The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The comfort of lies

Posted on June 09, 2020 by

More great news, right?

Except, sadly, it’s completely untrue.

Why is it untrue? Because this was the actual question people were asked:

But what’s wrong with “should consider”? Considering stuff is good, no? Well, let’s ask someone who has VERY strong feelings about poll questions with the word “consider” in them  – Mr James Kelly of Scot Goes Pop.

Despite that rant (one of around 30 abusive diatribes Kelly has furiously spewed out against the idea of any new list party, not just a Wings one), there’s actually nothing wrong with using the word “consider”, so long as you don’t then present your findings as something they’re not.

We didn’t do that with our poll, making abundantly and repeatedly clear that all we’d found were people willing to CONSIDER a proposition:

But unfortunately it’s exactly what Kelly does in his reporting of the SGP one, stating as a fact that voters want the plan definitely done, not just thought about.

“The SNP and Scottish Greens should CONSIDER a plebiscitary election if X happens” is categorically not the same finding as “The SNP and Scottish Greens SHOULD CONDUCT a plebiscitary election if X happens”, and it’s just stupefyingly dishonest – leaving aside the comical hypocrisy – to pretend that’s what the poll found.

Of course political parties should at all times be considering all possible strategies in pursuit of their goals. That’s such staggeringly obvious basic common sense it’s idiotic to even ask the question. It’s a HUGE leap from there to say that respondents have demanded they should implement any particular policy.

We have no hope of ever achieving independence if we’re not honest with ourselves about where we are. Continually telling ourselves that victory is inevitable and just around the corner is an abdication of the responsibility to actually get off our backsides and do what it takes to make it happen.

The only value of the SNP winning elections is if they’re prepared to use the power so gained to move forwards in pursuit of independence. If not, they’re of no worth. We didn’t get into this just to keep the SNP in ministerial cars and baubles. The 2016 victory has delivered precisely no progress whatsoever, and at this rate the next one will do exactly the same. Lying to ourselves and each other will get us nothing.

Print Friendly

    197 to “The comfort of lies”

    1. callmedave says:

      I’ll go along with that.

    2. Bob Costello says:

      Very well put. Yes a large dose of realism needs to be injected into the independence movement.

    3. Kenny says:

      Exactly

    4. ian macdiarmid says:

      Another negative thread which does nothing to move independence forward.One of the reasons many of the original posters dont bother to post anymore.

    5. Doug McGregor says:

      It just became clear to me that James Kelly , whilst being pro- Independence is more interested in promoting the Scottish Greens. How else can all this be explained?

    6. R4 says:

      Exactly. I for one am sick of it. We’re our own worst enemy. We’ll never get independence with this mentality.

    7. susan says:

      The Greens are dire, under no circumstances could I vote for them.

    8. Ian McCubbin says:

      We need to tell SNP either its in your 2021 manifesto or we vote other parties, green, Stu Campbell, Yes 2.
      That will maybe focus them.

    9. Josef Ó Luain says:

      If anybody thinks that the legitimate pointing-up of a piece of hypocritical nonsense is bad, wait until the far-right, storm-trooper tendency start pounding their keyboards.

    10. Effijy says:

      Hard to argue with but I wonder if he had thoughts about fighting lies
      And distorted political statistics with the same tools.

      I’m sure a few Tory bowels would move on seeing those headlines in the Daily Hail or Redcoat.

    11. jfngw says:

      @Ian McCubbin

      Green? You must be kidding. I wouldn’t vote for them if they were the only candidate. They would probably make you sign a trans covenant.

    12. Capella says:

      He should consider asking the question again rephrasing it to remove the word “consider”.

      Should the pro independence parties promise to deliver independence in their next manifestos?

      Would be clear and specific.

    13. Doug says:

      I’m growing tired of the point scoring too. You know why? Because points mean nothing right now. There is NO referendum on the table, there is no plan to deliver a referendum apart from begging for one from a Tory government who considers the UK including their own voters a herd and will not under any circumstances apply the same rules and laws to themselves as they demand of us.

      The moment we got the “Now is not the time” line from the last untrustworthy PM was the point the SNP should have led and forced the situation to find out how that time is every going to happen.

      Open goal after open goal has come and gone. And I have an idea I know why. Catalonia. The SNP administration is frightened because if they pull a Catalonia, or hint at one they fear Holyrood will be striped of powers or they will be rounded up and imprisoned. It’s a fair position to take, better to be able to protect their electorate as much as possible than to be unable to protect us at all from the Tories over anything.

      But it’s also a losing battle, because it’s accepting the status quo in the hope of a future of rainbows and unicorns – if we can just see of this Westminster lot the next ones might be nicer. But they next ones could be worse and then we’ve wasted our time again. While the EU throws up the borders and keeps us out.

      So I propose a compromise. If Brexit isn’t extended at the end of June and we are default no deal with the EU. The SNP has to call an independence referendum – not call for – set a day and a date in 2021. Then it’s up to Westminster to stop them. If the SNP fail to do so then a true Indy Party should be formed and voted for.

      I don’t vote SNP to run the country I vote SNP for Independence. If they want to run the country thats fine but they can’t rely on my vote to do so.

      This SNP administration right now feels like the Blair and Brown years of Labour – sure the rosette is the right colour and they say all the right things, but it’s not what their party was founded on. Either get us a referendum and independence or get lost.

    14. Lenny Hartley says:

      I have not posted here for a while but take exception to “newbies” saying that “ One of the reasons many of the original posters dont bother to post anymore.”
      you have not got a fucking clue why so called original posters dont post anymore, maybe they are fed up with folk putting words into their mouths.
      As for the original post, my tuppence worth is that the Rev is correct to point out pertinent facts.
      Im away back to lurking, have a nice day Y’all and stay safe.

    15. Doug says:

      I should be clear – the Date for the referendum has to be in 2021. The Setting of that date needs to be made this year the moment the EU talks default to no deal. So that’s end of June?

    16. shug says:

      Herald headline:
      Jack McConnell attacks ‘woeful’ lack of co-ordination between four nations during lockdown announcements
      What he actually said:
      Speaking during question-time in the House of Lords, the former First Minister told peers that the divergence of decision-making during the lockdown was something to be “celebrated not criticised”.
      “It’s an integral part of the devolution settlement and it has made for better decision-making for each of the individual health services and other aspects of government in the four nations,”
      What he did attack was communication – what does the Herald do – ah yes communication.
      Headline saying one thing statements say another
      And we depend on the herald spreading a safety message!!
      Scandalous

    17. James says:

      “We have no hope of ever achieving independence if we’re not honest with ourselves about where we are. Continually telling ourselves that victory is inevitable and just around the corner is an abdication of the responsibility to actually get off our backsides and do what it takes to make it happen.”

      Tell us then. What do you want us to do? Tell us!

    18. Helen Yates says:

      “Margaret Tees says:Getting a bit bored with Stu and James constantly scoring points…. that’s not what I come here for”

      I come here for the truth and as much as it sometimes disheartens me I none the less find myself agreeing with the majority of what Stu says, my own opinion for what it’s worth, we will never see Independence unless we get of our collective arses and make it happen, Independence will never be delivered under the current administration, of that I have no doubt, only we the people can bring Independence and I’ve got to be honest I don’t believe we have what it will take to see it happen, we are and always have been good with our mouths, the Scottish fighting spirit died 300 yrs ago, we’re not like the Irish, the French or the Chinese for that matter, yes we managed to get around 200.000 on the streets one time, could we do it again and even swell that number? which I believe it would need, I doubt it, maybe we’ll have a new administration by next year, maybe the SNP will stand on an Independence platform, that would be my preferred option, however what I do know for sure I won’t be voting to give the SNP another mandate to stick in a drawer and I know from talking to friends and family I am not alone in that, I know I have somewhere to put my list vote and whether they get many votes or not they’ll be getting mine, I just wish there was another credible party who I could give my constituency vote to because unless the SNP stand on a single platform and the GRA bill is halted no party will be getting my first vote.

    19. Alex Montrose says:

      Imagine James Kelly proposing a winning combination for next years Holyrood GE, vote SNP 1 – Green 2 to decimate the Unionist list MSPs, and to move towards an Independent Country.

      The cheek o the man.

    20. ALANM says:

      If Nicola Sturgeon were asked if she’d consider campaigning for an independent Scotland she’d certainly say “yes.”

      Doesn’t mean she’s got any intention of doing so does it?

    21. X_Sticks says:

      @Lenny Hartley

      *waves* 🙂

    22. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      A lot of Indy Supporters will hold their nose in next years Holyrood GE and vote SNP 1.

      There is zero chance that they will then vote Green on the Regional List.

      Greens = GRA Supporting, Offensive Behaviour at Football AND Threatening Communications endorsing wokes.

      Greens got their chance in 2016 and have blown it big time.

      An Indy List Party will IMHO:

      1. Hoover up all those wasted SNP list votes.

      2. Remove the harmful woke influence of the Greens (which is a pity as I think Andy Wightmans land reform tax has merit) from Scottish Legislation making.

      3. Decimate the BritNat benchwarmers like Lewis MacDonald, Murdo Fraser etc.

      4. Be in a position to hold the SNP to account on its lack of traction on IndyRef 2 and its passive acceptance of BritNat MSM/BBC Propaganda on behalf of a foreign government purporting to be ‘News’

    23. Sarah says:

      @ Rev:

      What do you think of the idea that Tinto and Dan reminded us of, and I tried to propogate in the last couple of days viz. that the Treaty of Lisbon Articles 48 – 50 state that an unspecified democratic procedure is sufficient for a country to secede/dissolve a Member State?

      After that unspecified democratic procedure has produced a majority in favour of a “new” country, that country is the successor to the previous Member state.

      i.e. Scotland would have international recognition in the form of the EU.

      What form could a “democratic procedure” take? A few that I can think of are as follows:
      1. Referendum – consultative or binding.
      2. Parliamentary election where the manifesto states the vote is a plebiscite for declaring independence.
      3. A vote in Parliament in favour of independence/dissolving the Union.

      No.3 is my current preference as there is an independence -supporting majority in Holyrood right now. If this vote was framed in the context of the Lisbon Treaty ensuring Scotland would get the international recognition that Keith Brown and others always say is essential, then what is there for the SNP and current Scotgov not to like?

      If 3. was followed there is no need for any campaign. The vote could be tomorrow.

      That is my thinking but it doesn’t seem to have sparked much enthusiasm btl. Is my argument flawed?

      I submit it for your consideration.

    24. Muscleguy says:

      Why don’t we just give notice to WM (copied to the EU and UN) to withdraw from the Treaty of Union (because list of manifest breaches by WM starting in 1712) and subject to a confirmatory referendum. Which is pretty much what the Norwegians did with getting independent of Sweden (apart from asking a Danish prince to be their king instead of forming a republic and electing a president).

      It would be perfectly legal to do that and the international community would recognise it. Even Spain would recognise because of the peculiar constitutional arrangements of the UK we are bound to England by an international treaty we can withdraw from.

      If rUK cuts up rough then we withdraw forthwith, subject to a referendum and union law is suspended in the meantime. Essentially a Scottish specific form of UDI. We then Sterlingise while we run up a Reserve Bank and make plans for a currency WHEN the vote is confirmed. All taxes must be paid to Edinburgh or Barlinnie awaits you with some prosecutions pour encourage les autres. Nothing like jail time in the Bar-L to concentrate boadroom minds. Ditto alcohol duties, no license to produce without it. Let’s see the distillers all abandon the Scotch brand instead, no. Ditto VAT but make it up to the payer to pay it to Edinburgh, see above for sanctions. Accounting change puts PAYE and NI into the Scottish Tax Office (already set up.

    25. Muscleguy says:

      If Scotgov had used the last 4 years to do things like built a Scottish only backend so that the Scottish tax office is not necessarily reliant on HMRC for it’s data and systems and other such moves to get us into a position where an effective UDI would be possible it would have concentrated minds in No10 to the possibility that we might be serious about it.

      Instead they have wasted time and effort with the illiberal GRA bill and the recently table anti free speech bill which together make me wonder if Indy will be worth fighting for if it isn’t worth living in.

    26. Polly says:

      Cold harsh truth is always preferable to me than supposedly kind lies. I appreciate hearing it however uncomfortable it can sometimes feel. The salutary cold splash can even be refreshing after a miasma of uncertainty, insecurity or fading hope. I want honesty from SNP even if it means them admitting they’ve failed in their attempt to protect EU citizens, failed in their promises to give us a choice before leaving the EU, even if it means admitting they have been boxed in by Westminster constitutionally. What I don’t want is more promises until the ones already made are kept.

      I agree almost entirely with Helen Yates post too. Whether we like it or not it’s crunch time soon and we all must play our part in the drama that will soon play out. I hope it won’t be too much of a tragedy.

    27. Republicofscotland says:

      Give the ISP your list vote next year, don’t waste it on the Greens or the SNP. Now how to persuade Sturgeon that an indy majority at Holyrood next year should be seen as as a vote for independence.

      We didn’t vote for the SNP to be only a competent government we vote for them to rigourously push for and attain independence for Scotland.

    28. The Green Party,

      Climate change debate , “The science the science look at the science you can`t deny the science”

      Gender debate, “fu@k the science”,

      we desperately need a non Green/SNP option in the regional vote,

      a crowdfunded Campbell/Salmond/Murray/Riddoch + others party,

      Manifesto,

      1) To promote at all times Independence,

      2) see 1.

    29. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Sarah 7.53pm & Muscleguy 7.59pm

      There is a problem with (both) your cunning plans. Gaining international recognition of a new state is hard. Recent history gives many examples: Timor L’Este, Kosovo, Catalonia.

      A vote by the devolved Scottish parliament in favour of independence (even if SNP/Greens had the guts to do it, which we all know they don’t) will not secure international recognition. Only a clear majority of Scots voting for independence will be sufficient: the only two ways that can be demonstrated are via a 2014 style referendum, or by declaring a national election to be plebiscitary.

      The EU will not intervene WRT the Lisbon Treaty(Catalonia anyone….?): we have to man up and do this ourselves.

      The comparison with Norway, whist interesting, is flawed. By 1905 the vast majority of Norwegians favoured dissolution of the union with Sweden (indicated by the fact >99% voted “Ja” in their referendum), but the union of Sweden and Norway didn’t have a union parliament. Norway already enjoyed a large measure of internal independence, with Sweden being responsible for foreign affairs. Indeed the ability for Norway to appoint its own consuls abroad was the immediate cause of the constitutional crisis which led to the dissolution of the union.

      Scotland couldn’t “do a Norway” in the same terms because the modern international community wouldn’t see the situations as the same. They will (pace the Canadian Supreme Court’s comments on the Clarity Act on Quebec) demand a clear majority, in response to a clear question agreed in a process where good faith has been demonstrated by both sides. The bar for “secession” or dissolution of a union in cases like Scotland, Quebec or Catalonia is if anything higher than in cases of post colonial independence, or violence/oppression.

      The tragic thing for Scotland is that we are probably uniquely qualified to achieve independence in a relatively “trouble free” way. That’s why so many Catalans envied our situation in 2012-14.

      The problem we have in the end isn’t with the process, or the precedent, it’s with our own people’s lack of political courage.

    30. Doug McGregor says:

      SYNONYMS FOR independent
      autonomous
      nonpartisan
      self-reliant
      self-sufficient
      sovereign
      absolute
      autarchic
      autarchical
      freewheeling
      individualistic
      nonaligned
      on one’s own
      self-contained
      self-determining
      self-governing
      self-ruling
      self-supporting
      unaided
      unallied
      unconnected
      unconstrained
      uncontrolled
      unregimented

      ANTONYMS FOR independent
      dependent
      subordinate
      subservient

      which would you want to be?

    31. Big Jock says:

      If the SNP have indi in their 2021 manifesto . I don’t mean as an aspiration. I mean using a win to deliver independence. Then they will get my 1 and 2 vote.

      If they state they will try and get another referendum. Then I will reluctantly vote SNP 1, while holding my nose. My second vote will definitely go to the new Indy party.

      That’s my thoughts on the matter.

    32. Bob Mack says:

      A beautiful example of being hung by your own petard.

      Greens? Never again.

    33. Mountain shadow says:

      I’ve sure Rev and James have forgotten what they originally fell out over, but it’s getting rather tedious and unnecessary.

      There’s a greater good here guys.

    34. terence callachan says:

      Gee more opinions , this time it goes on and on and on and ……
      No evidence provided at all that SNP are not interested
      in going for Scottish independence
      , just WOS opinion and its only an opinion based on
      what plan of action WOS think the SNP should have..

      SNP is the leading light in the Scottish independence movement
      take them away and Scottish independence is dead
      nothing else that exists right now could come anywhere near replacing SNP

      There are always going to be things about SNP that some people don’t like
      That’s because SNP voters come from backgrounds that would normally vote for
      Labour Tory and Lib Dem

      SNP is the ONLY route to Scottish independence
      Nobody else will get it for us

      Compare Nicola Sturgeon giving reports on this covid19 epidemic every day
      with anyone else in the independence movement including WOS

      There is no comparison

      NS is under the magnifying glass every minute of every day and still stands head and shoulders above the rest
      WOS gets to write stories like this but there’s no spotlight not really , just comments that can be answered or ignored or even deleted

      Face to Face is where the real pressure is

      Just remember that when you come on here disrespecting and criticising NS
      She is your ONLY route to Scottish independence

    35. Dislogical says:

      It’s not obscure what they fell out over, it was Stu looking at whether a new list party was a good idea or not. Since then James has been rabid in attacking Stu, and unwilling to countenance any appeal to keep it private. Stu’s direct responses have been few and far between.

      I’ve no plan to stop reading either, but James’ bees in his bonnet regarding specific individuals get out of hand. His polling analysis over the last 6 years can be summed up quickly: a poll’s come in, it’s within the margin of error, nothing can really be drawn from it.

      I can only hope some actual movement occurs to allow some variance in that analysis, and that in the meantime unhelpful hatchets may be buried.

      Regarding this latest flare up I do think Stu is being somewhat disingenuous, he knows the difference between asking if someone should consider something and asking if they think someone else should consider something, but given the history it’s not surprising he has no time for James’ semantics.

    36. SilverDarling says:

      It is quite simple – if you want to be published in the MSM – and that includes the National – you have to toe a certain line. We see a few of the Indy stalwarts who crossed over. They are unthreatening and they they seem grateful for the crumbs doled out by Newsquest.They do not disagree too much with the SNP on policy or strategy and they don’t rattle any cages.

      They have also acquired many of the disgruntled erstwhile BTL contributors who have been clutching their pearls in dismay and anguish at Rev Stu challenging the sNP gospel. This everyone singing from the same hymn sheet stuff is OK until you realise the hymn sheet is full of platitudes and lies.

      It is also clear that niche areas are jealously guarded and any challenge to another’s assumed authority, e.g. polling, is seen as an attack on their ego and status.

      In the same way that the MSM had to be called out way back, so to do some of our fellow Indy travellers when it is clear that they are deluding themselves to avoid uncomfortable truths about the SNP and the progress of Indy.

      Good luck to Craig Murray tomorrow.

    37. ian macdiarmid says:

      Terance your talking to much sense for what seems the majority on this blog.

    38. velofello says:

      i no longer expect the SNP to pursue independence, I say that as a longtime member., but now lapsed.
      Nicola Sturgeon has two tasks –

      set up and guide a competent administration at Holyrood. Pass mark.

      work to secure Scotland’s independence. No progress.

      The daily Covid briefings she convenes are neither of these two tasks. Jean Freeman, very able, should lead the Covid briefings, it is in her brief.

      So, reluctantly I view Nicola Sturgeon’s Covid briefings as political self promotion.

      We need an Indy political party. Muscleguy has proposed good ideas, develop the claim for independence based on past wrongdoings by Westminster a good start. Forget another referendum – of slick phrases, dubious counting, and postal vote rigging.

    39. Sarah says:

      @ Andy Ellis at 8.37.

      There is one very big difference between the EU’s attitude to Catalonia and its likely attitude to recognising Scotland.

      Spain was staying in the EU. England as the UK is madly set on leaving the EU whilst Scotland voted heavily to stay in the EU.

      Do you really think the EU will be reluctant to recognise Scotland?

    40. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Terence Callachan 9.02pm

      Spare us the “working towards the Führer” crap. Sturgeon may be capable and a pretty well polished performer. Doubtless she’s sincere in her belief in, and desire for, Scottish independence. That doesn’t mean we all have give the ridiculous proposition that she’s the only route to independence any credence, nor are we incapable of seeing what a bourach the SNP has made of things since 2014.

      Being made to look good mostly by dint of the fact the opposition is just so execrable isn’t an achievement, it’s an indictment.

    41. Big Jock says:

      Sarah, correct!

      A very fundamental and important difference. England has no friends in the EU, and now no influence. The EU is all about growing the collective nations, not stopping growth.

      There will be many in the EU who will be secretly delighted at the prospect of a petulant isolated little England.

      Scotland is not Catalonia. In Spain they have a constitution which makes secession illegal. We are a nation of the UK, not a region of England. No such barrier exists that exists in Catalonia.

    42. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Sarah 9.25pm

      The EU won’t give a flying fuck at a rolling donut that the UK is outside the EU, whereas Spain was inside in the Catalan case. I’m pretty convinced the EU will welcome Scotland with open arms if we decide to apply, and make our entry as swift as reasonably practicable.

      However they are not about to do our work for us. Brussels isn’t a deus ex machina to deliver the result Scots are too “frit” to vote for themselves.

      The international community and EU will react to a result. Only we can deliver the result.

    43. Big Jock says:

      Andy. The EU have left the door open for us. However we need the cahonies to walk through it.

      Only people in Scotland can deliver independence.

    44. Ron Maclean says:

      I seem to remember a Dave Allan sketch where two bandidos were bound and blindfolded in front of a firing squad. One said to the other ‘listen carefully, this is the plan.’ If only we had their foresight.

      On 01 January 2020 – we get taken out of the EU, with all its protections, against our will. Soon afterwards Nicola Sturgeon might curtsey gracefully and ask Boris Johnson if she can have a s30. Boris Johnson says no.

      What then?

    45. Big Jock says:

      Ron. You would almost think it was deliberate!?

    46. Sarah says:

      @ Andy Ellis: I wasn’t being curt, just asking whether you thought Brexit made a difference to the EU view of Scotland seceding.

      There is a majority in Holyrood for independence because a majority of votes delivered those seats. This is about the 5th mandate for independence in 5 years. So a vote in Holyrood for seceding does have a democratic legitimacy.

      Why wait another year for another form of mandate?

      Our freedom, safety, happiness should not depend on a political party. As you say, it is for us to make it happen. We must be midges buzzing around all our representatives, forcing them to confront the issue and to act.

      We should not wait for the virus to be over, or for another election, or for better weather, or whatever. Hence my suggestion of a petition to Holyrood to hold a vote there. It would force them to face the question. And we would see their response.

      It is not for us to sit around waiting to be led to the Promised Land by a political party. It is for the parties to carry out our instructions.

    47. Clapper57 says:

      @ Sarah

      Sarah you are on fire….great points from you & also Big Jock.

      Take Care

    48. Jill Sharpe says:

      Where is the form of words that every SNP branch could if they wish put as a resolution to conference that the regional/list vote is a plebiscite election on independence – every vote for an independence supporting party is a Yes vote.

    49. Dan says:

      Sorting out some bookmarks and re-reading past articles on issues and solutions re. Scotland, EU, borders.

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-divided-kingdom/

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/everybody-but-you/

    50. Ron Maclean says:

      @ Big Jock 9:55pm

      I’m in despair. I don’t know what to think.

    51. McDuff says:

      James 6.49
      you have got some nerve asking that question of the rev. He has done more through his articles to bolster support for indy than this current SNP has, and had a van load of stress as a result.
      You ask what would he do? He is not a political party in government with the resources and infrastructure that the SNP has.
      But let me ask you, what has the SNP done in the last six years to further independence other than merely react to events. Go on tell

    52. Big Jock says:

      Sarah there is a pattern with Nicola. Everything is an excuse to delay Scotland’s democracy.

      Whatever comes along it always trumps Indy ref 2. Firstly it was 57 mps at WM. But that was too soon after Indy ref 1. Then after the Brexit vote. The mantra was : ” let’s see the shape of Brexit first” The fact that Scotland didn’t want any shaped Brexit was quickly forgotton.

      Then it was May:” Now is not the time”. Because England’s Brexit trumped what Scotland voted for. Then Brexit was delayed,So Scotland had to wait another year.

      Then we had an election. We gave the SNP another mandate. Nicola requested something that wasn’t on offer, a section 30. So from December to March 2020 nothing happened.

      Then came Covid -19. Again Scotland’s democracy was delayed.

      So essentially everything trumps independence. There will always be another excuse that comes along to delay our democracy.

    53. chocolass says:

      Hi Lenny Hartley!
      Good to see you-gaun yersel and stay safe too,x

    54. Jill Sharpe says:

      Another delay to Brexit another delay to the end of the UK.

    55. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Sarah 9.57pm

      I agree with your general point. A majority in Holyrood will only be accepted as a legitimate by the international community if it was gained on a platform specifically asking for a mandate to become independent. That doesn’t apply at present because the Yes movement chose the referendum route, rather than plebiscitary elections.

      Forget petitions, marches, White Rose Rising à la delusional bloviators like Peter Bell.

      We know what we have to do. The fastest and most practicable bath now is making Holyrood 2021 plebiscitary. I very much doubt the SNP has the balls to do it, or that Scots have the will to force them. Sadly I suspect that means we can whistle for indy for at least a decade. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I won’t be holding my breath.

    56. Big Jock says:

      Andy what you say is absolutely correct. If we continue with the same SNP leadership?

      However if we can get shot of Murrel, Wishart, Brown et.al.Then we might just rescue this.

      The current trajectory is the road to nowhere. Salmond has many friends in the party, notably Joanna Cherry. She to me epitomizes the street fighter we need.

      All is not lost , we just need change.

    57. Jill Sharpe says:

      Andy Ellis this is where other parties could exert pressure – if for example the ISP declared that a vote for them was a vote for independence the SNP would either have to agree the same was true for them or that a vote for the SNP was not necessarily a vote for independence – at least then we’d know for sure.

    58. Sinky says:

      No front page story on Nike truth in Scotsman and not mentioned on BBC Scotland 10.30 news bulletin. Strange after all the fuss they made about ground zero and leading to 2000 deaths.

      Labour has called for their 20th inquiry on Covid.

    59. Ron Maclean says:

      @ Big Jock 10:27pm

      ‘However if we can get shot of Murrel, Wishart, Brown et.al.Then we might just rescue this.’

      That’s close to the root of the problem. If we can get shot of Nicola Sturgeon a new leader with the necessary competence and toughness to take us to independence would surely get rid of Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership team. My own view is that Nicola Sturgeon should have stood down by now for a number of reasons; the Brexit fiasco, the Salmond fiasco, the s30 fiasco. She seems too arrogant to recognise her failings and isn’t going to go. SNP members are fooled by her ability to stand at a dais broadcasting daily figures. The ability to read is not the same as the ability to lead.

      We’re not getting anywhere with the SNP because of Nicola Sturgeon. We won’t get anywhere without the SNP but we need a new leader. That won’t happen without the support of SNP members.

    60. Sarah says:

      @ Andy Ellis at 10.17: there’s a couple of things I don’t understand – one is a typo perhaps – “practicable bath” – ?

      The other is what makes you say that a vote in Holyrood would only count if gained on a vote specifically asking for a mandate for independence? A parliamentary democracy is run according to votes in the parliament. A vote on any subject is legitimate.

      If the Tories had all decided to vote at Westminster for staying in the EU, would that have been regarded as invalid? I don’t think so.

      So if a Holyrood vote, which might even be supported by Unionist parties [in theory!], was won I really can’t see it being thought illegitimate.

      Unless you are saying [as my husband did] that the constitution is not a devolved matter? But the Kosovo argument surely comes into play then – i.e. that the state you wish to secede from has not got a veto.

      @ Clapper 57: 🙂

      @ Big Jock at 10.13: yes, that is what worries me too. I can understand being hesitant and indecisive – I am myself! – but surely one knows to listen to other people who don’t have the same characteristics? The FM and party Leader isn’t God, after all.

    61. Clapper57 says:

      O/T

      Not a fan of James O’Brien but he has retweeted a New European article of Tory Lucy Frazer’s maiden speech in HOC about Cromwell and Scots….in context of current BIG news item…i.e. Slavery….better late than never….knew that would come back to haunt that wee witch….

      Headline is “Public Backlash after footage of Tory MPs laughing at slavery joke resurfaces”…..people are commentating on picture of her making speech, the speech itself AND also all of the Tories in picture LAUGHING at it including Helen Whately…a minister in Tory Govt.

      Unbelievably….a lot of people commenting that they knew nothing about this when it happened…..thanks to our great media that exists to provide a disservice to Scots while serving the interests of Unionist politics….perhaps a tad too heavily from a English perspective…..hence the lack of publicity at the time…..par for the course…

      It’s funny that when she wrote that speech and said it in HOC that she never considered it would cause offence ( no laughing at the back) and then at an inopportune moment for her….and at a most sensitive time for Tories…. it could be weaponised to demonstrate how low an HQ Tory will go….to diss the Scots….and in a way that promoted slavery as acceptable…Oh dear…still she would have made Cromwell proud of her.

      It also blatantly shows just how much contempt they clearly have for Scots that she could contemplate not only making that speech as her maiden speech ….but also the other Tories considering it something appropriate to laugh at…..never mind her stating in her speech that what she was saying could solve the West Lothian question…that speech alone should reSOLVE the problem for those Scots who are still undecided on Indy through their misguided allegiance to the Union (non) and thus convert them to be Yes voters…if there was ANY justice….or logic to their, the NO voters, current love of being part of the UKnotOK.

    62. Colin Alexander says:

      Sarah, since 11pm on 31 January 2020, the UK ceased to be a member of the EU, so Scotland cannot be the successor state to UK membership.

      There is no UK membership of the EU to inherit.
      ——————————————————

      Cherry said, all it takes is a democratic event, I see no reason to disagree with that, unless we are prevented from having a democratic event, such as an election is cancelled or referendum is blocked. That has not happened.

      The UK Govt has not blocked an indyref or election. It was Nicola Sturgeon who decided to block indyref2, as said she decided she didn’t want one held without UK Parliament approval and
      co-operation, eg a s30 order.

    63. jfngw says:

      The decision by the Tories to go for Jeanne Freeman was taken a few weeks back, it had to be put on ice because of Dominic Cummings, but now they feel that has passed and are confident to move back onto this objective. This is Jackson Carlaw who presumably has full confidence in Matt Hancock calling for someone to resign, it looks like the paintings on the wall for Jackson ‘show me the Monet’ Carlaw.

      Labour of course are just holding onto the Tories coat tails following them wherever they go, all these enquiries they want are demanding is going to cost us a fortune, must be into double figures by now. They of course have Ian Murray as their only MP, the ground zero of stupidity in Scottish Labour.

      And poor Willie Rennie (the embarrassment that hasn’t resigned after excusing a paedophile cover up and most compromised politician in Scotland) has the audacity to claim he has lost confidence in the Scotgov, he just doesn’t want to be left out.

    64. robertknight says:

      Big Jock @9:37

      “Scotland is not Catalonia. In Spain they have a constitution which makes secession illegal. We are a nation of the UK, not a region of England. No such barrier exists that exists in Catalonia.”

      Give the bastards time…

      https://www.constitutionreformgroup.co.uk/the-herald-new-act-of-union-bill-published/

    65. James Barr Gardner says:

      O/T HES to shut down Bannockburn Visitor Centre till 2022 ?

    66. Alex Montrose says:

      there was a new Indie party formed before the 16 Holyrood election, RISE, it sunk without trace winning no seats, and only 10,900 odd votes, ah but the ISP are different, aye right.

      Make it SNP 1 – Green 2, next year to decimate the Unionist list MSPs.

    67. jfngw says:

      @Colin Alexander

      Last year I commented that we are either sovereign or not, the EU vote was over-overwhelmingly Remain, and as such it was against the sovereign wish of the people of Scotland that we leave the EU. I can only assume the SNP does not believe in our sovereignty as they have ignored this vote, apart from the belly rumbling of the WM leader (never has so much been stated with so little in return).

      It’s a bit like the final episode of Blackadder Goes Forth where they are all desperately looking for the cunning escape plan that doesn’t exist.

    68. defo says:

      “Make it SNP 1 – Green 2, next year to decimate the Unionist list MSPs”, and get twice the Woke into the bargain too Alex!

    69. Sarah says:

      @ Colin Alexander at 11.05: I did wonder if the Transition period made a difference?

      The Lisbon Treaty articles do talk about the successor state having to reapply to the EU so even if UK membership was extant a re-application was necessary. So perhaps it isn’t vitally important to the EU whether we are seceding from a current or an ex-member state? I don’t know – just wondering.

      I agree with you about Joanna Cherry. And that, again, is why I am talking about a Holyrood vote as being a possible “democratic event”. Why would it not count as one?

    70. Fireproofjim says:

      Robert Knight
      I agree we must keep a beady eye on the Unionists who would love to create a new law to make it illegal for Scotland to leave the Union, however that Act of Union Bill to which you refer was published in 2016 and seems to have sunk without trace.

    71. Effijy says:

      I never did get an explanation about how the UK
      Is supposed to be a union of 2 equal sovereign nations
      A Yes vote in 2014 would have led to Scotland being out
      Of the EU and England still in it.

      Now with England voting to leave the EU and Scotland voting to
      Remain, how come Scotland can’t remain in the EU as England could
      Above?

      Are we establishing there is no union, no equality and special powers
      For England only with the EU?

    72. robertknight says:

      Jim @ 11:38

      “Act of Union Bill to which you refer was published in 2016 and seems to have sunk without trace.”

      Indeed. Events, dear boy, events. But given the make-up of the HoC, it won’t take them long post-Brexit/Covid if there’s even a whiff of IndyRef2. (Some chance!)

    73. Colin Alexander says:

      jfngw

      I agree: If the SNP truly believed the people of Scotland are sovereign, they should have defended Scotland’s EU-Ref 62% Remain vote as a non-negotiable sovereign decision.

      Actions speak louder than words. The SNP accepted the votes of UK Parliament as the sovereign decision for Scotland’s EU-exit.

    74. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Make it SNP 1 – Green 2, next year to decimate the Unionist list MSPs.”

      I’d rather vote for the fucking Murder Kittens Party.

    75. Jill Sharpe says:

      We discuss how the leadership of the SNP seem hell-bent on destroying any chance of independence in the short term but we rarely turn our gaze upon the Green party who seem determined to destroy policies to do with the environment and sustainability with equal vigour.

    76. Stoker says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote on 10 June, 2020 at 12:10 am:
      “Make it SNP 1 – Green 2, next year to decimate the Unionist list MSPs.”

      “I’d rather vote for the fucking Murder Kittens Party.”

      Succinctly put and on that happy note it’s time to hit ma pit.

      Greens? I wouldn’t give them the steam off my shite. As for the SNP? Sturgeon is already living her dream, she’s the big ‘I AM’. We will get nowhere with her at the wheel. We’d get further with a blind driver. Think Cummings would be interested? 🙂

      Goodnight, Scotland!

    77. David says:

      We need to start getting angry

      Scots are too fuckin nice

      In Bristol after ONE rally, the people of Bristol got worldwide recognition for pulling down a statue of a racist.

      We have been marching for years and still find it hard to get a mention on our own Scottish news nevermind worldwide news.

      We are just too nice

      We need to start demonstrating

      We need start pulling down a few statues

      March up to Bute House

      Give Sturgeon one last reminder, Independence must be number one issue in the 2021 elections

      We need more Tommy Sheridans

      We need a strong vocal leader

      Guys like Sheridan don’t take any shit from the BBC

      We have been far too nice for far too long

      Enough is enough

      Pull down the statue of that bastard Cumberland, watch the english media go crazy, so what

      Make a noise

      Get angry with the placcid SNP MPs and MSPs

      Get angry with Sturgeon

      Get angry with Wishart

      They saw we were weak as piss water

      They have used and abused us for years and we still walked up and down hills for them

      They have taken us all for mugs

      Time for serious changes

    78. Mist001 says:

      Who here remembers the Growth Commission Report?

      I remember reading on a number of sites, that it had been ‘discredited’, but by whom? Who discredited it?

      It struck me that since it doesn’t take into account oil revenues, then maybe that’s the document that’s being used by the SNP to determine policy and direction?

      It’s maybe scared them into thinking that independence wouldn’t be such a good idea after all and that’s why we’re seeing little progress on the independence front.

      They might actually be afraid of a second referendum just in case they won!!

    79. David says:

      Mist001

      Do you need Oil to become an independent nation?

    80. twathater says:

      I posted this on the previous thread it may be better here , could this succeed

      twathater says:
      9 June, 2020 at 9:59 pm

      @ Dan 7.pm My idea would be that ALL the YES hubs ,SNP branches ,AUOB members and individuals PRINT OFF a universal form with a statement saying

      I twathater will not be voting SNP in ANY forthcoming election UNTIL NS states categorically and in writing that for ALL future elections that the SNP participates in we will now go forward with a plebiscite that ,if elected as the SG we will declare that with immediate effect due to the wishes of the sovereign people of Scotland we now suspend the treaty of union and will now negotiate the separation of assets and resources .
      A referendum will be held at a later date, within 2 years to ratify the people’s decision of dissolution where the people will have the option to renegotiate a NEW treaty of union

      In the interim the GRA amendments and the Hate crime bill MUST be paused until a period AFTER independence where the PEOPLE can have their say in a referendum

      Surely a statement and form such as this would have the support of all interested parties and would encourage NS to listen to the voters and her membership

      twathater says:
      9 June, 2020 at 10:04 pm

      @ me 9.59pm If Nicola wasn’t interested in acting on this missive it would at least show us dissenters and the broader indy movement the direction of travel and we could vote or not based on her response

    81. CameronB Brodie says:

      Jill Sharpe
      The Scottish Green party are full-fat woke, which is essentially a denial of nature, so they really do have an identity problem, IMHO.

      Climate change through the lens of intersectionality

      Abstract
      Investigations of the interconnectedness of climate change with human societies require profound analysis of relations among humans and between humans and nature, and the integration of insights from various academic fields. An intersectional approach, developed within critical feminist theory, is advantageous.

      An intersectional analysis of climate change illuminates how different individuals and groups relate differently to climate change, due to their situatedness in power structures based on context-specific and dynamic social categorisations. Intersectionality sketches out a pathway that stays clear of traps of essentialisation, enabling solidarity and agency across and beyond social categories.

      It can illustrate how power structures and categorisations may be reinforced, but also challenged and renegotiated, in realities of climate change. We engage with intersectionality as a tool for critical thinking, and provide a set of questions that may serve as sensitisers for intersectional analyses on climate change.

      Keywords:
      environmental politics, gender, feminist theory, power relations, difference, human-nature relations

      https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2013.835203

    82. Iain More says:

      What is it now? Six mandates the SNP have been given. We could have been Independent by now. We could have saved thousands of Scots lives if we weren’t tied to West-middens pinny strings.

      Anger doesn’t come close to describing what I feel about the SNPs failure to date to act on any of the mandates they have been given. Give me a List Vote party that I can actually vote for please. One that will push the SNP to getting us Indy.

    83. susan says:

      Good idea twathater.

    84. Breeks says:

      David says:
      10 June, 2020 at 12:32 am
      We need to start getting angry

      Scots are too fuckin nice…

      Before we do any of that David, we should put Scotland’s despicable treatment under Brexit before the UN, and declare the Union of the United Kingdom irredeemably breached and at an end, undone by unlawful colonial subjugation, the forcing of one countries will upon another.

      That will answer the SNP’s perplexing quandary about a Section 30 Agreement in a heartbeat. Job done. If only the SNP was as vexed by the Nation of Scotland’s unconstitutional and unlawful subjugation, as it is paralysed by Section 30 of Holyrood’s devolved constitution.

      Sadly the SNP will stop at nothing to find an excuse to do nothing.

      We don’t need to be angry. Grim resolve and absolute determination will suffice. Scotland’s Sovereign Constitution will do all the heavy lifting.

      All we have to do is provoke the SNP to action, or circumvent the SNP altogether. I prefer the latter option, because there is something deeply suspicious and shameful about the SNP “needing” to be provoked to defend Scotland’s constitutional rights.

    85. Robert Louis says:

      Do you know why none of our demands for an indy push by the SNP scotgov will lead to anything? Simple, behind closed doors at the SNP leadership, the discussion will go like this;

      ‘Nicola, our supporters are getting angry that you have done nothing to achieve independence, what are you going to do about it? Oh, Look, these diehard indy supporters will vote SNP no matter what, since we are the ONLY party they can elect that is pro indy. Let them moan and shout, their votes are in the bag, so stop worrying. Now..about our crazy unwanted gender bill, let’s get it done..’

      The sad fact is, that aside from Angus McNeil and Joanna Cherry, the entire SNP hierarchy has zero interest in pursuing indy. They have good careers, they have bills to pay, so why would they even think of risking all that, when they KNOW indy supporters will just keep on voting for them anyway. We have stood behind them, giving unqualified support, and the SNP have abused our trust. They now need held to account.

      Whilst I do not support violent action, I do somewhat agree with the sentiment expressed above, that we do need to start getting angry. Independence is now urgent. The SNP have done sweet f all towards indy for six years. They need ‘shook up’ (note: not in a physical way).

      They have SIX rock-solid MANDATES for indyref and indy. They MUST use them and make indy their number 1 priority. Not next year, not sometime after the 2021 election, but NOW. The UK is going to hell in a handcart, and the SNP just keep on dithering, feart to say or do anything. Independence for Scotland is URGENT. Blackford and his gang dallying down to London to repeatedly whine, be insulted, but then do nothing will get us nowhere.

      If NS is not up to this job, she needs to make space for somebody who can and will.

    86. Robert Louis says:

      Breeks at 0705am,

      Well said, very well said.

    87. Breeks says:

      I think too, that a formal submission to the UN would put the wind up Westminster, and the UK would have an immediate and existential crisis to resolve more ominous than Brexit and COV19 combined, but with Scots Law and Scotland’s Sovereign Constitution firmly in the driving seat.

      If Holyrood is content to be a puppet assembly with no backbone, it should simply be circumvented and swept aside; peripheral to the main events.

    88. Sinky says:

      No mention of the debunking of Nike ground zero conference attack by unionists on BBC Radio Scotland Gms which is to be expected despite their so called expose and milking it for days on end claiming it was the source of numerous resultant deaths.

      More surprisingly The Scotsman which also went big on the Edinburgh conference with numerous articles by anti SNP writers tucks it away at the bottom on page six.

      Todays call for Jeane Freeman’s resignation surrounds test and trace

    89. David says:

      An example of how nice and we’ll behaved the Yes Rallies are, I remember a march in Glasgow from kelviingrove to Glasgow Green.

      And at the end of it in Glasgow Green there wasn’t even any organised speeches. No angry voices.

      We just had a walk in the sun and then all went home

      The SNP leadership see this and know they have us wrapped round their little finger

      This is why I am saying that we need to get angry with the SNP.

      We need to tell them that the Love-in is over

      That it’s now over to them to start delivering.

      Their have been demonstrations taking place all over the world regarding racism

      Can you imagine similar demonstrations taking place in Scotland regarding our own fight against our Colonial masters during this lockdown?

      No chance, because we are just to fuckin nice.

      Meanwhile, the SNP will continue to piss all over you, knowing you will vote for them, no matter what.

    90. David says:

      Couple of typos in previous posts, but you get the message, the SNP are starting to take our vote for granted.

      Remember this famous statement:-

      “They don’t count Labour votes anymore, they weigh them”

      The SNP are so smug now that they are also falling into this way of thinking

      They know you will vote for them no matter what.

      This is why you see the arrogance in them rising to the top and they now think they can put through any Laws they like, knowing you will ALWAYS vote for them.

      It’s time to start getting fuckin angry.

      The next demonstration should be planned to walk in Edinburgh and finish at the front door of Nicola Sturgeon, and get her to address us directly and tell us to our faces that the next election will be based on Scotland becoming an Independent Nation.

    91. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Sarah 10.53pm

      “Practicable path”….sausage fingers, sorry!

      My issue (and that of the international community I suspect) would be that the current make up of Holyrood does not automatically reflect the majority opinion amongst Scots on indy. For good or ill the SNP decided decades ago to move away from the concept of pursuing a majority of Scots MPs at Westminster as being a mandate for indy, towards using a referendum. Holyrood was specifically set up by British nationalists to have limited competence.

      The international community is most unlikely to accept what it would regard as UDI, as our Catalan friends discovered. The fact Spain has a constitutional prohibition on secession (which isn’t a legitimate reason for them to deny independence, but is and always will be widely accepted by many states with axes to grind due to their own issues with secessionary movements in their own countries) is really neither here nor there.

      Due to the SNPs political timidity, we are in effect in the same position as the Catalans: Nicola Sturgeon’s “Gold Standard” twinned with her abject failure to prepare “Plan B” means that she and her party have tacitly accepted that we need Westminster’s permission to exercise our right of self determination.

      So, in your example, if a handful of Tory MSP suddenly “saw the light” and decided to support independence in Holyrood tomorrow, having a convincing majority of MSPs wouldn’t convince the UN, EU or anyone else. The Craig Murray plan was and remains a non-starter. Having a constitutional convention, or a UDI style vote in Holyrood would only work if there was clear evidence of a majority of Scots supporting indy: as we know from polls, that just isn’t the case.

      Even the “velvet divorce” of Czechia and Slovakia, which WAS done on a simple parliamentary vote, was possible because neither the Czech or Slovak governments and parties really objected, nor could they agree a viable way forward for the federation, although polls at the time showed only around a third of Czechs and Slovaks favoured the split.

      As I’ve said before, the problem with most contemporary potential secessions like Scotland, Catalonia and Quebec is that they all have different backgrounds and histories, as well as some commonalities. The sad thing is Scots appear to have squandered a strong position because they lack the necessary courage.

    92. Ottomanboi says:

      The reaction to Covid-19 disease has altered the political scene. Democratic entities have displayed with gay abandon and with astonishing popular acquiescence the kind of authoritarianism normally associated with forms of totalitarianism. The irrationalities of fear and ignorance were effectively deployed assisted by media never lacking in mis-and dys- information of Orwellian scale.
      The SNP régime has been up there doing its stuff with relish. Given my family’s history I would not choose to live in any system with an authoritarian streak. Human freedom matters. If you do not value it, you will surely have it taken from you. History is full of examples of nations walking distractedly into the lockdown of dictatorship.
      Dissidence in the name of ‘freedom’, with all the semantic, existential and cultural connotations of the word, has never been more necessary than now.
      For a Scotland sovereign, independent and free.

      .

    93. @Clapper57,

      Lucy Frazer, Conservative and Unionist MP for SE Cambridgeshire,

      having a laugh that Scots were sold as slaves to English colonies by Oliver Cromwell,

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjVJI0hJQ8o

    94. Stoker says:

      *PLEA FOR HELP INFO*

      Does anyone know of any documents, articles or charts etc that exist showing Scotland’s oil revenues to London from day one? Not GERS info, specifically & only oil contributions? And if so where can i access them? Trying to help one of our own on Twatter requesting this info.

    95. Alex Montrose says:

      after the indie ref in 14 we got,
      15 UK GE
      16 EU REF
      17 UK GE
      19 UK GE
      20 COVID-19
      3 shite PMs,

      During this time Nicola just had to watch as Westminster tied it’s self in knots, it’s made a good job, Indie is at 50+% with no campaigning.

      The we wunt Independence NOW brigade, wont have to wait much longer, if you believe in Scotland, Vote SNP 1 – Green 2 to decimate the Unionist list MSPs and take our Country forward towards Independence.

    96. Alex Montrose says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      10 June, 2020 at 12:10 am
      “Make it SNP 1 – Green 2, next year to decimate the Unionist list MSPs.”

      I’d rather vote for the fucking Murder Kittens Party.

      In your cups again Stu, lol.

    97. Dan says:

      @twathater at 1.23am

      Continuing from previous chat of an #ActivistStrike on last thread.
      Aye, something along the lines of what you’ve written.
      The issue is take up of the idea though.
      We know from past experiences that when a member writes to the SNP because they have issue with the Party’s focus on less important polices at this rather critical time, or to resign their membership, they’ll either get no response to the former or just get an automated response thanking them for their time as a member.
      A single random resignation doesn’t leverage anything, it is only with the power of many people acting together that will get traction.
      A properly orchestrated event with hundreds of emails following a template landing in their inbox one evening with an ultimatum has more chance of getting them to sit up and take notice.

      As Sarah and Andy’s conversation above seems to be steering towards the requirement of a new democratic event being contested on a specific manifesto to satisfy International recognition, then next year’s Holyrood Election offers that much needed opportunity.
      Scottish Parliament elections also utilise a more inclusive voter franchise which better represents the will of the Scottish people compared to Westminster’s usual gerrymandering of votes.

    98. David says:

      What surprises me most about all this road to Indy debacle is that WE, the people, don’t have a plan B.

      We are as guilty as the SNP here

      Our answer to being shat on by the SNP is to sit and moan about

      Not one of us is coming up with any credible plan to creating a new leadership

      Not one of us is coming up with a way to force Sturgeon to change or move on

      Breeks suggestions are sound, BUT, who have we chosen to implement them, nobody.

      So if we can’t even get a group of people together to take our message to the UN or the EU, then how are we ever going to be taken seriously.

      Where have all of Scotland’s radical thinkers gone?

      It’s as if no one wants to step forward and take up the challenge

      We have turned in to a Nation who is frightened of our own shadows.

      We have lost our self respect

      We have lost our confidence

      We have lost our bottle

      We have developed the attitude of,,,let somebody else do it

      Will Scotland’s next Freedom Fighter please step forward

    99. Dan says:

      @David at 9.29am

      I’ll presume it took you more than 9 minutes to write that post…

    100. David says:

      Why are potential new leaders like Joanna Cherry not coming forward

      Surely if she is going to take up the mantle if being leader of the Independence Movenent in Scotland, then she should be coming forward and speaking out against the current SNP leadership

      She should be ready to ditch her Westminster brief in favour of leading us to Independence

      This is another example of Scots having no balls

      How about it Joanna, will you step forward and take up the mantle of being leader of the Scottish Independence Movenent?

    101. David says:

      Dan?

    102. mike cassidy says:

      For those who think the GRA thing is being hyped out of all proportion to the country generally.

      Its about to go very public.

      https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1270627872688963584

    103. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Alex Montrose 9.19am

      Doesn’t it occur to you and other partisans of the Scottish Greens to ask why so many progressives in Scotland feel the way Stu does?

      For a party that ought to be enjoying much wider support in a putatively progressive, left of centre, communitarian country like Scotland, why aren’t the Greens riding high and enjoying levels of support like that in Germany or Scandinavia?

      I’d say I’m probably more closely aligned to Greens on many issues than any other party, but like Stu and others, I could never bring myself to vote for the likes of Harvie or Greer.

      How can any reasonable person accept their rank misogyny and explicit statement that anyone who doesn’t accept the deeply a-scientific woo woo behind the “Transwomen are women” isn’t welcome in their party?

    104. Dogbiscuit says:

      GCHQ must be laughing their heads off at much of the shit below the line here. Too many party shills blowing smoke up good peoples arses.

    105. Julia Gibb says:

      Weegingerdug needs help getting to target. He does a great job, as does Paul.
      https://www.gofundme.com/f/wee-ginger-crowdfunder

    106. Jill Sharpe says:

      Everyone who is a member of the SNP and anyone who can join should be active in their branches – get the Woko Haram out and get using the 2021 list vote as a de facto referendum in – don’t wait for leadership – be the leadership.

    107. Dr Jim says:

      Joanna Cherry has already publicly stated she has no interest in replacing the FM and has 100% confidence in the FM as leader of the SNP and as FM

      The podcast can be found @ Wee Ginger Dug

    108. Dogbiscuit says:

      The Greens and SNP are dishonest about climate change. Whenever they are reminded that there is a sun in the sky elicits a mob mentality approach with shouts of ‘Tory’ or ‘Ukipper’ Which does not answer the question of the Suns role in Climate Change .The weird child saint Thunberg has never answered a question.She has never been asked a question by the compliant media. Across the socio political spectrum we are being worked by Government media. There is no honest debate about any of the big issues of our age at the political level. Blacks being footballed by Democrats for example. Any attempt at honest debate is soon to be outlawed in Scotland under the new proposals from the SNP. I’m not voting for fucking jam anymore . You ‘lockdown’ fanatics need to smell the coffee and not your own piss .

    109. Dogbiscuit says:

      If Joanna Cherry believes that then Independence is finished. By the way Dr I’ve got this pain in my ass…

    110. Big Jock says:

      I just think the SNP are a mess right now. Regardless of what any of us think about them. We do actually need the SNP as the party and government , to deliver independence.

      I think it’s crucial that we sort them out. If we don’t clean up the SNP then independence will never happen. I am a lifelong member. I briefly left after the last GE. I then thought:” Wait a minute”. This is my party and it was my party before all these eejits with their micro agendas joined a few years ago.

      Unfortunately our leader is not interested in independence. She has given up. You can see it! She believes in independence, but she doesn’t have the gumption to deliver it.

      We need the party to be taken back from the gradualists. The ones like Wishart ,who want to move at a glacial pace. So slowly that no movement can be detected.

      I don’t know how we can do this , but we need to do it. We do need people like Jo Cherry to take on the leadership and say that enough is enough.

      Murrel is the biggest erse in the party. He is running it like a business , not an independence movement.

      Scunnered!!

    111. Big Jock says:

      Has Jo Cherry given the manager the famous vote of confidence!!

    112. Alex Montrose says:

      Andy Ellis @ 9-56.

      Andy, lets win our Independence then dump the Greens, or dump the SNP, but we have to get there first, allowing the Indie campaign to be split by some policy disagreements is daft, and you wander the priorities of the folks who are pushing this pish.

    113. CapnAndy says:

      “We have no hope of ever achieving independence if we’re not honest with ourselves about where we are. Continually telling ourselves that victory is inevitable and just around the corner is an abdication of the responsibility to actually get off our backsides and do what it takes to make it happen”.

      Absa F’ing Lutely. Spot on.

    114. McDuff says:

      Alex Montrose
      I’m sorry but where have you been for the past six years. The polls are the same as they were just before the ‘ 14 Indy ref, in other words we have progressed nowhere.
      And don’t you think that the unionists won’t be viciously campaigning come another ref. NS has done nothing for Indy.

    115. Bob Mack says:

      What Indy campaign?. As far as I can see the only place it’s actually happening is on blogs like this one.

      To be really factual, it’s blogs like this one that are asking the party of Independence to conduct an Indy campaign.

      Problematic ,isn’t it?

    116. Big Jock says:

      CapnAndy says:

      10 June, 2020 at 10:32 am
      “We have no hope of ever achieving independence if we’re not honest with ourselves about where we are. Continually telling ourselves that victory is inevitable

      You are right “Independence is inevitable” . Absolute garbage that statement. Only two things are inevitable “Death & Taxes”.

      What we do in between makes other things happen. Right now the Union is the tangible and independence is aspirational. An aspiration only becomes tangible if you do the correct things in the correct order at the correct time to make it real. Nothing is inevitable. Me going to the shop and getting run over is not inevitable , it’s avoidable. I could have looked first before crossing the road. It was my fault!

      If we don’t get independence, it’s our collective fault. Why? Because we didn’t do the things we should have to make it happen.

      Nothing is inevitable!

    117. Dogbiscuit says:

      Computer modelling in Climate Science is wrong .University of East Anglia we’re caught fiddling their figures in the past. That’s a widespread problem. The models employed by Prof. Ferguson were wrong. Computer modelling is not science.It is mathematical crystal ball gazing with an injection of terror to get the public onside with wonky science.Concensus is a show of hands not science. 97% of scientists actually means 97% of the scientists in the room when that consensus , show of hands’ was agreed on .Science is in a terrible state today because too many established careers don’t want to rock the boat.A scientist could lose his job if he disagrees with Government on climate change .The peer review system is a joke especially when it comes to long established scientists trying to defend a position.Most t scientists are orthodox thinkers and go with the herd to maintain their employment.

    118. Famous15 says:

      Dogwhistle in fine form today even explaining what GCHQ do and him having signed the official secrets Act too.

      Branch actions do matter. I regret at times having resigned but when things open up I will focus on the YES movement.

    119. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Alex Montrose 10.31am

      I’ve never been that convinced by calls of “wheesht for indy” Alex. I’d be quite happy to defer detailed policy discussions until after indy, and I certainly hope the post indy party political environment will reflect a different cast of political characters than we see today.

      However, we are where we are. At present we only have the SNP and greens to advance the cause of indy, along with whatever new entrant parties emerge in coming months, whether ISP, WoS or Big Eck.

      As we’ve seen, absent some palace revolution at SNP HQ, the current motor of the independence movement is wedded to the Gold Standard referendum and to seeking and obtaining Westminster’s permission for a vote. Irrespective of my personal unwillingness to vote Green, I don’t see them (largely as a result of the very detailed policy positions you insist are unimportant) suddenly becoming instrumental in changing the SNPs mind, or in helping deliver Plan B.

      It avails the movement as a whole nothing if it gains the support of previous No voters while losing the support of existing Yes voters due to GRA and the prospective new hate crime legislation, on top of a generalised dissatisfaction with the SNPs lack of stomach for #indyref2.

    120. Dogbiscuit says:

      Helen Yates When roused the Scottish fighting spirit is formidable but also frightening. Scotland has fallen asleep on a bed of complacency.

    121. Bob Mack says:

      Everybody and the auntie knows Science is never exact. It is constant testing of theoretical probabilities.

      However, it’s the only thing we have in times like these.

      No doubt some view them with the centuries old suspicion of dabbling in black arts.

    122. Dogbiscuit says:

      When can we expect a ‘devastating second wave ‘ of virus as a result of the BLM marches? Government approved BLM rallies that are immune from covid and Government restrictions? Hey ‘lockdown ‘ fascists you’re being sold a pup on covid by the deeply caring First Minister. The demonstrations prove ‘lockdown is being enforced for political purposes and also First Minister hates being defied because she is a control fanatic. Right now she must be pissed on imaginary power.

    123. Dogbiscuit says:

      Computer modelling is sold to the public as infallible.

    124. ahundredthidiot says:

      I see the spineless bastards in Westminster are not allowing pubs in England to open in June – shitebags.

      Airports in Europe putting 1m distancing in place – fuck sake folks, the scams over…..but not for us mugs.

      Because we’re worse – our tourism industry for 2020 has just been effectively cancelled – the inbound flight self-isolate rule means no one will come and the way the SNP want everyones life to be as miserable as fuck means we cant even try to support our fellow countryman in their time of need by getting out and about ourselves cos everything’s closed.

      When the figures arrive at the end of the year for this increasingly draconian Country we call Scotland – Independence will be ruled out for a REAL generation.

      It’s the economy stupid – always has been, always will be.

    125. liz says:

      There will be no independence under Nicola’s stewardship.
      Maybe we have been complacent but unfortunately we don’t get to select who stands for election, the SNP admin do, and all the people chosed are knee benders to NS.

      If you think I’m mistaken, look at what happened in Stirling, Alyn S parachuted in because NS wanted him.

      One of the nice but dim exec members, gave the game away when she said that the exec had taken it upon themselves to select people to be put in branches as officers to – increase diversity.

      That was why Rhiannon Spears ended up as WO in Pollok.
      The members had no idea who she was, until she was suddenly there.

      That then gives RS the opportunity to be selected to stand as an MSP.
      Quite frankly what is ‘diverse’about one white male and one white female escapes me.

      Lastly Joanna Cherry would never say she wants the FMs job before she’s even been selected to stand for Edin Central,that would be career suicide.

      The SNP hierarchy have already tried to get rid of her.
      A staffer reported her for bullying & homophobia.
      Being smart, she referred herself to the WM standard’s committee because if she had been dealt with by Holyrood SC, she would have been suspended until the selection process was complete.
      She knows what she’s doing.

      Lastly, lastly just cos NS is a competent articuate speaker does not make her a good leader

    126. Dogbiscuit says:

      Famous 15 away and crawl back up Nicola Sturgeons fundament.

    127. Famous15 says:

      Dogwhistle an100Idiot tag team overplay the BS.

      Remember your training!

    128. Jill Sharpe says:

      Just for your information – as someone who has to attend hospital on a weekly basis – the virus is doing fine and getting on with infecting people having been given lots of chances to do so.

    129. Dogbiscuit says:

      Sturgeons ‘Gold Standard’ political language for nothing else allowed.

    130. Dogbiscuit says:

      Famous 15 poking around in the dark with a wild imagination.

    131. Dogbiscuit says:

      Famous. I spend my days wasted and I have more political savvy than you.

    132. Ron Maclean says:

      The SNP’s constitution needs amendment. The leader’s tenure should be limited to a maximum of four years and two terms if re-elected. Nepotism should be banned.

    133. ahundredthidiot says:

      Famous15

      ‘remember your training’

      how could I forget it! – I was one of their best – they even tried to get me back in a few years after I was out – and it wasn’t even a real war!

      …..but I’ll tell you this Famous15 – I’d be fucked if I rolled up my sleaves for this snivelling SNP.

      Maybe you can – remember YOUR training – a lifetime of of fucking whinging.

    134. Dogbiscuit says:

      Yes Liz g.

    135. Jill Sharpe says:

      There seems to be a lot of conspiracy theorists doubting scientific fact and hurling of insults going on – is that supposed to distract from discussion about the actual subject the blog is about?

    136. Lorna Campbell says:

      “…We have no hope of ever achieving independence if we’re not honest with ourselves about where we are. Continually telling ourselves that victory is inevitable and just around the corner is an abdication of the responsibility to actually get off our backsides and do what it takes to make it happen.

      “…The only value of the SNP winning elections is if they’re prepared to use the power so gained to move forwards in pursuit of independence. If not, they’re of no worth…”

      Absolutely hits nail on head. A sharp and cold dose of reality, followed by a double dose of pragmatism must be the way forward. The reality is that the SNP is not now going to take us to independence. Painful to acknowledge, but there it is. It doesn’t really matter if it is dragging its feet to try and have everything we need for an independent Scotland in place, because the aftermath of Brexit will wipe out all considerations like this. It is possible to set all these things up within less than a six-month period, and we know that because numerous other countries, newly-independent, have done it. The pragmatism comes when we are willing to accept that most NO voters will vote NO again, that they will not be persuaded by campaigning or anything else, that they have all the Scotland-wide and UK-wide techniques of persuasion at their fingertips and we simply do not. Ergo what do we do? Firstly, we understand that they are not a majority: they are an alliance of completely disparate and disengaged minority vested interests in keeping the status quo, and we fight them now on those lines. They are operating outwith international law. Time they knew it.

      It is logical to suppose that we must work out a route and strategy out of the Union that will not, in the end, alienate all Unionists and British and English Nationalists, even if it offends and/or outrages many of them. We should not give these die-hards undue attention or pander to their delusions. Yes, they could make life difficult for us, but only insofar as they are colonialist and/or imperialist, which international institutions now look upon askance. In other words, they have no automatic rights on this issue. In other words, their reaction should not be our limitation. I simply do not believe it is possible now to leave the UK by means of the British (English) constitution. Indeed, it never was, except that the S30 Order and Edinburgh Agreement might just have worked, but we should have known – many of us did – that the British State would grind into action to ensure that it didn’t work. There is now no hope whatsoever of a second S30 Order – none – and any attempt to hold a consultative referendum will be met with the same authoritarian measures as the Catalans experienced, because Westminster and Whitehall will claim that it is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court will strike it down on the grounds of contravening sovereignty of parliament, the cornerstone of British (English) Constitutional Law.

      What does that leave? It leaves the only the legal, democratic and legitimate route under international law: resiling the Treaty. Two eminent gentleman, one now, sadly, deceased, have done most of the groundwork for us. Professors David Walker (deceased) of Glasgow University and Professor Ian Campbell, of Liverpool University, both constitutional experts, demolished the Crawford and Boyle Report and left us the fundamentals we need to build a case on the grounds of England-as-the-UK’s perfidy. They have already, to any constitutional mind, shown that the Treaty is extant, that Scotland was and remains a partner in the Union and that England basically hi-jacked the Treaty for its own purposes, breaching almost every Article, and thereby hi-jacked the Union. We can build on that to show the international courts how we have been treated for over 300 years, and are still being treated: as a colony and region of a Greater England. The Vienna Convention does not cover the Treaty of Union because it deals with modern treaties, but special tribunals exist within the UN and under the auspices of the UN that do deal with old treaties. Moreover, we have the UN Charter, to which the UK is a signatory. An excellent case could be built within a six-month period, starting with having the Treaty ‘sound’ in law, in Scotland. Because of the urgency of Brexit, even the threat of this might be enough to force Westminster’s hand, but I wouldn’t bank on it. In any case, in any independence negotiations with rUK, we will need that Treaty because they will almost certainly try to use it against us. What it will take to make this real is the will. No, it won’t be easy peasy, lemon squeezy, nothing worth having ever is. What it will be is a direct route to independence, international recognition and a suspension of Brexit for Scotland so that we can decide later how we wish to proceed in Europe.

      We will, of course, require the services of at least one, but preferably two, constitutional experts, to cut through the flim-flam and show us the way. In the end, we might have to consider crowd-funding this effort, but a few pounds from each independence supporter would still come to roughly a million. The politicians will, if they have any sense, or any sense of self-preservation, at any rate, do the rest.

    137. Dogbiscuit says:

      Jill Sharp you have no business holding the rest of us hostage An outrageous abuse of human rights imprisoning a population ruining the economy and downgrading our children’s life chances. You can swallow Government propaganda if you want but I’m not buying it .There is a virus but it is being exaggerated in its effects. You’re not thinking of the wider issues around ‘lockdown’.

    138. Athanasius says:

      Kelly’s blog has gone so woke, it’s broke. I used to watch it closely, but his absolute refusal to recognize the poison coursing through the SNP’s bloodstream meant I ended up just not bothering to open his page anymore. Scotland is not going to be independent within the next two generations at least with its chief nationalist force under the control of woke entryists and some people just can’t seem to get hold of that reality. Once you start thinking like that, it’s a very short step to the “one rule for thee and another for me” principle.

    139. Ron Maclean says:

      @ Lorna Campbell 11:29am

      That should have been done by the SNP years ago.

      It’s a good positive start. How do we take it forward?

    140. Graf Midgehunter says:

      We don’t need a referendum, that’s working the WM system and is a stable-door, wide open invitation for manipulation from the Establishment. The risk of losing is very real.

      I see (or saw) two ways forward:

      The 31st of Jan was the crux day IMO.
      That was the day WM knowingly and willfully broke the T of U. on the world stage. (Forget all the other smaller ones, this was the big one.)

      Despite the SNP, in particular the utterences from windbag Ian Blackford, screaming out that we’re not going to be dragged out of the EU, they squeaked and did nothing.
      Sovereignty – what’s that???

      That should have been the the moment to tell WM and the world, you’ve broken it despite our vote against leaving, so we’re terminating the Treaty and will go our own way again.
      Boris would have s**t his pants and the EU would’ve been dancing in the aisles.

      Now it’s the 30th of June/31st of December as a hope against hope situation, forget it.
      Boris knows the SNP are cowards.

      The only other way is what Breeks and the Rev (+ others) rightly forsee.

      If we the people are sovereign supported by Scots Law and Scotland’s Sovereign Constitution going back to the Declaration of Arbroath, then our SG/SNP at Holyrood must bring our case for independence before the courts of the world and the UN. Joanna Cherry + team must have the authority and resources to push it, regardless of WM.

      I sometimes wish we were more like the French who love the smell of burning tyres, the whiff of tear-gas and are quite prepared to shorten the hairdos of the aristocracy..! 🙂

    141. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Lorna Campbell 11.29am

      I don’t believe your plan would work. Firstly, who is the “we” you expect to be the ones making the case to the UN? It isn’t going to be the Scottish Government that’s for sure, so it’s pretty unlikely the UN will pay a blind bit of notice.

      All the UN and international community are interested in with respect to granting recognition is that a clear majority of Scots vote in favour, in response to a clear question. Since we have the precedent of the 2014 indyref, and the possibility to hold plebiscitary elections if that route is vetoed, the UN will (with justification in my view) simply say:

      “Get back to us when you grow a pair, OK?”

      The only circumstances we could expect some other form of intervention is in the event of violence being used against us, or some other particularly flagrant breach of basic process by Westminster. As we saw in Catalonia even the use of force and jailing of political leaders won’t automatically result in support for a process the international community regards as invalid or of questionable provenance.

      I’m more than ever convinced that the quickest, safest and cleanest route to independence is now to ensure pro-independence parties are obliged by their memberships and broader support to issue an ultimatum to Westminster à la Wee Ginger Dug. If they won’t honour the 2014 precedent for #indyref2, every subsequent election for Holyrood and Westminster will be regarded as plebiscitary. That could be done in a matter of days.

    142. Allium says:

      The SNP hierarchy tried to do a Michelle Thompson to Joanna Cherry. Thankfully Joanna isn’t as ‘nice’ or trustful as Michelle, and fought back successfully. They will pull every trick in the book to stop her getting into Holyrood. They know she’s leader in waiting and they hate it. As we all know, Angus Robertson is their great white hope for next leader, now Mackay is out. That’ll be fun.

      Used to give the Greens my second vote purely on indy – never liked them as a party. Would rather vote Lib Dem now, lol.

    143. Republicofscotland says:

      Don’t know if this up yet.

      Michel Barnier the European Commission’s chief trade negotiator is willing to listen to any request from Scotland only, on an extension current transition period.

      The million dollar question must surely be is Sturgeon listening and will she head to Europe to take up Barnier’s invitation, and find a way to prolong our stay in the EU.

    144. Bryan Weir says:

      I hate when people respond on social media with a comment which just says “Yawn”.

      But you know what?

      YAWN!

      Turn it up the lot of you.

    145. Alex Montrose says:

      Andy Ellis 10-53

      Andy, a yes vote for independence in a referendum, is not a vote for the SNP – Greens or any other party, or their policies, it’s a vote on self determination, all the party political bs will be sorted after a GE in an independent Scotland.

      we have to win the right to have a referendum first, that’s where the SNP 1 – Green 2 comes in, IMHO.

    146. Republicofscotland says:

      What do we make of this appointment, good or bad, the former spin doctor for the Scottish government Kevin Pringle has joined the board of a grassroots organisation, Voices for Scotland established last year to drive up the support for independence.

    147. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Alex Montrose 11.57am

      The Scottish Greens aren’t likely to reach escape velocity IMO. Their sophomoric Woko Haram stance means many of us will never vote for them under any circumstances. It won’t matter if there’s an SNP or SNP & Green majority after the 2021 Holyrood election because that won’t translate into having a referendum.

      Neither the SNP or Greens have the ability or balls to deliver one. The airy assertion by vapid lightweights like Pete Wishart is all they have: these folk honestly believe British nationalism will somehow have an attack of reasonableness and feel obliged to “give” us what is ours by right, as long as we give the SNP yet another referendum. Aye, right!

      The obvious alternative is plebiscitary elections. They are feasible and will be recognised internationally: the real question is why aren’t the SNP and Greens on board with the idea and using it right now as a rejoinder to the “Now is not the time” response?

    148. ahundredthidiot says:

      Jill Sharp @11:28

      I would be very grateful for you to post links to your scientific FACTS.

      Unless you mean that it is a FACT that Governments are following scientific CONSENSUS – that is not the same thing – Sweden are following a different scientific consensus.

      And when I say consensus – I mean OPINION. Look up their track record – it ain’t pretty. Would you buy another car from someone who sold you a ringer – not once or twice, but thrice? – you’d have to be a damned fool!

      For COVID19 – there are no scientific facts – just data. It’s not all in yet and we may well wait a while yet, but so far, the elephant forming in the corner of the room, is that lockdown was not only pointless, but compounded existing problems like suicides, drug deaths, heart and cancer deaths.

    149. Allium says:

      @RepublicofScotland 12.03

      Interesting. Will it be a return to the Salmond-era Pringle (sadly missed), or more of the recent #buyapaper Sarah Smith defending Pringle? I wonder where his loyalties lie atm. That’s not an insinuation, btw, I’m genuinely curious.

    150. CameronB Brodie says:

      Westminster obviously does not consider those living in Scotland to have a legal right to legal rights. So that means British constitutionalism does not consider those living in Scotland to be equal citizens, but rather soulless possessions of the Crown. A bit like an antique chair or the family silver.

      Scotland will continue to get pumped from both ends until we have a party that is prepared to place the law above politics. Especially constitutional law. Not British constitutional conventions and traditions though.

      Implementing the Rule of Law:The Role of Citizen Plaintiffs
      https://muse.jhu.edu/article/181438

    151. jfngw says:

      Only 37 excess deaths above five year average for week 23 in Scotland.

    152. Ron Maclean says:

      We should know by now that anything relying on the SNP or worse the Greens will take us nowhere. A Yes campaign run by slebs wanting selfies with Nicola likewise.

      What to do?

    153. CameronB Brodie says:

      Lorna Campbell
      Good comment but the Rev. would probably recommend smaller paragraphs, for easier reading. 😉

    154. ScotsRenewables says:

      Big Jock says:
      9 June, 2020 at 8:42 pm
      If the SNP have indi in their 2021 manifesto . I don’t mean as an aspiration. I mean using a win to deliver independence. Then they will get my 1 and 2 vote.

      If they state they will try and get another referendum. Then I will reluctantly vote SNP 1, while holding my nose. My second vote will definitely go to the new Indy party.

      That’s my thoughts on the matter.

      What he said.

    155. CameronB Brodie says:

      What to do?

      Start respecting international human rights law, so we can make use of its’ protective force, rather than allowing the law to be abused for illiberal ends. We can still access international law through the EU, while we are still connected.

      Inequality and the subversion of the Rule of Law
      https://sur.conectas.org/en/inequality-subversion-rule-law/

    156. lothianlad says:

      Going back to the original post, support for Independence should be miles ahead in the polls, but we get all orgasmic at being affectively neck and neck. Glad we are ahead even though its marginal.

      With the most inept WM government dealing appallingly with crisis after crisis, a sound and dedicated SG committed to Independence should be wiping the floor with them.

      However, as we all know, very sadly, the SNP SG is content to be the devolution party administering limited power granted from their colonial masters.

      This is no accident. People need to realise that NS and the inner circle are under the control of the British secret service.

      Whether this is by blackmail, bribery or both, NS has a debt to pay to those who put her in power, and they want payback for helping her get to the top.

      She could do untold damage to the Independence cause and that is just where the brit establishment want her. Keep your enemies close etc…

      At a time when we should be shouting about the need for Independence from the house tops, the silence is deafening!

      remember how effective simple use of words and language can be.. – ‘take back control’ that simple slogan was used to devastating effect by the leavers in 2016.

      Independence is a simple word but such a powerful one. Instead we have Sturgeon referring to it as , and I quote… ‘ a beautiful dream’!!

      a far of fantasy where everyone lives happily ever after. that’s how the unionist media spun it, and Sturgeon dutifully applied!

      I suspect that sturgeon will make noises about Independence in the coming months to deflect rage from the members over the handling of the Alex Salmond case.

      Then she will cause havoc siting Infighting as scuppering Independence and will probably even give interviews stating things like … ‘Scotland is not ready to govern itself right now if this is the behaviour’ etc…

      Just an opinion, but, who would have thought that the SNP with this much, power would shun Independence?

      A new leadership is vital!

    157. CameronB Brodie says:

      The main problem Scotland has, IMHO, is it doesn’t recognise how badly it’s getting pumped by British constitutionalism.

      Does an Inclusive Citizenship Law Promote Economic Development? Prepared by Patrick Imam and Kangni Kpodar1

      Abstract
      This paper analyzes the impact of citizenship laws on economic development. We first document the evolution of citizenship laws around the world, highlighting the main features of jus soli, jus sanguinis as well as mixed regimes, and shedding light on the channels through which they could have differentiated impact on economic development.

      We then compile a data set of citizenship laws around the world. Using cross-country regressions, panel-data techniques, as well as the synthetic control method and subjecting the results to a battery of tests, we find robust evidence that jus soli laws – being more inclusive – lead to higher income levels than alternative citizenship rules in developing countries, though to a less extent in countries with stronger institutional environment.

      https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/wp1903.ashx

    158. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      “Michel Barnier the European Commission’s chief trade negotiator is willing to listen to any request from Scotland only, on an extension current transition period.”

      You got a link to this @ Republicofscotland says at 11:54 am

    159. Republicofscotland says:

      “There is now no hope whatsoever of a second S30 Order – none – and any attempt to hold a consultative referendum will be met with the same authoritarian measures as the Catalans experienced, because Westminster and Whitehall will claim that it is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court will strike it down on the grounds of contravening sovereignty of parliament, the cornerstone of British (English) Constitutional Law.”

      Lorna Campbell.

      Isn’t that what we really need though, we are going nowhere fast on the indy front, confrontation is possibly now the only way forward. We’ll never break out of this forced union without defying Westminster.

      We must take our case to a court outside of the UK, we must make our case there, and show that Westminster point blankly refuses the sovereign will of the Scottish people to hold a independence referendum, and in the process we must get the international community onside.

      However I fear Sturgeon is happy with the status quo, and she will not rock the boat under any circumstances, but continue to repeat that she’d wants the gold standard when it comes to a referendum. She knows fine well, that standard will never ever be met because Westminster will never willingly offer up a S30.

      A tiny glimmer of light in the darkness is the thought of Salmond’s book bringing down Sturgeon and her clique, and more capable folk taking over the SNP with independence in mind.

      Even then Lilley and IDOX will fix it so we lose, so let’s hope next years Scottish elections are run on a majority for independence parties at Holyrood equates to independence, I see no other way to cut this Gordian knot.

    160. callmedave says:

      Alex Salmond blogger wants contempt hearing in court

      https://archive.is/9ykUx

    161. Lorna Campbell says:

      Andy Ellis: ‘we’ are the people. ‘We’ need to show only that at least half the population wants to resile the Treaty, or are you saying that Unionists automatically, by some God-given right, are somehow more deserving than we are. If you want out of the UK, you want to break the Union or you are on a logic rollercoaster to nowhere, and the only way now to do that is via the Treaty. If ‘we’ do this, if ‘we’ commission two constitutional experts to take our case forward at a couple of quid each, the politicians will be forced to take action or they will have to go – all of them. Time is running out for us. We need to give notice that this is what we will do. Set up a crowd-funding forum that will speak for all of us who want independence, even if we are not fully in agreement about how we go about it, and invite donations specifically to commission constitutional experts to build a case to take us out of the UK. In the name of the wee man, these Unionists and assorted self-servers have been holding on to the reins of power in Scotland on the back of a one-off referendum, while ‘we’, independence supporters, let them and kow-tow to them and pander to them without ever stating the obvious: that they are breaking international law by: a) refusing us a second indyref; b) by refusing us the means to a second indyref. That is what our case would be built on, along with the legal evidence that the Treaty is both extant and the legal statement of a partnership, not a subsumption, not a takeover, not an imperial/colonial enterprise, and that it has been hi-jacked and breached consistently by England-as-the-UK.

      What are we afraid of? Of a bunch of self-serving, vested interest minority groups whose sole point of contact is anti independence? That is illegal according to international law; it is illegal according to the UN Charter. Are we going to allow a second NI-style subversion of our nation? That is their threat. Call their bluff and see how many are willing – and let’s not forget that many of these NO voting Unionists are refugees from the NI conflict or from down south, as well as our own home-grown Unionists – to contravene international law? The three Baltic States put up with no nonsense from their minority Russian populations, and gave them a choice to stay or leave. All three minorities chose to stay, in a post independence confirmatory referendum. I know that sounds harsh, and no way would I ever advocate or condone any form of second-class citizenship for anyone in an independent Scotland, regardless of his or her origins, but if these people continue to keep us in harness as ever more punitive and health-destroying UK initiatives roll towards us, they do not deserve the pandering they receive from the Scottish government, the YES movement and from us. They are a menace to our health and well-being, wealth and future prospects as a nation. It is time for the boot up the jacksie for these people. I’m sorry, but they, just as much as the SG high head yins, need a wake-up call. ‘We’ have won election after election. Mandate after mandate. Yet still they call the tune. What is going on in Scotland? Elections are our primary source of democracy, not an ad hoc, consultative, non-binding referendum over which many questions of probity still hang, yet we let them get away with this nonsense, day-in, day-out. They are an affront to democracy, and they need to be told, and shown, that.

      I have no pretensions to power, having seen how it affects the SNP high head yins, so have no worries on that score. I wouldn’t trust myself, let alone any power-seeker. I would happily, free of charge, help out on a research basis, any constitutional lawyers who needed it, and I am sure there are others on here who would do the same. This would be a people’s initiative, but the politicians would have to come on board or lose their seats. It’s that simple now. As for who would be on the forum? People like the Rev, if he was willing, and others, such as Craig Murray, if he was willing, who have given much to the cause of our independence. Volunteers would be necessary and a forum built around a core of talented and knowledgeable people. If something does not happen very soon – and I mean within the next few months, we are finished, and there will be no democratic and legal way out of the Union, leaving any future independence bid to our descendants and, probably through conflict. If we go into another SE on the promise of another mandate for another attempt at a S30 Order, that’s it for me. I will not vote ever again. I am too long in the tooth now, and too prone to intermittent ill-health, to emigrate successfully, but I would be encouraging the younger members of my family to get out while they can. English Nationalist and Elitist Manifest Destiny is on its way.

    162. liz says:

      @republicofScotland I saw the offer of listening to the reasons for a Scotland only extension from Barnier.

      What excuse do you think the FM will come up with if she doesn’t grab this opportunity with both hands?

      Rest assured, if she doesn’t make a case ASAP, we will know she has been compromised.
      We should all be urging Mike Russell to get it done

    163. Lorna Campbell says:

      Sorry about the long pieces, but I don’t think it can be explained in a soundbite.

    164. callmedave says:

      Willie Rennie sets out his agenda to the FM for post virus support for industry , commerce and the Scottish people including a universal income.

      FM says the SGov has not the sufficient powers to do so tax and benefits and universal income but invites the Lib/Dem (and the others) to join her party in demanding such powers from WM! 🙂

      I hoped for a second there she was going to mention the word independence ( it was on my lips at least as she got to her point)… but it was never uttered!

      Maybe on another occassion soon. 🙂

    165. CameronB Brodie says:

      Without a respect for Natural Law, constitutionalism can NOT be considered compatible with the principles of equality and liberty. So that’s Scotland screwed until it finds leadership that understands constitutional law.

      Full text.

      International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 10, Issue 2, 30 March 2012,

      Introduction: Gender, sexual orientation, and equal citizenship
      Citizenship is firmly anchored in the deepest layers of modern constitutionalism. Although it traces back as far as Ancient Greece, citizenship acquired its distinct modern meaning as equal citizenship at the time of the French Revolution.1 Equal citizenship is premised on the assumption that all human beings are essentially inherently equal and emerges beyond mere abstraction by reference to what it originally stood against.

      Equal citizenship was enlisted in the struggle against feudal hierarchy and in the thrust to overcome relegation as the King’s subject within the realm of the absolute monarchy. Accordingly, equal citizenship was designed to promote above all two kinds of equality: equality as opposed to (feudal) status and equality in terms of the citizen’s right to self-government (as opposed to the subject’s duty to submit to the will of the monarch). Equality of status and equality in the right to self-government thus provide a baseline for, and a minimum concrete content to, equal citizenship.

      Consistent with this, how can one account for the fact that women who constitute half of humanity were deprived of equal status and of an equal right to self-government from the onset of French Revolution,2 and that those deprivations or some of their consequences, as detailed in the contributions to this Symposium, continue to this very day? As will be briefly examined below, there are two competing narratives on why women have been excluded from equal citizenship, and each of these narratives leads to a different conception of equal citizenship for women.

      https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/10/2/340/666080

    166. CameronB Brodie says:

      Lorna Campbell
      Sorry, I wasn’t complaining, I was trying to help. I’d suggest you just write as you would, then force paragraph breaks to break up the wall of text, once you’ve written down your thoughts. Only a suggestion. 😉

    167. Iain mhor says:

      There are many variations on the ‘How do we gain Independence’ discussed and very interesting they are too. However, what must be clearly understood is; of the many avenues available, the SNP have quite clearly and categorically stated several times, that they will only countenance a referendum. Which is about the only clarity on anything Independence related recently, I can recall.
      So, unless there is *ahem ‘a material change’ in SNP policy on the matter, then it is quite clear – there will only be pursuit of a referendum via the SNP.

      The next thing to understand; is that the SNP already delivered one refrendum and Scotland rejected the opportunity for Independence. So, if one’s political policy is only ever to pursue Independence via a referendum, what is the obvious course of action? Like any gamble lost, try not to breenge in again until the odds are in your favour and/or you have learned, prepared and become more proficient at the game.
      Our plooky youth are quite unequivocal and pithy in their advice to anyone bemoaning their lot at perpetually losing games: ‘git gud’

      The issues for discussion are fairly clear; the SNP policy on the ‘referendum or nothing stance’, questioning whether there has been learning, preparation and proficiency gained, or whether there should be a fundamental change of political affiliation and independence vehicle. They all occur BTL here and are all valid in my opinion, I wouldn’t decry any.

      As devils advocate, The SNP, as the erstwhile vehicle for independence, understandably and logically, would not neccesarily rush to lose a game twice, so there must be a longer period to allow for increasing the odds of winning.
      Elections (and their ‘mandates) are merely polls to measure their suppprt and the odds of them.winning another referendum. I would expect that to occur and it has, frequently.

      Maintaining and building support is the fundamental issue; this can be achieved both by being the catalyst for raising support and/or passively, via extraneous events. I’d suggest that history is showing, the SNP have been reliant primarily on extraneous political events to push support. As the Rev Stu has pointed out numerous times, these ‘events’ have not apparently raised support for independence one iota.
      It has to be remembered that these ‘events’ I speak of (summed up as years of UK fuckmuppetry) have ocurred in a relatively short political span – barely more than a single political term since 2014 – that in politics is a very ahort time, though to us it is interminable.
      It certainly appears the SNP were operating on the principle of ‘Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake’, in order to observe whether that in itself was enough to raise support for independence – obviously not. The subsequent question is; have the SNP learned from this and been preparing during this period, to shift focus on being the catalyst? That is the six million dollar question.

      The charitable view, suggests that allowing events to unfold with the occasional prodding of the wounds, to see if there was a positive reaction, was quite logical. Others would argue that aggessively capitalising would be more effective (Interrupting the enemy) but that did not occur.
      The argument now, is that it is beyond time for passivity and the ‘wait and see’ approach, it is time to be proactive and become the catalyst. The unfortunate and inescapable observation, is that this change of approach is not occuring, nor is there evidence of any ‘learning and preparation’ to engage aggresively in the great game once again – quite the opposite, at least as perceived by ‘harder core’ Independence supporters.

      One can only conclude that either the SNP no longer have independence as their prime motivation, or that their learning and preparation, has identified that hardcore independence support cannot be raised further – it is in fact only to be raised by targetting the 50% of the population currently, ideologically opposed to the idea of independence.
      I’d suggest that could only really be achieved by mirroring that which they do support and nudging them to the ideal. Probably in the form of good governance, with a ‘conservative’ streak and also levering any other politically agnostic populist movement – such as *ahem Transactivism, Climate change, Anti racism and possibly in time, Flat Earthers and Anti-vaxxers for all I know – take your pick.

      Have the SNP actually considered the alternative; the actively rousing, aggresive, agitating positively on it’s own merits stance? The SNP would probably argue that’s where 2014 came from and it didn’t work – or at least close, but no cigar.
      Certainly that position could be countered by ‘it lifted support for Independence 20% by most reckoning, why would it not gain a further 20%?’ They may retort with the ‘law of diminishing returns’, possibly. If there is a reason for the SNP’s current direction, I at least am attepting to understand why, if not neccessarily agree.

      The difficulty for the SNP is balancing the old support for independence (gambing it will remain and not dissipate) and actively pusuing new adherents and policies from areas which may be intrinsically, diametrically, at odds with the old ’45’ and consequently risk alienating them. This balancing act is not, it appears, necessarily going well.
      The perceived alienation has created a vacuum for many independence supporters and another political vehicle must (and inevitably will) arise to fill it. Their support must come from somewhere and it must be visible and vocal and in numbers – is that you, me, or should it just be dismissed and become someone elses problem?

      Should we be machiavellian and consider this part of the great long game, then perhaps it has not been unforseen – between disparate ‘satellite’ parties and the mainstream policy of the SNP, possibly there does become a majority of support for independence – or perhaps it’s all just a clusterfuck and the games a bogey. Well, that’s for people to make up their own mind and discuss heatedly here and elsewhere.

      I am neither pro – nor anti SNP, I am pro-political tactics for winning. The SNP (and any other party) is incidental to the game. The game is independence and the players will come and go, but it’s vitally important we all have a stake in the game – those who have learned, prepared and ‘got gud’ will win – any sucker can lose and the quickest way is to walk away from the table.

    168. robertknight says:

      For those who think an appeal to a body such as the UN might help our case, read and despair…

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/25/un-court-rejects-uk-claim-to-sovereignty-over-chagos-islands

      UK not moved 1″ despite the UN ruling.

    169. terence callachan says:

      Andy Ellis

      I agree with what you said this morning at 0927hrs

      Sturgeon may be capable and a pretty well polished performer. Doubtless she’s sincere in her belief in, and desire for, Scottish independence.

      I think I’m right in saying that without the SNP Scottish independence would not be as popular as it is at present
      There is no other political party right now or in the near future by which I mean the next few years that is going to get you Scottish independence

      You can talk all you want about new List party,s , they might get some List seats but I guarantee you they will have zero chance of replacing SNP it takes years and years to build an efficient political party capable of winning elections

      SNP is without doubt your only chance of getting Scottish independence in the next five years

      WOS doesn’t like some of their policies particularly the GRE policy and doesn’t like NS

      Be clear about this , you may dislike NS you may not agree with policies and the way they do things

      But only SNP can get USS Scottish independence that is FACT
      Nobody else will come close in the next five years

      There are people who are being led by negative comments about SNP and NS I say to you that if you do not vote SNP you will be left with a conservative government for years and years to come possibly decades

      Labour could revive in Scotland but they will not take government in Westminster

      You have a choice vote SNP for a good chance of Scottish independence or
      get a conservative government repeatedly gifted to you by england

      If any of you have another political party that is going to get d Scottish independence let’s hear it

      Otherwise as they “ eat up and shut up”

    170. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “SNP is without doubt your only chance of getting Scottish independence in the next five years”

      No it isn’t. Because the chances of the current SNP delivering it are zero. Anyone else with even a microscopic chance of doing so is therefore better by default.

    171. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Sorry, I wasn’t complaining, I was trying to help. I’d suggest you just write as you would, then force paragraph breaks to break up the wall of text, once you’ve written down your thoughts. Only a suggestion. ?”

      I used to delete comments that long that didn’t have paragraph breaks in them, but I can’t be bothered any more. People just scroll past them.

    172. callmedave says:

      Alec Cole Hamilton asked to apologise to the chamber for getting his ‘care home virus death’ story wrong.

      He acknowledges in the chamber that he was wrong….10secs! 🙂

    173. CameronB Brodie says:

      robertknight
      There’s a world of difference between Scotland and the Chagos Islands, who were not joined ‘legally’ in equal partnership with England.

      Full text.

      International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 10, Issue 2, 30 March 2012, Pages 531–550

      Comparative (in)equalities: CEDAW, the jurisdiction of gender, and the heterogeneity of transnational law production

      Abstract
      A formal model of treaty-making identifies nation-states as pivotal parties to transactions. A formal model of equality rejects distinctions treating women and men differently. Both kinds of formalisms miss practices making plain the permeable boundaries of the nation-state, the variegated texture of transnational lawmaking, and the challenges of materializing equal treatment.

      This essay explores these boundary-bendings by examining the affiliations with, reservations to, and antagonism generated by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), empowering discursive exchanges between the U.N.-based expert committee overseeing CEDAW’s implementation and the ratifying states. Interactions around CEDAW depart from the uniformity and universalism often associated with international law.

      Rather than a singular formal moment of ratification through a monovocal nation-state, the parties to CEDAW file, and some withdraw, reservations; the CEDAW Committee reviews and questions practices of party-states and episodically issues new general directives; and a few localities make CEDAW domestic law while others aim to ward off any such efforts by general bans on references to “foreign law.”

      National treaty reservations and subnational internationalism join other mediating mechanisms – such as judicial doctrines providing a “margin of appreciation” or federalism discounts that permit some deviance among subunits and forms of constitutional pluralism – that reflect constrained affiliations across borders.

      These diverse legal postures underscore the heterogeneity found in transnational exchanges and, in addition to the positive account of the need to recognize these facets of lawmaking, the normative argument advanced is to appreciate the utilities of disaggregated internationalism that, in the context explored here, reveals the challenges of operationalizing aspirations for equality.

      https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/10/2/531/666055?searchresult=1

    174. george wood says:

      @ ahundrethidiot 12.15pm

      “Unless you mean that it is a FACT that Governments are following scientific CONSENSUS – that is not the same thing – Sweden are following a different scientific consensus.”

      The idiot who was in charge of Sweden’s response has said they got it wrong and should have done things differently – much closer to what the rest of the world has been doing. Lucky for him, Swedes have the internet and a lot of Swedes have been following advice from other countries otherwise their death total would have been much higher.

      He started out by telling Swedes that they didn’t need to worry about this virus as it would never get out of China.He was still allowing people to visit care homes as late as 1st April.

      You and a couple of others on here are out of step with the scientific consensus, so it is up to you to show the evidence as to why the eminent experts across the world are all wrong.

      Good luck with finding something that explains why the world’s governments are willing to go into a deep recession if you are right. If you are wrong, everything makes sense.

    175. Breeks says:

      David says:
      10 June, 2020 at 9:29 am
      What surprises me most about all this road to Indy debacle is that WE, the people, don’t have a plan B….
      …It’s as if no one wants to step forward and take up the challenge…

      I agree.

      But if we draw Constitutional Sovereignty from the Declaration of Arbroath, then I see no reason why cannot also attach Constitutional significance to the “… for, as long as a hundred of us remain alive…” part of the Declaration, and interpret that to mean 100 Scottish citizens might be considerate quorate, be accorded proper status and legal personality, and be formally entitled to petition the UN on a matter of constitutional principle.

      People in the recent past, such as Craig Murray and I think Lesley Riddoch, have discussed the feasibility of setting up a Constitutional Convention to act as Scotland’s de-facto Government that seeks to end the Union, (as distinct from the devolved assembly of Holyrood, which seems happy to lie down with the dogs Of UK subservience).

      I “think” if Scotland was to throw all of these disparate strands into one big cauldron; the Constitution, the People’s Assembly/Constitutional Assembly, the ISP List Party, those dissatisfied with the SNP under Sturgeon, the Alex Salmond “where next” chapters to come, Yessers, AUOB’s, …in short everybody who feels disenfranchised by Holyrood’s years of timidity.

      Well, I just wonder what would happen if Scotland set up a Constitutional Senate, something like a Scottish Upper House or Second Chamber for government, but pointedly answerable to the Scottish Constitution and that alone, and wholly and completely distinct and separate from Westminster. Suppose too it consisted of 100 Senators in order to be “quorate“ with the Declaration of Arbroath, and these Senators took it upon themselves to audit the actions of Westminster and Holyrood, and denounce as unlawful, all initiatives and actions which were not consistent with Scotland’s Sovereign Constitution.

      Maybe 100 Constitutional Senators in 2020 could be the modern Guardians of Scotland, doing the job of William Wallace in the 13th Century, and defending Scotland’s Interests from colonial usurpation.

      I think too, if 100 Constitutional Senators made representations to the UN about the violation of Scotland’s Sovereign Constitution as manifest in Brexit, I think it would really put the Constitutional Cat amongst the pigeons.

      Is it too contrived and arbitrary to be a success? Maybe Yes, unfortunately. But if the SNP has sold Scotland down the river, then what choices do we have? Maybe the people of Scotland should stop spitting on the Heart of Midlothian, and save up their phlegm for the bottom of the Royal Mile, but anger won’t deliver Scotland’s freedom. A Constitutional Senate, or some other Constitutional body doing the same thing just might.

      By all means do it, but don’t be satisfied “just” forming a List Party for Holyrood. By all means do it, but don’t be satisfied “just” creating a Constitutional Convention. Let us go further. Create a Scottish Constitutional Juggernaut with it’s own impeccable credentials, it’s own initiative, propulsion and unstoppable momentum, and send it directly to the UN… The Nation of Scotland speaks…

      Before you dismiss the notion, just suppose for a moment Scotland already had a Constitutional Upper House… Do you think we’d still be vexed for over five years by the SNP’s threadbare interpretation of Section 30 of the Colonial Scotland Act? I think not.

      Why is the SNP so utterly lead footed when it comes to Scotland’s Constitution? Something really stinks here.

    176. CameronB Brodie says:

      I don’t think it practical to suggest Scotland has a legal constitution, though Scotland is a legal partner to a contract that has been broken by England. So continuing to act as if the spirit of union is still alive, is simply not rational. If the Scottish government is not prepared to defend Scotland’s place in Europe, I don’t see how they can hope for Scotland to respect and support them.

      The Concepts of Equality and
      Non-Discrimination in Europe:
      A practical approach

      http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=4553

    177. Colin Alexander says:

      Stu Campbell

      Lorna Campbell

      Breeks

      Was the UK Union ever legally created?

      David Walker said the Treaty of Union was NEVER incorporated into Scots Law. http://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-52-issue-06/the-union-and-the-law/

      If 1706 Scots Law required incorporation of an international treaty into domestic law to give it effect, and D. Walker is correct that the Treaty was NEVER incorporated, that means the Treaty of Union NEVER became Scots Law.

      The result of that would be: the United Kingdom of GB was never legal. GB Parliament was never legal. GB Parliament has NEVER had any legal basis for 300 years of legislation for Scotland.

    178. Rev, its about time you stopped faction fighting with Kelly. It only helps the colonialists

    179. Colin Alexander says:

      When the UK signs an international Treaty it does not automatically become law. UK Parliament has to ratify it AND make a statute incorporating the Treaty into domestic law.

      Was that the same legal situation for the kingdom of Scotland in 1706?

      Did Scotland have to incorporate a treaty into domestic law to give legal effect to an international treaty?

      If the Treaty of Union required incorporation into a domestic statute, but the Scottish Parliament didn’t incorporate the Treaty of Union into domestic legislation and so didn’t receive Royal Assent, then it never became law.

    180. Breeks says:

      Colin Alexander says:
      10 June, 2020 at 2:35 pm
      Was the UK Union ever legally created?

      I’ve said before… Scotland needs to launch and win the Constitutional fight it should have fought in 1707.

      The Union only exists by “conventions of convenience’ established when very few Nation’s had either the will, cause, might, or resources to dispute any “conventions” decreed by the British Empire.

    181. cirsium says:

      Good comment from lothianlad, 12.53, and in particular,
      At a time when we should be shouting about the need for Independence from the house tops, the silence is deafening!
      It’s noticeable, isn’t it? The murderous incompetence displayed by the UK government in its handling of the pandemic would be reason enough to go for independence. Not only has it effected ‘state-sponsored euthanasia’ but it has dealt a massive blow to the UK economy. We are tied to this sinking ship because of the Treaty of Union.

      Good comment from Lorna Campbell 1.33. Set up a crowd-funding forum that will speak for all of us who want independence, even if we are not fully in agreement about how we go about it, and invite donations specifically to commission constitutional experts to build a case to take us out of the UK. That sounds like a way forward. I agree activity in the next few months is crucial which is maybe why the “lockdown” keeps being extended.

      @Republic of Scotland, 1.12. We could only take it out of Scotland once we have a Government/Parliament declaring for independence. Other nations could respond to us once we have formally declared for independence.

      This has been a very interesting discussion with lots of good ideas. The Wings forum is back on track.

    182. Robert Louis says:

      Republicofscotland at 1154am,

      If what you say is true, then the FM should be on the phone straight away. Let’s not forget, that ‘special arrangements’ are being made for N.Ireland, so if the EU are willing to discuss a Scotland-only extension, then it must be pursued with vigour.

      Given the nonsense coming from the SNP leadership in the last two years, I fully expect her to do nothing, unless london ‘graciously’ gives her permission first. Fearty, fearty Nicola Sturgeon, on bended knee, begging England’s permission.

      No wonder Boris and his murderous Tory cabal just laugh at them. The SNP are no threat whatsoever.

    183. Robert Louis says:

      Lothianlad at 1253,

      Excellent comment. I sadly have to agree. The silence is truly deafening.

      If NS is compromised (by intelligence services acting on behest of England’s Tory Government), then she should step aside. Their is certainly something very odd indeed at the lack of fight from the leadership.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompromat

    184. Lorna Campbell says:

      Colin Alexander: the Acts (two, one for Scotland and one for England) translated the Treaty into both Scots and English Law, and were ratified by the parliamentarians of each nation. The Treaty itself was not incorporated into either Scottish or English Law. However, the Treaty is an international agreement, and stands whether the Acts stand or fall, and, of course, on independence, they will require to be repealed. The Treaty is the primary legislation (and must be adjudicated on, in international law) while the Acts are the secondary (domestic) legislation which cannot supersede the basic, fundamental, primary legislation – i.e. the Treaty.

      Both Professor David Walker (now deceased) and Professor Ian Campbell brought fairly irrefutable evidence that the Treaty was still extant, that it was an international agreement between two sovereign, independent states and that the English MPs have always seen it as a takeover, preferring to base their arguments on the Acts because that ensures (erroneously in law) that everything pertaining to the Treaty remains within the grasp of British (English) Constitutional Law which is subject to the sovereignty of the British parliament (Westminster and Whitehall and the HoL). Effectively, that means that, if we kow tow to this interpretation, we are done for. They argued against Crawford and Boyle on the issue of the ‘continuing state’, but their evidence applies equally to any other issue pertaining to the Treaty.

      CameronBBrodie: no offence taken. I did actually break it up into paragraphs. We’ll probably just scroll past independence, too. Too much effort. Too short attention spans. Would never claim to be a female Messiah, so, bye.

      RobertKnight: the Chagos Islanders did not fall foul of just the UK, they fell foul of the US, and the US has big missiles, lots of them. The UK was the facilitator of a colonial takeover on behalf of the most imperialist nation in history. To put it in simpler terms, the UK is three-quarters of the way up the US’s rone pipe.
      Stu Campbell: I apologize for the long paras and for taking up room on your blog. Anyway, said what I wanted to say. Few interested enough to bother to read it, so I’ll refrain from saying it in future, whether in longer paragraphs or shorter ones.

    185. Jill Sharpe says:

      Lorna it is just a formatting matter – I for one read every word and am most interested in what you say as many others will be as well.

    186. CameronB Brodie says:

      Lorna Campbell
      Please keep the comments coming. I agree with you entirely but have not been able to put into words what you have. You are jogging the old memory though, so thanks. Btw, it isn’t just Treaty law that has primacy over national law, EU law does as well, including that pertaining to fundamental rights. 😉

      THE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW UPON NATIONAL
      LAW: A POLlCY·ORIENTED PERSPECTIVE

      Professor McDougal argues that traditional monistic and analytical approaches to international law have prevented a true appreciation of its essential nature. In Professor McDougal’s view, international law is a dynamic, integrated, global process of authoritative decision, operating at many different community levels and through many different institutional devices, to resolve conflicts and affect policies and value processes in all the component communities of the world community.

      As such, he submits, international law can be made an effective instrument for broadening the perspectives and bases of power of national decision makers, thereby facilitating the wider and more secure achievement of those fundamental human desires and goals which transcend national boundaries.

      http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3562&context=fss_papers;The

    187. Stoker says:

      Word of WARNING for folks lurking. The link supplied by robertknight in his post further up thread on 10 June, 2020 at 1:43 pm is a direct link to The Guardian BUM rag. A rag that he knows fine well played a large part in destroying our 2014IndyRef.

      By clicking on that link he also knows that you are rewarding that rag financially for its efforts against us by helping it to bring in advertising revenue and possibly new subscriptions from new readers & old readers etc.There are many ways around posting that sort of link. They range from archiving them to just not doing it at all.

      Not only that but without even going into that link my money is on the example he’s using as being totally bogus and nothing whatsoever to do with Scotland’s situation. So not only is that link rewarding our No1 enemy for attacking us 24/7 he’s using false comparisons from Britnat sources as “evidence”.

      Please try your hardest to resist the temptation to click on this sort of link because our task is extremely tough enough as it is without us helping our enemy to make it even harder. People posting those sort of links on here, for the most part, such as ‘robertknight’ know all this so you really have to question them as to why they do it repeatedly. I’m sure they’ll have their excuses which they deem far more important than independence, they always do.

      One thing is for sure, they know also that posting that type of link on here causes disharmony & ill-feeling among ‘Wingers’ and is a completely disrespectful act towards those of us who go out of our way to avoid feeding the Britnat propaganda machine. Just some thoughts you may want to keep in mind regarding this important issue. 😉

    188. ahundredthidiot says:

      George Wood @2:06

      I literally dont think there is any helping people like you.

      Sweden happily admitted, like the UK, that they were late in taking action on care homes, but you are wrong to suggest that they have admitted they are wrong overall.

      Maybe park that and ask yourself why you’re so angry? – maybe because deep down, you know you’ve been duped. hook, line and sinker – mug.

    189. CameronB Brodie says:

      Only total roasters deny we face a real threat to public health.

      The Supremacy of International Law? – Part One
      https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-supremacy-of-international-law-part-one/

    190. Mike d says:

      Lorna Campbell 1.27pm. Good post,in full agreement with it. ???????

    191. Ron Maclean says:

      Complex problems require complex solutions. We’re trying to take a nation to independence after three hundred years of grovelling subservience. We need to toughen up. Today’s contributors should have provided enough material to decide on the next step. That should be something along the lines of;
      Who do we need to help us on the way?
      How much will it cost?
      How will we raise the money?

      We’re running out of time.

    192. Bailey says:

      Lorna Campbell at 11:28 and 1.17 – I agree with you. The only way now is to crowd fund a legal action and have the treaty sounded. We are not going to get a Section 30 Order and the SNP aren’t going to lead us to independence. It looks as if it will have to be done by a group of citizens.

    193. Polly says:

      Breeks post at 2.19 was inspiring. Whether it might be feasible or how things might progress I know not but some of the suggestions and his language was like a call to arms for me. And truth be told I’ve not felt that since some of Salmond’s speeches about what kind of better country we can create together. 100 senators, guardians of Scotland, chosen from all quarters and classes, whose only loyalty is to Scotland seems a wonderful idea to me. Other posts by other people also with good ideas, a previous one by Breeks too, but it was this one which I felt inspired by – and God knows but we who want independence need inspiration at present.

    194. Dan says:

      Jill Sharpe says: at 4:35 pm

      Lorna it is just a formatting matter – I for one read every word and am most interested in what you say as many others will be as well.

      +1 on this.

      @Lorna

      Please continue to add your input btl as it is appreciated.

    195. Marie M says:

      @ Lorna
      I agree with Dan @9.20. I for one would be happy to
      help with any crowdfund. If we could move forward with
      your idea.

    196. Camz says:

      Frankly, it’s time for a one policy party for the list vote. Indy first, indy only, indy before all other considerations (other than emergency provision, obviously – let’s be sensible).

      If the 40-55% of supposed pro-indy voters out there vote for an indy-first party in the list vote, and said party push, push, and push for indy at every moment it will achieve two things:

      1. It’ll be one less unionist voice in Holyrood every week. It lessens the idea that there’s 1 indy voice and 2 unionist ones (Lib Dems and Greens are more of a whisper).

      2. It might just focus the SNP on actually delivering Indy, and not on keeping their party activists happy. Let said activists sod off back to the SSP, or wherever they came from. The SNP of 2020 is not the SNP of 2014.

      Salmond. Get yer campaigning jaiket on.

    197. James says:

      Andy Ellis @ 8.27am – Aha! Now WE SEE YOU!



    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