stops any arguments about the result and be sure the unionists will argue if they lose.

      That is one angry blog, I was actually frightened to comment as I wanted to keep my head attached to my torso.

    92. Bill McLean says:

      Bob W @ 1224 – David Mogg and his wife(name Liz I think)were both SNP councillors in Dunfermline area at one time. Out of touch since my move to Birmingham.

    93. Confused says:

      Look at it from their point of view :

      SCOTLAND IS ALREADY A BIG GAY TRANNY DISCO IN THE NORTH SEA

      – achieved under DEVOLUTION. (Which is what they wanted.)

      So why do anything more?

      We think they are “on 18” and need to draw another card – but to them, it’s already “PONTOON”!

      – social democracy and bourgeois leftism, supporting the status quo and elite agendas since, forever. It’s the rainbow flag they hold, not the saltire.

      “ah ha ha … ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated”

    94. Breeks says:


      Dan Watt says:
      1 September, 2020 at 12:14 pm
      Fight amongst yourselves all you want. Not one of you has picked up on the single most important thing out of all of this.

      If the Keatings cases loses, then our own court conceeds the legal point that ONLY westminster can GRANT Scotland the ability to hold a legally binding referendum…

      But wouldn’t that merely be a concession which Nicola Sturgeon has already conceded? Why do you think Martin Keating’s brought the case if not to dispute that very concession?

      (And to be pedantic, the case concerns Holyrood’s right to hold a referendum, not Scotland’s. The Scotland Act is Holyrood’s constitution, (small ‘c’). It is not the sovereign Constitution of the Scottish Nation, which affirms it is the people who are sovereign.

    95. Capella says:

      @ Bob Mack – I said I don’t agree with him, James Wolffe.

      But it is still a tactic in law, which sometimes works. Usually it’s used against e.g. Environmental campaigners who have not personally been poisoned by chemicals dumped in the river but nevertheless want to take the company to court etc.

    96. Bob W says:

      @Bob Mclean

      Just thought it relevant to question. Gives context for his position if it is him.

    97. Bob Mack says:

      @Capella,

      This time it’s 8000 Scots who believe they are sovereign and who believe it affects them personally. No?

    98. Jan Cowan says:

      Sick at heart. Never trusted her but that’s no comfort. Time for a real Independence Party lead by real Independence politicians – not the friends of Lesley Evans.

    99. Awizgonny says:

      Of all analyses of how “imminent” a move for a Referendum is, this is the clincher:

      “…nearly a quarter of the party’s MSPs are standing down at this election despite the supposed impending arrival of their entire life’s goal.”

      And that sets the minimum start for a campaign to 5 years.

      I’ve said before here that Covid is a genuine and unforeseen obstacle in the practicality of pushing for Independence campaign now or soon.

      But five years ain’t soon, and Covid can’t be blamed for that.

      Time for new leadership.

    100. Mist001 says:

      Fuck me, I nearly began posting again. The penny hasn’t dropped with independence supporters and I think it never will but I thought I’d help you out a bit.

      I get slagged off because I live in France now. ‘Scotland is none of your business’, Independence doesn’t concern you’ and all this shite, as if living in France makes me less Scottish or something. I also still have the vote and as long as I have that, then I still have a say.

      Apart from the weather, something else that gives me an advantage over people living in Scotland is that it gives me the ability to look in from the outside without getting bogged down with the Mrs. Murrell SNP bad dialogue, so……..

      Forget the SNP. Forget the AUOB. Forget the independence ‘movement’. None of these things are ever going to achieve independence for Scotland and it’s nothing but sheer delusion if anyone thinks they will.

      The route to Scottish independence is staring everyone directly in the face and not one single independence supporter can even see it. Even the Rev, who does all the thinking and leg work for the people on this site, doesn’t see it because if anyone did see it, they would have posted it.

      Some people are naturally dense but to see an entire ‘movement’ to be so dense as to not actually see what’s staring them in the face, is actually shocking and doesn’t bode well for the future of Scotland.

      Now, I’m not going to lay out what it is and what strategy is needed on here, just so some independence/SNP numptie can come along and claim it as their own but for fucks sake, the lot of you need to seriously smarten up if you really want independence.

      Anyway, my last ever post on here, I promise but I might lurk and read sometimes.

    101. Stan Broadwood says:

      Capella

      NOBODY is listening to you anymore.

      YOU ARE A STURGEON FANATIC.

      Adolf Hitler also had his fanatical following.

      After Hitler was removed from power, Germany became the most powerful nation in Europe and one of the strongest economies in the world.

      So just think of the potential for Scotland once Sturgeon had been removed.

    102. holymacmoses says:

      If we set up another Independence party and we got enough votes to get members into Holyrood and then asked for a vote for an Independence referendum, do we think that SNP members would vote against the question?
      The terrible answer is that ‘at best’ we don’t know
      It’s really possible that they would, isn’t it?

      Wings: That’s a great piece and worth everyone sharing far and wide

    103. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Slight, pedantic correction. The next Westminster GE is scheduled for May 2024 because they don’t want another Winter election.”

      Fair enough, but they’re not OBLIGED to do that as far as I’m aware. They could hold off until December again if they wanted to, and it’s only a few months odds anyway.

    104. Terry says:

      Totally agree with this –
      “ Precisely. She’s been leader for nearly six years and the polls basically didn’t move in all that time until coronavirus, despite the most astonishingly shambolic UK rule in living memory. We should be at 65% by now”
      Just before the ref we were at 51% – then the vow. That was from a point in the mid 20s when the campaign started. Since then the high point has been 4% points up from 51-5% – despite Boris Johnson, a Tory majority, dragged out of the EU against our will and a power grab. Really if the SNP cant even defend devolved powers what good are they? Wakey wakey peeps. If you are still in the SNP you have a massive fight on your hands to pull the party back.
      “New Labour/New SNP” that’s what folk are saying. And it’s so sad.

    105. robertknight says:

      David Whannel @ 12:41

      F***ing unbelievable!

      So your MP doesn’t want to the question asked because he/she/we might not like the answer? Is that because the answer might blow a bloody big hole in the SNP’s tired and delusional argument that it’s “not tenable for a UK government simply to refuse to engage with the process”?

      And who will force the UK Govt to engage with that process? Mike Russell? Fergus Ewing? John Swinney? I’m sure Boris and Cummings are positively shitting themselves at the thought of those blue bonnets coming over the border!

    106. Sarah says:

      @ Rev, I wholeheartedly support your approach that the Truth is the foundation for everything. It isn’t always comfortable to either declare the truth or to recognise it hence the ancient and well-recognised statement “a prophet is not without honour – save in their own country”.

      Your years of pointing out the media untruths were one way of getting the truth highlighted. Readers and commenters of this site learned a great deal.

      You have been forced to shine a light on the weaknesses within SNP and Scottish Government. It isn’t your fault that strategic errors seem to have been made by SNP on the big issue of achieving independence. Nor is it your fault that there has been some very weak drafting of bills e.g. OBFA, Named Person, hate crime and Gender Recognition. Nor that power and influence has prevented excellent candidates such as Joanna Cherry from standing for Holyrood. [She would prevent these Bills being drafted poorly,of course.]

      I thank you for every word you have written and every step you have taken to encourage great independence workers to stay in the battle.

      I will be trying to focus minds in my own SNP branch on the need to act now. A mass public statement is also needed. Could a Holyrood petition stir up some action, do you think?

      I fear delaying any longer. Waiting for May 2021 is just giving Westminster more time to destroy the lives of everyone other than the mega-rich.

    107. Beaker says:

      @Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      1 September, 2020 at 12:02 pm
      “If she’s anyone in that team it’s either Alan Rough…”

      Is that with or without the perm?

      (Apologies for those eating lunch)

    108. Denise says:

      Why aren’t you doing something about this Wings?
      Yes you’ve clearly laid out the issues but what can we do?
      We need a new party to replace the SNP and even if that takes years to establish we won’t have lost anything. Maybe you could join with ISP
      My total belief is Nicola is waiting for the next WM election and to hold the balance of power in a labour government. Which has a number of problems :
      Boris is almost guaranteed another term
      She’s may well squander the opportunity anyway.

    109. Ian McCubbin says:

      Very very sad and dereliction of why they were voted in.
      It just now confirms they, SNP hierarchy have no respect for grass roots activists.
      Oh but come out at ectiin time and canvas for us.
      No way no will I.
      Hope we can create a new party to drive the independence campaign on.

    110. Daisy Walker says:

      Thanks Rev – for telling us what we do not want to hear or believe, and providing the evidence to substantiate it.

      But…. the ground has shifted in the camp of the NS can do no wrong brigade. Until recently they would brook no criticism, now they are very much in the, ‘its possible but I want/need to see the evidence.

      And this gives us all an opportunity.

      A vote for Indy – whether by Ref,GE,HE is very much the tip of the iceberg, or the last hurdle in a very long race.

      Where the work is done and the war is won is in the campaign.

      Not a single day has passed since 2014 and the first poll put YES in the lead, not a single day, whereby the powers that be have not been in full campaign mode to save their precious Union.

      And in my own litmus test with folks at work – the diehard No’s, well their heads have dropped, the soft No voters, are openly disparaging of Boris and co, and actively seeking information about an Indy Scotland. And in days gone by, they were a closed book.

      Shifted ground, backed up by the polls. And we have not yet started.

      You may well be correct that the SNP are now the block preventing a vote for Indy (by any of the aforesaid means), and I really hope that you are not.

      For all the Yessers in either camp, we can put that argument to one side, and concentrate on the campaign ground that needs to be covered.

      Every single YESSER is an ambassador for Indy. That campaign ground that needs covered? it is always going to be us that covers it. Are we really going to leave that decision to campaign up to a select few. Shush for Indy?

      And while we do not have an official Referendum date to aim for, we do in fact have some very important dates coming up, which we should use and campaign towards.

      Brexit day, the finale.

      Holyrood Election day, next year.

      Holyrood really puts the cat amongst the pigeons for WM and SNP current leadership. I would suggest the Scottish Voter, puts the HE somewhere between council elections and GE in terms of attention it gives it and the candidates.

      But it allows the voter the chance to vote 2 ways at the same time.

      I realise the argument that says we need a second `indy Party led by a big name’ but I would suggest that there are weaknesses in that (and a lack of time). It would allow the British Establishment to aim at a single target and besmirch it, in a one size fits all.

      The Lib Dems have traditionally gone all out for the local, councillor approach, low and slow, going round the wee dearies, providing reassurance and mopping up the ‘soft tory’ votes. That then became the backbone of their national campaigns.

      Strong independent local candidates, signing up to a Charter for Indy, can do the same for the list vote at HE.

      What is missing is a Campaign Strategy.

      Project Fear’s strategy was 2 parts fear and negativity x one part Social, Rose Tinted, Better Together/strong shoulder crap.

      They personalised the argument – using Alex Salmond.

      Going on the basis of nothing good is ever wasted, and our positive campaign in 2014 planted long lasting seeds.

      i think we now have very good, legitimate reasons to ‘borrow’ project fear – both parts.

      We are losing our NHS, our parliament, out food and water standards, our farms, our fishing industry, and so so many jobs with Brexit.

      We Can Do So Much Better Than Boris. Believe In Scotland, Believe In You.

      Does this ring true? does this appeal to the head as well as the heart?

      Remember the slogan – and it was a slogan, ‘I dinnae like that Alex Salmond’.

      Well now we have our own, preceded by Terrible May and Posh Boy Dave, now we have a mop haired fridge in unison jack undies – WE CAN DO SOOO MUCH BETTER THAN BORIS.

      And lastly (for now) the SNP current argument – that mandate number 823 will provide so much democratic pressure WM will morally have to do the right thing. This ‘principle’ applies just as much to the SNP leadership as it does to WM.

      We need to bring democratic pressure to bear on the SNP to deliver Indy.

      We do that by doing the campaign, because the campaign is where the power really lies, and now is the time its needing to be done.

      We have a country to win, and some former No Voters to recruit (be gentle with them, for they knew not what they were doing, but they know now!!! and remember its the ex smokers who are the most committed once converted 😉

      We win when we ARE Independent, Independence for Scotland comes after.

      Peace to all.

    111. Albaman says:

      How’s your blood pressure these days Rev?,
      The highlanders charge no longer works nor intimidates,
      Neither does taking too long thinking of the next move.
      Know your enemy, know how he thinks/works.
      Then —————- ACT !.

    112. Polly says:

      @ Famous15

      ‘Independence is normal and so is the perfidy of Albion. They must be in on this bourach!’

      Undoubtedly they must. But why has the SNP by some its own behaviour left them with so many openings to cause trouble? Most of the recent divisions seem to be rooted in SNP leadership choices of policies, of pronouncements, of PR. They used to be better than this.

      @ jfngw

      ‘That is one angry blog, I was actually frightened to comment as I wanted to keep my head attached to my torso.’

      🙂 Glad you’re not the headless ghost, but honestly, this far from brexit and with that response is it any wonder people are all on edge?

    113. Dave Beveridge says:

      It’s pretty clear that The Empress has no clothes.

      Next excuse is that the economic fall-out from Covid has to be dealt with first. Pardon me, but doesn’t that make independence even more of an emergency? After all we’d be keeping the rest of the money that gets taken from us and we’d gain the ability to borrow more on the international markets considering our asset base. What better way to solve an economic crisis than to become richer?

      It really beats me what the new SNP are playing at. They won’t get my 2nd vote and I’ll be reading their manifesto carefully to see if they’re getting the first.

    114. G H Graham says:

      Sturgeon: ‘All options’ open if Scottish independence referendum blocked.

      Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50632400

      Scottish independence: Sturgeon requests powers for referendum
      Source: https://archive.fo/PyWJS

      Well it was blocked. Source: https://archive.fo/uv1nO

      But she/he/we knew Johnson would say no. Only a dribbling idiot from another planet would think otherwise.

      So you might ask why Sturgeon has to this day, never tested the S30 in court? She’s only had six years.

      And remember, just cos you win the legal argument doesn’t mean you have to hold the referendum immediately. You could of course tactically wait til the polls are in your favour. Like they are now.

      Imagine she’d won that legal argument say back in 2017? Or 2018?

      And if she’d lost the argument? Well, at least we’d be in exactly the same place as we are now.

      Time to waken up folks. Sturgeon is a Trojan Horse. Beware bringer of gifts.

    115. susanXX says:

      If NS is hoping to hold the balance of power in a Labour govt she’ll be waiting a long time… The tories are awful but Labour are unelectable.

    116. mikey2407 says:

      If a referendum’s not imminent why did the Scottish parliament agree the franchise to be used back in February?

    117. Republicofscotland says:

      News reporting that Sturgeon said her government will be focusing on job creation for the next year. No mention of independence.

    118. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “If a referendum’s not imminent why did the Scottish parliament agree the franchise to be used back in February?”

      To fool the gullible into thinking they were actually doing something.

    119. jfngw says:

      I get the impression the SNP want the outcome of this to be ruled as a political not a legal position. Why is that, because the law is ultimately under Westminster control (they can change it for the better according to the Treaty of Union, doesn’t say better for who though).

      It’s difficult to find a reference for Andrew Tickell’s opinion, his last blog is around 4 years old and the rest of his comments seem scattered around various outlets.

      But I did disagree with a comment he made in the National regarding the Treaty of Union, that the GB would be forever. It actually says the Kingdom of the GB will be forever, it says nothing, as far as I can see, about the parliaments being forever, the Kingdom of Scotland being abolished, or the countries being united forever.

    120. vlad (not that one) says:

      @Paul Hampton 11:55
      We have only started polling above 50% this year. … If we had gone earlier for a referendum, we would have lost. If we had won the challenge n court to hold one earlier, we would have been goaded into having one, the way AS was goaded in to having one, and we would have lost.

      I disagree. To date Whitehall had plenty of opportunities to “goad” NS into having a referendum. All they needed to do was to agree to the Section 30 order.

    121. deerhill says:

      Betrayal!

      That should be the headline in the news, if we had a media worthy of the name Scottish.

      It wid garr ye greet.

      Please Mr. Salmond, the steam must be coming out your ears.
      Blow the whistle on the false Scots and give us a party worth voting for next year. At the moment I’m looking to spoil my ballot paper.

    122. Duncan Macniven says:

      No FM briefing today?

      Why’s that?

    123. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “It’s difficult to find a reference for Andrew Tickell’s opinion”

      Fucksake, do I have to do all your Googling for you and spoonfeed it to you?

      http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.com/2015/07/does-evel-breath-acts-of-union.html

    124. holymacmoses says:

      The SNP has already held the balance of power in WM. Wings and some others were castigated, daily, online for suggesting that the SNP should actually use that power to further the cause of independence.

    125. aulbea1 says:

      Real depressing times. Seems NS is the most profoundly duplicitous tractor Scotland has known.

    126. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “No FM briefing today?”

      Because it’s the programme for government today.

    127. Graf Midgehunter says:

      At the end of Sept. 14 the SNP went from 25000 members to 125000. Most of them are now up for renewal.

      If 30-40000 of them were so pissed off with the utter refusal of the SNP to be active or at least supportive of the Indy movement and/or court battles, that they didn’t renew, then that would certainly give them a huge shot across the bows as to the frustration simmering at the moment. Money talks.
      They probably know it anyway but don’t give a toss.

      BTW, this thread is necessary to wake up the rosa-tinted leadership followers. Great stuff Rev.

    128. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I disagree. To date Whitehall had plenty of opportunities to “goad” NS into having a referendum. All they needed to do was to agree to the Section 30 order.”

      Exactly.

    129. Garrion says:

      New boss. Same as the old boss. Mebbe it’s time to stop waiting for leaders to lead and we all start to campaign again like there’s no SNP.

    130. RobertTheTruth says:

      Not wanting to intrude in any private conversations going on here between grief stricken SNP supporters in denial, but…

      What we are seeing are a group of SNP diehards who have spun every decision of NS as a positive one for Independence now having to come to terms that these decisions were and are are no such thing.

      They are a few steps from uttering ‘Now is not the time’ which is of course what NS position was all along. Soon the full reversal of position will be complete and some will deny that Independence is even worth pursuing. All the protestations of years of support or campaigning will not absolve you of being complicit in this deception. You have duped the people of Scotland and we know who you are.

    131. Patsy Millar says:

      @MWS ‘I’ve been a fervent independence supporter since I was barely out of nappies. I’m nearly 55. I always assumed I would see an independent Scotland in my lifetime’

      Imagine how I feel at 71. I knew I shouldn’t have got out of bed this morning!

    132. Brian MacLeod says:

      Have we got to the stage where it’s time we had a new Wallace?

      Westminster looks like it’s going to head off any legitimate methods at the pass, either by a straight NO, or simply bogging them down in bureaucracy, eg Sec 30.

      So who is going to cut the Gordian Knot?

    133. Tony O'Neill says:

      Stu,I think it’s actually time for a yes march tae bute house,waving not only salti
      res but pitchforks and torches!.

    134. Effijy says:

      If the Keatings case was lost then we would still come out winners
      As true Scots will be goaded toward independence by the official
      Boris/Westminster decree that Scotland can only do what England
      Agrees to.

      I will never consider that to be acceptable at any time!

      No bungling buffoon in another country running a party
      Scotland never voted for tells me I’m held in an inescapable trap!

    135. Daisy Walker says:

      The British Establishment and New Labour

      They infiltrated Labour and made them unelectable.

      Then they installed and promoted a tory in labour clothing – Tony Blair – who for all his faults had the personal traits to hold that space.

      Under TB – labour’s policy was to triangulate policy so that the voter could not chose or had no real choice of policy to vote for and all hinged on the personality of the leader.

      The voter who then wanted change, then had to chose, hold their nose and vote New Labour and hope that once in power the wheels would get put back on the bus and the course of direction re-directed, or stay at home with no credible alternative to vote for.

      Any similarities above to New SNP are entirely intentional – and not by me.

      There is not a lot of point in voting for New SNP if they have no intention of providing the voter with a democratic opportunity to vote to save Scotland.

    136. DrBeamus says:

      Well there it is .
      The reality that some of us suspected is laid bare .
      Current SNP leadership is interested in the retention of power to continue its experiments in attempting to create the most “ right on “ nation on the planet , but one still shackled to Westminster .
      Accepting a S30 as a “ gold standard “ allows NS et al to continue their great social experiment whilst retaining Westminster as the bogie man who is stopping them from creating a modern 21st century economy and democracy .

      We are all up shut creek without a paddle

    137. Lorna Campbell says:

      It really never mattered what anyone advised or said or thought because this was the path chosen on 19 September, 2014. That is now blindingly obvious to anyone with a modicum of sense. There never was any serious attempt to prevent Brexit or to soften Brexit either because there never was going to be such a thing – and they must have known that. That, too, is blindingly obvious. It always was.

      There will be no attempt to hold any kind of referendum post Brexit either. That has become blindingly obvious. It always was, in hindsight. In other words, there never was any serious intention to even attempt to regain our independence. Never, ever, since 2014. The reasons for that will become blindingly obvious very soon, I think.

      I was never in favour of an indyref, even pre 2014, and, after 2014, it became my bete noir. A pre independence referendum was never, ever necessary in either domestic or international law, albeit I fully appreciate why Salmond chose that route in 2014.

      After the failure of 2014, it became, as I always feared, a trap to keep us in the Union, firstly because the numbers were too few, and the opposition too strong. Then, when the numbers for indy started rise, all kinds of obstacles began to be thrown in the way, just as I knew they would.

      No country in the history of independence ever gained or regained, in our case, its independence this way. Via a ratifying referendum, yes, but through a pre independence referendum, nope. Just asking to be kicked in the unmentionables.

      We have a Treaty. That Treaty could still save us, but, again, there is no will to do anything with it. I don’t agree with the Keatings case because I don’t believe it has the slightest chance of being upheld – still, you never know – but, at least, he is trying, which is a lot more than be said for the SG.

      The pro women group, ForWomen Scotland, has received a reply to their communication stating that a court action against the SG would ensue I they attempted to push through GRA reform. The reply implied that there is nothing in other legislation to prevent its enactment – which is twaddle of the highest degree

      I have gone from being lukewarm towards this administration to being opposed to it, on both the independence front and on GRA reform because, on both counts, it is at a total disconnect with its members and supporters, and because it appears to have betrayed us at every step, if only through duplicity. I still cannot get my head round the fact that this is my party that I supported for most of my life.

    138. Paul Hampton says:

      “God, what a monumentally stupid argument every single word of that is. So our leader is a tactical genius but she’d have been “goaded into” having a referendum she wouldn’t have been smart enough to win, despite starting from a couple of points behind at worst?”
      Says the guy who reckons snp should have backed the tories for a soft brexit.

    139. James Che. says:

      All politicians are telling us that we can’t do this or we cannot do that, both sides of the border, all media love this ongoing battle financially as they acquire more readers and clicks, to keep them all in business, controversy wins the day.
      Infights among any party is headline news for the hungry scavenger media mob.
      Every one wanting a piece of the action,
      So where are the people of Scotland in all this, we are like headless chickens, numpties, England’s fodder, we wallow in our past hero’s, looking over our shoulders for another hero to lead us through the battle, another leader to confirm we the people are sovereign, We don’t have to do a specific party, we don’t have to do politicians. We just need to let our sovereignty be heard by every nation.
      YOU ARE THE HEROES YOU BLOODY FOOLS, YOU ARE THAT LEADER YOUR LOOKING OVER YOUR SHOULDER FOR!

    140. Socrates MacSporran says:

      fillofficer @ 11.51am and The Rev @ 12.02pm

      Using 1978 is a poor analogy. We were good in 1977, by 1978, we had peaked and gone over the hill.

      Also, I have it, straight from the mouth of the man himself. Archie Gemmill blames himself for the crucial second Dutch goal, the long-range effort from Johnny Rep. Wee Archie told me: “I challenged Rep and his shot hit off my toe, I am convinced, the slight touch I got did enough to take the shot away from Roughie.”

      I would not blame either Roughie or Wee Bud for our failure, sadly, and I love the man to bits, Ally MacLeod’s lack of attention to detail ultimately cost us in Argentina – just as Wee Nippy taking her eye off the ball has cost us since 2016.

      I maintain, post Independence, if we ever gert as far as a Referendum, far less dissolution of the Union, in the first elections for the Scottish parliament, the SNP will be favourites to win and take power. For the second election, I can see those Scottish conservatives (small c is deliberate) and Labour Party stalwarts, who have loaned their votes to the SNP, returning to their natural political home, when they have genuinely Scottish parties to vote for.

      I( can also see the various sects within the SNP breaking away, either to new, small parties, or back to the now genuinely Scottish Conservative and Labour parties.

      So, for the moment, for the careerists and the new arrivals, it makes sense to stick with the SNP and not rock the boat too much.

      Wee Nippy lacks the bottle to really take on the Tories, and I don’t think too-many of her Westminster troops, who should be ripping them a new one every day, have the bottle for the real dirty fighting which will unsettle them down there either.

    141. jfngw says:

      @Rev Stu

      In my defence I did visit his blog site but didn’t go back as far as 2015, it also had a large picture of Douglas Ross scrolling through on the right which was just annoying me.

    142. Stuart MacKay says:

      We’ve all died and gone to Hell but we just haven’t come to terms with it yet. That’s the only explanation I have for this.

    143. Garrion says:

      I’m genuinely curious. Those who say that they will no longer vote SNP; who will you vote for then?

      Seems to me it’s either voting for the gong show of the usual suspects, which is pretty much us all getting back in our box, or there are going to have to be a lot of new independence candidates showing up and getting out there. Like Dunkirk, ironically, except with independence candidates.

      This flies in the face of the great unarticulated assumption that independence can ONLY be achieved by A Respectable Established Political Party. Mebbe it’s time to change that assumption. It will take work.

    144. Colin Alexander says:

      Stu Campbell

      Well done. Thank you.

    145. CameronB Brodie says:

      So it’s the Lord Advocate who’s been giving the Scottish government shite legal advice. He appears to support legal parochialism, perhaps this is why the SNP are so determined to consider their judgement superior to the jurisprudence of international law. I see no evidence of democratic process in this farrago, only legal procedural-ism being used to stifle democracy.

    146. Lorna Campbell says:

      William Habib Steele: yes, the Treaty was breached. The Treaty has been breached many times, but, so long as we go along with it, nothing will change. It is up to us to do something about it. Anything else is acquiescence and consent by omission. I was told some years ago, that, if we approached the UN to put the Treaty to adjudication, we would probably win our case because England, and, then, England-as-the-UK, is in serious breach of the International agreement. Yes, signatories to treaties do sometimes default, but it is never accepted without international disapproval because, then, all treaties could be breached at will. If we have learned nothing else, we should have learned that from the Brexit debacle.

    147. Bailey says:

      The post at 12:08 states that Andrew Tickle has repeatedly said that the legal route is a non-starter. I have re-listened to the July interview Paul Kavanagh did with Andrew Tickle in July. He sees Westminster as sovereign. We have never acquiesced to the English concept of parliamentary sovereignty. He also seems to be under the impression that we need a referendum when there is nothing in national or international law which specifies that. He states that a referendum can’t be held without Westminster support because the constitution isn’t devolved. He is taking a narrow Scotland Act 1998 position on Scotland’s constitution.

      I am afraid that this is the sort of legal advice that the Scottish Government have been listening to. The UN route is available and should have been taken long ago. He also dismisses the UN route, stating that it’s only for countries in which their human rights are being abused. This is complete rubbish. The UN have provisions for sounding old treaties and England have been acting ultra vires for years. They are just another country in the union not our masters.

      I believe Andrew is just wrong. He’s done the same constitutional law exams as I did and it’s a question of interpretation. The legal route is open.

    148. stuart mctavish says:

      Caesar!man@ 1,27pm
      Would that be act in a Shakespearian sense?

      Lord Advocate’s hypothetical straw man (as presented above) ignores the fact that, irrespective of whether the Scottish Government is negligent (as his argument might imply), the Scottish Parliament has nonetheless voted to hold a referendum (despite calls for same having been met with various levels of enthusiasm from the potentially untenable “now is not the time” from the leader of a balanced Parliament, to the perfectly tenable no, nay, never, etc from the leader of a significantly more biased one)

      Accordingly, since the failure of any MSPs to hold the Scottish Government to account on the matter actually infers almost the polar opposite of the argument presented (ie the MSPs, simply by dint of their being manifestly less motivated to do so, are clearly less appropriate people to bring such argument before the courts than those actually doing so) perhaps he too is acting – or, to paraphrase George Foulkes, hamming it up deliberately.

    149. Lorna Campbell says:

      jfngw: international law rules the Treaty, not domestic law – which makes the evident decision not to even attempt to have it ‘sound’ in domestic law even more questionable. That Treaty has the same implications for us that it does for England, and it has the same implications for England as it has for us. It would appear that the SNP SG does not want any of the advantages of the Treaty, even if there might be one or two disadvantages. It appears to want to continue to hand our future to those who are implacably opposed to anything at all that resembles an autonomous state, but would prefer to retain our colonial status. That is what being a core NO voter actually means. That is, basically, what insisting on any kind of pre independence referendum does – it hands a veto, free gratis, to people who are utterly opposed to you being independent and Scottish, and is madness on stilts unless you can be 99.9% sure that you will win this time.

    150. MaggieC says:

      Michael @12.27 pm
      You wrote,

      “ Finally, the SNP MSPs who are retiring are all at or around retirement age, other than Gail Ross who is stepping down for entirely understandable childcare reasons “ .

      Yes they are close to retirement age and most have stated that they don’t want to serve another five years but surely if we have an Independence referendum and it’s a Yes result they wouldn’t be serving another 5 years in Parliament after the referendum as there would need to be new Scottish elections within say for talking sakes a time scale of up to a year at the most .

      Surely those Snp Msps would want to stay and celebrate being part of the Scottish Government that won that referendum when Independence is so close and they could then retire at the next elections held in the Scottish Parliament .

      So the question for me is why they are leaving now ? .

      Do they know what many now know and many others are now coming round to realise they are leaving the sinking ship as the Snp Government have no intention of holding a referendum any time soon as Nicola has stated herself in interviews that she wants to be FM for the next five years .

    151. leither says:

      8 mandates??

    152. Stan Broadwood says:

      The funny thing is, we don’t even need the SNP once the Referendum has been called.

      So all they have to do is deal with the adminstrative side of the Referendum and then leave the rest to us.

      During indyRef1 I don’t remember ANY political Party being mentioned.

      It became the people’s Referendum.

      So all we are asking the SNP to do is sign the paperwork, then step aside and let us get on with the rest.

    153. CameronB Brodie says:

      ” He also dismisses the UN route, stating that it’s only for countries in which their human rights are being abused.”

      Mr. Tickle, for all his professorship, appears to be a fan of legal parochialism, and ignorant of international human rights law. So he’s a BritNat at heart.

    154. Stan Broadwood says:

      2.36pm. Another Sturgeon Troll appears.

      What happened,,, did the Dug throw you off his site as well???

    155. Polly says:

      I’d always heard that the present Lord Advocate was a very clever man and top of his class. I confess it did surprise me about the Rangers case in the news, not that Mulholland had started it but that Wolffe had continued such a case as it now seems stated to have been. Carloway’s decision last October was bound to cause issues, why didn’t they concede or come to some arrangement before now?

      What I worry is that Scottish law being shown in a bad light, with that and potentially other recent prosecutions, that it will make it easier for Boris to then use any failures as a reason to align our law with that in England and override or interfere as no doubt he’s wanted to for some time. I’m glad Joanna Cherry and others are willing to fight it.

    156. CameronB Brodie says:

      P.S. Mr. Tickle and the Lord Advocate appear to conceive of the legal universe as being bounded by British constitutional convention and tradition, not bounded rationality and a respect for Natural Law i.e. the principle of universalism.

    157. Daisy Walker says:

      Brian MacLeod says:
      1 September, 2020 at 1:48 pm
      Have we got to the stage where it’s time we had a new Wallace

      FUCK WALLACE.

      Waiting for the tartan messiah to come over the hill and through the glen and save us. That’s not independence, that’s wishful thinking and it gets us nowhere.

      It’s time we had a new campaign.

      Indy for Scotland is about far, far more than the SNP.

      We don’t need their permission, and lets face it, they’re not producing any form of campaign leadership or material.

      Lets behave in an Independent manner and do what needs to be done – Campaign. Indy for Scotland follows on from that.

      We can do so much better than Boris, Believe in Scotland, Believe in You.

    158. Stan Broadwood says:

      “…and what did the Romans do for Scotland?”

      A lot more than Sturgeon ever done.

      At least they built a wall between Scotland and England.

    159. Norman Mackenzie says:

      Just cancelled my membership.

    160. Margaret Lindsay says:

      You were right all along, wonder what the wheesht for Indy mob are saying now?

    161. Famous15 says:

      The harridan! She wants independence.And will deliver it.

    162. I am truly amazed reading through SM now the whessht for indy have deployed their Cognitive Dissonance on steroid dosage and switched phasers to kill the messenger mode.

    163. Tam the Bam says:

      BOOM!!!! Nicola just shot your goose (check out all the egg-_splattered faces!).

    164. Frank Waring says:

      1. If you’ve put forward an argument — here or in your own mind — that starts from the idea that only two outcomes are possible from Martin Keatings’ legal action (either the Scottish Parliament can authorise a referendum, or it cannot), please also consider that a third possibility, is that the court simply says, in effect, that courts do not answer hypothetical questions. ‘No answer’ may be the reply. No, I’m not saying taking the action was wrong — I’ve supported it (including financially).
      2. The three unionist parties have ruled themselves out of any engagement with questions of the constitutional, political or social future of Scotland.
      If a referendum were to come, and to be won, the only substantial actor in the political forum where these questions would be addressed would be the SNP. That Scotland would be a few legal niceties short of a true one party state, but it could well be just as stultifyingly impossible to create a political world here that was effectively different from 21st century Westminster.

    165. And spouse says:

      Hey Stu
      I feel your pain.
      I think I’ve just fallen of the “trust in the force” bandwagon.

    166. Ure Idiotte says:

      You talk so much garbage – bit premature with your post today eh?

    167. leither says:

      8 mandates?

      i dont remember 8 mandates.

    168. leither says:

      Nicola

      “at next year’s election, we will make the case for Scotland to become an independent country, and seek a clear endorsement of Scotland’s right to choose our own future”

    169. Shug says:

      If Nicola, from a family of nationalists and a life time of service to the party is not driving indyref2 why not

      Has she been compromised and if so how

    170. Dorothy Devine says:

      They didn’t , they missed the border.

    171. Craig Macinnes says:

      The SNP has two fundamental roles currently.
      Firstly it is the party of revolution – the revolution being the reestablishment of Scotland’s Independence. That is the primary purpose and aim of the SNP as stated in article 2 of its constitution:
      “Aims
      2. The aims of the Party shall be:
      (a) Independence for Scotland; that is the restoration of Scottish national sovereignty by restoration of full powers to the Scottish Parliament, so that its authority is limited only by the sovereign power of the Scottish People to bind it with a written constitution and by such agreements as it may freely enter into with other nations or states or international organisations for the purpose of furthering international cooperation, world peace and the protection of the environment.”
      The second role of the SNP is currently that of governing Scotland through a devolved Holyrood. This role demands competence and stability as far as such is possible and in general the SNP has indeed proven to be successful in this. Hence the relatively consistent electoral success the party has enjoyed during the past decade. That Holyrood is very far from being a proper Parliament of an independent nation but rather a Social Work Department admittedly on a grand scale is apparent to anyone who cares to look.
      These two roles necessarily create conflict within the party. Revolution versus Stability. Independence versus Devolution. This is the big question the SNP has to decide upon. Is it truly the party for independence or does it remain the party for the social work department happy to mitigate forever and ever.
      Of course all of that may be moot come 1/1/21 when the U.K. finally departs the EU and any constraints. It is not by chance that the U.K. politicians constantly refer to One-Nation. The attacks on the very concept of Scotland (and indeed England) as individual nations will continue. The U.K. has already put in place all the apparatus for the reimposition of direct rule from Westminster – the so-called U.K. Hub in Leith, the power grab, the designation of the Westminster PM as Minister for the Union.
      If Scotland is to survive in any meaningful sense then bold action is required and it is urgently required. To hell with S30! It always was a red herring. Call the referendum let Westminster dispute legality. Time to take control of our own destiny! Whether the current SNP has the will, desire or indeed courage to act remains to be seen.

    172. MaggieC says:

      Interesting tweet from Philip Sim ,

      https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1300789551791824898

      And the link to the Programme for Government statement ,

      https://www.gov.scot/publications/protecting-scotland-renewing-scotland-governments-programme-scotland-2020-2021/pages/9/

      And this from the part on Independence so dealing with Covid19 will take priority as I read this ,

      “However, before the end of this parliament, to set out the terms of a future referendum clearly and unambiguously to the people of Scotland, the Scottish Government will publish a draft bill for an independence referendum setting out the question to be asked, subject to appropriate testing by the Electoral Commission, and the timescale in which, within the next term of Parliament, we consider the referendum should be held taking account of the development of the COVID-19 pandemic at the time of publication, and ensuring the flexibilities to respond to any further restrictions caused by it.”

    173. Morag says:

      If we’d simply been taken over by entryists after 2014 it would be bad enough, but many of the people doing this are the very people who fought hard for independence during the darkest days last century.

    174. Chris Downie says:

      It has been my view since 2016 that it is the preferred option of the Sturgeon-Murrell cabal to scrape through the May 2021 election as a minority administration. That would give them another five years of unbridled power and with no more pesky “mandates” to deliver independence. I have been slated and abused online ever since, often from people who should know better… but I stand by my prediction. If they deliver independence, I’ll eat my kilt. Hell, I’ll eat Murrell’s unwashed kilt as well!

    175. Mac says:

      25% of MSP are stepping down… Jesus. So all of them will be replaced by all female shortlists full of woke soft on independence Sturgeonites. What % of MPs have been turned over since Sturgeon took power I wonder. I am guessing there is hardly anything left of the SNPs we knew under Salmond now.

      I am of the view that we have much bigger, more imminent threats to worry about than how we likely gain independence anytime soon. We need to work out how to kill the monster we have created by giving NS and these vicious woke mentalists a political monopoly in Scotland. What NS has planned for for sure is not independence. This is is not incompetence or just wanting a cushy number. This is much worse. I think she is a rat.

      We currently associate independence with the SNP far too much. I see independence now as totally distinct movement and the SNP as a now defunct, not fit for purpose, sham party.

      Burn the SNP in its current guise to the ground politically speaking and the green shoots of independence will immediately rise out of the ashes. People have a hunger for it, not these ultra tedious NewSNP dicks. We don’t need these corrupted asseholes nearly as much as folk think. I’d love to see the look on their faces as that dawned on them at the next election. But they have no real competition within the independence movement.

      Build a new party or gut the current one but it is a task we cannot hide from anymore. They are a real threat in many ways beyond to the independence. Look what they did to AS… for fuck sake! These are not our friends.

    176. Gavin Williamson says:

      Legal definition of Imminent
      Imminent peril, for example, is danger that is certain, immediate, and impending, such as the type an individual might be in as a result of a serious illness or accident. The chance of the individual dying would be highly probable in such situation, as opposed to remote or contingent. For a gift causa mortis (Latin for “in anticipation of death”) to be effective, the donor must be in imminent peril and must die as a result of it.
      https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/imminent
      This is really basic stuff, really basic.

    177. Bob Mack says:

      @Leither,

      That’s great news about Nicola going for the referendum.

      So has Boris said yes.

      After all Nicola wants a sec30 which Westminster must agree to allow.

    178. leither says:

      NicolaSturgeon has announced that @ScotGov will publish a draft Bill, setting out proposed terms and timing of an independence referendum, as well as proposed question. And that during next year’s election @theSNP will make case for Scotland to become an independent country.

      sounds like a plan,

    179. Bob Mack says:

      @Maggie C,

      Not another” within the term of the parliament” appetiser?

      Same as last election then.

    180. Bob Mack says:

      @leither,

      Are you deranged? They said exactly the same thing at the last election. That was a plan as well.

    181. kapelmeister says:

      A draft bill is not going to bring an indyref if the will to bring an indyref is absent.

    182. callmedave says:

      Ha ha!

      Ruthie chides the FM for a promise to bring forward a referendum bill, prioritising that, rather than the delayed Child Care bill.

      Both would be good. 🙂

    183. Big Jock says:

      I had to double check the date on that latest Sturgeon video about indy ref 2. I am sure it’s one I heard before GE 2019.

      More waffle!

    184. Heiniken33 says:

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/udi-is-the-answer/

      Good reading this, used to remember the common sense.

      What’s happened since?

      More concerned over gender argument.

    185. ,,newburghgowfer says:

      The Scottish do nothing party has been infiltrated with the dregs who were part of Labour masquerading as Indy supporters.
      The yoons have done such a good job that its a shambles of a Party now!!
      Did nobody cotton on that the opposition were that bad here that their plan B was to wreck the Indy movement from within and let people think they were on our side.
      Why do you think certain Mps are not as prominent or liked by the hierarchy. They are a danger to the gravy train and if people get taken in by the lies of the SNP wanting Indy fool you. As I have stated before I am a Political orphan with no party to vote for but only a muppet in a rosette if I bother my erse to vote

    186. Big Jock says:

      I could be wrong on this.

      Holyrood dissolves in April. Biagi has talked about a referendum in September 2021. The full bill has to be ratified before the end of April 2021 , in order to hold the referendum in September of the same year.

      From memory the original indy ref bill process took between 6 -12 months to get final consent.

      So Sturgeon can’t just wait for the election result and then call a referendum in the autumn. Otherwise they are using the new mandate in May, and they are a new government. There simply wouldn’t be the time.

    187. Republicofscotland says:

      I just had a thought, that if Sturgeon were to name a date for the independence referendum, that pressure would then be put on Johnson to comply with the S30 order before that date. I’m not saying that he would comply but naming a date would be akin to a ticking clock. A ticking clock on democracy in the UK that the world would also be watching

      The downside of this approach is that Johnson would probably just ignore it in the end, however we could use his intransigence towards democracy as a big stick to beat him over the head with whilst the international community is watching.

      however we need a date first and foremost, which is unlikely.

    188. Bob Mack says:

      @Big Jock

      All true but regardless of all the options, Mrs May and Johnson have both said no.
      Nicola has put herself in a corner by making her only possible referendum option one which requires Westminster to sanction it. Not gonna happen!!

    189. robertknight says:

      Jam tomorrow, subject to………. (insert excuse)

    190. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Have had to abandon reading WGD – they’re all aghast at this place, it’s simply too beastly, and Paul K has revealed that he doesn’t even read Wings any more. (Which is odd – would’ve thought this place is required reading for him whether he likes it or not.)

      Not sure how many have accepted Rev’s invitation to come here and explain their case but I haven’t noticed any apart from Capella.

      So it goes because hey, NS has a plan and all will be revealed and there might even be a date for indyref2 and –

      *STOPS, OVERCOME WITH COMBINATION OF DEJA-VU AND DRY BOAK*

    191. Bob Mack says:

      @Republicofscotland,

      He already ignores a ticking clock to leave the EU without a deal. Is Scotland more frightening to him?

      Nah me neither.

    192. Effijy says:

      I’d direct Ruth Hasbeen to look at her English based Tory party’s success
      In caring for Children rather than the ones in Scotland she drives into poverty.

      Start here Ruth-

      Hundreds more cases of baby deaths, stillbirths and brain damage raising “very serious” concerns have been uncovered in a scandal that now threatens to be one of the worst in the history of the NHS.
      A review of incidents on maternity wards at Shrewsbury and Telford NHS trust has identified 1,170 cases that warrant investigation.
      The review covers fatalities and other serious outcomes in a 40-year period up to the end of 2018. In January the government said the number of cases under review had climbed to 900. According to figures released on Tuesday by the chair of the review, Donna Ockenden, a further 270 cases are also being investigated.

    193. jfngw says:

      Having read the Andrew Tickell blog the Rev reference above regarding the Treaty of Union (Acts as he calls it) I am far from convinced by his argument. He rubbishes the use of Magna Carta, Declaration of Arbroath and Claim of Right as being ancient documents only quoted by the mad trying to shoehorn them into a modern democracy. Unfortunately he wrote that before the Westminster use of Henry VIII powers which the Tories had no problem invoking (even though it is before the acts and the claim of right).

      He misconstrues his argument by declaring we would be limited to 46 MP’s but ignores the increase in English MP’s and Lords which would need to have been frozen in aspic under his interpretation.

      He only quotes the parts which supports his point of view and ignores the ones that don’t. If I was using him as a consultant for independence using this article I would come to the conclusion we can only achieve independence once England deems it satisfactory to them.

    194. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “It has been my view since 2016 that it is the preferred option of the Sturgeon-Murrell cabal to scrape through the May 2021 election as a minority administration. That would give them another five years of unbridled power and with no more pesky “mandates” to deliver independence.”

      Yeah, have felt the same for a while.

    195. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “You talk so much garbage – bit premature with your post today eh?”

      What, because they’re going to ask for YET ANOTHER meaningless mandate they’ll do nothing with? Fuck off.

    196. tartanfever says:

      Are we really going to find out next week that the ‘ringfenced’ Indy fund has been blown by the SNP on other projects or consumed into general expenditure ?

      Or is the fund going to be ‘off books’, or no information pertaining to it released to the public ?

    197. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Does this help us any?”

      No. It’s just another meaningless Christmas list. Why would one more mandate change anything when none of the others have?

    198. Capella says:

      @ Leither – it’s no use. There’s nothing anyone can say or do on this thread that will perculate through the thick layer of “Nicola ate my hamster” beloved of some people. Too bad. The deep resentment and demoralisation seems to be overwhelming egged on by the usual unionist trolls.

      @ Ian Brotherhood – I wasn’t going to say anything since Stu had already indicated that anyone who holds a different point of view is monumentally stupid, deluded and a NS troll. I can ignore the personal insults but there’s no reason why anyone should. So I guess most people don’t.

      Notice the negative reaction to the Philip Sim tweet about an Indyref2 bill going through parliament this term.

      Once everyone has torn up their SNP membership again and sworn never to vote SNP again, again, then maybe we can move on.

    199. Robert Louis says:

      So there we have it. Confirmation, if ever it was needed, that the current SNP leadership has NO INTENTION or desire to go for independence. But this is worse, because the Scottish Government submission smacks of arrogance and conceit, both of which were the final nail in the ‘british labour in Scotland’ coffin.

      Nicola Sturgeon tells folk she has always wanted independence, yet now she has the power to do it, she simply refuses. Either she is a coward or a liar. My guess it is the latter.

      And so the question is, who can anybody vote for to achieve independence, since that is not the SNP priority anymore? Seriously, who do I vote for? Let’s assume the SNP get re-elected as government, what then? Does anybody in their right mind even trust a word the fork-tongued Sturgeon even says anymore.

      It is little wonder that experienced pro-indy MSP’s are ‘retiring’ or jacking it in to ‘spend more time with their families’ en masse. If people like Mike Russell thought for one second that indyref was just around the corner, he would be standing again.

      They know the truth. Nicola Sturgeon is a fraud. As they say in the USA, ‘fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me’.

      The dream will never die, but I geuinely hope the SNP does at the next election. Only a period out of power will get them to sort their affairs out, and get back on focus for independence. If re-elected next year, then as soon as the results are done, they will just go back to doing what they are doing now, lining their pockets, whilst pretending they’ll go for indy ‘sometime soon’ ‘just wait and see’ ‘Nicola has a cunning secret plan’.

      Nicola Sturgeon (and her husband) needs booted out the party, and booted out of power. I don’t like liars, and I don’t like frauds, but I especially do not like politicians who take their core voters for fools.

    200. Effijy says:

      The Electoral Commission is English and corrupt.

      Indy ref 2 must be agreed with and monitored by the EU
      otherwise it’s Westminster, MI5, MI6, the English Armed Forces,
      The Police and anything Trumpland can throw in all against Scotland.

    201. tartanfever says:

      Robert Louis:

      ‘They know the truth. Nicola Sturgeon is a fraud. As they say in the USA, ‘fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me’.’

      In our case, it’s ‘fool me 8 times (mandates), I’m going to keep doing it because you’re clearly blithering idiots’

    202. Robert Louis says:

      Is see this from ‘The National’

      https://www.thenational.scot/news/18689831.scottish-independence-nicola-sturgeon-set-timing-referendum/

      I simply do not believe a single word of it. Not one. mealy-mouthed words, like ‘in the coming months’, or ‘before the end of this parliament’. When?? Too little, too effing late.

      It is grade A bull.

    203. Bob Mack says:

      @Capella,

      The SNP can just use the Bil! They used in 2019. Remember? To have a referendum in the second half of 2020? Save paper.

    204. jfngw says:

      @ian brotherhood

      It’s a simple case, if the support for independence parties (I would be more precise and say the SNP because that’s how the unionists will play it) next May is below 50% you can wave goodbye to any idea of achieving independence any time soon.

      You can shout and scream about how much you hate NS, I don’t care she is just another politician. But destroy the confidence in the SNP to the extent they lose support when you don’t have a viable alternative, then how is the independence going to happen.

      You can then go on to claim the SNP don’t want independence but that isn’t even a viable survival policy for the SNP, if they can’t deliver something viable in their next term, assuming they win, then they will lose the following election.

    205. Richard says:

      The Scottish Digital Covenant is not an online PETITION!!!!

      If you care to check it out it’s a tamper proof block chain legal record of the Soverign will of the Scottish people.

      if the magority of the people sign it wanting Scottish Independence then that is what will happen.

      check it out Rev.

    206. Big Jock says:

      Republic – You know what she will say about the timing!

      “Sometime between Autumn 2021 and Spring 2022”

    207. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Capella –

      So, despite Rev’s invitation to come here and state/defend the pro-NS/SG line, absolutely no-one from WGD (including Paul K) has made any effort to do so.

      Not even in the wake of ‘the big announcement’.

      I honestly don’t know why you bother.

    208. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “BOOM!!!! Nicola just shot your goose (check out all the egg-_splattered faces!).”

      It’s profoundly depressing that after all this time there are still complete fucking idiots reading this site.

    209. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I simply do not believe a single word of it. “

      Remember all the other times she “set the timing”? Remember when it was going to be in spring 2019? Remember when it was going to be before the end of 2020?

    210. stonefree says:

      In 2014 after AS said he was stepping down and Sturgeon was going to be in command,
      Once anointed she or more accurately the SNP lost command of the NAC by trying to get her Dad elected.
      She has wrecked the SNP from within, the Wokies as her Waffen-SS, the councils is were she wants power to reinforce a Scottish Administration.
      The Martin Keating email this morning merely confirmed her actions
      Nearly 5 years ago I sat in a branch meeting and thought “What the fuck am I doing here?”

    211. Republicofscotland says:

      “No. It’s just another meaningless Christmas list. Why would one more mandate change anything when none of the others have?”

      All I can suggest to that, is that the EU power grab is closing in on us, prior to that Sturgeon had time to dilly dally on independence. Won’t the power grab combined with the Hub in Edinburgh severely weaken not just Sturgeons hand but the entire Holyrood parliaments ability to function properly.

      Sturgeon doesn’t strike me to be a politician who’d just want to govern a toothless talking shop akin to Stormont, then again I may be way off base here.

    212. Richard says:

      Currrantly the polls suggest 54% ofths Scottish electorate want Independence.

      Get them to sign the Scottish Digital Covenant then Independence is ours.

      It would be beyond legal challenge as it’s the majority will of the Scottish people in a purely democratic process, completely verifiable and legal and completely tamper proof!?

    213. Tannadice Boy says:

      Stu is fizzing today. Submissions to court are surely the best guide of intent. I am I inclined to agree with him. 5 years of gravy is a tempting prospect for the chosen ones. If only they can con the electorate once more?. Nah I will pass still waiting on an alternative to vote for. Don’t believe anything Sturgeon says. I have got section 30s coming out of all my…

    214. N. Holmes says:

      Scotland’s populace suffered historically by being sold out by its Establishment in the 18th century. The SNP is Scotland’s Establishment in the 21st century and it is now in the process of selling out its populace. Plus ça change, plus la même chose.

    215. Republicofscotland says:

      “Republic – You know what she will say about the timing!

      “Sometime between Autumn 2021 and Spring 2022””

      Big Jock.

      If time is short for us, then it it is also short for Sturgeon, the EU power grab won’t just severely affect the man and woman on the street, it will severely hinder our parliaments ability to govern effectively.

      I can see this one ending up in the courts, Johnson can’t afford to lose it his entire internal market thingy hangs on it, along with his USA trade deal. On the other hand a victory for Johnson spells disaster for Scotland and its ability to govern properly.

    216. Stuart McCready says:

      This is more depressing than 19/9/18…?

    217. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @jfngw (4.02) –

      ‘But destroy the confidence in the SNP to the extent they lose support when you don’t have a viable alternative, then how is the independence going to happen.’

      Aha!

      So it’s ‘our’ fault then?

      The people who criticise NS are to blame if her party doesn’t win, if indy slips from our grasp etc etc.

      There was me thinking that it was *her* job to pursue independence as a matter or urgency and priority. But no, I was mistaken again, as everyone who even reads this site apparently is – it’s our perpetual whining that has caused all this acrimony, this ‘civil war’, and it’s our refusal to shut up that will cost us a majority next May and, therefore, any chance of indyref2 before the year 2050.

      Have I got it right now?

    218. “The sheep will spend its entire life fearing the wolf, only to be eaten by the shepherd.” (African proverb.)

    219. Richard says:

      i’m an SNP member and I say fuck referendums Nicola is wrong, the Scottish Digital Covenant is the “Gold Standard” as it would be the legal proven will of the Scots.

      Who as we all know are sovereign!

    220. Big Jock says:

      Sturgeon has just messed up everything and has completely lost her way.

      She spent a year fighting the English Brexit vote, instead of protecting the Scottish people and progressing independence. May called her bluff and refused a section 30 in 2017.

      Sturgeon’s response to “Now is not the time”. Was to capitulate and agree with May. Her response should have been to take her to court.

      Then Sturgeon to my mind deliberately said that the Section 30 was the only show in town. Why? Because she doesn’t have the bottle or the gumption to challenge WM or try something different. So using the Section 30 as a excuse for timid capitulation is convenient.

      Notice how quickly she used Covid to cancel all plans for indy ref 2. It’s because she has now accepted that she can’t be the leader of the independence movement.

      She is protecting her job and the SNP’s power. Independence is a bit like Labour talking about socialism. It’s just a word with no meaning or intention of purpose.

      It really is a complete and utter fecking shambles. There doesn’t seem to be any way out of this.

    221. jfngw says:

      @ian brotherhood

      I doubt there are many actual SNP supporters interacting this site now, there is very little sign of any. Why would they?

      Some seem to believe that support for a party equates to devotion to an individual, it’s not a religion. You would need to be a complete fucking idiot to believe that.

    222. Republicofscotland says:

      “Bob Mack says:
      1 September, 2020 at 3:41 pm
      @Republicofscotland,

      He already ignores a ticking clock to leave the EU without a deal. Is Scotland more frightening to him?

      Nah me neither.”

      Indeed he is Bob, and that might play in our favour after Johnson confirms what many of us feared a no deal. Naming a date for a independence referendum, hopefully would put pressure on Johnson as I said, I can only hope that as a third party after a no deal is concluded that the EU would look kindly towards a possible future member, and speak out publicly on Johnsons reluctance to honour the date of a second indyref, if one is announced.

    223. Big Jock says:

      jfngw – Lifetime member……but I aint no sheep, as you can tell from my anger at Nicola and her Murrel dictatorship.

    224. jfngw says:

      Lot of whingers on this site now complaining how little the SNP have done to progress independence. It will be nearly two years soon since this started. In this time they have done nothing to develop an alternative, zilch, zero, beyond the whinge there is nothing.

    225. leither says:

      Ian Brotherhood says:

      Not sure how many have accepted Rev’s invitation to come here and explain their case but I haven’t noticed any apart from Capella.

      capella is the only one not blocked?

      “Paul K has revealed that he doesn’t even read Wings any more. (Which is odd – would’ve thought this place is required reading for him whether he likes it or not.)

      wgd stood in the witness stand and defended stu. he was earned the right not to read wings?

    226. Why is this not enough?
      That is why, before the end of this Parliament, we will publish a draft Bill, setting out the proposed terms and timing of an independence referendum, as well as the proposed question that people will be asked in that referendum. And then at next year’s election, we will make the case for Scotland to become an independent country and seek a clear endorsement of Scotland’s right to choose our own future. https://www.gov.scot/publications/first-minister-programme-government-1/

    227. Muscleguy says:

      @MWS 11:28AM

      You have just described the ISP. At our first branch ISP online meeting last evening the major topic was that the SNP cannot be trusted to give us an indyref any time soon so we are needed to kick them into it.
      ISP2, you know it makes sense.

    228. CameronB Brodie says:

      jfngw
      Precisely. Mr. Tickell has a rather narrow legal stance, IMHO. One that privileges English legal culture over equality in law. So you’ll understand why I don’t rate his legal judgement, frankly.

    229. Big Jock says:

      If anyone really wants to understand the belligerence of Boris and his party. Just look at Cummings!

      He broke the law on Covid when it was at it’s peak. Everyone said he couldn’t survive the scandal. Guess what he did. The Tories don’t care about public opinion. That’s why Nicola is wrong that Boris would cave in to public pressure.

      He simply doesn’t give a toss.

    230. Big Jock says:

      Cameron – Agree regards Tickell.

      He seems to forget the first golden rule of potential legal cases and the law. “Interpretation”.

      It’s all in the eye of the beholder when it comes to test cases and theoretical meanings of sovereignty.

      He can be a bit arrogant and dismissive sometimes.

    231. CameronB Brodie says:

      Might I suggest some light reading for Mr. Tickelle and the Lord Advocate’s continued legal edumacation, as they both appears weak in their appreciation of legal epistemology.

      Chapter 16 in: Motoc, Iulia, Pinto de Albuquerque, Paulo, and Wojtyczek, Krysztof (eds.), Liber amicorum András Sajó: Internationalisation of Constitutional Law, 2017
      Normative Universalism and Constitutional Pluralism

      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2998526

    232. leither says:

      Capella says:
      @ Leither – it’s no use. There’s nothing anyone can say or do on this thread that will perculate through the thick layer of “Nicola ate my hamster” beloved of some people.

      aye, as @jfdgw also points out, the whingers yet to propose any cogent alternative plan and are reduced to whinning about how nicola has been given “hunners and hunners” of mandates.

      @ianbhood, will ye no come back!!!

      naw

    233. jfngw says:

      @Muscleguy

      The ISP are a distraction, even if they take 20 seats they would hold no sway in when a referendum happens without SNP agreement. They could embarrass the SNP the same way the Green’s do if they hold the balance of power but beyond that what can they achieve.

      In reality I suspect the maximum number of seats they will take will be closer to five.

      Trying to manipulate the result so the ISP hold the balance of power is more likely to fail, it’s pretty hard/impossible to control the vote to level.

    234. cynicalHighlander says:

      The FM is like a washing machine stuck on the rinse drain cycle.

    235. leither says:

      Bob Mack says:
      @leither,

      Are you deranged?

      naw, are you senile old man?

    236. jfngw says:

      ‘to that level’

    237. jfngw says:

      @Bob Mack & leither

      This could save you some time:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

    238. David Caledonia says:

      Capella I agree with you 100 per cent

      Its interesting how people living in england slag of the SNP, they do not even have a vote and talk utter shit all the time
      Pray tell us who you will vote for if not the SNP, and if you don’t vote for the SNP we will have the right looney toons in power in Scotland

      The fecking Labour party and that english tosser , OMG, what a thought

    239. leither says:

      nicola has been given “hunners and hunners” of mandates.

      as if on cue blah blah blah

    240. Grendel says:

      According to this interview with Keith Brown, as far as he knows the money is there and available.
      If it isn’t then he has to go
      (relevant section around 43 minutes in).
      https://www.broadcastingscotland.scot/scotland-at-7-28-08-2020/

    241. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @leither –

      I don’t know why you are choosing to refer to me in your rather cryptic comments but I would much prefer that you didn’t, thanks all the same.

    242. john mellon says:

      What a coincidence that after reading and sharing this she announced again today her plans for taking IndyRef2 to the people next year and yes the hardliners will beleive her they are already sharing her statement and I ask myself how long it takes to indoctrinate someone several years I think because now they will call us trolls from the 77th brigade although thankfully this was revealed in ”Wings” which most folk trust apart for the zealots I am sure now we are split into two ”armies”which will delight the unionists and the SNP and so our fight begins all we need is a new leader we can trust!

    243. CameronB Brodie says:

      Big Jock
      I don’t think Me. Tickelle is trained to support bio-neurological individuality or open democracy. Or to put that another way, to resist eugenics (see Brexit and genderwoowoo). So I don’t think he is a reliable guide re. constitutional law.

      National Constitutional Identity in the European Union
      and the Principle of Primacy

      Abstract
      Even though the idea of respect for National and Constitutional Identity has been present for a long time, the meaning of those terms and their consequences have not been analysed and understood accurately, remaining a current issue. This is not to endorse the notion that the concept has no meaning as we can analyse its development within European Union Law.

      In general, we can affirm that the idea of the respect for National Identity has been strengthened by the Lisbon Treaty and that The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is competent to interpret the concept.

      Even though the main focus will be on the interpretation of the Article 4(2) TEU and its express mention to the respect for National Identity, we find the need to address the topic from a juridical standpoint, given that, as the previous paragraph points out, the conceptual development of national identity has the ECJ as a main character, as its case-law sets the limits and features of the concepts.

      Nevertheless, we should note that not many cases where Article 4(2) TEU is used have been studied by the ECJ. Furthermore, those that do study the matter, address the issue in an unclear way, both when defining what should be understood as National Identity and when addressing its relationship with the Primacy Principle. That is why the role of the ECJ as well as the Member States’ Constitutional Courts help us understand the term.

      National Constitutional Courts are empowered to invoke the clause of National Identity to resist the concept of absolute primacy of the European Union laws. It is therefore necessary to investigate which is the meaning of the concept, which can be achieved by examining -in a non-exhaustive way- the case law of the Constitutional Courts, and by the analysis and comparison between the constitutional provisions of the member states.

      It is also worth emphasizing that the ECJ allows some exceptions to the European Law obligations on the grounds of Article 4(2), and the ECJ also controls the validity of secondary legislation and reviews the legality of acts of the institutions, which are obliged to respect National and Constitutional Identity.

      https://skemman.is/bitstream/1946/23411/3/Final%20Thesis.pdf

    244. Capella says:

      John Robertson says:
      1 September, 2020 at 4:35 pm

      Why is this not enough?

      Because: To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible. (Thomas Aquinas)

      Once you abandon facts you can assert anything.

      @ Ian Brotherhood – I don’t know why I bother either, except that I hate to see people being suckered into a self-defeating course of action. Most of the division and misinformation is generated by 77th brigade online trolling IMO. Resist!

      I’m also surprised I haven’t been banned yet. May not be long.

    245. David Caledonia says:

      and btw, to make laws that the majority of voters disagree with is pointless, it never has worked, and never will, a guy in america said, if any of those bastards go into my granddaughters toilet I will shoot them, it still has’nt happend yet, cause they know what american men will do to them

    246. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Most of the division and misinformation is generated by 77th brigade online trolling IMO.”

      I agree. Bye.

    247. CameronB Brodie says:

      sorry….Mr. Tickell

      Integrating Brain Science and Law: Neuroscientific Evidence and Legal Perspectives on Protecting Individual Liberties
      https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2017.00621/full

    248. leither says:

      @ibhood

      only cryptic to the ESN

      you sit here deriding others while hiding behind the skirts of stu, sycophantically bemoaning the lack of wingers who come back here to discuss any topic. they are gone. if you want to discuss anything with them you will need to join them
      on a less neurotic blog site
      they aint coming back

    249. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “According to this interview with Keith Brown, as far as he knows the money is there and available.”

      I hope so. Not long until we find out.

    250. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Capella (5.04) –

      Your comment there is a welcome admission that this whole ‘civil war’ business is, essentially, faith-based.

      You, and many who frequent WGD, including the host, are the faithful. The majority of commenters here are therefore heretics.

      If that’s the way it has to be for now, fair enough, and the distinction may help many decide which ‘side’ they’re on – simple fact is, fence-sitting is no longer possible.

    251. leither says:

      simple fact is, fence-sitting is no longer possible.

      capella is gone

      still ian, you can console yourself reading the the vast legal opinion of cbbc’s and Big Jock (Tickell seems to forget the first golden rule of potential legal cases and the law. “Interpretation”. He can be a bit arrogant and dismissive sometimes.)

    252. David Caledonia says:

      Capella never said that, some people do not seem able to read and understand plain english

    253. CameronB Brodie says:

      Or is that Mr. Tickel? Whatever, he doesn’t appear to be a fan of universalism. Or the legal protection of our economic, social, and cultural rights from the harmful effects of expansionist English nationalism. I also presume he does not support international health law.

      The European Journal of International Law Vol. 19 no. 4 © EJIL 2008; all rights reserved
      Human Rights as International
      Constitutional Rights

      http://ejil.org/pdfs/19/4/1660.pdf

    254. CameronB Brodie says:

      Whatever the professors name, he clearly does not support the Right to Development.

    255. twathater says:

      @ Bailey 2.15pm I believe in your interpretation of the Treaty Of Union as an INTERNATIONAL TREATY as does Lorna Campbell and The Breeks , I asked you on a previous post if you having legal training which you have alluded to , would possibly get together with Breeks and Lorna to FORWARD this idea assuming that they would both be interested

      I now no longer ask , I BESEECH and BEG you to please take on ANYTHING that could PROVE that the TREATY has been breached on numerous occasions by England acting as the UK parliament ,unfortunately the unionist parties in Scotland ignored these breaches as it was not in their interests to challenge them but it appears we now have a NEW unionist party under the guise of the SNP who are also UNWILLING to challenge these breaches

      YOU , Lorna and Breeks put forward a VERY convincing argument as to how our independence is pivotal on the Treaty of Union and how if it were utilised correctly by highlighting the breaches to the international courts a dissolution of the union would be possible and desirable

      A challenge such as this if successful would also enable the rest of the world to recognise SCOTLAND as an independent country by way of the sovereignty of it’s people’s endeavours

    256. CameronB Brodie says:

      Constitutional law is not divorced from international law, except when you privilege Parliamentary sovereignty in your legal ordering. Westminster’s law does not have the legal authority to challenge international law, though it is being used to strip Scots of human rights protected under international law. So I’m not sure how the professor can justify his position, legally.

      Westminster has already accepted Scotland’s right to self-determination.

      The relationship between international law and national law in the case of Kosovo: A constitutional perspective
      https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/9/1/274/902275

    257. Derek Rogers says:

      @ Rev. Stu 11:55 am:

      ” ‘What are the chances of a combination of the court case being successful in providing that the Scottish Parliament can legally hold a referendum and the aftermath of the Salmond inquiry leading to a necessary fundamental change in the SNP?’

      My current opinion is 40% and 75% in that order.

      Isn’t there also a multiplier effect? If Sturgeon is shown to have been complicit in the Alex Salmond stitch-up, that will demonstrate that her Indy pretensions were drivel, and if Keating shows that the excuse she gave for delay was also false, grassroots Indy will explode with fury, unstoppable across the piece.

    258. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      A plan y’say?

      Howsabout the one put forward by a number of contributors here months ago?

      A vote of no confidence in the First Minister. She resigns. The SNP and Greens vote against all candidates put forward by the unionist parties, forcing an election.

      In the manifestos of the SNP and Greens, it is stated that if pro-indy parties achieve a majority of MSPs and over 50% of the total vote, constituencies and regions, then that is a mandate to declare the Treaty of Union broken, independence to follow.

      Could all be done before the end of the year but, as has become obvious, independence is not the priority of the ruling party.

    259. Roddy Grant says:

      We need Salmond back with a different party, he’s the one to lead Scotland to Independence

    260. Lothianlad says:

      “If you want me to cheer the destruction of the Yes movement for one woman’s power-trip, you’re on the wrong website.”

      Got to be the quote of the day Stu.

    261. So Martin Keating’s ‘not the right person’ to take up this coort case, eh? Really, aye? Ya cheeky careerist SNP cunts! Ah gied money tae him, made a quality n value judgment aboot whit he is daeing versus whit you decorticatit saprophytes ur NO daeing.

      He’s daeing yer ain joab fir ye, the yin youse…FUCKERS should be daeing bit are pissing aboot in replicating wannabe-American liberal fascist Hell. Ya fucking…ah cannae even describe how fucking disgustit ah am wi you wankers. Foodbank use is it an aw-time high, the disabled ur being starved tae death, refugees ur being fucked oor n dying wi thir weans nixt tae them.

      N whit ur YOU useless cunts daeing? Trying tae send an innocent man tae jail fir the rest ay his life for haeing the temerity tae try tae dae whit youse cunts ur pretending tae dae! Whining aboot fucking transphobia, suhhin that affects practically none ay the population, n fucking ‘gender equality’ (read: female supremacy) in Holyrood politicunt numbers, n ‘sexist tropes’ in Westminster pish, n slavery…n blabbedy fucking blah.

      This is whit happens when ye lit clueless, brainless, sniffy, educatit beyond thir ‘intelligence’ levels, self-righteous, sneering, mollycoddled, cloistirt, mentally unbalanced, minority-obsessed, jobs-fir-the-girls manhater UTTER ARSEHOLES run a country (intae the grund). FUCKING CLOWNS.

      Iviry starvation n refugee n disabled death is DOON TAE YOU FUCKING CLOWNS feathering yer fucking nests n haeing unemployable-in-general-society FUCKING HAUFWITS rambling pish in Holyrood n Westminster, while the Tory scum laugh on ye n spit n piss on ye (n, by extension, us tae) in Westminster. FUCK THE LOT AY YE. FIRIVIR.

    262. ISP, the only VIABLE list party needs your support.
      Join up or donate here, folks.

      https://www.isp.scot/donate
      https://www.isp.scot/membership/

    263. R.Robertson says:

      Is this why they scuppered Joanne Cherry’s chances of becoming an MSP?
      I seriously think she is our best chance and they are running scared

    264. wull says:

      At 5.04, Capella says:

      “Because: To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible. (Thomas Aquinas)

      Once you abandon facts you can assert anything.”

      Sorry, Capella, but taking Aquinas completely out of context sheds no light on the issues being discussed here. He is talking about ‘truths of faith’ which are known to the Christian believer only from revelation, and are not from natural reason. (Some truths of faith are known only in this way, while others may also be known by natural reason.)

      An obvious example of a truth known only by revelation is the Christian belief in the Trinity. According to this belief, God is absolutely One and indivisible, yet existing for all eternity in or as three Persons. Someone who believes this simply knows it to be true (and doesn’t need it to be explained before he believes it). Someone who doesn’t believe regards it as ‘double Dutch’, and no amount of explanation will convince him that it is anything other than complete incomprehensible nonsense.

      For the first category (the believers) the Trinity is an indisputable fact, which they do not doubt, because because they know it by experience. For the second category, it is not a fact at all.

      What is a clear and undeniable fact for a believer – someone who believes in this supernatural revealed fact which is not accessible to natural reason – is not a fact for someone who does not believe it. There is no way either of the two can convince the other of the rightness of their position.

      The kind of issues being described here are nothing to do with revelation. Aquinas is not talking about political facts, or about opinions about such facts, or about how we could or should interpret these. What he says about ‘supernaturally revealed truth’ is simply not relevant to the issues being discussed here.

      My apologies for being so pedantic about a point which, I suppose, will be of little or no interest to anyone. I thought it only fair to Aquinas to keep the record straight. You have every right to disagree with him (or anyone else for that matter), but not to misrepresent him. He was not a fool. He did reflect rather deeply, and knew rather a lot – a very great deal, in fact – about human reason.

    265. Annie 621 says:

      “.. What force and guile could not subdue
      thro’ many war-like ages,
      Is wrought now by a coward few
      For hireling ("Tractor" - Ed)’s wages..”

      Thank you Stuart, as always X

    266. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Is this why they scuppered Joanne Cherry’s chances of becoming an MSP?”

      Yes. Yes it is.

    267. Helen Yates says:

      “Why aren’t you doing something about this Wings?
      Yes you’ve clearly laid out the issues but what can we do?”

      Wings can’t do anything apart from try to help us through his blog which he does brilliantly.
      We on the other hand being the sovereign people of Scotland and the ones who hold the real power could get off our collective arses and demand independence because otherwise we have no chance of ever seeing independence, do I think that will ever happen, no I don’t, we don’t have it in us, you only have to look at the turnout for the marches since 2016, and of course now we have Covid, fear alone will ensure we don’t take to the streets in the numbers that would be required to make a difference, Covid might have saved Nicolas arse but it has also scuppered our best chance of getting the people to rise up, my personal opinion is while this administration holds power the dream is on hold.
      I’d be happy however to be proven wrong.

    268. MrFix2010 says:

      Stu I read your blog from time to time, this one I agree with most of what you have said, but you losing your shit in the replies has made my day ???

    269. AYRSHIRE ROB says:

      Stan Broadwood says:
      1 September, 2020 at 2:49 pm
      “…and what did the Romans do for Scotland?”

      A lot more than Sturgeon ever done.

      At least they built a wall between Scotland and England.

      ———–

      Wiz yir wee granny McDuff around at the time tell yi that yarn?

      You’re grasp of history is a sight to behold.

      EEGIT

    270. Hatuey says:

      This is a great article. We are right into “who else yae gonnae vote fur?” territory.

      Well, the answer to that is nobody.

      On a positive note, I’ve decided to quit smoking. I want to be around when her ship goes down.

      “They’ll win next year’s election, they’ll put on a big show of indignantly demanding a referendum again, they’ll get the same answer they’ve been getting since 2017, and they’ll harrumph and blow and bluster and then they’ll sit back down and settle in for another five cosy years in power and get on with letting rapists into women’s toilets and changing rooms and prisons and arresting anyone who objects for a “hate crime”.”

      Brilliant. The only thing I’d take issue with is the “big show” part — they don’t seem to even bother much with the charade these days.

      Remember this day. Shooting down Martin Keating’s case was a brazen act of betrayal. Dirty bastards.

    271. Mr C M Howie says:

      Nah, this is demented pish. You do some brilliant stuff but this is utter nonsense.

      With the best will in the world, absolute best-case scenario is a referendum in Autumn 2022. That’s over two years away.

      Its a simple statement of fact to say a referendum is not imminent. That’s not an indication of policy or preference, its just reality.

    272. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “With the best will in the world, absolute best-case scenario is a referendum in Autumn 2022. That’s over two years away.

      Its a simple statement of fact to say a referendum is not imminent. That’s not an indication of policy or preference, its just reality.”

      You’re completely missing the point.

    273. David Caledonia says:

      according to lots on here they are considering not voting for anything, let me see, who would I not vote for in the elections, well I would not vote Labour or Tory or the liberals, I would not vote for the man in the moon, as he is to far away, I would maybe vote for the three blind mice as there are a lot of politically blind people on here, naw, that’s maybe going to far, now what’s left
      I hear that nice independence party are doing quite well, that’s it I will vote for them, I was waiting for the new independence party that I have heard a lot about to come on the scene and save us all, but it seems it was only a figment of some unionist’s imagination.,Well I am off to polish my SNP membership card, its my pride and Joy you know, I keep it in a big prominent place on my wall, and I blow it kisses every time I walk by, well it was love at first site, its been 50 years now and we are just as much in love since the day we met

      Caledonia your everything I ever need, have a nice day everyone

    274. David Caledonia says:

      There is not one democratic country in this big pile of shit we call the earth that can force anyone to obey stupid laws, we are losing the TV licence, why is that, its because it was a stupid idea from the start, it could never work if like a lot of us the sheep refused to pay it
      Then the sheep realised it was just one big mighty con, and they left the alter of the BBC and came and joined the rest of us and spent their money on a much more wiser persuit, namely going to the pub and getting pissed with the money saved

    275. Mr C M Howie says:

      I must be cause I honestly can’t see what you’re so angry about here. For the purposes of a legal case precise factual language is the order of the day, and factually speaking a referendum is not imminent, even if everything goes our way and a s30 is granted, which obviously isn’t going to happen.

      I apologise for saying its demented pish, I’m a big fan of yours. I think we’re all getting very frustrated.



    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top