The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The Con Merchant

Posted on June 28, 2025 by

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, before the internet, scammers used to have to work a bit harder to cheat people than they do now.

A popular method was to advertise a “clearance sale” in the press. You’d see an ad in the Daily Record or a local paper for an event in a High Street location – typically a vacant shop – promising brand-new TVs for £20, microwaves for a fiver, toasters for £2.50 or whatever. So you’d show up on the day and it always worked the same.

There’d be the ringmaster on a raised platform, surrounded by loads of unmarked white boxes, and he’d start off by picking some “random” punter from the crowd and bestowing gifts upon him. This guy would walk away with armfuls of swag for £25 or something (doubtless just going straight round the back with them), and the real show would begin.

Next the ringmaster would say “Now, before we get properly started, who’ll give me £10 for what’s on my mind?” (that phrase, “what’s on my mind”, was always the same). And basically they were flogging a mystery box, invariably containing a few trashy trinkets worth a fraction of the cost.

Any chump who bought one would then be escorted out of the shop before opening it, on the pretence that the bargains on offer in these sales were so great that they were limited to one per person. (There was always security on the door, sometimes even cops. There’s nothing intrinsically illegal about selling mystery boxes, even mainstream chainstores still do it today.)

And that was basically it. The ringmaster would delay and delay, punting more mystery boxes and never actually getting to the bit where you could buy a specific item at a specific price, and after a couple of hours the event would close down and the would-be customers would disperse in disgruntlement.

Now here’s John Swinney.

He’s got a mystery box to sell you.

(We apologise for the poor audio sync on that clip, but it’s the fault of the original source material, not our clipping of it.)

Yesterday we learned that Swinney’s pitch for next year’s election is to somehow contrive to assemble “spectacular” support from the electorate so that he can expand on his arguments for independence. (Rather than, say, to make such a great argument for independence that he wins spectacular support.)

But arguments for independence are worthless unless you have a strategy for turning support for reality, and when asked what he was actually selling to pro-indy voters, Swinney’s answer amounted to “what’s on my mind”. Time and again he dodged and swerved and deflected blame onto Westminster, and even gave the “my strategy goes to a different school, you wouldn’t know it” routine another runout.

Because the SNP National Council meeting he referred to was a closed event that the vast majority of party members weren’t allowed into, let alone the public or the media. Members have been told nothing of what transpired at it, which is standard practice for the SNP.

Back in January we told you about a proposal to drastically restrict anyone’s ability to mount a leadership challenge, to be discussed at a “Constitutional Conference” in March. SNP members were told nothing about whether the January recommendations had in fact been adopted at the March conference, and anyone checking the party constitution on the website would be told that the old rules were still in place.

But when a Herald piece on 10 June quoted those rules, SNP comms staff indignantly corrected the paper’s Andrew Learmonth, citing the new rules that even SNP members hadn’t been told about. (We obtained the screenshot above ourselves from the SNP website on 15 June.)

A few days later, the constitution was quietly updated (exponentially increasing the required number of nominations for a challenge from 100 to 1,496), still without any announcement to members, two months after the change actually happened.

So Swinney’s glib, chuckling answer that Geoff Aberdein would have known what the SNP’s super-secret indy strategy was if he’d been a party member was a gross misrepresentation as well as an evasion. Only a tiny percentage of members can attend the twice-yearly meetings of the National Council (only recently reconstituted after being abolished in 2018), and ordinary members are told nothing about it. A week after it took place, the only mention of the June meeting on the SNP members website is the final agenda, published before the event:

(We have no idea how many people were present, but the only photograph that made it onto social media suggested it was rather less than packed.)

There are no minutes from the meeting. The only way members would have a clue about the strategy was if they knew someone who could be bothered to go, and got them to summarise it for them. But in reality we suspect the actual attendees are none the wiser, and only got more bloodless, anodyne, chuckling flannel anyway.

The flailing, ducking, diving and diverting in the video clip is toe-curling to watch. It’s a man with very few gifts as a natural salesman bluffing his arse off, trying to get gullible mugs to buy something that doesn’t exist. In fact, there’s a better analogy than the pop-up scam shops, because at least those rubes got SOMETHING for their money.

And the grim truth, readers, is that for as long as the SNP remain the custodians of the carrots, all of us are Jon Richardson.

0 to “The Con Merchant”

  1. Victor Clements says:

    The problem with the SNP is there is not a carrot in either of the boxes. If there is, it is the same one that has been there for years, and is now manky and unrecognizable as food. It is the same principle of looking up in to a tree, and persuading that there is something up there when there is not.

    Reply
    • Achnababan says:

      What Swinney the Swindler is basically saying is that if you want independence you have all to come out and vote SNP. If you don’t independence will be buried. Problem is we are now in a situation where independence will be buried either way. He is actually laughing at us ..they all are. No one in the SNP takes the Independence cause seriously any more. Swinney is a swindler and a tractor.

      Reply
      • GM says:

        Achnababan,

        Victor Clements is a hardline unionist from Northern Ireland. He is happy about it. Sadly he lives in a Highland district. I’ll stop there about this guy.

      • Johnny Smith says:

        How can we trust ( any ) Politician after fkn Starmer ffs ? anyway .. what if he is bluffing us and does a runner ( again ! ) with oor cash .. ? Methinks this is ( by far ) a hyooj Con .. !!!

        Signed , A Supporter Of The True Independence Party .. !!!

  2. Mark Beggan says:

    ” presenting our Independence offer in 2026 ”
    These clowns are serious.

    Reply
  3. 100%Yes says:

    What a tosser. I’m naw telling you, why not comes to mind and whats the big secret, I know there isn’t a plan.

    So the people of Scotland or more to the point the electorate doesn’t matter is just a selected few in the SNP.

    I said this for months now that John Swinney is going to sacrifice his MSP’s and then step down, this is his Game plan to allow Labour to win and we are tied to the Union until 2031, which allows Scotland to be asset striped entirely the man and is party are ("Tractor" - Ed)s.

    Reply
  4. twathater says:

    The biggest PROBLEM indy has is that the ELECTORATE are not subject to this (WOS) real exposure of the TRUTH of what these FUCKWITS are continuing to serve up

    We have broadcasters and the wider media IGNORING the TRUTH of what these deviants and perverts are doing to Scotland and Scots and when anything is reported it is skewed to deliberately damage the indy cause, it suits the wm establishment to have these morons and perverts in charge as it causes untold damage to REAL independence support

    Reply
  5. 100%Yes says:

    John Swinney is weak but the guy who’s asking the questions again is even worse.

    Is he the FM of Scotland or is just a tool for the British state I’m afraid he’s a tool working for the British state.

    Reply
  6. 100%Yes says:

    For fuck sake when the SNP stated loud and clear that the section 30 was the gold standard, at the time I thought what?

    Now we know its the SNP lifeline of saying no to Independence clause.

    Reply
  7. 100%Yes says:

    Why didn’t the interviewer simple reply saying “isn’t it because your not a Independence supporter anymore and you never were”. That the question we all want answering.

    Reply
  8. 100%Yes says:

    John Swinney going to go into next years election making the election all about John Swinney, will someone please tell this thing that no one likes him.

    When the SNP fall one by one next year on election night, I’ll thank you john we couldn’t have done it without you.

    The only person on election night with a smirk on his face will be John Swinney.

    Reply
  9. 100%Yes says:

    I’d rather have a bum full of hemroids than John Swinney as FM.

    Reply
  10. SilentMajority says:

    Swinney. Nope. No thank you. The mealy-mouthed platitudes that are constantly being emitted from you that lead nowhere.
    To ‘steady-the-ship’ is to try and keep ANY bad news coming out from them. In fact, to keep EVERYTHING secret. Smoke and mirrors indeed.
    How utterly bereft of thought must they think of us…hoping like crazy that we appreciate that they are less sh**e than the what the other parties offer…well….that will really convince me to vote for you.

    Nope.

    Reply
  11. Alf Baird says:

    Does John Swinney not sound and look a wee bit pished in this video?

    Reply
  12. agent x says:

    The UK Labour party (unintentionally) are doing more for Independence than the SNP have ever done.

    Reply
  13. George Ferguson says:

    John Swinney is an ex Insurance Salesman. He has done well out of Holyrood in salary and pension terms. But he told us who he was in a documentary on the men in grey kilts approaching Salmond to take over the leadership of the SNP as he couldn’t do it. And look at his leadership results the first time round. We can only hope for similar results the second time. The reason why the SNP has done well since Salmond,is they took the raw energy of the Independence movement and abused it. The Independence movement paid for their salaries and pensions and got nothing in return. Don’t make the same mistake in 2026.

    Reply
  14. Jon Drummond says:

    That’s a great 5 minutes of fun in that video which indeed tragically highlights the fucking state that Scotland is in with Quislings like Swinney, and the rest of the Nonce party supposedly in charge. What a clueless, sleekit, opaque, lying, shyster of a wa**k*r he is.

    Reply
  15. Frank Gillougley says:

    ‘Offer’ – that’s an interesting word choice.
    Well, I suppose he is a bit of an Estate Agent.

    Reply
  16. agent x says:

    I notice that the last SNP accounts were signed on 30 Jun 2024 – I wonder when the next accounts will be published.

    Reply
  17. David says:

    We need a Scottish cultural festival for Scotland. I’m sure there’s lots of, bagpipes, whisky and music. But there’s not one in Glasgow where I stay. There’s an Indian festival on today in Kelvingrove Park. And a Phillipino festival – huge fan of the Phillipinos lovely folk. But there’s no Scottish festival.

    I want to feel proud to be Scottish. And I want a Scottish festival in Glasgow. With Scottish food. Scottish dance. Scottish culture. Scottish comedy. Scottish fashion. Scottish flags. Scottish people. Scottish invention. Scottish farming. Scottish produce. The whole damn lot. Scottish music.

    They need to start making the city of Glasgow Scottish again. We’ve got a new mural of American Indian in the Merchant city. It’s anti Scottish. Two spirit woke BS.

    Reply
  18. David says:

    Swinney is not a Scottish nationalist. He is green ideologue who’s shut down Grangemouth. And wants to shut down Scotland’s oil for good. He hates farmers and wants to kill the cows to reduce methane gas – driving up the cost of steak.

    As a Scottish nationalist. He’s not been listening to us for 11 years. He doesn’t have any ideas apart from bloating the civil service – to the point where they don’t even work.

    They are utterly corrupt. And paralysed from doing any good. They have no ideas. They can’t even fly our flag.

    Hamilton told Swinney that he’s going to lose his job. And so is the rest of Scotland.

    Reply
  19. David says:

    link to greatergovanhill.com

    This is what I’m talking about. Glasgow’s newest mural. Indigenous Environmentalism

    Good luck trying to read the article it’s absolute word salad. The American Indian women are not even on the same continent.

    The SNP are not for independence. And obviously Nicola Sturgeon hated the Edinburgh skyline as well didn’t she. When she signed off the Golden Turd

    Reply
  20. James Cheyne says:

    Over the year the voting constutencies have been reduced or amalgamated in Scotland, that alters voting results,
    Now we have a rogue devolved parliament an all its parties members changing the Scottish constitution on voting,
    And with complicated electorate system for voting already in place in Scotland combining it together, in the old days this could and would be seen as years of meddling and interference in a democratic voting system by progressives wishing to reduce the possibilities of The people in Scotland being able to freely choose their kind of governance.
    Between Westminster merging and reducing the amount of constitutencies, the SNP and rusky interference in our voting it would appear democracy is legally been made illegal in Scotland,

    Reply
  21. James Cheyne says:

    I was watching the protests in England yesterday between being busy, the marching against the intrusion of immigrant asylum seekers, ( coughs up the sleeve) damaging the moral structure of England especially.

    There is no point in attempting smashing the so called gangs leaders, when there have been two party gang leaders in political situe encouraging the invasion, as fast as possible.
    If the people want to stop the invasion down south I would’ nt have thought protesting outside an set of empty buildings where the gang leader is always vacant by being every and anywhere else except in britain is a sought after solution,

    If there is no will th stop the border invasion of England by political parties in Westminster, then the people themselves at some point are going to have take on the job to protect themselves to help out and assist the official border control whom seem to be over whelmed , I would have thought,
    I am ignorant of where the geographic border of England actual starts, but I did not think it was the streets of London.

    Reply
  22. Hatey McHateface says:

    I’m loving all the excitement coming from the epicentre of UK politics this weekend – Glasto.

    But seriously, it does make you realise there’s just no justice in the world.

    Because if there was, a rampaging mob of subhumans would burst through the perimeter fence, guns blazing and knifes slashing, and drag thousands of the effete, virtue signalling ignoramuses down into the tunnels of hell.

    That would make for some compelling prime time telly!

    Reply
  23. James Cheyne says:

    The votes in Scotland will either have to be stay at home votes or spoiled ballot papers, because if the only choice that the people of Scotland have is, the down South parties failing in England cruising in Scotland or the supposed also failing Scottish party then there is no choice to select a fair vote at all.
    The right to democratic self determination for the people, by all people has to hold an actual democratic offer,
    Not a pre determined arranged outcome via possible manipulation of changing the constitution and constituencies,
    The people must retain their sovereignty over the political parties, other wise it is a pretence at a democratic voting system.

    Reply
  24. TURABDIN says:

    QUICK SCAN OF ANGLO PRESS….definately time to quit this decaying wreck, the English middle classes heading for the Med…even the rats get the vibe.
    Rhetorically, can the SNP collective be so preternaturally obtuse?

    Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      Meantime, large numbers of the occupants of the Med are heading here.

      Would it be fair to use the rats getting the vibe analogy about that?

      The vibe I got from last week’s political cabaret over trying to get a handle on the ever spiralling cost of benefits is that the “pull factor” of generous free stuff for grifters who have never paid a penny in, and probably never will, is going to be retained, come what may.

      Perhaps because the new grifters already here are now numerous enough to vote in their own politicians. And they will vote for more “pull factors” and hence more new voters.

      That’s another runaway positive feedback loop. The only solution is a Trump-like disruptor who will move fast and break things quicker than The Blob and their useful idiots can hopefully fight back.

      That means Farage and Reform. Whether or not he can achieve anything, he’s the only one promising to at least make the attempt.

      Reply
      • Andy Ellis says:

        The $64,000 question for Reform and the bunch of spivs leading it (as distinct from the lumpen low information types voting for them on the “fuck all the others, they’re crap, this might be a laugh” principle) is that at some point they have to face the reality of what type of Engurlund they really want?

        Do they want to go full tilt for the UK as a neo Airstrip 1, emulating the USA, with a small state, small government, privatising healthcare, severely curtailed immigration, no or very limited social security provision in relation to the post WW2 pattern, grammar schools, imperial weights and measures, re-introduce the death penalty, birching and national service….?

        Or do they try to appeal to some elements of little Englander populism and present their vision of the UK as Europe’s Singapore, whilst taking token steps to allay peoples fears about the NHS, immigration, pensions and public services generally?

        There certainly seems to be little or no appetite in the mainstream parties in England to make the case for trying to construct a Scandinavian style social-democratic model, accepting that decent public services require higher taxes, decent growth and a generalised commitment by society as a whole to promote a more equal society.

        More to the point for Scotland, the independence movement appears to be dead in the water, unable to operationalise or capitalise on the recent growth in support for independence as a concept due to the unpopularity and un-electability of the moribund SNP as the party eats itself.

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        “Scandinavian style social-democratic model”

        A few decades go, Sweden was the exemplar for that.

        Not any more though.

        Even though they did, virtually alone in all of the world, handle the Covid episode correctly.

        Ah, Covid. In hindsight, and compared with what has happened since, wasn’t that a wonderful time to be sitting at home, doing SFA on full pay, while some other mugs did all the graft and took all the risks?

        If only some new political party would come along and promise us that all over again 🙂

      • Captain Caveman says:

        Sweden has a population desntiy of 25 people per square kilometre. The UK’s is around 300 and for England it’s around 500….

        Thus, any simplistic Left v Right efficacy comparison is about as absurd as it is for Norway, or UAE et al for that matter.

        As the Americans say, “do the math”. Easy to look good when blessed with such favourable demographics.

      • Bellacovidonia says:

        Has Andy Ellis actually noted what’s happening in Scandinavia? Maybe like Riddoch , Hassan and others they still envisage a Scotland with Borden , Fjords, fair isles and nice tunnels. Sadly these countries are suffering from the same problems of crime, disorder and economic failure you get from inviting the least productive and least compatibly backward populations since the Visigoths. But the big guy with Max Headroom in his bio (most probably a wee nyaff), is probably too shit scared to admit it even on a pseudo (intellectual) online name because maybe his civil servant/common room pals know who that is. Plain truth. People will vote reform not because they are low information. The most low info people are these like you who won’t allow the truth to penetrate your virtue shield. In truth reform is now resembling old Labour of borders, limited welfare, decency and a mixed economy. In Scotland that’s what many want to see.

      • Young Lochinvar says:

        The Med?

        Hmmm..

        More than a little mendacious (again) there P3nisbreath, by Med would you mean in tangential language the Middle East that the west has bombed the crap out of for some 30 years now?

        And you bleat like a sheep in labour about those trying to escape literal Armageddon and daring to come to the shores of one of the boastful main players/ protagonists in their countries destruction.

        I realise you have suitcases full of “y’all” / “Oi vey” baggage but you are beyond blind and clearly incapable of reading the room.

    • Andy Ellis says:

      To be fair that comment could have applied at most points over the past decade, arguably before.

      Fool that I was I thought moving from England to Scotland several years ago was an escape route from being shackled to the rotting corpse pf the British nationalist project as it descended in to the slough of post-brexit Faragist despond.

      Back then I thought the Scots still had the backbone and the political cojones to answer the call to freedom.

      Now…? Not so much.

      Con merchants like Swinney and the continuity devolutionists in the SNP appear firmly ensconced with little real prospect of their milquetoast nationalism being booted in to touch by the electorate any time soon more’s the pity.

      Reply
      • Hatey McHateface says:

        You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope, Andy.

        Decades ago, I predicted that Scotland will only ever choose Indy when enough incomers decide it’s time to raise the drawbridge behind them. I still hold that view.

        Of course, an Independent Scotland, energised and steered by hordes of New Scots, many of them small state, low taxation, instinctive hard working Tories, won’t be to the liking of the usual suspects, still hankering after socialism, whiny pacifism and hand outs.

        But no biggie. They will be able to seamlessly adapt to posting the same old pish on websites very much like this one. An ideologically unsound Independent Scotland will leave them ample opportunities to claim it’s a fiction, it denies us Sovereignty, it’s not fair, it’s Da Dews, it’s illegal, etc. etc.

        Happy days!

      • Captain Caveman says:

        Fear not, Andy, Reform is even rising in Scotland.

        The Left – and all its attendant lunacies and abject failings – are being consigned to the dustbin of history.

        Good.

      • Andy Ellis says:

        @Caveman

        I suspect your epitaph for the left may be premature. As we’ve seen from recent events at Glasto the far left and the far right eventually meet round the back.

        I don’t doubt Reform will pick up a lot of disgruntled former Tories, loyalists and sundry brexiteers but I’m not sure I see a left wing alternative. The question is whether “other parties” combine to exclude Reform from power.

        Perhaps if Reform comes to replace the Tories in England the question is whether the rump Tory party swallows its pride and props up a Reform government, or joins with other mainstream parties to keep them out.

        Farage used to be a proponent of electoral reform if I remember correctly when it suited his purposes: that might change of course if he thinks it could be used to ensure he is excluded from power by the other parties ganging up to exclude Reform?

      • Captain Caveman says:

        Ah yes, Andy, the complacency of the Left will be your downfall (“a few disgruntled Tories” etc). You carry on telling yourselves that, I actively encourage that you do so.

        Just remember to turn a blind eye to polls and election results, here as elsewhere, there’s a good chap. 🙂

      • sam says:

        One view is that independence will come when the English electorate believes more strongly than now that we’re spongers, ripping them offy.

        Another view is that the demography in Irelands, N and S, run in favour of Catholics most of whom are likely to favour Irish reunification.

        From “Slugger O’Toole (citing Ipsos Mori polling.

        “Basically, support for re-unification has remained roughly constant in the south, at 64-66%, over the last three years. In Northern Ireland, it has grown steadily from 27% (2022) to 30% (2023) and now 34% (2024). Among Northern Catholics it has grown from 55% to 63%, but even among Northern Protestants, it has grown from 4% to 7% in 2024. The gap between the pro-Union side and pro-reunification side has shrunk from 23% to 14% in three years. At that rate of decline, it will take 6 years, until 2030, for that gap to close entirely.”

    • Captain Caveman says:

      Those “rats” as you so delightfully call them “TURABDIN” are among the ever-diminishing few who pay their own way and pay their taxes, pal. Maybe if more people did so, instead of perpetually holding their hands out (whilst castigating their hapless, unwilling benefactors), the UK would be a much nicer place for a nation of stakeholders, not scroungers?

      Well, you know what they say – he (or she) who pays the Piper, calls the tune? Finally, that might be true. Reform rises ever more strongly, and it can’t come soon enough.

      Reply
      • James says:

        Having a conversation with yourself again?

        “….what’s the phrase…she isn’t quite herself today…”

      • Captain Caveman says:

        “She” again 😀

        Stick with the Frosties out the box and the gummed up keyboard, Fatso. 😀

      • Young Lochinvar says:

        Yes, it’s tewibly tewibly nice of you “stout English Yeoman” chaps paying all the taxes so that we here in Scotland shire don’t need to!

        Mind and put in some overtime now to pay for my pension- Old Boy!

        Chin chin, and as they say- “Cheers Easy” ?

      • Captain Caveman says:

        Y’know, I can’t make up my mind as to whether you’re just some old twat well past retirement age, boring your hapless fellow old gimmers at the fishing lake at 5am with tales about “when you were in the Green Berets in ‘Nam in ‘65” or some such (lol) – or just another jobless 5am drunk who’s a *bit* younger, maybe washed up in his late 50s?

        Anyway, must dash. Some of us need to earn a living pal.

      • Captain Caveman says:

        N-n-n-n-n-nineteen Nineteen 😀

      • Young Lochinvar says:

        Back a couple of hours from the fishing, no luck today, not even a nibble. Burst out laughing however just there as on the contrary the site pr1cks Fred Flintstone and yer bestie McP3nisbreathface have, on the contrary, been biting like belt fed crocodiles ?

        McP is a malware bot (in more sense than one), you on the other hand need to get back to work and keep paying tax and NI contributions to keep my pension going. Did I mention Cheers Easy..

        As for your floundering attempts to pigeonhole me; well, wrong, wrong, wrong and just plain wrong.

        I already told you what I did in the army, it’s not my fault you are a r3tard and didn’t pick up on it. Anyway mind and use the disabled parking spaces because as they say not all disabilities are easily spotted.

        As for your nnnnnnn whatever post; that’s a nasty stammer you are developing. Been overdosing on the estrogen supplements? Doesn’t appear to be agreeing with you.

        F8nny..

      • Captain Caveman says:

        On the contrary, Rambo, the n-n-n-nineteen jibe had me splashing my morning coffee in derisory laughter (at your expense, I’m sorry to report).

        Look, I’m sure this shit is all you’ve got going on (well, that, and getting bitten to f**k on some sorry, muddy river bank or other, day in and day out, surprised you even admit to this you boring old twat), but I’ve got better things to do than swap insults with some sorry old gimmer with delusions of (imaginary) past grandeurs. So I’ll let you have the last word, you poor old washed up sod. 😀

      • Young Lochinvar says:

        Er ye go: Bite bite bite bite bite!
        ?
        So predictable.

        Let me have the last word, well that’s unco kind of you Fred Flintstone (overdosing on estrogen) spilling your coffee as you are “laughing”..
        Aye right, probably doing the 5 knuckle shuffle over the self perceived “brilliance” of your “pithy” “clever” “cutting commentary”..
        Hmmm..

        Don’t give up the day job r3tard and keep paying those taxes!
        Who’s the stupid one now each and every day.
        Not me.

        I did mention r3tard didn’t I..

        Byeee!

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        Jeezo, but you’re in some state today, YL Sah!

        With anybody else I’d be wondering if you came home from holiday to find that the missus had cleared the house, cleared your bank accounts and cleared off.

        But with you, I’m thinking it more likely you came back from holiday and found the missus has moved back in.

  25. Eric Meddle says:

    Is this council the same one where un-named “stakeholders” get representation. In other words, members are pushed even further down the pecking order.

    Reply
  26. James Cheyne says:

    In my opinion, and it is only a personal opinion that in Scotland the people must make the decision on wether to vote for all the poor selection of failing parties that are destroying the Country or spoil their ballot papers,
    It is not advice by any means, it is just a personal thought that Scotland could change the undemocratic choice we are being offered.

    Reply
  27. James Cheyne says:

    The old stay and defend your country from an incoming invasion belong to old England,
    The mindset nowadays is to abandon ship, run for the hills, any hills will do,
    Wether that is the Med hills, the hills of Ireland or the hills of Scotland,

    But the invasion is like a disease of Britain that spreads into local housing authorities and officials until one day they too will also be smothered and die by inviting the disease to spread by associating with that all prevading illness that came to the shores of britain,

    But this disease is on foreign shore as well and eventually there will be no safe hills, unless a antidote is found,
    I have heard there is a new pill on the market called (courage) . “Expensive” but works wonders, however the rich and wealthy seldom partake of such medication,
    As once the minions and cannon fodder have the taken it, they do not need too, they come back out of “their safe hills” and return to safety that the cannon fodder provided and enriched land grabs.

    A cynical view perhaps, but that has always been the story of how the elete history played out.
    We have to change what we do to survive repeating this history.
    In my opinion we cannot give that elete system any credence in the first instance.by changing how we will refuse them our vote to exist in Scotland.

    Reply
  28. Peter A Bell says:

    Stu Campbell fails to recognise that it is the confidentiality of the proceedings at National Council which gives it value. Unlike the tightly stage-managed conferences, National Council is an opportunity for branch delegates to ‘speak truth to power’. Or at least, that’s the way it used to be. Why does Stu think it was discontinued? It was precisely because National Council was not under the direct control of the leadership that Sturgeon hated it.

    Like many others, I suspect, I await with ever more anxious anticipation a membership revolt against the clique that has hijacked their party. That revolt is more likely to start at National Council than at conference. That might not make it likely enough. But we grasp at whatever hope we can find.

    Reply
    • 100%Yes says:

      Peter, from listen to Swinney in the video above any revolt against the leadership hasn’t happened, if it had Swinney attitude would be different and its not.

      Reply
    • Andy Ellis says:

      I doubt it really is “many others” though. Some who are either still in the party or still – despite a decade of evidence to the contrary – think it can be saved or would be worth saving even if it were possible.

      The prospect of any internal “night of the long knives” from within the SNP to displace those who are the architects of its current state must now be vanishingly small.

      Stu Campbell has made his position quite clear. It’s not enough to just defeat the SNP it must be burnt to the ground, and the ground where it stood well salted for good measure. Plebiscitary elections are simple, easy to arrange and don’t require the various and now mutually hostile camps within the movement to like each other or agree about policy, or to put their faith in windmill tilting “cunning plans for indy” that nobody will recognise.

      The Kremlinology of the internal workings, processes and byzantine politicking are irrelevant. For the independence movement to progress the SNP must be consigned to the dustbin of history in just the same way the Irish electorate abandoned the IPP in 1918.

      Everything else is a pointless distraction.

      Reply
      • Aidan says:

        @Andy – whilst a plebiscite election (potentially using the lost vote) could be part of an overall strategy for independence, it is only one part and I think trying to organise a plebiscite election in absence of a dominant political organisation is unworkable, and potentially fatal for the independence movement. For one thing, politically how will the campaign for independence work if the pro-independence candidates couldn’t even agree on what independence would look like across a whole range of policy areas. How also, do you ensure message discipline within the broad tent to stop the media picking on some of the more insane voices (such as the people who post here) as the voice of independence, thus tying the campaign to nutty fringe causes.

        Then, even in the extremely unlikely event that the critical 50%+1 is achieved, who then forms a government to negotiate an exit with the U.K. Government, who let’s be honest may not remotely play fair or look to make this easy. A random unstructured gaggle of individuals who can’t even be in the same room together aren’t going to be able to manage that. In theory, you could then look to form a pro-independence party to take independence forward, and then re-run the election. But if that’s possible post-plebiscite, then why not form that party now. That second election would also be treated as a rerun by the unionist parties, and if the intervening period has been marked by ugly squabbling in the independence tent then don’t expect they 50%+1 necessarily to hold.

      • Duncan Strachan says:

        Agrre with that also.

      • sam says:

        (I’m not a member of any political party or a supporter of the SNP). That said it won’t be easy to destroy a long standing political party..

        From YouGov, March 2025.

        “A third (34%) of Scots say they have a favourable view of Swinney, whilst 48% have an unfavourable opinion. Nevertheless, Swinney’s favourability ratings are still higher than those of his rivals. For Labour, just one in five (20%) feel favourable towards Anas Sarwar, whilst half (49%) disapprove of him…

        …Leaders from the smaller Scottish parties, namely, Scotland’s Tory leader Russel Findlay, the Lib Dems’ Alex Cole-Hamilton, and Green leaders Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater are all likely to be held in an unfavourable light, with a considerable number of Scottish adults seemingly not having an opinion on these lower-profile party leaders, with 44-61% answering “don’t know”…

        Amongst all Scots, 38% have a favourable view of the nation’s longest serving first minister, whilst 54% hold an unfavourable one. Amongst SNP voters, four-fifths (81%) hold a positive view of her, more than do so of John Swinney (76%) and Humza Yousaf (46%).”

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        @Sam

        Swinney does for baldies what Sturgeon did for wasp chewers.

        Very sadly, Scotland is over-represented with both groups.

        Hence the enduring support for both these politicians.

        We need to find ourselves a politician who is also a ginger wasp chewer with galloping alopecia. Such a hybrid, male or female, will be unbeatable at the Scottish ballot box.

  29. James Barr Gardner says:

    Keep an eye on the demographics !

    England’s continuing population growth to the mid 2030’s whilst Scotland’s stagnates will result in Scotland’s MPs being further reduced down to 50 !

    Meantime the SNP sleepwalk towards further political deficit for Scotland in the this so called Union !

    Reply
  30. James Cheyne says:

    Never thought I would partial agree with you Andy, that the Whole caboodle have to go in Scotland, however I think it equally applies to the whole political system across britain, for they are all extingishing our countries that we live in simultaniously.

    By dismantling the produce, products, systems, assets and society of each country, It is only when this is achieved and on its knees will the agenda of one global government will come into play.
    For that to become a reality there must be useless politicians placed in advance in the appropriate governing bodies,
    That is where we are at the moment in the four nation countries that make up the fiction of Great Britain,
    Declining fast.

    Reply
  31. James Cheyne says:

    It is interesting to observe that what once happened in Scotland hundreds of years ago, whereby our self elected Scottish politicians were corrupted and bought is presently taken place down south,

    For it seems that just like Scotland, the politicians down south have sold their country and people to the new ideology of foreign policies and a new governance from out with their own country,
    History has a way of repeating itself.
    And karma has a way of booting you up the backside when you no longer believe in self determination and Sovereignty of nations.

    Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      “karma has a way of booting you up the backside when you no longer believe in self determination and Sovereignty of nations”

      You bet.

      Such a shame so many of the regulars have spent the past 3+ years cheering on poot.

      Reply
  32. James Cheyne says:

    The great reset planned result whereby you will own nothing and you will be happy, could be challenged,
    By choosing none of the above political parties on offer put before us,

    Reply
  33. Hatey McHateface says:

    Reported in today’s news, seemingly Scots are being left “scared, attacked and traumatised” by seagulls.

    Sometimes I think the Big Man upstairs just likes a laugh at our expense.

    Where’s ScotGov when we need a No Fly zone?

    Reply
  34. Confused says:

    A con man has to be “charismatic” (to the target audience) and “compelling” ( in some way )

    – swinney is neither; farage though, there is a con-man, a real pied piper

    if I was swinney’s press guy I would stage a fake fistfight in a pub with him having a square go in the car park with some guy who was “annoying some lassies” – Big John Sorts out Creepy Paedo – it was nuthing he said (flexing, shirt off, showing tribal tats)

    nikki by contrast was a master, even now we have a tribe saying “sturgeon did nothing wrong” and er, if we just had -believed- in her we would have got indy and all that salmond stuff is a conspiracy of salmondites all throughout the scots establishment who tried to frame her … she being defenceless, only in charge of the govt and appointing all these people to important positions, who then owed her favours – she was totally defenceless, so she was …

    Today’s problem is going to be Farage, who has no solutions to anything, reads it off a script from his spook masters and just wants to do “neoliberalism on steroids”.

    The idea that Scotland should be used as a lifeboat by the English is disgusting to me. THE ENGLISH ARE ALL LITTLE ENGLANDERS, ethnoracial supremacists who think the ANGLO SAXON IS THE MASTER RACE and everything and everywhere belongs to them. ESPECIALLY SCOTLAND – they have no business here, that kind of people, the worst scum who have scourged this earth for a millenium.

    The people who caused all the problems can’t ever be part of the solution, for they are the problem in its essence. Ideas don’t do bad things, people do. It’s the people you need to target.

    The english did this to themselves, this “diversity” for reasons of greed and winning the class war, without thought of consequences; but the ordinary anglos have always had the democratic power to vote the bastards out, something we never did. They do not get to run up a bill for which we have to pay. Or flee the coop as the chickens come home to roost, and stab, and destroy the NHS, welfare state and education.

    Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      A con man has to be charismatic.

      A confused man has to be schismatic.

      Reply
  35. Confused says:

    Let’s remind ourselves of what ugly, evil, nasty pondlife the English really are.

    the UGLY ANGLO AT UNI, this is how the “clever” ones behave

    link to archive.ph

    – it should not be tolerated; every english student should be run out of that institution and a 20 year ban imposed on their attendance. The constitution should be 80% Scots, 20% non-English foreigners.

    Ed Uni is a shambles anyway; it educates 1/4 Scots, 1/4 English and the other half are random foreigners who pay full whack. Its degrees have about as much worth as birthday cards from the newsagents and it is no more than a paper factory.

    When I was at Uni, Glasgow and Ed were the biggest with about 11000 students, 9K UGS and 2K PGS – they now both have 44000 students each and the whole thing is just another business racket with an administrator class doing nothing more than filling its pockets. Used to be a good place, but it must be shit now, a real ripoff.

    You can make it work if you are from abroad; you get some qualies from your home country, then a certificate that says you can speak english, come over here. Then the good stuff starts – you then (they were thinking of closing this loophole) – bring your entire family over on your student visa, because otherwise you couldn’t do your homework. When you graduate and your visa runs out, you conveniently forget about it and there was a time at least when no one bothered. Note that if you or any of your family marries a citizen, or gets knocked up and has a kid who is a “scottish citizen” by birthright, then you all get to stay. When you do the numbers on it, it can be worth it. Anyway, the foreign graduates tend to hang around, they don’t go home.

    All the housing being built in the cities now seems to be for students – all the while a “housing crisis” exists for the ordinary natives, on waiting lists for years.

    The general idea of “the university” seems to be going down the drain anyway; the students are all using AI to cheat and just phoning it in, everyone gets a first these days otherwise you might get sued, but even the academics are using AI to produce AI slop to get published in slop journals, to be reviewed by AI. It has all turned into a racket, it’s a miracle anything at all gets done, and therein lies a story : the unis used to produce these fundamental breakthroughs, but now seem thin on the ground, despite more research than ever being produced.

    Well done, the “business model” ruins something else. Chomsky wrote about this 25 years ago, exactly this, contrasting his early times at MIT, pointing out that whatever happens, the administrator class always gets larger.

    Not wanting to be too horrible about Ed Uni – for example, St Andrews is much worse, full of real fucking english weirdoes, mostly extreme rightwing homosexuals, who are too weird for even the smaller oxbridge colleges where “eccentricity” was celebrated.

    Reply
    • Alf Baird says:

      This in large part explains our current (and future) mediocre meritocracy and the poor and deteriorating condition our nation and its people are left in.

      Most newly independent states created a single national university with an emphasis on lifting up its ain fowk who had suffered from long term exploitation and discrimination under colonial rule. That is what we need to do, to transform our nation and the life chances and opportunities of our own people.

      In a colony “none of the colonizer’s institutions are appropriate for the colonized” (Memmi).

      Reply
    • Aidan says:

      Sorry – you went to a university and you’ve ended up like this?

      Reply
      • sam says:

        “The only thing that sustains one through life is the consciousness of the immense inferiority of everybody else…”

      • Andy Ellis says:

        Sadly Aidan any mass movement attracts a leavening of weirdos, monomaniacal obsessives and downright swivel eyed bigots. The fact that such are over represented BTL in this place shouldn’t blind us to the fact that the vast majority of Scots don’t share their deeply regressive and morally repugnant views.

        Most of us are happy with light hearted banter at the expense of the auld enemy rather than the unhinged rants all too frequently aired in this place. Many of us have links to England and the rest of the UK, whether familial, work related, academic or social.

        The real obstacles to achieving independence are not of course the English, “colonial” or even post colonial repression, a captured MSM or “foreign” dominated institutions, but the lack of political courage of Scots voters as a whole and their atavistic tendencies toward starting fights amongst themselves.

        Throughout our history we’ve never needed any external powers to keep us “doun hauden”, rather we’ve been the architects of our own failure to make the best of the manifest advantages our land has bestowed upon us, when many other peoples with far less going for them and far greater obstacles to overcome have not only seized the opportunities they had but left Scotland floundering in their wake. We’re left with tub thumping bigots like all too many regulars in this place who find it easier to place the blame on others than and wait for some deus ex machina to drop independence in their lap because they’re too daeless and combative to construct a coherent broad based movement to achieve their aim.

      • Aidan says:

        @Andy – no indeed, and I know that the reason these people infest WoS is because people don’t want to be around them in the real world, at least not if they go around saying the things they say on here. It’s nevertheless fairly sad to see someone with a university education reduced to this!

      • Andy Ellis says:

        @Aidan

        It’s a truth universally acknowledged that some of the stupidest and least pleasant people you’ll ever meet have degrees and / or tertiary educations.

        Being an oxygen thief like Confused is at once a sad indictment of our tertiary education system, but an even worse indictment of the independence movement for tolerating such regressive bigotry amongst a (thankfully) pitiably small section of its membership.

        As you say no sensible person would give a bigot like Confused the time of day. Sadly the internet has given such intellectual and moral barrel scrapings a platform and amplified their bile giving such toxins publicity they don’t merit and which makes them appear far more widespread than is actually the case.

        It’s far easier to blame and traduce some “out group” than to just deal with the issues at hand that the independence movement should be dealing with.

        Little better can be expected from fantasists who believe there’s some magical short cut to independence.

      • Aidan says:

        @Andy – you are of course right and perhaps I should be less surprised, I suppose it’s a wishful thought to believe that such insane rantings are a product of stupidity and lack of education rather than a moral failing.

        It is all in all a rather sad state of affairs. To say this is Scotland’s most read political blog, the percentage of posters (I would say well over 50%) who appear to have range of serious problems, usually characterised by continually posting bizarre rambling diatribes which rarely have anything to do with whatever subject is being discussed. Any healthy political movement would be going to great lengths to disassociate from such individuals.

        I try not to be too personally rude about Prof Alf and Sarah, as I think they probably do sincerely believe in what they are doing even if their repetitive posts every couple of hours, all of which say basically the fame thing, are difficult to reconcile with balanced and well adjusted individuals. However, the unwillingness to acknowledge or explain the many obstacles with whatever the latest “cunning plan” might be does rather suggest the character of a religious belief rather than a practical political strategy.

    • Hatey McHateface says:

      Thanks for the link, Confused.

      Aren’t they the perfect bunch of whiny snowflakes though? Somebody said they couldn’t understand an accent and then there was no safe, therapeutic place for the “victim” to go and have their shattered self-esteem painstakingly pieced back together.

      They wouldn’t last a morning in a real job.

      Whatever happened to us Scots? Just 3-4 generations ago, we went out and seized one quarter of the entire world. Now we don’t stop sucking our thumbs until we are in our mid twenties.

      Reply
      • agent x says:

        Don’t worry – Freya Stewart, from South Queensferry, who just finished her second year studying social anthropology at the university is on the case.

    • Southernbystander says:

      ‘The constitution should be 80% Scots, 20% non-English foreigners’.

      Trouble with that is that under the current fees regime in Scotland, it would probably bankrupt the university.

      The real reason universities want so many non-Scots (or, more accurately, not resident in Scotland) is they pay much higher fees than the Scottish government gives per head for students from Scotland. The lauding of no fees for Scottish students comes at a big price.

      The situation is no better in England, worse in fact, as even with students paying their own fees, it is not enough, hence the desperation for those who pay international fees (miles higher). The big majority of these are Chinese. Keeping tution fees donw for home students is another laudable aim (and they have been frozen for years until very recently), but also has a big price.

      The result? The financial collapse of the HE sector, a collapse that is affecting Scotland just as much as England. In findings just published (Harrison and Harvie, June 2025), 9,000 academics have been made redundant in the UK in the last couple of years and a further 11,000 have been forced out by different means. Note that strikes are ongoing at Edinburgh as the university has refused to rule out (more) compulsory redundancies as it announces plans to cut £140 million from its annual budget, the biggest ever made by a university in Scotland (UCU news update, 25 June, 2025). And that is with all these filthy Anglos and foreigners!

      The huge rise in the number of students you mention begs other questions. One of them is what is the percentage of Scots actually going to university? Would that even tally with wanting Edinburgh, that has nearly 50,000 students, to have 80% Scots given the numerous other Scottish universities all wanting a piece of the Scottish pie?

      Reply
    • twathater says:

      Oh NAW see what you done Confused you’ve got the franchise fanny and his fellow Scotland haters all upset, FFS the franchise fanny still KNOWS who every independence supporting person in the world is willing to accept or reject as comrades,he KNOWS instinctively that his progressiveness is accepted by all indy supporters and that they frown on any blood and soil nativism, what a fanny, I think he’s training Ayden to adopt his mind reading capabilities because Ayden like the franchise fanny likes to tell everyone what the UN and assorted organisations are willing to accept and what and how they think

      Reply
      • Hatey McHateface says:

        “what a fanny”

        I’m thinking you’re beyond redemption, TH. In your mid-seventies, but still believing you can win arguments by puerile name calling like a 12 YO in the playground.

        Did you read the linked article? Did you register the whiny snowflakes self-identifying as Scotland’s best and brightest hopes?

        Why didn’t you respond with scorn and ridicule to the idiots playing the discrimination card because somebody said to them their accent is hard to understand? That’s what ordinary, normal, grounded people would do.

        BTW. Did you notice that where our Scottish intellectual and emotional juveniles were directly quoted, they didn’t have one single word of Scots between them? Did you notice that there wasn’t one single word of Scots in the entire article lifted from The National?

        Do you think that’s because none of The National’s readers are interested in cos playing Brigadoon when they pick up their morning paper?

      • Andy Ellis says:

        @Hatey

        Twatbyname has form for this kind of thing. It’s his MO in lieu of any actual argument. Oddly, he never comes up with any figures to prove that his view is the one shared by the majority, or marshals any evidence to show that my mainstream opinions are in fact NOT shared by the majority of both Scots generally and the independence movement more narrowly.

        why, one would almost think he was a bloviating wind bag without any real ability to back up his regressive bigotry.

        I’m sure alert readers schooled by Rev Stu over many years to expect back up for their arguments will know which side of the argument is actually supported by pesky things like polling evidence, party platforms and policies and electoral success.

        Of course moon howlers don’t have any time for experts and can airily write off polling evidence because (naturally) since they haven’t personally been asked, they’re all rigged, right?

        It’s the rhetorical equivalent of a toddler covering their eyes and thinking they’re invisible. 🙂

      • James says:

        Absolutely spot on!

        This place is being infested by these twats, all chummy, half of them on the payroll and agreeing what is to be done in Scotchland (and yes, that includes “Fifeshire”, “Aiden”).

      • twathater says:

        Bastard TAX MOAN jumping in to the defence of his fellow Scotland hating Franchise Fanny pal
        Funnily enough the Franchise Fanny is quite happy to bestow our constitutional vote onto anyone who has been here 5 mins and who has contributed he haw to Scotland, he still continues to believe that his and the Scum Nonce Parties wide open woke progressiveness will win independence, but if not he is not fussed because he would rather live amongst perverts and deviants in the union with his white flight family than live in an independent Scotland with true patriots

        Poor Bastard TAX MOAN having to jump to the defence of his fellow Scotland hating pal, he must be so torn having to defend the franchise fanny who is happy to bestow all our riches and resources on any visitor who comes here who hasn’t paid a PENNY towards anything,but we all know bastard tax despises anyone in receipt of any social benefits or grants but it is okay for any amount of money to be given to Is rahel for military spending, bastard tax is only interested in one country and it is NOT Scotland

  36. sam says:

    YouGov March 2025

    “When it comes to top priorities for the Scottish government, two issues dominate across all voting and social groups: health and the economy. Most Scots (55%) say that health should be a main priority for the Scottish government, with a similar number saying so of the economy (54%). Third-placed education follows in a distant third, on 31%.

    Independence is, for the time being, much lower down the list of priorities for Scots. Only 14% say it should be a top priority for the Scottish government, ranking joint-eighth alongside welfare benefits. Among 2024 SNP voters, independence does rise in the ranks to third place overall, at 32%, although this is still far behind health (54%) and the economy (51%).”

    The economy and health are linked. “PublicHealthScotland” says this.

    “Scotland has the worst health inequalities in western and central Europe:

    The gap in life expectancy between the most and least deprived areas in Scotland is roughly 13 years for males and 10 years for females
    The gap in healthy life expectancy (the number of years lived in good health) is even greater – roughly 23 years for males and 24 years for females.
    The fundamental causes of health inequalities are an unequal distribution of income, power and wealth. Inequalities in income, wealth and power can lead to poverty and marginalisation and also influence the distribution of wider environmental influences on health, such as the availability of work, education, and good quality housing.

    These ‘social determinants of health’ shape individual experiences across the population and lead to inequalities in health outcomes.”

    Reply
    • Alf Baird says:

      Yes, inequality is an essential part of any colonial society in which the colonizer: “aspires not to equality but to domination. It is not a question of eliminating the inequalities among men but of widening them and making them into a law” (Renan)

      Reply
      • Hatey McHateface says:

        “inequality is an essential part of any colonial society”

        We could run an interesting thought experiment to assess the validity of your claim.

        1) Has there even been an equal society? If so, name it.

        2) Was that a colony, an empire, an ancient mythological utopia, what?

        3) Would a majority of Scots want to set up Scotland along similar lines?

        What you’re saying, Alf, is just as much denial of biology as the trans eejits. You’re denying the fundamental inequalities that arise for all of us as a result of our genetic inheritance – a fate over which none of us have any control.

        And a fundamental driver of reality that no government, economic system, or ideology can ever address, unless, perhaps, society agrees to develop one perfect specimen, neuter everybody, and henceforth only ever clone that perfect human.

  37. Young Lochinvar says:

    Just back from holiday, none of my posts sent from there appeared, probably a poor internet signal.

    I do not see the point in the leader of the SNP party being at Holyrood aka Westminsters regional ministry for certain devolved powers. Trying to achieve independence from there is now pointless thanks to SHE who shall not be named and Breathy Bains squirmingly inept section 30 approach to the so called Supreme Court.

    Also it’s abjectly clear no PM will dare to deign to consent to another referendum, the McCrone report must now be top of the required reading list the minute they get the top job.

    The leader of the SNP should be the one in charge of their MPs at WM, and they need to get conciliatory to all other independence parties while they are at it and strategise and push for Indy from there, nothing else, just Indy.

    Meantime, provost Swinney can get back on at HR/ regional ministry for certain devolved powers with good governance of certain devolved powers and try to regain some of the trust in competence in position like Big Eck achieved.

    Salvo/ Liberation Scotland etc should carry on their good work and achieve some sort of regular cooperation and coordination with those MPs, not HR.

    Forget HR, it’s just a glorified auld style regional council and completely toothless on the matter of independence.

    When SNP/ independence MPs get their majority of Scottish MPs back at WM then it’s time for the age old policy; start negotiating the terms of dissolving the TOU.

    In my opinion, of course, having considered just how things have gone since devolutions rose tinted shackles were fitted to Scotlands ankles.

    Reply
  38. sam says:

    Andy Ellis (English man) says of Scots (all of us who vote).

    “the lack of political courage of Scots voters as a whole and their atavistic tendencies toward starting fights amongst themselves”

    That rings a bell.

    Let’s see Wiki

    “In the 16th century Scotland and particularly the Gaelic speaking Highlands were characterised as lawless, savage and filled with wild Scots. As seen in Camden’s account to promote an image of the nation as a wild and barbarous people:

    They drank the bloud [blood] out of wounds of the slain: they establish themselves, by drinking one anothers bloud [blood] and suppose the great number of slaughters they commit, the more honour they winne [win] and so did the Scythians in old time. To this we adde [add] that these wild Scots, like as the Scythians, had for their principall weapons, bowes and arrows. Camden (1586)[4]

    In 2004 a Scottish former soldier was attacked by a group of children, teenagers, and young adults with bricks and bats, allegedly for having a Scottish accent.

    That’s progrees, perhaps. We may have moved from sojers drinking blood and the population established by drinking blood, to a sojer who gets attacked for his accent.

    Reply
    • Andy Ellis says:

      @sam

      I’m as Scottish as anyone else posting in here. Born, bred and lived more than half my life here.

      The relevance or indeed point of the rest of your post escapes me. It was often lowland Scots characterising the Gaels, Highlanders, Papists or anyone else they didn’t like as barbarous.

      As for the attack on the soldier, unless it was specifically about him being Scottish it’s just as likely the types who would carry out such attacks would have taken exception to a soldier with an Irish, Welsh or Gurkha accent, who was black or who had looked at them funny.

      Nice try, but no cigar.

      Reply
      • Dan says:

        I’m as Scottish as anyone else posting in here. Born, bred and lived more than half my life here.

        Careful Andy, that’s erring intae regressive blood and soil bigoted nativist territory if you’re using born, bred and resident for the majority of yer life criteria to validate your Scottishness.
        Why the need to state that when yer favoured civic nationalism means everybody is full on Scottish and gets a vote to decide our constitutional future, even if they jist rocked up 5 mins ago and haven’t a fucking scooby about Scotland’s predicament or politics.
        But as you’re running on this track… Can I ask how Scottish are yer inlaws that moved up here fae down south a few years back?

      • James says:

        Nah. You’re a True Brit.

        We can see ye, ye ken?

    • Hatey McHateface says:

      @Sam

      We’re much more educated, advanced and sophisticated these days.

      Read Wings BTL and you’ll discover many don’t even consider Gaels to be Scottish at all.

      Reply
    • Andy Ellis says:

      @Dan

      Simple enough even for knuckle dragging nativists bigots like you to comprehend (that means understand Dan): Sam appears to think I’m English, whether through ignorance or because he thinks it’s some kind of dig.

      Of course that low brow kind of attack (“You disagree with me, therefore you must be a yoon/English/MI6 operative/space lizard.”) is hardly new from the usual suspects in here, but as someone once said, “Where there is error, may we bring truth.”

      A sair enough fecht in here right enough, but a public duty to slap down disinformation and fake news. If good men do nothing to combat such lies, we end up in the Donald territory, which granted lots of the usual suspects in here would probably see as a recommendation.

      My in-laws are part Scottish by ancestry as it happens, just as my nephews and nieces whose mother is Scottish and father English are (whisper it) as Scottish as me and (presumably) you, because that’s how it works.

      I have lots of friends, neighbours, workmates and acquaintances with no Scottish ancestry or background at all who are fervent supporters of independence, or whose children who were born and/or brought up here are. They’re a far greater advert for the movement and the early days of our proposed better nation than nativist bigots like you and your posse of indigenes.

      I know you and the regressive blood and soil types don’t like it, but normal Scottish folk think your bigoted views are a social and political liability, so there is that.

      Reply
    • Andy Ellis says:

      @Dan

      It’s always a surprise knowing you can see anything until you’ve wiped the spittle off your screen Dan.

      Still, I suppose the knuckles are still too sair from scraping o’er the gravel eh?

      It never stops being amusing being accused of not being Scottish enough by a snivelling anonymous keyboard warrior.

      The phrase all mouth and trousers springs to mind.

      Reply
      • Dan says:

        @ Andy at 4.26pm
        Ach, piss off you trolling arsehole. What is yer gibberish over the top derogatory and hostile goading post this afternoon even responding to, seeing as you already previously responded with similar drivel yesterday evening at 7.56pm to my 6.45pm post. Jist couldn’t help yersel with the clear trolling.
        Yer a zoomer with a serious lack of social skills, and you lack the self-awareness to see you’ve been projecting the archetypal internet warrior act yersel for years on here.

        On the one hand it’s been totes comedy observing you endlessly find fault, wind up, and fall out with just about every genuine Scottish nationalist on here, but on the other hand your behaviour has undoubtably pissed off so many wingers to the point that they just can’t be arsed with your relentless unsavoury monomaniacal disruptive behavioural traits btl.
        But most alert folk know that was always your objective, and you and your muckers have all but completed the task of destroying the worth of btl.
        Guess Stu’s ego still needs the site’s stats to look good to try to get one over other Indy sites activity though, so will take the screeds of troll traffic to make up for the loss of the broad spectrum of views from a diverse pool of folk that used to make the most read Scottish political site worth visiting.

        So the floor’s pretty much all but yours now to deliver Scotland to self-governing status on yer own, unimpeded by the views of any other pesky Scots.

  39. sam says:

    Andy Ellis says.

    “Throughout our history we’ve never needed any external powers to keep us “doun hauden”,”

    Poverty is a policy choice. It is a political choice made by successive UK governments over decades in which, except for rare occasions, the political choices of Scotland count for nothing.

    So, according to ONS UK poverty rose from 13% of the population to 25% under Thatcher, to 22% under New Labour. It is around that rate still.

    Who in Scotland voted for poverty?

    Who in Scotland voted for austerity?

    According to published research (Walsh/McCartney) austerity in the UK caused 335,000 extra deaths, including many in Scotland.

    SNP government for all its flaws has mitigation policies to temper the effects of poverty.

    That statement of yours looks somewhat like a straw man.

    Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      We’ve imported millions of third-world impoverished and poverty has gone up.

      No shit, Sherlock!

      Reply
    • Andy Ellis says:

      The same people voted for these things as voted for parties that weren’t promising independence or a level of self government that would have given us the power to stop or alleviate all these ills Sam. Nobody forced them to do it at gunpoint, or denied them a vote, or beat their Grannies up as they went to vote then stol the ballot boxes as in Catalonia.

      Sometimes, the buck stops with the folk who refuse to get off their knees and feel happier licking the hand that feeds them.

      It’s not a straw man, it’s a simple if unpalatable fact.

      Reply
  40. Unless we get independence from England soon there won`t be much of a `Scotland` left,

    500,000 English immigrants flooding over the border fleeing from the dung heap that was the English Empire bringing their peculiar culture and ways,

    cycled through two big parks in Edinburgh today,

    nae fitba but two cricket games in each park,

    nae pie and bovril but tea and crumpet all round,

    Swinney/SNP remind me of the native Americans signing treaties with the Europeans `guaranteeing` them their rights and lands.

    Scot`s casinos in Flamingo Land for the big rollers of Englandshire.

    Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      “two cricket games in each park”

      Pakistanis and Indians.

      Did you notice who they were playing against?

      Reply
      • Andy Ellis says:

        Strange to be so upset about folks playing cricket. When I’m taking a daunder round about Edina’s leafier quarters I often see folk playing football, rugby. American football in the Meadows as well as rounders.

        Scot comes across as one of these folks who would go into an Indian restaurant and order steak and chips.

        It’s never long before the nativist bigots come out with the Enochian “rivers of blood” shibboleths is it? Strange how they always assure us that these floods of incomers are always going to overwhelm the 80-90% of natives. How does that actually work in practice…?

  41. agent x says:

    “I’m as Scottish as anyone else posting in here. Born, bred and lived more than half my life here.
    …………………

    Fool that I was I thought moving from England to Scotland several years ago was an escape route from being shackled to the rotting corpse pf the British nationalist project as it descended in to the slough of post-brexit Faragist despond.

    Back then I thought the Scots still had the backbone and the political cojones to answer the call to freedom.”

    ———————————————-

    It’s fascinating that someone would move from Scotland to England for half of their life and then decide to move back to Scotland during the Sturgeon era and expect the sunny uplands of milk and honey.

    Reply
    • Andy Ellis says:

      Howso? When I moved to England, independence was still widely regarded as a pipe dream.It was by the time I decided to move back an entirely reasonable expectation at the time. I was hardly alone in thinking at that point in time that the prospects for independence were reasonably positive, even after the No vote in 2014.

      It’s not as if I was unique in feeling after the 2015 election that independence might actually be within our grasp, even if we’d thought it was going to be a long way off after the No vote in 2014.

      Things can change fast as Alex Salmond himself was fond of saying. Or we can have a decade of being disillusioned and let down by a party we naively thought had some fire in its belly.

      Mea culpa, I guess. But I was hardly alone was I? At least I woke up and smelled the coffee and realised that SNP were and remain an obstacle in our path.

      Things might not look great right now, but I’d still rather be here hoping against hope that we can push independence forward than in England watching it descent further in to the clutches of frothing brexiteers, spivs and Faragists because their mainstream parties are even worse than ours.

      Reply
      • Hatey McHateface says:

        “in England watching it descent further in to the clutches of frothing brexiteers, spivs and Faragists”

        Odd that you left the Islamists out of that list.

        Perhaps you’re simply one of those who think that because nothing bad has happened to your daughter(s) yet, everything is just grand.

        I’m hoping that’s the explanation, because all of the other possibilities show you up in a very poor light.

      • Andy Ellis says:

        Islamism and/or mass immigration isn’t responsible for the decades long decline and structural failures of the British nationalist project Hatey. The failure to adequately assimilate immigrants and insist they accept the shared values of the society they emigrate to is certainly something that needs discussion.

        However, attributing all our ills to one “out group” just won’t cut it, and it doesn’t matter whether you’re hobby horse “other” are muslims, coffee coloured people generally, all furriners, or in the case of nativist bigots in here “New Scots” who have the audacity to move here.

      • Dan says:

        Islamism and/or mass immigration isn’t responsible for the decades long decline and structural failures of the British nationalist project Hatey. The failure to adequately assimilate immigrants and insist they accept the shared values of the society they emigrate to is certainly something that needs discussion.

        And yet when similar issues arising from your preferred open borders civic nationalism ideology come into play with regard to the Scottish nationalist project, you start hurling abuse and misattribute what folk have said when anything resembling a much-needed discussion is tried to be had…

        Scotland has a demographics’ problem, but immigration is a power reserved to London Rule. And importantly, broadcasting in the UK is also a power reserved to London Rule and is effectively protecting and prolonging the ongoing failing British nationalism project.
        So just how is Scotland going to “adequately assimilate immigrants and insist they accept the shared values of the society they emigrate(sic) to”.
        Any normal functioning country exercising self-determination would have full control of its immigration and broadcasting (and all other major powers), and have in place a tailored policy to best suit its specific requirements in terms of economics and demographics.
        Yet you continue to deny Scotland is enduring the status of a colony, with another country with a significantly larger population and resultant requirements, which differ from our own, controlling and deciding our fate by continuing to implement half-baked unsuited unsustainable policies.

      • Alf Baird says:

        As Albert Memmi wrote: “the colonialist is always unsure of his nationality”.

      • Captain Caveman says:

        Another day, another dollar… The Nutty Professor letting rip with some more brain farts about “Colonialism” and “Memmi” for the nth bloody time.

        Seriously, perhaps you and Memmi should get a room, Alf.

      • Andy Ellis says:

        @Dan 9.06am

        “And yet when similar issues arising from your preferred open borders civic nationalism ideology come into play with regard to the Scottish nationalist project, you start hurling abuse and misattribute what folk have said when anything resembling a much-needed discussion is tried to be had… “

        On the contrary, people can discuss all they want. they just don’t get to state things as fact which are demonstrably false, such as the oft repeated moonhowler mantra that franchise restriction is justified by precedent and because that’s what all countries do, which is a simple falsehood.

        No matter how often this falsehood is pointed out, nativists in here return to it like a dog to it’s own vomit. It’s not misattribution: we see it virtually every day BTL in this place: nativist bigots seeking to disenfranchise New Scots or banging on about the dangers of mass immigration.

        Even when they (eventually) have to agree that they are in fact in the wrong, they move the goal posts to insist that Scotland, alone in all the world and irrespective of historical, legal and constitutional precedent is somehow unique, and that everyone will simply accept that we can achieve independence using a cunning plan that nobody else has ever used.

        It’s as tiresome as it is fallacious.

        “Scotland has a demographics’ problem, but immigration is a power reserved to London Rule. And importantly, broadcasting in the UK is also a power reserved to London Rule and is effectively protecting and prolonging the ongoing failing British nationalism project.
        So just how is Scotland going to “adequately assimilate immigrants and insist they accept the shared values of the society they emigrate(sic) to”.

        Lots of (all?) western liberal democracies have issued with the demographics of falling birthrates and populations. Skills shortages and a shrinking tax base mean they either have to somehow incentivise higher birthrates or import labour from abroad.

        The way to have power over our own immigration policy and MSM is to grow a pair and vote for independence. The people coming here are emigrating to Scotland, so no “sic” is required you ignoramus.

        An independent Scotland can enact the immigration and assimilation policy the majority of Scots vote for via their elected representatives. there are plenty of examples of countries who are doing better than the current UK, like Denmark for example, which has much more robust policies than any recent UK government.

        That’s the joy of being independent: if we don’t vote for independence, we can’t expect the nice things we want because we’ll always be obliged to fall in line with UK legislation unless Scottish unionists suddenly grow a pair and demand powers over immigration too. I won’t be holding my breath.

        “Yet you continue to deny Scotland is enduring the status of a colony, with another country with a significantly larger population and resultant requirements, which differ from our own, controlling and deciding our fate by continuing to implement half-baked unsuited unsustainable policies.”

        I do, so does the vast majority of the Scottish population and more importantly so does the UN. Unless and until the UN accepts cases like Scotland, Quebec and Catalonia as non self-governing territories and thus subject to decolonisation provisions, it’s all so much hot air.

        More importantly, it’s likely to take years and be hotly contested by lots of other countries with axes to grind against secessionist movements of their own, including not just the UK but Uncle Vlad and Chairman Xi, Spain and loads of other states with ethnic minorities who have expressed any desire for self determination.

        It’s relatively simple for the UK government to point to the fact that the UN sanctioned right to self determination is neither unlimited or automatic. The UN certainly won’t bestir themselves to do anything absent a clear majority being demonstrated in favour in a referendum or plebiscitary election.

        Even if the classify Scotland as a non self governing territory they won’t automatically accept UDI, because they expect people seeking self determination to exhaust other routes first.

        You and other asserting that Scotland has the enduring status of a colony doesn’t make it so, still less accepted by anyone or any international body that actually matters.

        Get back to us when that changes. In the meantime, don’t expect people who don’t believe that unicorns and rainbows will lead us to independence not to stand around, point at you all and laugh.

    • twathater says:

      “Back then I thought the Scots still had the backbone and the political cojones to answer the call to freedom.”

      If you had been here in 2014 or done any research you would be aware that Scots did have the backbone and cojones to vote FOR independence, in fact SCOTS voted 52.7% FOR INDEPENDENCE ,BUT because of people like the Franchise Fanny and the so called civic nationalists who are content to give ANYONE from ANYWHERE a say on our constitutional future we are STILL SHACKLED to the putrid reviled arsehole union

      That is apart from the corruption of the referendum , the fear factor PROMOTED by WM , the blatant LIES promoted by the mainstream media and ALL the broadcasters , no exit poll ,and numerous other instances that UNFORTUNATELY went UNCHALLENGED by Alex Salmond and the snp

      It is unbelievable that Alex Salmond’s vast experience of perfidious albion and their unconscionable ability to win irrespective of what actions had to be taken would lead him to believe that they could be trusted

      Reply
      • Hatey McHateface says:

        Not a very clear post, TH.

        Who exactly are you blaming for the shambles in 2014? Andy Ellis, Alex Salmond, or both of them?

      • Alf Baird says:

        “Who exactly are you blaming for the shambles in 2014?”

        There is inevitably a deep pathology associated with 300 years of colonial rule.

  42. Jay says:

    In response to Aidan at 6:32 on 29th june, final paragraph: that is no way to ‘do politics’.

    As an indication of insanity, one would more usefully look at J. Swinney in the recent videos and consider the similarity with D Trump. Does anyone else find Trump and Swinney to be similar in their incoherence, in the absolute lack of reasoning and cogency?

    As for that all-too-frequent commenter, no better than a creature of mossad and supporter of extermination, the least said the better, probably enough to drive readers away from Wings.

    Reply
    • Doug says:

      A relative of mine go beaten up last week for wearing a Scotland top, in Scotland.

      Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      “that all-too-frequent commenter, no better than a creature of mossad and supporter of extermination, the least said the better”

      Oooo, check you out, Jay. Hiding your identity to post on here and still too feart to say what’s really on your mind.

      With the likes of you agin them, the forces of yoonery have nowt to worry about.

      “supporter of extermination”

      But assume both sides are hell-bent on extermination of the other. It just comes down to which side you would prefer to see exterminated. Just because your choice is perhaps the opposite of mine, you have no right whatsoever to claim the moral high ground. It’s still extermination.

      Just as you have no right to claim to speak for Indy, or for the people of Scotland.

      Have you read the latest news? Neither side is showing any inclination to restart peace talks. The yellow tunnel boys still hold 20 live ones and maybe 30 putrefying corpses. In the words of Trump, they still have good cards in their hand.

      They look about them, see that their people have only taken 50-60 thousands casualties so far and conclude, “We’re good. We can go another 6 months and another few tens of thousands of martyrs, Inshallah. And meantime, maybe something will come up”.

      And hey, maybe it will. And maybe it won’t. But if you don’t like the way the situation is shaping, call for the yellow tunnel scum to come out with their captives, their putrefying corpses, and their hands up. They can then all go off to Qatar or Tehran or wherever to spend the rest of their lives with their stolen money. And the people you like to virtue signal your caring about will finally get some peace.

      Reply
      • Young Lochinvar says:

        P3nisbreath McP3nisbreathface; You appear to have some serious issues going on in there!
        Seek professional help.

        How you pass the moderators button on this site remains something of a mystery..
        .
        That’s 3 full stops (taps) for you, just in case you missed it.
        Nugget.

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        You appear to have reverted very quickly to type, YL Sah! after your wee break. Unhealthily obsessed with mental images of blokes sucking off other blokes.

        Hey, it’s 2025 and we’re in free and easy Scotland. Stop dreaming and start doing. Nobody’s gonna judge you.

      • Captain Caveman says:

        “How you pass the moderators button on this site remains something of a mystery”

        Wow. Just wow. That’s some serious chutzpah right there, coming from some Walter Mitty-esque gammon fantasist whose every single “contribution” (usually at 5am, repeated at length ad nauseam) comprises of creepy stalking and trolling.

        Take a look in the mirror, Rambo.

      • James says:

        Prick.

      • Captain Caveman says:

        “Frosties! They’re grrrrrrrrrreat!!” 😀

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        @James says:
        1 July, 2025 at 8:51 am

        “Prick”

        Indulging yourself with a quickie this morning, James?

        Is yer Mammie expected hame soon?

  43. MaryB says:

    There’s a very insightful interview with Jim Sillars on the Alex Salmond show. He’s got a very sharp analysis on Scotland’s problems, though, as ever, there’ll be disagreement over the solutions. It it’s very thoughtful and worth watching.

    Reply
  44. James Cheyne says:

    Without doubt Scotland is and has been under colonialism since the faux treaty of union made England think that it now had capture the Scots, subsumed Scotland or merged Scotland into England.
    Rather than considering it a political equal voluntary parliamentary union signed by……two kingdom/ states.

    It is that perservering attitude in England towards Scotland that has encapulated and placed Scotland in a involuntary union from the beginning,
    Because England thinks only it has over-seeing and far reaching rights to control, repeal or set out Scotland Acts from England of the treaty of union.

    That from a a Westminster building in London held by the parliament of England that did not close it it doors but continued its English parliamentary membership into the new branded name The parliament of Great Britain,
    Thus we find numerically its records from the parliament of England continuing in the new branded name the parliament of Great Britain,
    The supposed voluntary treaty of union was also forced upon Scotland by a army from England being sent up to Scotland to ensure that the treaty went ahead with the capability of squashing any Scottish rebellion to the treaty of union,

    Adding in the fact that no Scot was allowed to have a vote on wether they wanted to Join the treaty of union even although tha discussion was held,
    As the UK parliament now boast on their parliament site, it was decided not to give the Scots a vote, because in all probability the Scots would vote against joining.

    So by using military force and having rigged the outcome of treaty of union against Scots and Scotland the UK parliament now display their continued Colonising role and attitude over the supposed mutually voluntary faux treaty of union between Scotland and England towards the People of Scotland by telling them that they would require a majority of votes to leave or end the treaty of union that they were never asked or given the vote to join.

    That is the Colonial mindset of England. Which took the attitude that England is the sole proprietor of the treaty of union.

    Reply
    • factchecker says:

      James says ‘Adding in the fact that no Scot was allowed to have a vote on whether they wanted to Join the treaty of union even although tha discussion was held,’

      Presumably he would agree that all members of the Scottish Parliament who voted -either way – were Scots?

      If he means that the people of Scotland were not asked their opinion – of course they weren’t They never had been. Not about any treaty ever signed. Ever. There was no mechanism to do so.

      The ‘Claim of Right’ had never operated in practice.

      Does that mean that all previous treaties are also void, James?

      Orkney, Shetland, Western Isles still belong to Norway; the ‘Auld Alliance’ never existed…

      Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      “require a majority of votes to leave or end the treaty of union that they were never asked or given the vote to join”

      If you think it through, James, you will realise that every Scot living is “oppressed” by all the laws, rules and regulations that were extant before they became old enough to vote.

      In other words, we are all “oppressed” by stuff we were never consulted about. And the younger people are, the more stuff there is “oppressing” them.

      To be consistent, you need to be arguing that no Sovereign Scot need ever heed any law they were never given any say in. There is absolutely no logical justification for you to single out one act of parliament, the Act of Union, for treatment as a special case.

      To be fair, I think that one or two regulars on here, Xaracen for example, understand this.

      The problem is though that when asked to state what this would mean in practical terms, for example, when I go into town to do my shopping, his imagination buckles under the strain of trying to think it through.

      So why don’t you try it?

      Reply
  45. James Cheyne says:

    Reading these records from the Colonising English Westminster parliament of Great Britain / UK
    It has to be asked.

    Why do the the people of Scotland need a majority vote nowadays to leave a treaty of union they were never invited to join?

    That Colonial question wether to stay in the treaty of union or not, set down in 2014 is as faux as the treaty of union itself between Scotland and England basically because the people of Scotland are not and never were in the treaty of union,

    Reply
  46. James Cheyne says:

    When I hear people discussing how Scotland needs to grow a backbone to gain its independence from England.

    The thought always comes to mind that the Scots are already independent from the 1707,treaty of union
    But Westminster parliament continues the pretense and ruse that all of Scotland was captured.
    The people were not, and their community territory of Scotland was not,

    Additionally it is agreed that we gave our monarch away to England to become Queen of England.
    A English monarch ( not a Shared monarch) in 1707 no longer had any authority to Dissolve a Scottish parliament that was outwith her kingdom,

    That is The smoke and mirrors of the colonial Westminster parliament of Englands-Great Britain, that used to hold a treaty of parliamentary union with the old but now dissolved parliament of Scotland.
    but not with the Scots.

    Reply
  47. James Cheyne says:

    The old Scottish elites denounced their king and gave England their Scottish monarch to become the monarch of England,
    And that continues to be under the present crown monarchs of England today by descent.

    Scotland no longer have a monarch of Scots, or one sitting in a dissolved Scottish parliament.
    The Scots whom were not asked to vote to join the treaty of union never replaced their monarch.
    The monarchy crown which is not automatically inheritable in Scotland sits redundant at present.

    Reply
  48. James Cheyne says:

    The con merchants of the treaty of union that never was,
    The Scots did not vote to join the treaty of union, the Scots do not need to vote to leave it,

    The then Scots monarch was given to England to become queen of England to continue thereafter by descent as monarchs of England.
    Leaving Scotland with a vacant monarch position.

    I have no doubt the spin doctors will insist that although the treaty of union that never was, included the actual Scots is so old parchment that it needs further amendments, repeals, and updating, from a colonial position to Capture Scots better, where the first one failed will come forth in droves.

    The errors of not quite capturing the Scots by past decisions made not allowing them to vote, or not continuing to sharing a monarch. Need in their eyes, rectifying,
    For once agreed she was a monarch of England, she could not sign off on the treaty of union for Scotland.

    Reply
  49. James Cheyne says:

    Only a Country under Colonialism could be refused the right to self determination by another Country,

    Reply
    • DaveL says:

      That’s a fact, and in the case of Scotland it’s so easily seen. There will still be the moonhowling dribblers come along every time though and try to tell everyone different. They can’t help themselves, it’s a variation of the mental illness those who insist men can be women have, they either can’t or won’t see the truth.

      Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      On the subject of moonhowling dribblers …

      When a majority of Scots indicate their determination to self-identify as Yoons, over and over again, only a moonhowling dribbler would claim that another country is denying Scots our rights.

      That’s the reality Rev Stu points out, time after time, when he publishes his graphs showing Yes at 48% and No at 52%.

      That’s the reality that absolutely nobody on Wings BTL is ever prepared to face.

      Or even talk about.

      Reply
      • Breastplate says:

        Nonsense John,

        “Democracy” by polling might suit the people whose opinions currently converge with the prevailing consensus in the polling data, however the polling itself usually caveats their stats with tolerances, usually a +/- 3%.
        Not only is this not democracy and hands decision making to those who formulate the questions, it weaponises polls.

        This is already happening because of the Unionists who are quite happy to circumvent actual voting to have your own way.

        48%-52% in polling demands an exact measurement of the Will of the People if we are in anyway bothered about the pretence of democracy.

        The idea that we should not have an exact measurement of the Will of the People is completely anti democratic.
        You can, of course, pretend (as politicians do) that we already know what the Will of the People is and therefore don’t need to ask them, this is quite obviously outdated pish.

        Claiming that we shouldn’t have an exact measurement of the Will of the People is simply undemocratic Unionist whinging.

        Why Unionists are a bit thick is a subject for another time.

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        If posters don’t agree with Rev Stu repeatedly showing graphs of Indy support flatlined at 48% then why the holy fuck don’t they take it up with Rev Stu?

      • Alf Baird says:

        “When a majority of Scots indicate their determination to self-identify as Yoons, over and over again, only a moonhowling dribbler would claim that another country is denying Scots our rights.”

        You are forgetting that ‘colonialism is based on psychology’ (Cesaire) which leads to the more assimilated native population developing a ‘colonial mindset’; this includes ‘self-hatred’ of native culture/language, a ‘dependency complex’, and even ‘love for the colonizer’.

        The important thing to note is that the colonial mindset only exists because of colonialism; i.e. because another culture and “country is denying Scots our rights”.

        You should know all this, Hatey.

        link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        Thanks, Alf, but I hadn’t forgotten that.

        How could I? We all get daily reminders on here 🙂

        I just don’t think it’s a suitable explanation for everything going on around Indy.

        By all means feel free to tell me I’ve assimilated the oppressor’s colonising mindset if you want. I’ll just reply by asking how that all fits around those so-called Indy enthusiasts who are gagging to get back under Brussels control.

    • Chas says:

      5 posts one after another.
      Not that I, or 95% of Wings readers, will take time out to read any of them. I KNOW that it will be the same repetitive drivel from a clearly unhinged individual. Your goodself and ‘Confused’ would make a fine pair.

      Reply
      • twathater says:

        FFS another Franchise Fanny who knows what 95% of Wings readers think, but poor Chas has been posting the same repetitive shite against Professor Alf Baird for years
        TBQH Alf I would be very careful I think wee Chas and some of his other fellow Scotland Haters has a wee stiffy when they see your name

  50. James Cheyne says:

    DaveL.
    There is one thing for sure if England politicians and universities and unionists want to selectively change the Treaty of union, to enable them to favour themselves , to do that the true Scottish parliament would have to be reinstated by Scots to negotiate.

    For the crown of England that rests as chair in the un- dissolved Westminster parliament of England sitting in the Westminster parliament of Great Britain cannot negotiate with ( its own devolved) Scottish parliament they sent up into Scotland.
    Although I have no doubt that Westminster would try fool Scotland into thinking this was the real, original Scottish parliament and not and off shoot branch of their own Westminster parliament of England Resting snugly within the Westminster parliament of Great Britain,

    The rumours of two tier justice down south is nothing in comparison to what Scotland has to contend with.

    The modern UK british justice laws,
    The Scottish devolved parliament justice laws for Scotland only.
    And the Westminster parliament of of England justice laws residing in the old Great Britain parliament.

    While This multiple tiers of justice systems and laws are are all applied to Scotland, Scotland also has to contend with the colonisation of Scots and their territorial realm that did not agree or vote to joining the said treaty,
    And the coloniser themselves ignoring the very treaty terms, conditions and articles of the faux treaty itself.to manipulate Scots, and Scotland,
    For as Westminster itself have a declaration on their parliament site that the Scots were not asked to join as they would probably vote No.
    If that is not construed as rigged election…. then pigs certainly fly. Along with the elephant in the room.

    Reply
    • AndrewR says:

      I’m worried by the way the constitutional arguments return. The last time round – only a few days ago – Aidan spent some time explaining why they are not valid in law. But they are back, unaltered. I think his main point was that you can’t say the treaty is invalid now, if it did what the parties intended it to do at the time.

      Me, I’m interested in the history, and I think there are historical inaccuracies in the arguments, as in “the English Queen”, and an anachronistic take on parliaments in the 17th and 18th centuries. The big one is consent to the Union:

      It is completely true that the parliament of Scotland in 1706 did not ask the people of Scotland if they wanted to amalgamate with England. (The same is true for the people of England.) Instead, Queen Anne of England and Scotland asked her two parliaments to negotiate a treaty to enable the amalgamation of her two kingdoms, with their respective parliaments. This had been attempted by James VI/I, and the two countries were joined in the Commonwealth, but separated again at the restoration of Charles II. As already mentioned in the comments, the common people (the rabble) did not get a vote in parliament until much later (1918/1928); in 1706 the idea was preposterous.

      But the downside to the consent argument, it seems to me, is that when the people of Scotland *were* eventually asked if they wanted to remain a part of the United Kingdom – three hundred years later – they voted to stay, by a small majority. This can’t be ignored or explained away, however inconvenient. That the small majority is still there, after years of the most incompetent Westminster governments imaginable? Wings is the best at this.

      Historically, Henry of Navarre becoming Henry IV of France seems comparable to James VI/I. And Spain’s kingdoms, joined by warfare and marriage. Autonomous regions linked into larger states? Venice in Italy, the split of Belgium? I’m not sure where this goes, except that present-day states are a historical accident but they do change: Trieste for instance.

      Reply
      • Hatey McHateface says:

        “when the people of Scotland *were* eventually asked if they wanted to remain a part of the United Kingdom – three hundred years later – they voted to stay, by a small majority. This can’t be ignored or explained away, however inconvenient”

        Hark at the child!

        Stick around, Andrew, but take fair warning. Steep learning curve ahead 🙂

      • Aidan says:

        @Andrew – I appreciate the optimism, but there are some people here who have a fixed set of views which they are determined to believe regardless of any facts or information or anything else that might challenge their world view. To be clear, my argument is that the ToU remains an important document in the U.K. constitution. However, the circumstances around the formation of the treaty occurred far too long ago to be litigated today, especially with the consequences proposed which would be no less than the upending of the U.K. constitution. There has to be a point at which a situation is allowed to lie where it fell even if the circumstances are profoundly unjust, else otherwise we would potentially be able to litigate an unlimited number of issues from throughout history. If we accept that principle, then 1707 has got to be before that cut off.

      • sam says:

        Hi Andrew R,

        Old treaties can be interpreted with regard to their intentions when made and in the context of the social realities of today. Both past and present play a part no matter what Aidan says.

      • AndrewR says:

        Sam – I took the “intention” idea from one of Aidan’s posts, but it isn’t his central view – he clarifies it under mine.

  51. Confused says:

    Can you imagine if a bunch of German students at Tel Aviv university were running around calling people “k1k3s” and “ho0knoses” – their feet wouldn’t touch, they would be deported and jailed for hate crimes on arrival and issy would get another dolphin submarine for free.

    – but we, the Scots, are mugs and just take any old shite from anyone.

    Remmember kids – people “do shit”, because they THINK THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT. Apply game theory – consider a tactical over-reaction and watch how polite everyone becomes.

    link to archive.ph

    never forget, and never forgive. And think of the life you could have had, but lost.

    Post WW2, Germany had a period of “denazification”; post indy, in a similar vein, Scotland needs to have a thorough process of “de-anglification”.

    – think about it, if they are all still up here, clogging up the middle class, enjoying exorbitant privileges, getting in the way, then what will be the point of it, for nothing will get done, their first instinct being : how can I get a slice of the action and – how will this affect England? That should be no concern of anyone. If you cannot put Scotland first, then you shouldn’t be here. Public bodies, quangoes, the banks are all riddled with them.

    A nice touch, to encourage proper behaviour, would be to have a “jizyah” especially for them. The jizyah is a tax that non muslims pay to reside in muslim countries; just a mark of respect. (They will soon be paying it in England-i-stan anyway.)

    70% income tax and 500% council tax should cover it, the take going into a housing fund for natives. The english are all about the money, and if they can’t make a profit on it, they will be gone in a flash. Certainly 100% property purchase taxes for non natives would reset the market.

    I would also tag them electronically, just to keep an eye on them. No self respecting country tolerates hostile aliens roaming around freely, in wartime they get sent to camps.

    Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      “70% income tax and 500% council tax”

      “The english are all about the money”

      Sometimes all further comment is superfluous.

      Reply
  52. Confused says:

    more UGLY ANGLOS

    link to archive.ph

    – that’s what you get for hogging all the sun loungers

    “cheap holiday in other peoples misery ” – right enough

    but at least someone had fun, and that’s all that matters

    Bit of a nasty one, but read the article and dig deeper – the gunman trained in libya with islamic terrorists, likely among the people who destroyed Gaddafi, which was largely a

    BRITISH operation

    chickens, roost. When will they ever learn. You can’t kick a hornets nest and then claim to have -trained- the hornets. Libya is also the main transit point for the mass immigration of sub sahara – the old colonel was keeping the cork on the bottle for you, did you not realise?

    Islam is coming for you, Nigel. All these commonwealth citizens here on legal migration, they have a lot of ancient guff on their minds that they have not forgotten about, and this recolonisation is justice, finally.

    – better get the prayer mat out, and forget about your bacon butty ever again.

    link to archive.ph

    Do you fuckwits ever manage to connect one thing to another, or is the world just “a random field of randomness for no reason”?

    How many of you ever watched David Lean’s visually stunning “Lawrence of Arabia” and actually had a think about it?

    – asked the question : so turning over the whole arabian peninsula to these mad cunts with the big swords, was it really a good idea? Was it even a good idea, at the time? Now the saudis fund terror schools – mosques and madrassas, all over the globe.

    But that’s a rabbit hole the english don’t like to poke around in, you might have to face the concept of : “we did something wrong”

    Inconceivable.

    All the english care about are house prices, that the royal family are doing alright, and some shit football team that never wins anything – and their middle class are an even worse kind of people, rigid self interest combined with aggressive piety.

    Being in a union with them is like being stuck in a lift with a kleptomaniac narcissist who does nothing but talk about himself – who also, for some bizarre reason, thinks you and he are “best mates”.

    Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      OK, Confused, I’ll bite.

      Who is it that thinks that you and he are “best mates”? I’m calling BS on that one.

      Reply
  53. sam says:

    An apology to Andy Ellis for saying that he’s English.

    How did I get that idea? I dinnae ken.

    Reply
    • Andy Ellis says:

      The light, to some, is an unwelcome friend Sam.

      Reply
  54. sarah says:

    To those Wings readers who want Scotland to become a self-governing territory again, rather than being a subservient and asset-stripped part of the British Isles, we must all start to do something practical to improve the outcome of the Holyrood election in 2026.

    The aim must be to get MSPs elected whose sole motivation is to get Scotland out of the Union. AND who have a route plan to achieve that.

    The only way to achieve enough suitable MSPs is to aggregate all pro-independence votes. This can only be done through an umbrella party mechanism. There is now an umbrella party – Liberate Scotland.

    At the moment, 3 entities have come under the umbrella – Independents for Independence [I4I], Independence for Scotland Party [ISP] and Sovereignty Party. But to be successful we need ALL independence parties to join so any members of Alba, SSP, Scottish Libertarian Party, SNP, who are reading this, please argue this case with your parties. Contact http://www.liberatescotland.com for more information.

    The second leg of success in 2026 is for the elected independence MSPs to have a definite route plan to follow. The Manifesto for Independence is such a route plan.

    If all pro-independence parties included it in their manifestos, we could actually leave the Union if the aggregate votes for those parties was sufficient. So far no parties, except the New Scotland Party, have adopted it. I cannot understand why not. So this is something else that all party members need to argue for.

    And all independence party members should demonstrate their support for the route map by signing the petition on http://www.manifestoforindependence. So far only 626 very sensible and motivated people have signed.

    Come on, Wingers – 2026 is vital for Scotland. Do what you can to spread the word on the Liberate Scotland grouping and about the Manifesto for Independence.

    Finally there is the non-political liberation movement action at the UN. The UN needs to know that over a million of us want to leave the Union. Please SIGN to join the liberation movement on http://www.liberation.scot, and SHARE. I know over a million do want independence and all they need to do is sign the form to tell the UN – no fees, no obligations.

    Reply
    • George Ferguson says:

      @Sarah 4:51pm
      I agree 2026 is a vital election. So why are other Independence Parties and Individuals intending to stand themselves are not listening to the current analysis and basic facts?. I have been quoted £120k just to save my deposit. Sponsorship of local Junior sides, adverts, Facebook, Tik Tok, etc. Unless you have a 100 activists stuck up your sleeve see the latest by election result. I can’t make the numbers work and the really galling thing is the average Win spend of SNP MSPs is only £2500. Scotland voted for Labour for 50 years and the SNP have relied on the inertia to get them over the line coupled with pressing the Independence button at election time. I stand to be corrected. Going on holiday very soon after that a decision on the spend cap if I go for it. If my wife says £10k forget it.

      Reply
      • sarah says:

        George, have you contacted Liberate.scot? They have a lot of relevant information and experience on call and may be able to advise and assist re costs.

      • Aidan says:

        @George – how is 2026 a vital election? It’s going to lead to either an SNP or a Labour government in Holyrood, likely a minority, who will do little more than tweak the status quo. 2027 will be much the same as 2025 whatever the result.

    • Chas says:

      Scots will NEVER vote for Independence until someone/anyone details what this will actually mean. The financial aspects are unknown but it is not difficult to understand that we would all be poorer. Is that a vote winner Sarah or will it ‘all be fine’ as some posters continually state?
      Independence is decades away, if at all.
      Sorry to disappoint you but Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are not real.

      Reply
      • Anthem says:

        Total bullshit!

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        Ah, c’mon now Chas.

        It’s the English that are all about the money, not us Scots. Read Confused and learn.

        That grippy, miserly Scottish national stereotype was all done by some big English barsturds who then ran away.

        A bit like all those Scottish place names in the former colonies. And all those Scottish diasporan groups in America, Canada, the Caribbean, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.

        All done by big English barsturds masquerading as Scots to make us look like colonising, genocidal ethnic cleansers and murderers, before they all ran away.

      • DaveL says:

        I’d be interested to hear your (or anyone else’s) easily understood explanation of how everyone would be poorer, especially given that the ‘financial aspects are unknown’.

      • Breastplate says:

        DaveL,

        Chas and chums have been tasked a number of times to put the argument for the Union forward but alas to no avail.

        Chief Chimp has been reduced to making a comedic spectacle of himself on this site for a number of years, punching incoherent Nostrodamic nonsense about the end of the world if Scotland were ever to make decisions for ourselves, on his spittle-flecked keyboard, claiming that everyone is mad except him, while spanking his monkey and spunking on any emblem or configuration of the colours, red, white and blue.

        Unfortunately for him, this is incurable.

        Still plenty of laughs left in him for us, though.

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        Divnae laugh too hard, Bips.

        Pop an implant and you’ll have a major health emergency to deal with.

        And that silicone in your system. Who knows what it might do tae yer heid?

      • Breastplate says:

        Did you recognise yourself in my comment, John?
        Well done!

  55. Young Lochinvar says:

    Hmmm
    Who to vote for in the 2026 regional ministry of certain devolved powers election?

    Pointless; just as many are now viewing HR/ the regional ministry of certain devolved powers.

    I never get too fussed about local authority elections, this is just in the same league now. I suspect I may not be the only one, expect a low turnout.

    Indy parties, you have to the next WM general election to sort your sh1t out..

    Reply
  56. Before the arrival of English and other immigrants, the Americas had an estimated population of between 40 and 100 million people.

    Undoubtedly the largest genocide in human history,

    “Just let them in ya frothing indigenous moonhowlers ,i`m scotch don`t ye ken”

    Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      Aye, Scot, and those barstard Spanish and Portugee speaking English in Central and South America were the worst of the lot.

      BTW. What’s the population of the Americas today? Or perhaps at some other arbitrary point you could choose? You do realise your post kinda lacks a point because you never actually stated just what the body count from history’s largest genocide was.

      But never mind that. Well done you for realising what genocide really is. Time to teach the moonhowlers on Wings BTL.

      Reply
  57. diabloandco says:

    Jings ! I’m doing a great deal of scrolling past these days.

    I do wonder why certain folk continue to infest this site when they have been so keen to denigrate Scots and Scotland in the past.

    Reply
  58. George Ferguson says:

    @Sarah 6:23pm
    I love your infectious enthusiasm for Independence and always look at your posts. I haven’t contacted Liberate if I am spending my own money I like to test the evidence. Maybe your are right and I am wrong but I tried to professionalise my approach being a “Numbers Guy”. Nobody in my circle of influence has heard of Liberate. I could be wrong and thousands of activists are out there. Nothing surprises me in Scottish Politics.

    Reply
    • sarah says:

      Thank you, George! It’s nice to know someone is looking!

      “Nobody in my circle has heard of Liberate.” Well I’m not surprised because a] it is very new, and b] it isn’t getting the publicity from major independence sites that, in my opinion, it deserves.

      Aggregating the independence vote under an umbrella group means the parties and candidates retain their own unique policies but subsume them for the greater good of independence. It seems such an obviously rational thing to do that, with any decent amount of publicity, the campaign would take wings and fly.

      I’ve just had a thought about your own candidacy worries. Several Independents stood at the General Election so they will have recent information on the costs e.g. Sally Hughes in Perth and Eva Comrie in Grangemouth.

      Reply
      • George Ferguson says:

        @Sarah
        There you go with your enthusiasm. It strikes me that the goal of fragmentation of the Independence movement has been achieved in fact I would class it as atomised. But who knows what can happen in 10 months. After my holiday I will come back. Off tomorrow my wife complains I am not helping with the packing.

  59. Over the years after English and other immigrant European arrival, the indigenous population of the Americas dropped from est 100> million to only 6 million, due to waves of epidemics, warfare and famine.

    They killed so many they had to import slaves from Africa to do the manual labour.

    Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      “waves of epidemics”

      Now you’re getting it.

      It’s a little like what the Covid Spreaders did to us and to everybody else in the world when they cooked up their experimental virus in the lab, let it escape, and then lied and lied about it until it was too late.

      But wheesht. Let’s all pretend it never happened and that the Covid Spreaders are really just big, cuddly, misunderstood teddy bears.

      If you’re in the mood for investigating real genocides, not the wee, pretendy kind, why not tot up how many people around the world the Covid Spreaders killed?

      Don’t forget to include deaths from the virus itself, deaths in advanced countries from the collapse in health care systems, and in third-world countries, deaths from the disruption to supply chains, economic systems and agriculture.

      Tens of millions of deaths.

      Oh look over there! There’s a G@zan!

      Reply
  60. George Ferguson says:

    @Aidan 7:16pm
    In some respects that is true. But the Scottish “We” are hoping for a change. Fed up of failing Scottish Public Services and denial of a forthcoming Scottish Public Service financial crash. It’s gone from £2 billion to £5 billion. So crash incoming. Of course my son has accepted an offer on his Edinburgh house. 2 Doctors leaving Scotland who cares? All the fault of a health secretary who denied reform of SNHS was needed. His name Humza Yousaf. A back of a fag packet response from him since criticised by his former leader Nicola Sturgeon ex FM. Of course we will hear about that in her book never mind the thousands since dead.

    Reply
    • Aidan says:

      @George – I don’t deny the tragedy of the situation, and sad to hear your son is leaving Edinburgh (although I’m sure the allure of one of the worlds best cities will see him home), but is there the remotest possibility of any of that changing in 2026. Of the vaunted ISP, I4I etc. candidates, who ever knows anything about them? Are any of them the calibre of person who could lead a major political party? Do any of them have relationships across the media and civil society they can leverage to support their campaign and raise their public profile? I think we know that this is a micro initiative which is barely even known by more than a handful of people in each constituency. I don’t think there is any appreciation of the sheer amount of work that it takes to develop a political movement of this scale and ambition, and those of us who point that out are normally denounced as some 77th brigade operative or other insanity for not believing strongly enough in whatever this weeks cunning plan might be. It would be great if things could change, but that’s not going to happen in 26.

      Reply
      • George Ferguson says:

        @Aidan
        From my previous posts I don’t see any change in 2026. It doesn’t matter how many thousands of people die. Ben Habib has just started a new political party backed by his millions. Good luck with that! The Holyrood Parliament is not an inclusive Parliament. Not since 2011. The SNP strategy of SNP 1 and SNP 2 strangles the lifeblood of innovation and creative candidates. The very purpose of the D’hondt system denied. I have got more mainstream Policies that the rest of combined.

  61. George Ferguson says:

    @Aidan
    From my previous posts I don’t see any change in 2026. It doesn’t matter how many thousands of people die. Ben Habib has just started a new political party backed by his millions. Good luck with that! The Holyrood Parliament is not an inclusive Parliament. Not since 2011. The SNP strategy of SNP 1 and SNP 2 strangles the lifeblood of innovation and creative candidates. The very purpose of the D’hondt system denied. I have got more mainstream Policies that the rest of them combined.

    Reply
    • Young Lochinvar says:

      Borderline interesting listening to the Morningside/ Stockbridge brigade crying on each others shoulders.

      Edinburgh; fabulous place, just, full of folk from Edinburgh looking down on everyone else..

      Reply
      • Aidan says:

        Yeah we should all be living in caves and eating wild animals we captured that day like a REAL Scot would.

        One day, you are going to have to make peace with the fact that humans invented the wheel and discovered electricity, with all the consequences for our civilisation. You’ll be much happier when you do.

      • Young Lochinvar says:

        Aidan
        And your point is caller?
        (Apart from the supercilious crap.)

        Ach well, you can take the fop out of Edinburgh, you just can’t take Edinburgh out of the fop.

  62. Northcode says:

    “the colonialist is always unsure of his nationality”.

    Aye, Alf.

    But it’s a certainty the coloniser is sure of the colonialist’s nationality.

    The coloniser is absolutely sure the colonialist isn’t a national of theirs.

    The colonialist can never be accepted as an equal by their coloniser no matter how much they aspire to that ‘exalted’ position.

    The colonialist might be tolerated and given the status of ‘favoured serf’ but they will never be accepted as being equal with their coloniser no matter how much they might bend themselves out of shape to fit their coloniser’s image of itself.

    It’s very likely the more colonialists attempt to mimic their coloniser the more they will become objects of ridicule in their coloniser’s eyes.

    Franz Fanon discovered this truth after serving with distinction as a soldier in Charles de Gaulle’s Free French forces in North Africa fighting the Germans in 1944.

    He was awarded the Croix de Guerre, a medal of honour for soldiers who perform heroic acts in combat.

    Fanon was wounded in battle and was forced to return to Martinique in 1945:

    “…he discovered that despite his self-identification as a Frenchman of Caribbean origin, the French viewed him as Black; regardless of how well he had mastered French language or culture, he would continue to be an outsider in racist French society.”

    extract from a learning resource on Oxford Learning Link (Oxford University Press)- Key thinker: Frantz Fanon (1925–1961)

    Change French to English and Caribbean to Scottish and the same might well apply to those Scots aspiring to be English – they’re unlikely ever to be accepted as such.

    There’s a moment in a Gerard Butler movie called ‘Plane’ where he’s asked if he is English. “God no” he replies. “I wouldn’t lower masel… I’m a Scot.”

    Perhaps Butler’s attitude is one more Scots should adopt – and richt quick tae.

    Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      “Fanon discovered this truth after serving with distinction as a soldier in Charles de Gaulle’s Free French forces in North Africa fighting the Germans in 1944”

      That’s odd, NC.

      The Germans (and Italians) fighting in North Africa surrendered in May 1943. May the thirteenth 1943 to be precise.

      So was Fanon lying, or are you lying?

      Ah’ve telt ye afore, NC. Ye maist post in Scots sae nae chiel can fathom it’s muckle havers.

      Reply
    • Northcode says:

      In the interests of accuracy and for clarity Fanon was wounded in battle near the German border not, as my sloppy scribbling in a previous comment might erroneously suggest, in North Africa.

      Fanon arrived in Europe via North Africa after he joined Charles de Gaulle’s Free French forces and where he first visited Algeria – the country that would later become his home

      I repeat for clarity’s sake, Fanon was wounded in battle near the German border and was forced to return to Martinique in 1945.

      As ever when I fail to express myself clearly or commit grievous factual errors in my commentary… I hope no-one was too seriously traumatised by my poorly worded description of Fanon’s WW2 experience as a soldier fighting with the French against the Germans.

      Thankfully, a kind reader pointed out how my scribbled doun commentary might lead to catastrophic confusion among some readers thus affording me the opportunity of clarifying my poorly crafted arrangement of words and, hopefully, sparing those readers the anguish and torment of trying to fathom the truth of Fanon’s wounding obscured as it was by the inexpertly wielded mass of symbols deployed in my previous post relating to this matter.

      There seems no end to the spirit of generous support made available to us Scots in this place.

      Franz Fanon wrote several acclaimed works on the evils of colonialism and also warned that colonial structures of oppression could remain in place after formal independence.

      Fanon’s analysis of neocolonialism showed that colonising powers could continue to oppress former colonies by collaborating with a new indigenous elite that supports their interests in the country.

      That’s something we indigenous Scots will have to pay close attention to after Scotland’s independence is finally achieved.

      Scotland’s return to full self-determination free from the threat of our neighbour to the south trying it on again after our formal independence is ratified is likely to be a journey of two decades and more just to repair the damage done to us these past three centuries.

      But two or three or four decades is nae time at aw tae a nation and its people… nae time at aw.

      Reply
  63. The consequences of colonization on Indigenous Australians were devastating.
    Most scholars have estimated that the Indigenous population before English settlement was between 300,000 and 750,000 people .

    (they don`t actually know cause they never bothered counting the native people)

    Their numbers were reduced by as much as 90 percent.

    Reply
    • Insider says:

      Aye “Scot”,

      And many of the massacres were carried out by Scots..

      Check out:

      New South Wales Governor Macquarie
      Lieutenant Governor William Paterson
      Colonel Kenneth Snodgrass,
      Thomas Coutts
      Scots pastoralist Angus McMillan
      etc. etc

      Reply
      • Hatey McHateface says:

        Here you go, Scot. 30 seconds online research. These English, eh? Utter cants.

        New South Wales:

        Maclean: Considered “The Scottish Town” in Australia, with Gaelic street signs and tartan patterns on power poles.
        Ben Lomond: A mountain and locality.
        Glen Innes: A town with a strong Scottish heritage.
        Dalgety: A locality.
        Macquarie: Several locations, including Macquarie Island, Macquarie River, Lake Macquarie, and Port Macquarie, named after Governor Lachlan Macquarie.
        Lachlan River: Another significant river named after Governor Macquarie.

        Queensland:

        Aramac: Named after R.R. Mackenzie.
        Ayr: A town with Scottish connections.
        Brisbane: Named after Governor Thomas Brisbane.
        Cairns: A city with a Scottish name.
        Esk: A town.
        Kilcoy: A town.
        Logan City: Named after Patrick Logan.
        Mackay: Named after John Mackay.
        Mitchell: Named after Thomas Mitchell.

        Tasmania:

        Ben Lomond: A mountain.
        Glenorchy: A suburb and city.
        Macquarie Harbour: On the west coast.
        Macquarie River: In Tasmania, distinct from the one in NSW.

        Victoria:

        Grampians: A mountain range, reminiscent of the Grampian Mountains in Scotland.
        St. Kilda: A suburb of Melbourne.
        Dunkeld: A town.

        Western Australia:

        Perth: Named after the Scottish city.
        Stirling: A city and range, named after Sir James Stirling.
        Marvel Loch: A locality.
        Balfour Downs: A locality.
        Bruce Rock: A locality.
        Lake Mackay: Named after the explorer, Donald Mackay.
        Murchison: A river and town.

    • Young Lochinvar says:

      Check out what happened to the indigenous people around Tierra Del Fuego once the Engerlush got their sites on them/ their land.

      A bounty per scalp (or equivalent) and now “eradicated”..

      Awfully decent chaps the English eh..

      Reply
      • Hatey McHateface says:

        Tierra Del Fuego?

        Is that what they call haddock ‘n chips south of the border? How odd that the English should use something sounding very much like a foreign language.

        Tell you what though. I’ll take a bounty over a twix any day.

      • Aidan says:

        When I was in Tierra del Fuego a few years ago those English colonisers were all speaking Spanish, do you think that could happen in Scotland?

    • factchecker says:

      Scot says ‘Most scholars have estimated that the Indigenous population before English settlement was between 300,000 and 750,000 people .’

      It would, of course, be equally accurate to say ‘Most scholars have estimated that the Indigenous population before Scottish settlement was between 300,000 and 750,000 people .’
      There’s a reason for all the Scottish place names all over the former colonies.

      Reply
    • James says:

      Oh, I think you’ve touched a nerve there, Scot!

      Immediate Yoon pile-on.

      Reply
  64. sarah says:

    @ George Ferguson at 9.14: Enjoy your holiday and come back refreshed for the fray!

    Reply
  65. ` In India it is clear that somewhere in the vicinity of 100 million people died prematurely at the height of English colonialism.

    This is among the largest policy-induced mortality crimes in human history`

    They say that the Scots employed in the English Empire helped
    curb the worst excesses of the Anglo Saxon.

    Reply
    • Mark Beggan says:

      “the largest policy induced mortality crimes in human history”

      These guys ain’t got nothing on the Catholic Church.

      Reply
    • Stuart says:

      “They say that the Scots employed in the English Empire helped
      curb the worst excesses of the Anglo Saxon.”

      Oh aye Mr Finlayson?

      I suggest you read a few history books first son.

      Or this from the National;

      link to thenational.scot

      Scots were among *the* worst oppressors of the Indians, not for nothing do modern Indian historians refer to the Raj as the “Scottish Raj”, because of the amount of Scots exploitation of India.

      There’s monuments all over Scotland dedicated to the memory of Scottish soldiers who put down the Indian mutiny in 1857 with savage zeal.

      As for Scots “curb(ing) the worst excesses of the Anglo Saxon”…

      Are you for real?

      I realise that you are trying to play the moral superiority card, but the games a bogie as far as Scottish role in the Empire is concerned, all you have done is reveal your nativist tendencies, and your woeful ignorance of history.

      Reply
      • Alf Baird says:

        It is well known that the “the colonized assume the ideology of the colonizer” and end up behaving like him, as reflected in the behaviour of colonial armies drawn from Indians, Kenyans, Irish, Scots and numerous others who oppressed thair ain fowk as well as other peoples on behalf of an imperial power.

        As Albert Memmi explained:

        “The representatives of the authorities, cadres, policemen, etc., recruited from among the colonized, form a category of the colonized which attempts to escape from its political and social condition. But in so doing, by choosing to place themselves in the colonizer’s service to protect his interests exclusively, they end up by adopting his ideology, even with regard to their own values and their own lives. Such is the history of the pyramid of petty tyrants”

        But clearly this does not alter the fact that ‘a people’, such as the Scots, or whoever else, have been colonized. For they would not have behaved in such a way had they not been colonized and put into ‘Imperial service’ in the first place.

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        @ Alf Baird says: 1 July, 2025 at 10:29 am

        Some big English barsturds made us do it.

        And then they ran away.

      • Alf Baird says:

        “And then they ran away.”

        Not so. It that were so the Scottish people would not still be crying out for liberation from their oppression and from their oppressor, who is also ‘in us’.

        The colonizer and his culture is still very much here, and still dominating us, every hour of every day. And through the process of cultural/colonial assimilation we also become alike, and the colonized, particularly the elites and bourgeoisie, by adopting the colonizer’s values, also engage in the domination o thair ain fowk.

        Which explains why: ‘colonialism is always a co-operative venture’ with native elites (Fanon); that ‘independence is a cultural emotion’ (Fanon), and that; ‘colonialism is based on psychology’ (Cesaire).

      • Captain Caveman says:

        @The Nutty Professor

        ‘… But clearly this does not alter the fact that ‘a people’, such as the Scots, or whoever else, have been colonized. For they would not have behaved in such a way had they not been and put into ‘Imperial service’ in the first place …’

        Good grief. Imagine actually believing this juvenile nonsense.

        Even if we accept your (ludicrous, historically grossly inaccurate) premise that the Scots were merely some supine, hapless and helpless slaves in Empire to the all-powerful English (as opposed to willing participants and partners who’d incidentally previously taken a good stab at a bit of colonising themselves before coming a cropper, then subsequently reaping untold economic benefits in partnership with the English), your entire argument falls flat on its arse, Baird.

        Not that there’s even the remotest equivalence between modern day Scotland and, say, Vichy France of last century, but regardless, did the “we wuz only obeying orders” defence hold any water whatsoever for the many wrongdoers of that regime who were brought to justice after the war? Answer – no it didn’t. Because guess what Baird (and I know you struggle a lot with these grownup concepts) life is about CHOICES, RESPONSIBILITIES – and CONSEQUENCES.

        No amount of “greetin’” on yours or anyone else’s part is going to change any of that, pal. Read ‘em and weep.

        Honestly, I get more sense out of my 6 year old granddaughter, who evidently has a vastly firmer grasp on the reality of personal responsibility than you ever could.

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        @ Alf Baird says: 1 July, 2025 at 11:26 am

        “Not so. It that were so the Scottish people would not still be crying out for liberation from their oppression and from their oppressor”

        Sorry, Alf, not so.

        48% of the Scottish people are arguably crying out for something, but as a substantial chunk of them are also crying out for rule from Brussels, it’s defo not liberation they have on their minds.

        And please, if you don’t agree with the 48% Yes to 52% No split, take it up with Rev Stu, not me.

        These are his numbers.

      • Alf Baird says:

        Yes of course Hatey, we have to try to understand why some Scots still oppose their own liberation whilst many are desperate to secure freedom from oppression.

        In a colonial society the native anti-independence vote is largely explained by the effect of a colonial mindset and resultant dependency-complex and internalized racism; this ‘condition’ is entirely a consequence of colonialism.

        Put it another way, if we did not suffer from colonialism then very few Scots would be expected to vote for it, would they?

        And if we did not suffer from colonialism we would not be constantly seeking to decolonize from it via national elections or referendums, and the UN, would we:

        link to liberation.scot

      • sam says:

        Any harm that was done in suppressing the mutiny was greatly exceeded by the harm done by the paedophile, Lord Mountbatten and Radcliffe who had never been to India before the quick and dirty exit of the English.

        link to theconversation.com

        Mountbatten and other senior political figures were also involved in the Kincora scandal

      • sam says:

        Mountbatten, ken?

        Radcliffe,ken?

        you might read about it on the talkinghumanities blog

    • Hatey McHateface says:

      “Scots employed”

      Not a phrase often encountered on Wings BTL.

      Reply
  66. James says:

    The Franchise Fanny upstream continues to repeat the falsehood that there are no time limits or exclusions on voting rights in other countries.

    As I have pointed out to him several times, in France you don’t get to vote in general elections (or referendums) even if you have lived there for decades and have taken our citizenship. I believe there are others with the same restrictions; Spain certainly does. Good for them. In some countries you have to have been resident for a certain number of years.

    He maintains that the toon cooncil franchise used in 2014 -collect your ballot paper at the border as you arrive- must be maintained as some sort of gold standard.
    No discussion allowed.
    Wonder why.

    Reply
    • Aidan says:

      That’s absolute bollocks, both France and Spain allow European residents to vote in their elections as they are required to do so by EU law. Likewise, I doubt there is any democratic country in the world that doesn’t allow foreign born citizens to vote.

      Reply
      • Dan says:

        Likewise, I doubt there is any democratic country in the world that doesn’t allow foreign born citizens to vote.</i."

        Time to reframe your doubt…

        link to commonslibrary.parliament.uk

      • Aidan says:

        Sorry Dan – what am I looking at here? Which foreign born citizens aren’t allowed to vote in which elections?

      • James says:

        Er…no, they don’t.

      • James says:

        In France they get to vote in local elections only.

      • James says:

        Why would anyone have a problem with these rules?

        Who would be arrogant enough to turn up in someone else’s country and demand a say on how things are run immediately (or at all, except locally in the case of France?)

        Oh aye, right enough, it’s the Yoons that have a problem with it.

        Nuf said.

      • Aidan says:

        Let’s be clear here, we aren’t talking about people arriving from a foreign country on a tourist visa, or foreign nationals on migrant visas. You are saying that citizens of the United Kingdom who are lawfully resident in a part of the U.K. should be deprived of the right to vote. That isn’t the case in France, which allows foreign born French citizens to vote in all elections, and as far as I am aware it isn’t the case in any democratic country (aside from highly contextualised examples like the Falklands).

      • James says:

        No, you’re saying that.

        I’m saying that only Scottish born and 5 or 10 years plus residency for foreign born citizens (IMO) should get to vote on Scotland’s future. Not holiday home owners. Not temporary stay students.

        In France no foreign born citizen would get to vote in such a referendum – ever, just as they don’t get to vote in national elections.

        But some on here really don’t want to allow the discussion, eh “Aidan”?

      • Aidan says:

        We aren’t taking about foreign citizens though are we unless we are taking about cross purposes. You are saying that U.K. citizens should not have the right to participate in elections in a part of the U.K. where they are living. That’s the equivalent of the French government determining that someone who moved from say Paris to Marseille, can’t vote in Marseille for 5 to 10 years. Always happy to have the discussion, nobody is stopping you.

      • James says:

        “EVEL” springs to mind….

      • Aidan says:

        EVEL has nothing to do with the voting franchise, it’s whether MP’s representing Scottish constituencies should be able to vote on legislation that doesn’t apply in Scotland.

      • Xaracen says:

        But, Aidan, England’s MPs get not only to vote on matters that apply in Scotland, they actually get to overrule Scotland’s MPs on such matters, and worse, they get to overrule Scotland’s MPs on all matters.

      • Aidan says:

        That’s technically true but a very odd way to see it given that Scotland and England’s MP’s don’t vote as a single bloc. In fact I doubt there is a single example of a vote where every Scottish MP has voted one way and every Scottish MP voted the other. The point with EVEL is that certain policy areas are devolved and legislation is passed in devolved parliaments, so the Westminister parliament may be voting on legislation that applies only in England with MP’s from outside England voting. That was how tuition fees for example, was introduced.

      • James says:

        Xaracen;

        Exactly!

        But there’s no point arguing with unionist trolls;
        it’s absolutely fine and dandy to deny democracy to Scotland, but discuss the franchise and they shriek in horror?

        Must not be discussed and can’t be altered.

      • Xaracen says:

        “That’s technically true but a very odd way to see it given that Scotland and England’s MP’s don’t vote as a single bloc.”

        Don’t be silly, Aidan, WM’s current voting system always treats Scotland’s and England’s MPs as a single voting bloc! That’s been my primary beef about the UK’s governance for years. You are getting confused with Scotland’s MSPs.

        EVEL was always and only about England’s MPs getting huffy about Scots MPs merely having a vote in how England is governed on matters affecting only England while England’s MPs had no say on Scotland’s devolved matters, totally oblivious to the fact that that’s how England’s MPs have been treating the Scots MPs for three bloody centuries before devolution even happened!

      • Aidan says:

        @Xaracen – what do you mean the Westminister voting system treats English and Scottish MP’s as a single block? How would that even work?

      • Xaracen says:

        “what do you mean the Westminster voting system treats English and Scottish MP’s as a single block? How would that even work?”

        What? Aidan, have you lost your mind?

        OF COURSE THE WESTMINSTER VOTING SYSTEM TREATS ENGLISH AND SCOTTISH MPS AS A SINGLE BLOCK!

        That’s exactly how it’s been operating for three full centuries and more, and it’s still does today! How can you possibly not know this?

        And it doesn’t work at all for Scotland! That’s been my primary issue with Westminster governance for years!

      • Aidan says:

        @Xaracen – you are right, I had misinterpreted what your comment meant.

        Please celebrate this small victory in an appropriate manner this evening. It is unlikely to reoccur.

    • Andy Ellis says:

      And again Dan I will point out that your comparison is false. Its constant repetition doesn’t make it any more convincing. I have often posted the list of countries which have held self determination referendums since WW2 and detailed what the franchises used in those were.

      You and the other franchise restriction acolytes simply refuse to accept the evidence, or attempt to move the goalposts by insisting that somehow Scotland will be treated as a unique case, unlike the dozens of others because *reasons*.

      It’s immaterial at this point whether your motivation is actually disingenuous because you know self determination referendums and voting in general or local elections are not the same thing, or whether you’re just ignorant.

      Neither is a good look.

      The only historical and constitutional precedent for restricting the franchise in self determination referendums have been in cases which were/are unambiguously accepted as being cases of decolonisation. Scotland does not meet those criteria, but even in the unlikely event the UN accepted it as such and designated Scotland a non-self governing territory, there is no certainty whatever that they would agree to the kind of franchise restrictions touted by the less savoury end of the blood and soil nativists soiling the Scottish independence movement.

      Not indeed is there any evidence of broader support from within the movement.

      Rev Stu’s original fisking of why franchise restriction was a crap idea from his Twitter feed a few years ago still stands, as does Alex Salmond’s public distaste for such measures. The reason you and others are so triggered when both these critiques are brought up is that you know deep down you lack the support to advance your regressive, bigoted agenda.

      That’s not going to change anytime soon, because you lot just can’t read the room and have the political ear of a rabid hyena.

      Reply
      • sam says:

        One restrictions can certainly be imposed. The length of the period of residence before the vote. That may not necessarily be a long period.

        The vote could also include expat Scots. Limited polling suggests that expat Scots are now more likely than before to support Scottish independence. There woud be a period of absence restriction there.

      • Andy Ellis says:

        @Sam

        Yes, restrictions are possible and have been used, but they are uncommon and usually pretty limited. A few self determination referendums have imposed residence criteria usually of 24 months. The Montenegrin referendum imposed a minimum requirement of 55% in favour to become operative, which they narrowly achieved.

        It’s certainly feasible that you could convince the movement that such limited measures were appropriate and even convince the other side to accept them, though many will still see them as an attempt to move the goalposts in favour of the pro independence camp, and point to the fact that it’s a change from the 2014 precedent.

        Expat voting is more of a stretch. The Generalitat allowed Catalans abroad who registered to vote, though in practice take up was low. It would be quite a task to administer an electoral register which accommodates such a scenario. The Catalan government did as far as I recall commission a specific electoral register just for their referendum.

        I have my doubts the majority in the Scots diaspora are pro independence, although the proportion in favour may have increased given events since 2014. When I lived in England I had no issue being excluded: it should be the prerogative of those who live in Scotland to decide. There are estimated to be around 800,000 of Scots descent in the rest of the UK who would qualify for citizenship and therefore presumably for a vote in your scenario. I’m pretty sure most of them have not intention of returning or taking Scottish rather than UK passports.

        When debating the issue in the past , I always used to tell Scots unionists that the only way those abroad should be allowed to vote was on the proviso that if they did so they had to give up their UK or other citizenship: after all, they shouldn’t expect to have it both ways. Either they are part of the Scottish demos or they aren’t!
        .

      • Dan says:

        @ Andy

        Piss off troll. You jump in yet again to post a load of yer usual shite that has nothing to do with my specific response to Aidan.

        So fucking what if Rev Stu thinks tweaking the franchise is a crap idea. It’s just his opinion, and other opinions exist to counter what he stated.
        And as per usual in your standard issue spiel on what Stu said, you omit to include that he also stated he didn’t have any serious beef with tightening up aka restricting eligibility of inclusion in the franchise with regard to temporary students or transient workers residing here, which would appear to be some kind of duration of residence criteria… The bigoted regressive nativist bastard that he is.
        …Enter all the trolls that will now jump in a say “But it is too difficult to alter the franchise”, when it is something that is already done with different elections up here all the time and is a simple process of tweaking some data parameters on the filter used to produce a specific electoral roll.

        A referendum ain’t going to happen anyway, so the use of plebiscite elections, of which you are supposedly supportive of should be the consensus building unifying focus for all who genuinely support Scotland returning to self-governing status.
        But no we can’t have that eh, and being the weapon of mass disruption / distraction / diversion you are, you turn your antagonistic hostility dial up to eleven and let fly.

        The devolved Scottish Parliament elections use a voting system that is beyond the comprehension of most of the electorate. It is more proportional and has the guise of being more “progressive”; But that comes at the cost of making it very easy to disrupt and effectively kybosh the chances of any unity forming and a successful outcome.
        History of the past two Scottish elections has shown this to be the case, and next year’s one with limited campaigning time ain’t looking good as gatekeepers, agents for the status quo, and my way or the highway egos continue to bicker on divisively and piss away yet more time whilst activists sit and shake their heads.
        Nothing going on some say… and we get dung beetle battles… Well some folk have already committed to standing, and George Ferguson on here has been mulling over standing too. It would be braw if he and other candidates could get a bit of a soapbox exposure on what they are about and discussion going seeing as all the other big name Indy politicos have done the square root of fuck all to nurture and bring on any new talent. Well played for the enduring Union on that one folks.

        Now time is limited with regard to Holyrood election, but Westminster, where UK constitutional matters reside only has 56 Scottish constituencies so arguably is an election that would be a more appropriate and straightforward and simple process to campaign for and use as a plebiscite.
        Especially when it has effectively been proven to be a complete waste of time and money sending our MPs there only for them to be outvoted due to the democratic deficit of the KoE having 10 times the political representation and many significant different political priorities than the KoS.
        But Westminster has a more restrictive franchise… On that score I can’t recall you getting so worked up and attacking your unionist chums on here for them being such undemocratic regressive bigots with their wanting Scotland to remain tied into such a regime of negativity that that irks and triggers you so much.

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        As I was pointing out the other day, with some 200,000 Scots resident in it, London is the third most populous Scottish city in the UK, surpassed only by Glasgow and Edinburgh.

        Why would the Scots of London vote for Indy if they were included in the franchise?

        Isn’t it the wealth stolen from Scotland that keeps London afloat?

        Of course, perhaps they will all move north after Indy but then won’t they bring their colonising ways and their mindsets warped by association with the foreign oppressor with them? Not to mention the vast sums of money they will get from selling their tiny London pads that will still enable them to outbid 95% of indigenous Scots on the Scottish housing market. And their objectionable accents. Probably not a word of then Scots language between them all either.

        So many questions – so few answers.

    • Captain Caveman says:

      @Xaracen

      For the third time of (polite) asking, please explain what success looks like in your view, in a 12-month (and perhaps 3 year) timescale? A specific missive and/or favourable from the UN?

      Again, as per previous, no vagueness – please be very specific in terms of actual deliverables which can be objectively said to have been delivered – or not.

      TIA. My money says you’re getting “hee haw”.

      Reply
  67. Mark Beggan says:

    Colonialism was a painful step forward for the human race. Communism was a painful step back.

    Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      Time to try shaking it all about.

      Reply
  68. James Cheyne says:

    Left some time and space yesterday for unionists comment to talk their way around saving the union before they do a quick topic change.

    What the forgot to mention during their diatribe,

    The people of England were not asked to vote on join the treaty of union back then either.
    The reason only Scotland was debated and decussed for a considered vote to join the treaty of union, was as follows,
    The constitutions of each country were opposte to each other,
    In England constitution (the bill of rights) The monarch and the monarch in parliament was sovereign over the people in England.
    In Scotland constitution “the people” are Sovereign over the monarch and parliament. ( the claim of right).
    Both these acts were passed in the same year, in there respective countries.

    So in Scotland it is the people ( the Scots) that were the ones by the Constitution of their country that should hold a vote on wether to join the treaty of union.
    This is why the debate and discussion was held only concerning the Scots, and not the people of England,
    That vote was rigged to avoid asking the Scots altogether, because according to Westminster site records, in all probability the Scots would have voted NO to joining the treaty of union,

    Which is why it can be Stated the Scots are not in what unionist state is a valid the treaty of union.

    Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      “in all probability the Scots would have voted NO to joining the treaty of union”

      It’s OK though, James.

      We were asked in 2014 and we voted YES to staying in the union.

      And NO to Indy.

      That’s the situation you have to turn around. If you genuinely believe you’re helping, then keep going.

      But ah hae ma doots.

      For one thing, as Rev Stu never tires of proving, Indy support has been flatlined at 48% for yonks. And that’s not good enough.

      Reply
      • Breastplate says:

        Details matter John.
        Support for independence has not flatlined at 48%.
        Polling suggests support for independence has flatlined at 48%. It’s indicative only.

        There is a massive difference.

        The fact is that we don’t know how voting would go in a Scottish independence referendum. We can only guess, polls can help us but they are not definitive.

        I doubt there are many reasonable people who would bet their house on the outcome.
        The tolerances of these polls suggest that it’s too close to call.

        I would suggest that a Scottish independence referendum, for people eligible for a Scottish passport only, would vote for self determination convincingly.

        After all, a question on the constitutional destiny of Scotland should be up to us Scots, No?
        We really don’t want people who have their loyalties elsewhere, to other lands, determining our fate.
        No country would.

        There is no debate that there is a line to be drawn on the franchise. Where that line is drawn, is the crux of the matter.

    • Mark Beggan says:

      So it was rigged!
      Get over it!
      Find inner peace.

      Reply
  69. James Cheyne says:

    And it is only the unionist that ignore or try to twist the wording of the Scottish Claim of Right to mean diddly squat.as this favours the Englands Westminster parliament resting in the Great- Britain parliament today as having captured “the Scots people”.to make the treaty of union work or be valid.
    It was a rigged election voting system even back then that did not ask the Scots to join the treaty of union out of fear that they would vote No,
    And it is the only rigged vote that Westminster parliament acknowledge to the rest of the world on the UK of great Britain parliamentary official site.

    Reply
  70. James Cheyne says:

    The Con merchants of the the treaty of union,

    The 2014 referendum vote has no legal validity and is not binding on the Scots, due to the contradictory nature of the Question posed.

    Do you want to remain.

    The Scots people were not asked to join in the beginning, so it must be pointed out that you can not remained joined to a invented treaty of union that did not include the Scots.or their territory,
    I can understand why Westminster and unionists in general want to reinvent a new treaty of union with the Scots nowadays.
    And why they are selective in which parts of the old treaty of union they hold with themselves they would advertise as being valid, and which parts they maintain as being real today.

    Reply
  71. James Cheyne says:

    So the Scots under the Scottish constitution had to be asked, but are not in nor were they ever involved the 1707 treaty of union.
    However the parliamentarians that sat in the old parliament of Scotland ( now dissolved) would be singular in their responsibility to the said treaty of union and agreement they agreed too,
    Their names and signatures can all be found should the Westminster parliament of England wish to hold someone to account financially today,

    But it must be emphasised this does not include (the Sovereign Scots or their territorial realm) in any reparations that Westminster may ask for,
    The agreement that was signed in and between Scottish parliament and the parliament of England 1706/1707 carries the weight of specific named people..

    And old The parliament of England, the old parliament of Scotland, the monarch of England and the selected commissioners all recognised the Scots were a Sovereign people from those mentioned and debated wether the vote should be placed before that sovereign Scottish people,
    But the Scots, they were not asked. And never joined.

    How Westminster parliament nowadays will try holding the dissolved defunct old Scottish parliament and its old members to account for reparations will be interesting for they no longer exist.
    The 1707 treaty of union was based on the Scots joining, unfortunately out of their own fear they avoided asking the Scots to join.

    Reply
  72. James Cheyne says:

    The Sovereign Scots by default of fear, and of not asking them, are not part of the 1707 treaty of union.
    Although unionists will try really hard to include the Scots in the treaty of union, the evidence lies in Westminster own parliament site records boasting that

    “They decided not to ask the Scots the question to join the treaty of union.”
    Again
    I will leave space and time for unionists attempts to manipulate the recorded evidence in colonial fashion in favour to themselves in their version.

    Reply
  73. Northcode says:

    Apophasis, Paralipsis, Paralepsis, Praeteritio, Occupatio, Occultatio, Parasiopesis, and Preteritio are all different names for the same thing – so take your pick… io.

    Someone posted a useful example here so I’ll use that to explain the idea behind this rhetorical device.

    Let’s take a look.

    “I try not to be too personally rude about Prof Alf and Sarah… even if their repetitive posts every couple of hours… are difficult to reconcile with balanced and well adjusted individuals.”

    So there it is – Apophasis in action. An effective rhetorical device if used cleverly.

    Donald Trump uses it a lot, although I’m not sure if he is even aware that he’s using a rhetorical device when he does.

    This is one of his:

    “I refuse to call her [Megyn Kelly – journalist] a bimbo because that would not be politically correct.”

    I’m not convinced Trump knows how to do anything cleverly and his clunky and ineffectual use of Apophasis greatly dilutes its power.

    Here’s another of Trump’s – this time delivered in a tweet:

    “Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me ‘old’, when I would NEVER call him ‘short and fat’?”

    Could this be the gold standard of magnificent rhetoric – using 280 characters or less – digitally delivered by the greatest American president ever to have lived?

    No is the answer to that facetious question.

    In short, Apophasis is a means of drawing attention to something whilst pretending not to.

    Pretty sneaky, eh?.

    Apophasis is often used in crude ad hominem personal attacks; but ad hominem is the least sophisticated – and least powerful – use of this rhetorical device.

    Personally, I could never endorse the impertinence required to say such a thing openly in a public space; but others have suggested the sly and scheming nature of Apophasis is why unionists on here favour its use in argument.

    Who knows? I certainly couldn’t say… for certain anyway.

    Whatever the truth underpinning Apophasis’s use by unionists in this place might be, I would never openly question their maturity, good faith, honesty and integrity when countering the sound and solid arguments put forward by independence supporting sovereign Scots. Never.

    Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      Great stuff, NC. Don’t ever let it be said you don’t know your way around a dictionary.

      BTW, shouldn’t fellatio be on your list? I don’t have my own dictionary handy to check.

      Whatever! Now re-submit your entire post in Scots, so we can all read, understand and enjoy it.

      Reply
  74. sam says:

    Here is a link to a brief account of the handover of independence to India.

    link to theconversation.com

    “It was hardly a joyous moment: A botched process of partition saw the slaughter of more than a million people; some 15 million were displaced. Untold numbers were maimed, mutilated, dismembered and disfigured. Countless lives were scarred.”

    Incidentally, Mountbatten was one of a number accused of child abuse at Kincora children’s home.

    “On 8 September 1987 Ian Dougall reported a litany of secrets about Mountbatten in a Melbourne newspaper under the title: ‘Mountbatten: The war hero who preyed on boys’.”

    Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      I asked Grok to summarise your post:

      “Some big English bursturds forced helpless Indians to kill and maim untold millions of themselves, before they (the big English bursturds) ran away. They ran away awkwardly because they were all inveterate shirt lifters.”

      I’m concerned about that “inveterate”. I think that’s got something to do with animals, and in India, if you so much as look the wrong way at a cow, you’re as good as deid.

      Reply
      • Young Lochinvar says:

        You asked Grok..

        Referring to yourself in 3rd person terms again P3nisbreath McP3nisbreathface?

        As for your comment on “sucking blokes off” I see you have reverted to type by accusing others based on your own lived experiences.

        Validation seeking obviously.

        Anyway 3 more for you Nugget..
        .

    • TURABDIN says:

      THE BRITISH RAN THEIR EMPIRE often with the aid of amateurs and odd ball enthusiasts, the short lived Arab Bureau, Lawrence, Sykes et al. is totemic. The India Office where chinless wonders gravitated to run populous provinces is another. The London Foreign Office was fundamentally pro Arab, because of oil needs among other things, and consequently rather «pro Muslim», an attitude reflected in the administration of India where the consequences were divisive and deadly creating a Muslim rump with a major chip on shoulder problem.
      The Brits, not alone in that, are good at drawing lines on maps, North America, Ireland, Africa, Levant, Mesopotamia etc. consequent dysfunctionalism is their particular contribution to world history.
      The betrayed people of Chegos is the latest offering.
      Scots, you do keep very odd company.

      Reply
      • Captain Caveman says:

        “Scots, you do keep very odd company”

        What “company” to you keep, eh TURABDIN? Be mindful of glass houses, eh lad.

  75. sam says:

    Recent work on genetics in Scotland identify a number of areas with a particular genetic make up.

    These 6 areas continue to reflect the genetic make up of ancient kingships (despite immigration) from the time of the Dark Ages.

    The reason is that marriage remained local within the areas.

    Genetic make up can shape a country’s values and the values of different parts of the country. it affects, for example, tolerance and social behaviour.

    The environment and social context will, in turn, influence genetic make up.

    Both nature and nurture shape us.

    Here is a link. You might or might not discover your ancient ancestors.

    link to pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    Reply
    • Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh says:

      « Genetic make up can shape a country’s values and the values of different parts of the country. it affects, for example, tolerance and social behaviour. »

      Not seeing that in the nonetheless interesting linked study. Maybe I missed it.

      Reply
      • sam says:

        Fearghas,

        You won’t find a reference the influence of genetics on values.

        Here is a link.

        link to nature.com

        A bit from the abstract.

        “Our findings evidence a significant role of genetics in predicting cross-societal cultural values variation, and potentially speak to the need for and importance of incorporating both nature and nurture in theories of cultural values variation across societies.”

        One might wonder if a great deal of the degradations put upon the Highlands in their history have a lot to do with different values within and outside Scotland.

        Glencoe?

      • Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh says:

        Yes, thanks, Sam. I see where you are coming from.

        Obviously my gut reservations are to do with historical eugenics and stereotyping racism. Taking a cursory glance through this second article, it surely seems sound enough as a tentatively predictive scientific study. As ever, an eye to initial assumptions is of course crucial. Here are a few brief (unjudgemental) quotes for general interest, though I confess I remain wary of potential populist reductionism:

        « Our findings evidence a significant role of genetics in predicting cross-societal cultural values variation, and potentially speak to the need for and importance of incorporating both nature and nurture in theories of cultural values variation across societies.

        « […] Perhaps resulting from a revolution in contemporary understanding of genetic variability, interest in research linking genes to social and psychological phenomena, termed “sociogenetics”, has burgeoned in the last decade. Via this paradigm, evidence indicates that there are unique and meaningful cross-societal effects of genes on complex traits such as social stratification, social trust, intelligence test performance, educational attainment, voter turnout, happiness, and cognitive achievement. Scholars have suggested that a deeper understanding of the interplay between genes and culture is essential for a holistic understanding of psychological processes. Yet, very little is known about the role of genetics in cross-cultural differences, defined as differences in cultural values orientations between societies. To the extent that prevailing theories of cultural values focus only on environmental factors, a full accounting that considers the potential role of genetic differences between individuals from divergent populations is lacking. Indeed, the promise of finding genetic explanations for cultural values variation across societies is important. Insight into the genetic bases of said variation may help explain persistent differences in cultural values orientations between equally modernized and prosperous countries such as the US and Japan. A holistic understanding involving both environmental and genetic influences of cross-cultural values variation between societies will enable scientists, students, and business and governmental decision makers to build more accurate templates for understanding social behavior and tackling social problems that arise resultant of differences between nations.

        « […] In more detail, culture-gene coevolution theory suggests that environmental pressures giving rise to genetic adaptations also give rise to corresponding sociocultural adaptations. Natural selection works to enhance the survival and reproductive fitness of individuals possessing genes linked to behavior patterns that yield success in a given social and physical environment. Notably, genes affecting brain function are likely to influence the adoption and formation of cultural norms; conversely, culture may also shape the expression and selection of genes. Consequently, cross-cultural variation between societies may be a function of genetic variation, with different patterns of gene-brain interactions giving rise to cultural differences between populations.

        « […] To be clear, we do not make any inferences about a causal link between genes and culture among individuals. Rather, we model associations using a correlation and regression approach, based on overall population-wide data, focused only on predicting statistical variation in cultural values orientations.»

    • agent x says:

      “The reason is that marriage remained local within the areas.

      Genetic make up can shape a country’s values and the values of different parts of the country. it affects, for example, tolerance and social behaviour.”
      ————————————

      Not to mention Dueling Banjos!

      Reply
  76. David says:

    link to wingsoverscotland.com

    I am a Celtic supporter. And I’m horrified at some of the comments on the Celtic blog about Rod Stewart not being welcome at Celtic Park.

    I had to pull them up with Wings Over Scotland, research that the majority of Scotland is not taking the fundamentalist viewpoint on Palestine vs. Israel.

    I love Rod Stewart. Some guy’s have all the luck eh? And Every Beat of my Heart. His beautiful song. Seagull carry me, over land and see. To my old folks that where I want to be.

    His songs are family. In fact he’s so superhuman, he’s played in front of the biggest human crowd ever on planet earth, in 1994 at Copacobana Beach.

    Because he says, “we’ve got to give Nigel a chance.” He’s not welcome at Celtic Park.

    You know who shouldn’t be welcome at Celtic Park. Spotty little communists who, cover the face up, set flares off. Fine the club. And there’s not a Scottish flag in sight. The Green Brigade ultras.

    They seem to hate Scotland. They need an Independence referendum to remind them again what country they are in, and what country should matter.

    Reply
  77. agent x says:

    “SCOTLAND would vote to become an independent country if a second referendum were held tomorrow, a new poll has found.”
    link to thenational.scot

    ” However, despite the support for independence, the Scottish public did not rank the issue in the top 10 most important to sway how they vote. These were:

    Healthcare/NHS/hospitals – 69%
    Inflation/rising cost of living – 52%
    Public services generally – 42%
    Lack of faith in politicians/parties/government – 41%
    Poverty/inequality – 40%
    Education/schools – 40%
    Economy/economic situation – 37%
    Housing – 37%
    Care for older and disabled people – 36%
    Crime and anti-social behaviour/law and order – 35%

    For the Scottish public as a whole, 24% rated independence as a top-10 issue, compared to 50% of those who said they would vote SNP in 2026.”

    Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      I reckon that’s all shite, x.

      I reckon G@za is the issue Scots care most about in the entire world.

      Reply
    • David says:

      And Immigration has obviously been completely erased,

      because it came third as the third most important issue in previous Wings Over Scotland articles.

      Reply
  78. sam says:

    Andy Ellis,

    Do you remember saying this: “The only historical and constitutional precedent for restricting the franchise in self determination referendums have been in cases which were/are unambiguously accepted as being cases of decolonisation.”

    That’s wrong, isn’t it? Not a dig – less certainty, perhaps?

    Reply
    • Andy Ellis says:

      OK, way to split hairs. Writing in haste I probably should have said “virtually the only….”.

      Go back and examine all the self determination referendums since WW2. A couple imposed limited residence criteria. The vast majority of the others had open, residence based criteria, many of which were in fact more generous than that used in indyref1 in 2014.

      The principle remains that those advocating for franchise restrictions are (at least generally in here) advocating for Scotland to use a franchise much narrower than a 24 month residence criteria, which wouldn’t be likely to exclude that many.

      The nativists in here typically advocate 5 or 10 years or longer, or insist that birth should be the sole criteria.

      It’s vanishingly unlikely such a franchise would be accepted as a basis for international recognition, quite apart from it being morally repugnant and probably politically and electorally self defeating as many pro independence folk would oppose such a franchise. There’s a likelihood such moves could actually reduce the pro independence vote.

      Reply
      • Aidan says:

        Of course when franchise restrictions have been implemented, they have been to address situation specific issues – such as preventing fraud or foreign interference, or to prevent stationed soldiers (e.g. in the Falklands) skewing the result. All that is being put forward here is a xenophobic dislike of the English and a desire to gain a tactical advantage in any future vote

      • twathater says:

        “Of course when franchise restrictions have been implemented, they have been to address situation specific issues – such as preventing fraud or foreign interference”

        So the outright interference, Lies , despicable fear promulgation , breaking of agreed purdah rules by a foreign country negates the ability to impose franchise restrictions

      • Aidan says:

        I’m not sure how restricting the franchise would have any impact on purdah (which in any case doesn’t apply to politicians, obviously), but it’s rather revealing that essentially what you are saying is you want the franchise restriction to hurt the other sides campaign . .

      • Dan says:

        @ Aidan at 4.45pm

        That’s a load of shit. Elections held in your favoured UK Union utilise franchise restrictions all the time. Does this mean your UK is xenophobic towards those that are excluded from the electoral franchise, and / or that they do this to gain a tactical electoral advantage.
        Or maybe there is just some other valid reasons it is done which is deemed acceptable practice, and you don’t moan your arse off about it in the same way you do if a Scot mentions implementing similar electoral franchise restrictions used by your preferred UK governance
        You masquerade as a smart arse so surprising you couldn’t extrapolate this from the link I posted previously; Instead you feigned dumbness and ask a question about exclusion which is clearly explained in the link provided to you.

        link to wingsoverscotland.com

        link to commonslibrary.parliament.uk

      • Aidan says:

        Yes Dan, there are legitimate restrictions on people voting who might have just arrived on a tourist visa from China or who are permanently detained in Broadmoor or Carstairs hospital. But that’s not what you are proposing is it. You are saying that UK citizens lawfully resident in the U.K. should not be entitled to vote where they live. There’s no precedent for that and it’s incompatible with a free democratic vote.

      • Dan says:

        @ Aidan at 10.03am

        No, I am not saying that at all, so enough with you continually trying to misattribute what you want me to have said to suit your narrative of negatively portraying me as some blood and soil ethnic nationalist.
        Re. Your two proffered examples. Why not go with the biggy that EU nationals residing in the UK did not get a vote in EU ref. vote. Why so?
        I’ve met some EU nationals that have lived and paid taxes here in Scotland for decades, some even much longer than I have been alive.
        That’s considerably longer than the 5 years continual residence required to obtain settled status. Where’s your outrage on the regressive, bigoted, nativist, moonhowling actions of your favoured UK governance denying those individuals a vote.
        No taxation without representation! Maybe those excluded from the EU ref. vote franchise can they claim their decades of taxes back aye.
        Was it xenophobia and or tactical advantage that excluded them from the voting franchise, or something else.

      • Aidan says:

        @Dan – there probably is a good case for those with EU settled status being able to vote in national elections after a period of time. Of course the counter argument would be that those who want to enjoy all of the benefits of citizenship can apply for that citizenship.

        But let’s be clear, we are talking about citizens here aren’t we. You are accusing me of putting words into your mouth, so you can make yourself clear. Are you saying some U.K. citizens lawfully resident in Scotland shouldn’t be entitled to vote in Scotland?

      • Dan says:

        @Aidan

        C’mon then, don’t be coy, elucidate on the reasons “there is a good case for those with EU settled status being able to vote in national elections after a period of time.”? And why the fuck haven’t you been going full Tonto Franchise Fannyesque and raging at London Rule for denying folk the vote seeing as there was a “good case”.

        What difference does time make regarding residency, and why is duration of residency relevant now but not ten years ago?
        If EU nationals aren’t allowed a vote in UK constitutional matters such as “Brexit” because of national interest, then why were they enfranchised to vote in the IndyRef which would undoubtably have had serious ramifications on the constitutional setup of the UK?

        As per your counterargument, this shit has been done to death during the franchise wars of yesteryear before you frequented btl. Scotland is not currently in a position to issue citizenship to those that reside here. That is a power reserved to your favoured London Rule so you’re putting the cart before the horse.
        Franchise Fanny loved to link to sources with electoral guff from the international community which nearly always mentioned residency as criteria for being enfranchised to vote, but he usually fell short of actually defining what residency actually meant.
        I’m classed as a resident in a B&B if I stay for one night. But there’s more to it than that isn’t there, because in other defining characteristics of being residenct somewhere I am legally obligated to declare my address for all manner of administrative matters relating to taxes, insurances, driving license, etc.
        So you need to define what “residency” actually means.
        It’s legal for a Welsh student, or a transient worker, or those seconded in the armed forces to be “resident” in Scotland during the duration of their activities, but they may have zero intention of living here on completion of their respective activities, so should anyone that just rocks up here and have no long term commitment to staying here instantly be given a vote on arrival?

        Many EU nationals I knew have gone back to their homelands. Manipulated to vote No in Indyref to retain residency here after project Fear’s Better Together bullshit, only for a couple of years later to be disenfranchised in the “Brexit” vote, and then choosing to leave because they still held citizenship in their homelands and the various differing inter-country agreements on holding dual nationality meant it was a no-brainer to choose to go back to where they originated rather than stay in shitsville UK.

      • Aidan says:

        @Dan – you can have a look at the term residency as it’s defined in electoral law, but no you staying one night in a B&B would not make you a resident of that area.

        It was the SNP Government at the time in 2014 who decided that the franchise would be based on the Scottish Parliament/local elections rather than the more restrictive general election franchise. Either could have been chosen.

        But let’s be clear here, since you seem to be dancing around the issue. In your view, some people who are U.K. citizens and are lawfully resident in Scotland should be denied the right to vote in a future independence referendum. Is that true or not? Never mind you lying about people staying one night in a bnb, we’re talking about people who’ve bought houses, got jobs, kids at school etc in a country where they have full citizenship not being entitled to cast a vote on such an important matter that has profound implications for them.

      • Captain Caveman says:

        Aiden says:

        ‘… we’re talking about people who’ve bought houses, got jobs, kids at school etc …’

        Ah, but therein lies the rub, Aiden. Very few of your detractors – if any I suspect – have done the things you mention, which probably explains much anyway.

        Of course, the same isn’t true of the Scottish electorate at large, which again probably explains why support for independence is, and has always been consistently below 50% despite this utter shitshow of a Labour government. I daresay, consider the SNP alternative and all the craziness this would entail for those who have much to lose (again, unlike your detractors).

      • Dan says:

        @ Aidan

        I’m not dancing around the issue, but I can understand why you might think that due to yer buddy Franchise Fanny constantly misattributing my position with his trolling yak.
        FYI I’ve consistently stated btl that I am supportive of a duration of residence criteria requiring to be met before anybody arriving in Scotland should be given a vote on the Kingdom of Scotland’s constitutional future, be they a UK citizen from the Kingdom of England, a Commonwealth citizen, an EU National, or citizen of any other country on the planet.
        You furnish different examples of people that have moved here where some clearer commitment has been made, but as expected, you ignore and avoid the examples I put forward where less commitment to long term residence has been shown.

        As per “profound implications” for those that have recently moved here should Scotland return to self-governing status; Caveat Emptor comes to mind for these “NuScots” who presumably moved here for a better life away from the skipfire they allowed their homeland of England to become.
        And of course you’ve not a thought on the profound implications for the indigenous folk here when a load of fiscally advantaged blow ins from down south rock up inflating house prices and are able to outbid the locals.
        We live in the UK, and therefore it’s not that unreasonable a position to follow along the lines of the UK’s own policy on a duration of residency amongst other criteria being a factor in the eligibility of folk to vote on national and constitutional matters pertaining to specific areas of the UK.
        You state the SNP decided the franchise from a choice of Scottish Parliament or more restricted UK one. But that isn’t entirely correct, as it was negotiated with Westminster in the agreement for the referendum. And that democratic event that had implications for the UK used a different franchise than the EU ref vote which similarly had implications for the UK, so there was divergence and nothing set in stone.
        It goes without saying franchise choice would have been gamed out to be favourable to the UK’s interests as a wider franchise opened up the range of campaigning angles that could be leveraged, such as Better Together’s Vote YES to lose your EU citizenship, which needn’t actually have been the case when the EU had provisions such as Article 48.

        ROADMAP FOR SUCCESSION IN EUROPEAN UNION MEMBERSHIP IN THE CASE OF MEMBER STATE’S SECESSION OR DISSOLUTION

        Declaration of independence from a state arising from a member state’s secession or dissolution following a democratic process..

        And lastly, get tae fuck you bawbag prick with stating “Never mind you lying about people staying one night in a bnb“.
        I simply stated if I stay in a B&B for one night I am classed as resident there; Solely to show that the term resident encompasses a very short stay in a location, and therefore terms of residency require to better defined.

      • Aidan says:

        @Dan – so in your view the residency requirement would fall equally on those who are here (for a sufficient period) as to those who are U.K. citizens?

        As to a commitment on long term residency, sure you might have some people who vote who have no long term commitment to Scotland, just as you’ll have born and bred Scot’s who are either planning on moving away imminently or who are very old and most likely won’t live to see independence implemented. There’s always going to be a great or lesser extent to which individual voters are impacted by a decision and their long term commitment to Scotland. If that’s the position you’re using to start disenfranchising people, then the residency criteria isn’t the first place you’d start. Which I suspect is what is really behind this, you don’t like English people moving to Scotland and you think they should be viewed and treated as foreigners in the same way that those on migrant visas are.

        Secondly, you’re right that the rules of the referendum were negotiated in a strict legal sense. But it was Alex Salmond’s SNP who made almost all of the decisions, including the one to use the wider franchise. You can see that from the fact that the U.K. government chose a different franchise for the Brexit referendum (which, let’s not forget, the official position was to support remain) a few years later.

        Finally, your point on staying a night in a BnB is a lie. You would not qualify to vote based on that, unless you are homeless and the local authority has placed you there (in which case it’s legitimate for you to vote from there). You need to read the Representation of the People Act 1983 where the definitions are set out.

  79. sam says:

    Andy Ellis

    Not splitting hairs. I find you much too emphatic in much of what you say even when i agree with what you say.

    Take your final sentence:”There’s a likelihood such moves could actually reduce the pro independence vote.”

    How do you know the likelihood? It might be a possibility.

    I don’t much restrict the franchise – those in residence, small period of residence required.

    Prof McQuorodale has outined the two routes towards independence. My guess is we may, after favourable polling and a referendum (not under government control), have to declare our independence. It won’t be recognised by UN but there will be countries that do recognise us and eventually the UK will.

    Reply
    • Andy Ellis says:

      Such is life. Somehow I’ll live with your sense of disapprobation. Either you’re new here and haven’t seen how this has played out over a couple of years, or you know but have a higher tolerance for the regressive views of some of the exceptionally unpleasant blood and soil nativists bigots soiling this site and the independence movement. I’ve no intention of apologising for that: I regard these folks as lacking a moral compass and representing a clear and present danger to the prospects of success for the movement.

      I find it odd that you’d honestly question the likelihood that franchise restriction would cost the movement at least some of its existing support, or the prospect of persuading swing voters who voted No last time but might be persuadable.

      UDI is of course an option, but its not one anyone should relish: it would be difficult, recognition would be problematic and it could be an extended process. Absent an agreed referendum which seems unlikely in any rasonable timescale, we’re left with plebiscitary elections.

      I’d love it if the movement could rally around that concept, but I tend to agree with Rev Stu’s prognosis: there’s just nothing going on, and progress presupposes the destruction or at least hobbling of the SNP. That seems like a long shot to me, but we can but hope that the electorate finally wakes up and/or grows a pair.

      Reply
  80. sam says:

    Fearghas,

    Reservations?

    As Andy Ellis correctly said it was the Lowland Scots who despised and abused the Gael as well as the English

    Iain Mackinnon has a study which explores the idea of internal colonialism in the Highlands. In it can be found ideas of the dispossession of the lands of the Highlands seen by the Gael as having common ownership, rather than individual as seen by the Lowlanders.

    In addition, there is racism in the colonial projects in which the Gael is seen as inferior

    It seems to me that different values which do arise in the different areas of genetic mapping in the Highlands and in Lowland Scots.

    Reply
    • Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh says:

      « It seems to me that different values do arise in the different areas of genetic mapping in the Highlands and in Lowland Scots. »
      __________
      Of course, but if the malignancy is deemed to be intractably genetic then that noxious people group might find themselves threatened with wholesale extermination being deemed the only solution. On the other hand, if it is seen to be a “cultural” malaise then taking all up-and-coming influential kids away from the disparaged community and language, then (if even) sending them back as “cured” administrators may be heinous enough as an option, but a tad less horrific:

      “Forasmekle as the kingis Majestie having a speciall care and regaird that the trew religioun be advanced and establisheit in all the pairtis of this kingdome, and that all his Majesties subjectis, especiallie the youth, be exercised and trained up in civilitie, godliness, knowledge and learning, that the vulgar Inglishe toung be universallie plantit, and the Irishe language, which is one of the chief and principall causis of the continwance of barbarities and incivilite amongis the inhabitantis of the Iles and Heylandis, may be abolisheit and removit…” (Act of Privy Council of Scotland 1616)

      “Thairfor that they shall send thair bairnis being past the age of nyne yeiris to the Scollis in the Lawlandis, to the effect thay may be instructit and trayned to wryte and reid and to speake Inglische; and that nane of thair bairnis sall be served air [heir] unto thame, nor acknawlegeit nor reid as tennentis to his Majestie unles thay can wryte, reid, and speik Inglische.” (Act of Privy Council of Scotland 1616)(Collectanea de Rebus Albanicus p 121)

      Reply
  81. sam says:

    Andy Ellis

    Mea culpa

    Reply
  82. Norway,voted the most democratic country in the world ever,

    only allows citizens to vote in its election,

    to become a citizen you must have lived in Norway for 10 years and also be proficient in their language and have a good understanding of their history and society,

    `Nativism is the political policy of promoting or protecting the interests of native-born or indigenous people over those of short term incomers and foreign nationals`

    Reply
    • TURABDIN says:

      THE SÁMI ETHNICITY has experienced that nativism in the form of enforced assimilation.
      The Norwegians, like the English, have good PR agents.

      Reply
    • Xaracen says:

      “Nativism is the political policy of promoting or protecting the interests of native-born or indigenous people over those of short term incomers and foreign nationals”

      This is especially important for Scots, because the Scots people are the formal owners of Scotland’s sovereignty, and as such any formal plebiscite of the Scots can engage that sovereignty, especially with regard to constitutional matters like an independence referendum.

      The native Scots are the ones who are most unequivocally the owners of Scotland’s sovereignty and of Scotland itself, and being sovereign, their majority decision cannot legitimately be reversed by a larger non-sovereign majority. That is why a franchise that prioritises the native Scots is important in any independence referendum.

      In other words, in Scotland’s case at least, a nativist-based franchise could pretty reliably target the owners of Scotland itself, and there is nothing racist in defending ownership.

      Reply
      • Hatey McHateface says:

        Xaracen, as you are convinced that we Sovereign Scots own Scotland, I’d like to sell you my share.

        I’ll be quite honest with you – I don’t think my share has any material value whatsoever, because I don’t believe it exists, but your insistence that I am a joint owner of Scotland suggests that you disagree.

        With ownership comes the right of the owner to divest himself of that ownership.

        So make me a fair offer, hand over the cash, and my share in Scotland is yours.

        Unless, of course, somebody just as (ahem) deluded as you, but richer, wants to offer me more.

      • Alf Baird says:

        You appear to be proposing that national sovereignty may be ‘bought and sold’, Hatey. Go to the Naughty Step!

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        I’m already on the Naughty Step, Alf.

        I’ve been spending so much time here I’ve had it refurbished to my standards. Comfy sofa, favourite play list, and half a dozen single malts behind the bar.

        I’ve taken Xaracen’s advice and as a Sovereign Scot, claimed ownership. When I decide to sell up, chances are only some English boy will have the cash to meet my asking price.

        That’s a crying shame, but every other Sovereign Scot who has already sold out to incomers has established an unchallengeable precedent.

        And let’s be honest about this, Alf. The only ones who are really greetin and gurnin into their drams over this kind of thing are the sad losers with nothing to sell. Every other Sovereign Scot selling a house, or a business, or an asset of any kind takes the best price. And every Sovereign Scot knows that the best prices usually come from south of the border.

        And so we are where we are. Reality rules as it always eventually does. We shrug our shoulders at the injustice of it all and then we go out to spend all of that luvverly dosh.

  83. sam says:

    Fearghas,

    Sorry about the incoherence.

    I think that piece from Mackinnon is worth reading

    Reply
    • Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh says:

      Thanks, Sam. I think I have located Iain Mackinnon’s study:

      Colonialism and the Highland Clearances (2017)

      Abstract
      « This article employs a new approach to studying internal colonialism in northern Scotland during the 18th and 19th centuries. […] by demonstrating that promoters and managers of projects involving land use change, territorial dispossession and industrial development in the late modern Gàidhealtachd consistently conceived of their work as projects of colonization. It further argues that the new social, cultural and political structures these projects imposed on the area’s indigenous population correspond to those found in other colonial situations, and that racist and racialist attitudes towards Gaels of the time are typical of those in colonial situations during the period. The article concludes that the late modern Gàidhealtachd has been a site of internal colonization where the relationship of domination between colonizer and colonized is complex, longstanding and occurring within the imperial state. In doing so it demonstrates that the history and present of the Gaels of Scotland belongs within the ambit of an emerging indigenous research paradigm. »

      Reply
  84. agent x says:

    James Cheyne says:
    1 July, 2025 at 10:57 am

    The Con merchants of the the treaty of union,

    The 2014 referendum vote has no legal validity and is not binding on the Scots, due to the contradictory nature of the Question posed.

    Do you want to remain.
    ————————————-

    The referendum question was “Should Scotland be an independent country?”, which voters answered with “Yes” or “No”.

    Reply
    • Alf Baird says:

      The question should have been the same as Brexit – do you want to remain in or leave a ‘Union’.

      Scots are already a sovereign people, albeit subjected to rule by “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of (the Westminster) Parliament (that) is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law” (Lord Cooper)

      Reply
  85. agent x says:

    Alf Baird says:
    1 July, 2025 at 6:44 pm
    The question should have been the same as Brexit – do you want to remain in or leave a ‘Union’.
    ———————————————

    The argument is – “there is no Union because the Scots didn’t agree to it.”

    So the original question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” is a much more accurate question.

    Reply
    • Insider says:

      agent x,

      Surely the most accurate question would be

      Do you agree to the UK should be partitioned, along the line of the historic 1709 borders ?

      Reply
  86. Confused says:

    sometimes I worry that main might swallow his tongue one day, in his frantic postings

    – “worry” is not the real word though.

    UGLY ANGLOS AND YOON TROLLS

    Let’s not pretend there is some kind of socratic dialogue being undertaken here; it is a bunch of folks who want to progress indy and another, bad actors who are always here, trying to disrupt, divert, divide – but their game was clocked a long time ago and their patterns obvious; the steady turnover of new handles with the same bullshit points, always trying to reset it to groundhog day.

    scottish independence is no concern for the likes of you

    this is not your website

    you call your wife “mother” (MUVVER) and “eat hotpot” you are english, by god, and have won the lottery of life and think your concerns and beliefs should be central to every other person on earth; we get it

    anglo narcissism in its element

    – if I don’t like it, it’s wrong

    – whatever is on the go, we deserve a slice of it

    – all shall pass through us

    – the rules don’t appy to us

    – it’s different when we do it

    – it wasn’t us, it was the foreigners

    – we never did empire, it was the Scots, they made us do it

    Slavery and Colonialism is absolutely and completely a UNION / EMPIRE enterprise and apportioning blame to the original empire victims – the Scots, some of whom were coerced into joining the enterprise is the lowest and weakest form of pseudo intellectual slop around. It is weasel-sophistry. Empire is a worldwide looting operation put together by the “pirates” and the “loan sharks”, i.e. anglo saxons and the dutch jews, at the time of the “glorious revolution” (a second civil war / coup). The Scots were unwilling participants pressganged into the operation, acting as “muscle” and as technocrats. Alas, we did far too good a job for our masters and the empire ends up running riot for 200 years becoming the most successful criminal score of all time. Scotland always acted as a brake on the worst of the English, and had we not beaten them in the 1300s, the empire could have started 400 years earlier and the world would not have stood a chance.

    the UK was the result of perhaps the GREATEST ACT OF TR3ACHERY in human history whereby a political elite sold out an entire people and the country under their feet to their GREATEST HISTORICAL ENEMY – and it was a colossal FRAUD as the country did not belong to them, or was theirs to give away; their motivation was money – they lost money in a foreign property deal and were trying to recoup their losses. Their bodies should be dug from the grave and hanged, burned, ground to dust and scattered in unholy ground so their souls can never reach paradise.

    If Hell does have circles and the final one reserved for tractors, Judas being the main inhabitant, then the entire scottish political class will be down there, text messaging each other

    What is even worse about the union was the people who sold us out were such stupid bastards who decided “all Scotland must pay for our stupidity”; the Darien Gap is, and remains, one of the worst shitholes on earth. I don’t think there is even a road through it to this day; impenetrable jungle, hoaching with unknown diseases and aggressive fauna. What were they thinking? Did no one do a survey? There was a reason the English and Spanish were not interested. Work it out.

    Reply
    • Anthem says:

      Well said. Excellent summary.

      Reply
      • Hatey McHateface says:

        You think?

        Then Indy and Scotland are both screwed.

        And yersel, natch.

      • Andy Ellis says:

        Sounds absolutely unhinged. Reminiscent of Rab C Nesbitt in full flow arguing with a bus shelter after a good swally.

        Thankfully such swivel eyed spittle flecked ranting is seen by most ordinary folk for what it is.

        Interesting to see the usual suspects lapping it up of course.

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        Naw, Andy, that’s nae richt.

        Ah thocht it wis mair remineescent o the puke oan the flair o a mankit bus shelter rammying wi itsel.

  87. Confused says:

    The worst thing about Glastonbury was the shitty music; it’s not just a hating on the youth, I like music from all generations.

    The music was CRIMINAL.

    Rap is particularly vile and should not be tolerated (straight outta compton is not bad tho) – one purveyor gave a bit of a laff

    “death to the IDF”

    chuckle

    I would have gone for OOH AHH HEZ BOLL AAAH myself

    But today everyone is wound up about it – why? Is everyone everywhere in public life being bribed or blackmailed by the lobby? Do they have the polaroids on everyone? Has no one the balls to tell these mad dogs just to fuck the fuck off, for once?

    link to archive.ph

    The phenomenon of the “Cry Bully” appears. Be clear about it – the IDF have bombed every hospital and every school in the strip, with precision weapons guided by satellite and laser, and if that is not bad enough they are now shooting people queueing for aid, starving for food – and as if to emphasise how “the rules of being an actual human being don’t apply to them” – they have done it more than once. And anyone who complains about this, or even just notices, at minimum they want your job, i.e. they are trying to prevent you from earning money to buy food and put a roof over your head.

    I posted Lee Mordechai’s work on the IDF actions on the strip a while ago; it is now a lot longer than it was and is on version 6.0 – I fear this honest academic might be in work for a while.

    The IDF are a force of purest evil on this planet and there is nothing which could be done to them which would be unjustifiable; as an occupying force it’s pretty open, but when you add the daily atrocities …

    the balls on this guy
    link to twitter.com

    Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      “Has no one the balls to tell these mad dogs just to fuck the fuck off”

      The boys in the tunnels have. They’ve still got maybe 20 live ones, and maybe 30 dead ones, and loadsa stolen supplies, and brim-full foreign bank accounts.

      Maybe some of the live ones are still fruity. Maybe some of the dead ones put up less of a fuss. Maybe compared to donkey bothering on the surface, it’s all still like paradise come early down in the tunnels.

      My point is that if they can take it, if they actively NEED thousands more human shield casualties from among their own women and kids, then what are you greetin and gurnin about?

      It’s their war. They started it. It’s their choice to keep it going. They think it’s worth it. They NEED their daily martyrs.

      I’m certain they would tell a greetin, cringing feartie like yourself to just fuck the fuck off.

      Reply
      • Anthem says:

        Total bullshit. Israeel started it from day one of their existence. They have never been happy with their borders and have antagonised nearly everyone in the middle-east since.
        Along with the big orange orangutan they will change the rules of engagement that have kept world peace alive for decades. They are creating their very own 21st century holocaust. And I for one, fear the worst.
        Clowns like you need to wake up and smell the coffee. This won’t end well for the uk either if we continue to suppprt this slaughter!

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        Why is it that so many supporters of Indy have never graduated from the primary school playground?

        “He started it, Miss”.

        “Naw ah never. It wis him”.

        “Please Miss, he’s lying. He hit me first”.

        “That’s so nae right. He wis attacking me”.

        “kept world peace alive for decades”

        Aw, so close, Anthem, but International Joke Day was yesterday. And I’m supposed to be the clown here!

        “antagonised nearly everyone in the middle-east”

        Jeezo. Plenty of ME countries are quietly cheering them on as they do the work these countries would like to do, but are deterred from doing by the ignorant, medieval rabbles infesting their streets.

        But how typical of an Indy supporter to hitch their wagon to a lost cause towed by a donkey already deid.

  88. James Cheyne says:

    The point of my comments yesterday that seems to have gone over the heads of many and ignored by the other side, is that NO question should be placed before the Sovereign Scots on their personal or the political status of their country.

    Due to the missing foundation question under the Scottish constitution that should have been asked of the Sovereign Scots.

    Do you want to join the treaty of union?

    Having avoided asking the Sovereign Scots if they want to join the treaty of union? out of acknowledged fear of the return answer, that the Sovereign Scots would in all probability vote No,
    No further questions can be applied to the Sovereign Scots that remained generational outside the treaty of union.

    Any question posed, no matter the terminology or phrased used at any later staged has no binding on Sovereign Scots.
    It is a colonial presumption of arrogance by those that are actually in the treaty of union, to put forward to those that are not and never were asked to join the treaty of union.

    Reply
    • Chas says:

      Your comments yesterday that have have ‘gone over the heads of many and ignored by the other side’ are wishful thinking on your part.
      The majority realise that you are a nutter!
      Are you are unaware that your repetitive drivel simply puts people off the idea of Independence. Who would want to be associated with the likes of you, Baird, Confused etc?

      Reply
  89. James Cheyne says:

    A simple case of drawing attention to the Con Merchants trick questionaire’s approach in a attempt to capture the Sovereign Scots they let slip through their net out of fear in 1706/1707.

    Reply
  90. On 18th July 1290, Edward I of England issued the Edict of Expulsion.

    The same day that the Edict was proclaimed writs were sent to his sheriffs advising that all Jews had until 1st November to leave the realm.

    All Jewish property and debt was cancelled,

    this was to pay for England`s constant bloodthirsty warmongering in Scotland,Wales,France.

    Wasn`t until 300 years later, England`s Cromwell needed money to pay for his warmongering that the edict was repealed.

    Reply
  91. Xaracen says:

    Aidan, you said to me in a previous comment in an earlier thread;

    “the actual reasoning in your argument is outright wrong. You seem to say that because the treaty doesn’t go to great lengths to spell out numerous explicit consequences of its terms, then its terms don’t apply as they are drafted. That’s an impossible standard for any document to meet given that there will always be an unlimited number of potential scenarios or outcomes which can’t be individually dismissed.”

    I submitted a detailed response to this but Rev Stu binned it for some inexplicable reason. But I am not letting this go unanswered, so I have re-written it to address solely that quote, because it encompasses the whole issue of the formal competence of England’s MPs to overrule Scotland’s MPs on any matter of Union governance.

    Aidan; Your claim that I ‘seemed to say … that its terms don’t apply as they are drafted’ is both silly and untrue, simply because the terms I object to aren’t drafted, and they needed to be to provide England’s MPs with the authority they clearly exert over Scotland’s MPs today. That has always been my key argument and complaint.

    Your ‘impossible standard’ only needed to include a simple statement such as the one below, and the question of the authenticity of England’s MPs’ domination over Scotland’s MPs would be unassailable in every respect.

    All decisions of governance to be taken in the House of Commons of the new British parliament shall be determined by a simple majority of those voting, with no distinction made between the Scottish and English members, and the same shall be true in the House of Lords.

    It’s short, clear and utterly unambiguous, and nothing remotely like it exists in the Treaty or Acts of Union, Aidan. It was clearly beyond the wit of the English establishment to create that statement and insert it somewhere into the Treaty.

    None of your blustering, bloviating and hand-waving can rectify that statement’s absence to validate, legitimise or support England’s unwarranted overruling of Scotland’s MPs on any matter of Union governance.

    Reply
    • Aidan says:

      @Xaracen – sure, the ToU could have contained wording to that effect, but no doubt you would find some attempt to workaround that term if it were contained anyway. If you are determined to read your personal idea into the treaty rather than interpret it honestly, then you’ll always be able to find a way to do that.

      So why would that term need writing in, Article 1 of the ToU is clear that two kingdoms become one, the procedural rules for the house of commons and the lords were clear, and there was no suggestion that this country-veto would apply.
      As I said, were the authors of the the ToU supposed to guess that some eccentric idea would emerge on the fringes of the internet 300 years later which they are supposed to explicit dispel. If so, the treaty was be an endless document. The point is your idea is incompatible with the structures that the treaty created, even if the authors didn’t explicitly and literally describe that. In the same way that because the treaty doesn’t explicitly say that I’m the king, that doesn’t mean I can claim to be king.

      Reply
      • Xaracen says:

        “If you are determined to read your personal idea into the treaty rather than interpret it honestly, then you’ll always be able to find a way to do that.”

        Get lost, Aidan, you don’t have an argument, and never did.

        “the procedural rules for the house of commons and the lords were clear”

        This is just your typical outright bullshit, Aidan; the Treaty contains no procedural rules of any kind. Anyone reading the Treaty can see that for themselves. Your assertions are as bogus as your ‘arguments’.

        Raw numbers on their own are not rules, and raw numbers on their own are not democracy.

      • Dan says:

        #AskAidan

        You almost “know” as much as Franchise Fanny Ellis, so thought you deserve the accolade of yer ain hashtag.

        So whit aboot the articles in the Treaty that state no constituent part of the UK should have an economic advantage over another. Just wondering how the fook the Kingdom of England managed to grow its population from approximately five times that of the Kingdom of Scotland to being approximately ten times greater over the 300 odd year course of the Union?
        If that’s too “ancient guff” for you, then in these modern times then howz Northern Ireland got a better “Brexit” settlement?

        Also waiting yer response to my earlier post to you re. franchise shizzle…

      • Aidan says:

        @Xaracen – the procedural rules of the House of Commons and the House of Lords were clear in 1707. Ultimately, you can’t find any positive statement in support of your idea, so it remains nothing but an eccentric idea contradicted by the language of the treaty sitting within the context that it does. If you want to prove me wrong, provide me with some evidence of a positive treatment of your idea of a national veto by an authoritative source.

        @Dan – does it say anywhere in the treaty that the population of Scotland and England should be capped in proportion to each other? If not, then what exactly are you asking?

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        That’s not much of an accolade, Dan.

        Not when you’ve got your very own tribe!

      • Xaracen says:

        @Aidan, you are bloviating again.

        “the procedural rules of the House of Commons and the House of Lords were clear in 1707.”

        Those rules applied to the parliament of England. They have nothing to do with the parliament of Great Britain. No procedural rules for that parliament were ever set by the Treaty.

      • Aidan says:

        No, they were not set by the treaty, but the treaty expressly provided that Scottish representatives would sit in the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The voting procedures for both of those houses were known at the time the treaty was entered into. If the parties to the treaty had wanted to codify changes to the procedures of those houses then they could have done so in the treaty. Unless your view is that nothing exists in law unless it is expressly spelling out in the treaty, in which case we live in a society without law save for a few limited provisions of the treaty, many of which have ceased to have any practical application.

        Again – no positive statement by anyone in authority. Do you know of a single other person who shares your view, who I can look up to verify?

      • Dan says:

        @ Aidan

        I can see the #AskAidan hastag may well be a short-lived crash and burn skipfire, if you immediately resort to swerve answering the very first question put to you with diversionary bullshit in a pitiful attempt to evade acknowledging that the population growth rate disparities over the course of the 300 odd year union between the two kingdoms that are in a supposed equal union that make up the UK is inherently linked to economic activity and growth in the respective areas.

      • Aidan says:

        @Dan – I’m just asking you to back up your own question. Does the ToU require the population of England and Scotland to remain in the same proportion to each other?

      • Dan says:

        Article VI of the Union Treaty

        VI. ‘That all Parts of the united Kingdom, for ever, from and after the Union, shall have the same Allowances, Encouragements, and Draw-backs, and be under the same Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Regulations of Trade, and liable to the same Customs and Duties, and Import and Export..

        This morning Aidan will now educate us plebs on how it’s possible for the KoE to have developed a significantly larger population growth rate than that of the KoS, with all the economic benefits that creates, and how Northern Ireland gets a bespoke post “Brexit” trade settlement, whilst adhering to these expressly written terms and constraints in the Treaty.

      • Aidan says:

        You are arguing with me separately about the impact of English people moving to Scotland and now you’re telling us about all of the benefits of inward migration that England has enjoyed, which is the only reason the population of England is currently growing. Population is a very poor indicator of economic performance, but GDP per capita (which is a good economic indicator) is roughly identical in England and Scotland, and likewise between London and Edinburgh.

        FYI – the part of the treaty you quote relates to trade policy, it doesn’t proscribe any outcomes, least of all in population size.

      • Xaracen says:

        So what, Aidan? The procedures of the two houses of the parliament of England were indeed known in 1707, but those procedures were devised for a single sovereignty legislature, as were the rules of the Scottish parliament’s single chamber.

        The proposed brand new British legislature on the other hand was to encompass two very distinct and incompatible sovereignties, since neither of the two kingdoms had agreed to give theirs up, and the Treaty contains no evidence that either did, so those new Houses of the new British parliament clearly required new procedural rules that gave both of those sovereignties and their constitutions the formal recognition they are each constitutionally entitled to demand!

        But the Treaty states nothing more than that the new British parliament would also have two houses with the same names, and patently sets no procedural rules at all for either of the new houses. The English establishment had no legitimate right to presuppose and impose the use of the former English parliament’s existing single-sovereignty-based procedural rules, especially since those rules, under the hugely asymmetric numbers of the two formal bodies of their representatives, systemically and permanently subordinate the Scottish MPs to England’s without any agreement for such subordination in the Treaty.

        The outcomes of these rules have obvious and direct adverse impacts on Scotland’s sovereignty as formally represented by Scotland’s MPs, while having no adverse impacts on England’s sovereignty or her MPs. That is not fair representation. That’s domination, because under them Scotland’s MPs cannot realistically defend Scotland’s interests in the Union, let alone promote them. So yes, Aidan, the procedural rules absolutely should have been different — but they weren’t, and the result is a legislature whose authority over Scotland is not just unbalanced, but outright fraudulent.

        If your claim is that Scotland consented in any way to being permanently outvoted in all matters of governance in such a manner, then show me where that was positively stated in the Treaty, and not merely presumed.

        “Do you know of a single other person who shares your view, who I can look up to verify?”

        Professor Robert Black KC, FRSA, FRSE, FFCS, ILTM ( Professor Emeritus of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh), was clearly of the view that the Union was a takeover, and not a merger.

      • Captain Caveman says:

        “Professor Robert Black KC, FRSA, FRSE, FFCS, ILTM ( Professor Emeritus of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh), was clearly of the view that the Union was a takeover, and not a merger”

        Ah, a classic case of hinging an entire argument off a single, extreme outlier argument (much like the oft-used economics citation of Professor Richard Murphy by your lot a few years back, hardly a mainstream, representative world-view in either case, wouldn’t you say?)

        One could say “one swallow does not a summer make”, or perhaps more apt “that’s one very shoogly peg”…

        You’ll need to do (a lot) better than this.

      • Xaracen says:

        “Ah, a classic case of hinging an entire argument off a single, extreme outlier argument”

        Maybe it escaped your attention, CC, but I was only asked to provide one other person who shared my view, so I provided one, and he’s a pro, and a highly regarded one at that.

      • Captain Caveman says:

        Semantics, at the end of the day. The substantive point still stands, whether or not you think you’ve answered Aiden’s specific question.

        Just so I’m clear: explain to me how victory for your side looks in 12 months from now, eg a specific resolution or other from the UN or whatever. Please do be very specific, as I can feel the offer of a wager coming on. Money where your mouth is?

      • Aidan says:

        Again we keep coming to this issue of the preservation of sovereignty. In the context you mean it, sovereignty means the preservation of an independent Kingdom which wasn’t merged with the Kingdom of England. You say that the treaty doesn’t provide for this, but it literally does in Article 1, the very first thing that the treaty does, it’s overarching purpose.

        Your assertion that the House of Commons and Lords were to be entirely new chambers with new procedures is farcical. The chambers themselves are described using those names, without any reference anywhere to the adoption of new rules or procedures. Yet again we had to believe that the authors of the treaty made a huge fundamental error by not drafting a critical aspect of the agreement: namely that the commons and the lords were to be new chambers within which two sets of MP’s representing two separate states would sit, each with a veto. Apparently, according to you, that’s what was intended but then what, did everyone go into a prolonged fit of psychosis and agree and implement something completely different?

        Professor Black KC does not in any way agree with your view at all, in fact his is entirely incompatible with yours. His view is that the impact of the treaty and its subsequent implementation was that Scotland became merged into the existing state of England, rather then a new state in the formed called the U.K. He arrives at that view partially based on the fact that England’s political structures and international legal obligations continued whilst Scotlands were discontinued. That is exactly 180 degrees to what you are saying here.

      • Xaracen says:

        And which substantive point was that, exactly, CC?

      • Captain Caveman says:

        “And which substantive point was that, exactly, CC?”

        That almost no one agrees with your analysis of the situation? It’s a “fringe” opinion at best. Still, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, eh? So accordingly I ask again: what does success in a 12-month timeframe from now look like to you? What would you class as a “result”?

        You seem very confident, so no issues spelling this out?

      • Dan says:

        @Aidan

        Scotland does not have control over immigration, so we currently have no way to ensure the type of immigrant arriving here is beneficial to our society’s particular needs or not.
        So headline population numbers and you trying to spin it as a positive do not tell the whole story, because there is little benefit to increasing our population size if it is through a load of folk arriving that are a net economic drain and bring little if anything productive to the place, and often bring negatives such as a load of white flight retired crumblies from down south. Inflating property prices and out bidding the locals.
        And this is especially an issue when Scotland does not have control of all the necessary powers required to properly manage our resources and steer our economy.
        It’s self-explanatory that retired folk aren’t workers, so it just exacerbates the ageing demographic problem we already have, which puts further strain on our already failing services.

        link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com

        There would have been significant economic stimulus and benefit to the KoE over the passage oftime due to the higher population growth rate. All the investment to develop the infrastructure required to support the faster growing population created more jobs, and undoubtably that involved increased trade to supply all the materials to build with.

        Scotland’s two main port areas either side of the highly populated central belt are hamstrung due to commercial trade decisions favouring exporting from ports in England, so produce from Scotland is often transported down to England for it to be exported. This creates more jobs in England rather than Scotland.
        Current and legacy military hardware still sits in docks on the Forth and Clyde. Why the fuck those old subs are still sitting and haven’t been broken up for recycling is yet another a joke.
        How does Northern Ireland’s bespoke deal, and I’ll also add Freeports, fit in with Article VI.

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        @Dan

        The UK doesn’t have control over immigration. That means that Scotland is really no different to England.

        And no. I’m not writing about the law, or about devolved and reserved powers. I’m writing about the pictures we see on our TV screens every day. THE UK DOESN’T HAVE CONTROL OVER IMMIGRATION.

        The UK’s population size is constantly increasing due to a load of folk arriving that are a net economic drain. They’re not doctors, or professors, or renewable energy entrepreneurs. They’re low IQ, medieval outlook criminals. That means that every one of us already here is getting poorer – the pie is not getting much bigger, but more and more people are demanding a piece.

        You are right that white flight from down south is inflating Scottish property prices.

        As to whether ordinary Scots should prefer white immigrants to the alternative, I see it as a no-brainer when we discount the usual rabid haters.

        When white English incomers start murdering and raping our kids, I will of course change my mind.

        Meantime, I accept that some English will snobbishly look down on some Scots. That’s still better than being looked down on because the immigrant’s religion tells him that his God sees us all as less than human.

        Second class categorisation for us men and boys. Fourth class for our women and girls. That’s our fate once they reach critical mass.

      • Aidan says:

        @Dan – that is a fair point re immigration, that a competent independent administration could chose who to seek to attract rather than whoever chooses to come up from the south. However, there are two big caveats:

        Firstly it is obviously true that retirees moving from England pay little tax but require expensive healthcare, personal care etc. and this is a significant and growing challenge. However, the Scottish people have voted for SNP administrations that have really hiked taxes on middle earners to pay in part for freebies for retirees. What you are seeing now is the consequences of that decision, fewer middle class professionals (who disproportionately pay into the system AND generate growth and opportunities for others) but more retirees. If Scotland were to become independent, would we expect a 180 degrees about turn or would that problem get worse?

        Secondly, the long standing position of the independence movement and of Alex Salmond in particular is that Scotland will be part of the common travel area with RoI and rUK. If that’s the case, then you aren’t going to be keeping the pensioners out, or restricting the franchise.

        Re ports, Rosyth and Glasgow will always be at somewhat of a disadvantage compared to English ports as they are further away from key departure points (e.g. the USA, Shenzen etc.) so it’s going to make better commercial sense to ship goods to Felixstowe and lorry/rail them up rather than ship to Glasgow and transport any goods for England back down again. Likewise, goods that come up from the EU, it’s again much more efficient to drive up from Dover than it is to use a theoretical new ferry service up to Rosyth. There isn’t someone in Whitehall telling hauliers they have to use English ports, it’s the commercial reality of a highly competitive low margin business.

  92. Effijy says:

    I can’t believe Murrell has no money so needs legal aid.
    Reportedly he was on 6 figures for doing nothing for 20 years.
    link to facebook.com

    Reply
  93. James Cheyne says:

    As I made reference to yesterday, that does not mean there is no treaty of union, the now dissolved and obsolete old Scottish parliament members can be observed by records to have made a political treaty with England and their personal signatures attest to that,

    Under the Constitution of Scotland (they) however held no Sovereignty over the the Sovereign Scots people and their territorial realm,
    Sovereignty of the people and their community realm could not be sold by the individuals signatures whom we witness on that treaty,
    That was a personal and individual treaty that they signed.

    Again for those that presume it included all Sovereign Scots we need to look at historical records,
    After the Members of the old Scottish parliament and the members of the old English parliament along with the respective commissioners involved had agreed their terms, conditions.
    The question then arose for debate.
    Should joining the treaty of union question be put before the Scots to vote on,?
    After much discussion, they decided it would not be wise to pose that Question to the Scots, for in all probability they would probably vote NO.

    So the evidence that the Scots were/are Sovereign and separate from the political sphere and crown, is in writing and happily wrote down for the whole world to observe at present in the Westminster parliament site today,

    The Scots and their community realm were not asked to join the 1707 treaty of union with England.
    Hence the devolved government question, the Scotland Acts passed by the parliament of England, and the 2014 referendum question are all posed to fool the Sovereign Scots outside the treaty by adding alternative layers of encapsulation by the Con Merchants to the supposed Faux treaty they hold with the Scots.
    But of cause that is all guff written on old parchment that no longer applies as nowadays old treaties don’t hold water except for the bits they want to select that may be useful and binding,

    Reply
  94. James Cheyne says:

    One factual consideration comes to mind on discussion of the treaty of union. Wether Scots all agree or not,
    The Scots do not have an aversion in discussing it, and all its ramifications,
    The unionist do,
    Play it down, change the topic, we’ve gone over that topic until its done to death, or put those down that bring the subject up.
    Aways an interesting but individual mindset response from both sides

    Reply
  95. James Cheyne says:

    Xaracen,

    I agree with you that the majority of Englands MPs always overrules the minority of Scottish- English MPs votes from the English devolved governance , sent to Scotland ,
    They Shouldn’t, but they often ignore them presuming they hold superiority in and over that old Scottish parliament side of the parliamentary union.

    Reply
    • Dan says:

      Arguably, Scottish MPs shouldn’t get paid as much as English MPs as their remit and resultant workload is reduced due to many powers being devolved to and dealt with by The Scottish Government Administration of Devolved Powers.

      Reply
  96. Oneliner says:

    I am hoping that The Con Merchant will become a regular feature in these pages. There are many who could wear the mantle.

    Next up – Brian Leishman the MP for Grangemouth and former professional golfer. There’s a man who knows a good lie.

    And further down the line – Nicola Sturgeon (‘Nicholas Dungeon’ in prescriptive text). She is writing ‘Frankly’ in her new memoir. Aye, right.

    Reply
  97. Ian Smith says:

    What’s the most unbelievable story of the last couple of days – Murrell qualifies for legal aid or Swinney’s approval rating is only -17%?

    Reply
  98. Northcode says:

    I am descended of the Danaans.

    My Danaan people represented power, beauty, science, and poetry; to the common people we were gods of earth.

    Some said we Danaans came “out of heaven”

    But that misunderstanding is the result of a flawed translation derived from an ancient text. A text scribbled doun on a tablet made from an exotic material of a type unknown to modern science.

    The actual meaning is more akin to “they came from the stars”

    We sprang from four cities – you earth folk call them planets:

    – from Falias we brought the Lia Fail (Stone of Destiny),
    – from Gorias an invincible sword,
    – from Finias a magical spear,
    – and from Murias the cauldron of the Dagda.

    These objects of power aren’t magic to us Danaans, they are technologies beyond the comprehension of earth folk.

    When we first arrived here on your Earth-city we parked our vessels, our space-going craft, in what you call Ireland… but we are not Irish for we are not of this earth – we just shacked up there for a bit while we sorted out our bearings and stuff.

    And a very nice camp site Ireland was too – great country, great people, great natural facilities and plenty of clear fresh water.

    After a time some of us Danaans moved to what is now called Scotland – taking some local Irish with us – and set about merging the few peoples who lived there, the first and oldest of which were the Picts, into a single people now known as the Scots.

    We imbued the Scots with special powers and an intelligence far above the general populace of Earth-city – thus the Scots came to invent the entire modern world.

    We Danaans gave the Scots a braw new language. A few non-Scots have tried to emulate it but don’t have the mental capacity to wield it either correctly or effectively; their primitive minds not having been prepared by us to receive such a powerful language technology.

    So, there it is – the true history of the Scots.

    Reply
    • Chas says:

      Yet another nutter.

      Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      These ancient tablets are notoriously difficult to decipher, NC. Let me sort this for you:

      The actual meaning is more akin to “they came from their ars”.

      Reply
    • Confused says:

      The celtic myths are really excellent, surprising hollywood has never picked them up, though they love the nordic equivalents – thor, vikings, all that.

      The books of invasions were turned into excellent graphic novels by pat mills, creator of 2000AD comic, under the “slaine the horned god” series.

      – the main enemies in these tales are the fomorians, monstrous sea creatures from TORY Island.

      The “tribe of dan” of course feature in the bible, and there is a group of “danaans” in the illiad.

      Only the ignorant do not appreciate this; continue with your generosity to the dullard and the ingrate, NC.

      Reply
      • Hatey McHateface says:

        It’s still all ancient guff, Confused.

        Maybe today you’re in favour of the ancient guff cos it suits you. Maybe tomorrow you’ll be against the ancient guff cos it suits you.

        I’d still avoid The Bible if I were you. Far too much info in there about who can rightfully claim Judea.

      • Confused says:

        That second sentence is as clear an instance of “projection” as I have come across. The guilty see their own sins in others.

        – and never missing a chance to promote “the people who were never actually there?” and their own proprietary brand of rancidly stinking ancient guff. The ashkenazis are asiatics, converts.

        As I explained before, it’s all “ancient guff” and if this results in a law, still on the books, then you have rights under that, and no one can prevent you from using them.

        you know main, you put a lot of time in here, like every day, jumping on any post that would promote independence in any way (and you seem to love mine, you never miss a chance to have a go)

        – have you ever taken a global look at your efforts?

        It’s very poor intellectual quality, it makes you look like an angry, nasty, yoon-idiot and really, a bit fucking thick, like daily mail level, like you have never read a book that didn’t have pictures in it.

        I don’t remember any of these posts of yours, not even a half decent come-back anywhere; are you not ashamed of the poverty of this work? Even random luck would provide a better strike rate; even your old hero, Ellis, occasionally said something I agreed with, it wasn’t often, but it did happen.

        You could put some time in and do a lot better, and if you want to promote the union, you could do so from a cleaner, more respectable intellectual position. I don’t think any of your posts has ever converted anyone from their position. The dishonesty of pretending to be for indy then doing everything to bash it, just annoys folks. Make an honest case for the union, if you can – I don’t think you have a leg to stand on, but it would be up-front at least.

        If I was intending to promote the union, I COULD do it, I know what I would do, how I would present it (- it would require a certain intellectual sleight of hand, like using all of the 38 techniques); I am not going to help you in this, but a more congenial and pragmatic case can be made, if you make an effort.

        Take a time out, and try to do a bit better.

        But then if you are “paid by the post”, then quality does not matter, and if you are on 10 forums simultaneously posting shite from a “briefing notes” well … never mind the quality, feel the width.

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        Whoops! Confused is triggered.

        Paragraph 2: The ancient guff is just that – guff.

        Paragraph 3: The ancient guff gives you inalienable rights.

        Paragraph x: Seemingly I’m never off of here.

        Paragraph y: Confused doesn’t remember my posts.

        “angry, nasty, a bit fucking thick”

        “clear instance of ‘projection'”

        Erm … Nah. Yet again, further comment superfluous!

        “you have never read a book that didn’t have pictures”

        Standout statement! Just below your reference to graphic novels and the 2000AD comic.

        Look, Confused, I’m gonna be honest here. You made me laugh out loud and for that I’m grateful.

      • Northcode says:

        “The celtic myths are really excellent…”

        They are indeed, Confused. And like you I’m also surprised they haven’t been picked up by Hollywood – they might be yet tho.

        I remember reading a few of the 200AD publications a pal gave me back in the eighties. Comics (graphic novels) were never really my thing but I do recall enjoying a few of those – possibly because of the subject matter.

        “…continue with your generosity…”

        Your sentiment is greatly appreciated. I’m happy to reciprocate that same sentiment concerning your contributions to this place.

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        “I’m happy to reciprocate that same sentiment concerning your contributions to this place”

        Way back in the day, I used to believe that people posted this sort of thing as a cheeky wind up.

        I’m older and wiser now. I believe it is plausible, perhaps even likely, that NC sincerely means this!

        But that’s fine. Deranged anti-English diatribes, lies that wouldn’t take in a 12 YO and rabid antisemitism shouldn’t be censored or brushed under the carpet. They need to be shouted from the rooftops for all to hear.

        If these are genuinely the root drivers for much of what passes for the Indy movement these days, then it’s fundamentally critical that Scotland and the wider world should know what Indy is now all about.

        Then we can all make our own personal decisions about where we intend to stand.

      • Confused says:

        Still rubbish, Main.

        Still not seeing any “the positive case for the Union”. Surely you don’t lack arguments. Do you want a hint?

        Everything I say can be backed up with copious references, but no one reads these on a public forum. You want a reading list – zionism, jewish history, the reformation, the empire? Maybe some science as well.

        Films begin with storyboards; the graphic novel is essentially a storyboard, the question actually raised being the lack of filmic adaptation of the rich celtic myths. Missing the point seems to be a talent of yours.

        Again, we have projection – YOU are the “comedy act” – but it was all done before and a lot better; Craig Ferguson aka “Bing Hitler”, find his performance on youtube, the pavilion theatre in Glasgow, late 80s.

        The english “crybully” phenomenon – now that does make me laugh; the people who “conquered the globe” and the “masters of the bantz” start greetin when someone gives them some shit back at them. But has anything I have said ever been wrong e.g. house prices, the royal family, the football team. That’s it, isn’t it. Really, when you boil it down, that’s all they care about. I love how the greatest reaction comes from when I suggest something be done to the English (hypothetically) they have already done to others. Or how they mentally contort themselves to avoid unpleasant comparisons – “immigrants” and “ex pats”. They come over ‘ere, ruining the country, we go over there “keeping their economy afloat” (-it’s different because we’re English)

        What thin-skinned arseholes the anglos are – if butthurt had a calorific value they could run the country on that and wouldn’t need to steal our oil, gas, leccy.

        I was going to do a little one about how, going back to mythology, Tolkien was a ripoff merchant, but I fear the flatlanders will start crying. Boo hoo, little hobbits!

    • The Flying Iron of Doom says:

      I think that the folk who threw up all of the stone circles and symbol stones around me would refer to that as invasion and colonisation. Facts etc. eh? 🙂

      Reply
  99. Young Lochinvar says:

    Aidan at 7.05pm

    There is NO GB or UK constitution ya Edinburgh fop tw8t!!

    Just precedence and common law in England and its vassal states. So you’ll rip up all of merry old Englands common laws and (deathly hush) Magna Carta??

    No thought not.

    So your whole “thought process” boils down to “suck it up as we will decide when things matter or not to suit our perspective” is legally incompetent.

    INCOMPETENT.

    Can you tell us which university (Edinburgh no doubt) you are studying at or heaven forbid which legal firm you are doing the photocopying for as you clearly haven’t a clue what you are talking about and fop about on here as if you are some sort of Joe Beltranmi or Petrocelli!

    Total A-hole nugget..

    Reply
    • Aidan says:

      I think you need to get some help with your drinking

      Reply
      • Young Lochinvar says:

        Is that it??!?

        Well that’s a great big resounding 0 out of 10 on the witty rejoinder and well thought out surrebutter front..

        Yet another Unionist R3tard.

        Hand the baton over to the next chamber of commerce Torquil; yer done..

        F8nny..
        .

      • Aidan says:

        I think you misunderstand. I’m not engaging with whatever senseless rant you’ve posted on the internet in the wee hours of the morning. I see you like the homeless man on Buchanan street the other day shouting at people at a bus stop about how the “end is coming”.

        Your life would be better if you sought help with whatever problem is making you behave like this.

    • James says:

      Ooft. I think you nailed it there, Lochinvar. A GOTCHA.

      Reply
    • Hatey McHateface says:

      Can you tell us which university knocked back your application, YL Sah!

      My money’s on Edinburgh.

      Reply
      • Young Lochinvar says:

        P3nisbreath McP3nisbreathface:

        Nope; WRONG!

        Never applied to them, they didn’t do night school and it was too far to travel after work anyway.
        Got into Glasgow on first application, worked hard, never failed an exam or had a single resit.

        Sorry to rain on your parade you (no doubt Embra) spliff smoking glory hole frequenter in auld Reekie.

        Your boyfriend Fred Flintstone gave up guessing trying to pigeonhole me, is that what you are up to now?

        Only one way to put this;
        F8nny..

        Eff aff..
        .

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        @ YL Sah! says: 4 July, 2025 at 4:39 am

        “glory hole frequenter”

        “boyfriend”

        “trying to pigeonhole me”

        You pigeonhole yourself. Every post hoaching with reminders of your constant fantasising about some bloke sticking his dick between some other bloke’s arse cheeks.

        Other people would have written “trying to categorise me”, but you can’t pass up a chance to write “hole”.

        Every insult from you is some tired variant of the “shirtlifter” type. You’re a monomaniac.

        “Hand the baton over”

        See?

        “Only one way to put this”

        I think we’ve already worked that out, YL Sah!

      • Captain Caveman says:

        Heh! First off we’re expected to believe “Confused” went to university – now it transpires Rambo also donned the robes and mortarboard in between stalking the jungle in fatigues 😀

        All we need now is Fatso to claim he’s a Cambridge Don and we’ve the full set!

        Priceless…. You boys make me laugh!

      • Young Lochinvar says:

        In reply to P3nisbreath McP3nisbreathface @ 7.30am.

        Bzzzz- wrong!
        Do not pass go, do not collect £200.

        I was going to say “what an active imagination you have grandmother” but reckon you’re in denial, and in some freaky back to front/ upside down/ inside out way you hide yourself and your perverse pedilicos by accusing others of YOUR lived experiences and problems!
        Like some sort of weird after the event vicarious living for weird kicks.

        Come on McP, make Stonewall proud and come out, no-one here is going to be the least bit surprised..
        .

        As for yer latest besties the Embra photocopy-machine fop and site btl R3tard Fred Flintstone off his t1ts overdosing estrogen supplements; not very good at reasoned argument are either of you, seh?
        Someone challenges your total mince and yer off like a whippet out of a trap biting at 600 bpm! ?

        Losers and Unionists both, not a pretty sight.

        Last I heard the r3tard had lost the argument and the fop was off crying to mater..

        Bad faith actors/ phishers all 3 of you saddos..
        .

        Anyway, be quiet! Grown ups are trying to discuss matters here and don’t need your attention seeking trolling.

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        He’s back!

        He’s sober?

        He’s fretting about shirt lifters!

        He’s taken near 12 hours to put that effort together 🙂

        And he aspires to be Rev Stu. Get yer own site then, YL Sah!

      • Young Lochinvar says:

        Is that it Penisbreath?
        Hmmm..
        Bit short and off the cuff there, catch you busy at the Gloryhole did the post?
        Aw bless, suppose it’s Friday evening after all..

        Anyway, why don’t you 3 muppets start up a firm, Flintstone claims he/ she is a captain of industry after all.

        You could call it Rejoinders R Us.

        Put all your savings in it..

        See how it goes, should be a laugh; the unfunny 3 anti-Scottish & Unionism-dependency Stooges..

        Seeing as you muppets are absolutely focused on timescales then I’ll keep a watch out for your riveting response!

        Then again maybe not..
        .

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        Ah, YL Sah! You do us all a power of good.

        Friday night, middle of summer to boot, lots of Scots already away on their holidays, and there’s you with nowt more going on in your life than the dropping of “Shirtlifter!” posts on Wings BTL.

        For all of us, be we ever so crushed by the vicissitudes of life, we can always look at you and thank the Guid Gowd we’re still doing better in comparison. In fact, measured against the state of you, we’re positively thriving.

        Thanks again, YL Sah!

      • Young Lochinvar says:

        Is that right P3nisbreath?

        Well there ye go.

        Do a post count on any given day and I think you’ll find your Grok inspired trash talk post count far far far outnumber my posts.

        Don’t use your fingers to count yer posts (y’all Oi vey) as you’ll get the numbers wrong seeing as you are there holding your c0ck..

        More reality denial from you; in fact, why am I wasting time talking to a “shirtlifter” (your phrase) AI malware bot..

        Cheery bye, like the Gods of old you’ll disappear once people desist from engaging with you.

  100. James Cheyne says:

    English principle of sovereignty of parliament.

    There is nothing in Statue,Law that defines parliamentary Sovereignty.

    There is no legislation that that the UK parliament can do as it pleases, or see’s fit to co.

    The entire concept of Westminsters parliamentary Sovereignty is based mainly on one man veiw ,
    Dicey.
    There was never any suggestion that the treaty of union simply allowed a takeover of one parliament ( Scotland) by another ( England) and the treaty is silent on that matter,
    the tendency has been to assume that Englandsprinciples simply transformed into the new created State parliament of Great Britain,
    The entire concept derives from the victorian era and with no written constitution they are nothing but conventions,

    The English principle of parliamentary sovereignty being retained from the old parliament of England implies that the Great Britain parliament has continued as the parliament of England of the new state that created great britain.

    As Scotland, Ireland and Wales become restless in these unpredictable times.
    The Westminster parliament and associated think tanks are attempting to secure and shore up any loop holes undera new treaty.
    Acting once again under the English version of sole parliamentary sovereignty over the other three nations.

    Reply
  101. James Cheyne says:

    He also states there is no such identity as the UK,

    Reply
  102. James Cheyne says:

    Commentry is once again being delayed.

    Reply
  103. James Cheyne says:

    A slight change in conversation.
    It is interesting to note that ulster Scots are recognised as a minority. For funding.

    Does that recognition require that the remaining Scots , now lessened and separated and divided in numbers have also just become a Smaller amount of other Scots, creating a group that are a minority.
    Maths was never a strong point, so I usually apply logic to these divisions.

    Reply
  104. Confused says:

    this is why I miss, such a lot : RED GEM WOMAN – coz she could sit here all afternoon and dish it out and take out the trash and be on it …

    whereas I am in and out, coffee time mainly

    kenny rogers sings – OH R______ BEEEE … don’t take your love to town …

    last time we spoke she called me a SEXIST FUCKING PIG and accused me of DARK SARCASM

    (tear in the eye) … what a tough broad. And she was on my side.

    xaracen seems to want to handle the repetitive whack a mole treaty shit kickery that “Auld Bob Peffers” would attack with such aplomb, but no one has seem him for years and I suspect he is dead. RIP you mad old bastard.

    I think Auld Bob had even more grasp of, really obscure, little details, than X-man, he was even on “newsgroups” around the start of the internet, arguing the same shit. That is how far back he went.

    Reply
  105. Hatey McHateface says:

    Lead story this morning on the Guardian Online is about the formation of Jezza Corbyn’s new party, the Independent Alliance.

    The WM MPs in it are named: Shockat Adam, Ayoub Khan, Adnan Hussain, Iqbal Mohamed and Zarah Sultana. As a wag I used to work with would say, all local lads and lasses.

    Oh, and there’s also Perry Barr. The token white? You decide.

    As the late and unlamented Rolf used to say, can you tell what it is yet?

    I’m thinking that with this evidence that in England, the next phase of the establishment of the caliphate is feeling confident enough to break cover and move into clear view, Indy support in Scotland should start to take off.

    Are we really going to sit about, greetin and gurnin into our drams, endlessly points scoring about the ancient guff, and hoaching with resentment over the historical depredations of the redcoats, while the Islamists take over?

    I would really like to think that we won’t. But then again, Jezza says its about “peace rather than war” and to the sad Scots chanting “bairns not bombs” that might be enough to get them voting for their own great replacement.

    Reply
    • Captain Caveman says:

      I think any notion that Magic Grandpa’s new party is going to be anything other than a total irrelevance that we can laugh and point at for a year or two is misguided, Hatey, as is any notion that the UK electorate somehow craves for a bunch of crackpot lefties anywhere near government, when all the polling here (as elsewhere) points to the rise of the Right.

      Still. It does allow me to say “Sultana’s currant party is Labour”, so there is that, my old fruit. 🙂

      Reply
      • Hatey McHateface says:

        I wish I shared your optimism, CC.

        It’s gonna be 4 long years before the rise of the Right lets them get anywhere near being able to make a difference.

        Meantime, the boatloads of crims, benefits spongers and jihadists will keep coming.

        And every year, regular as clockwork, the “official” figures for annual net migration will be issued, to the usual chorus of “Whoops, three quarters of a mill again, now how did that happen, next year really will be different, promise”.

        Every one of that yearly three quarters of a mill, plus a hefty chunk of the rubber dinghy boys too, is given a wodge of our cash and a vote by which they can get themselves more of our cash.

        It’s not long until the tipping point. 4 years may be too long to wait.

    • Alf Baird says:

      Cultural Imperialism and its tools of ‘colonial procedures’ has aye been our bane for the last twa thoosan year, Hatey. Whit wi thon Romans, than the Gaels, the Norsemen, an Angles, us Picts noo dinna ken wha we are at aw. We dinna e’en ken we’re Picts!

      An mair recently we hiv haed thay Gender/Woke cultural imperial ideologues, vicious tae the core thaim fowk. An noo as ye say, anither furrin cultur tae contend wi, ane wi a reason tae dislike the Brits juist as much if no mair than us Picts tae.

      Aw whit we dae ken for shuir is that fascism aye sits at the root o colonialism an is nivver far awa sae lang as ye are ruled ower by anither fowk an cultur, as we hiv been for the lest chree hunner year an mair!

      Reply
      • Hatey McHateface says:

        Some good points there, Alf.

        It has to be pointed out though, that for the first 1900 years of the 2000 years you mention, nobody had ever heard of fascism.

        So it’s hard to believe that fascism is “aye at the root o colonialism”.

        I believe myself that colonialism doesn’t have to be made more complicated than it really is – the coveting of one group’s stuff by another group.

        I also believe there are always multiple colonialisms in play at one time – and some are better, or at least easier to thole, than others.

        Not having a rabid hatred towards the English, my take on the colonialism threatening Scotland differs from that of the usual suspects.

        And then there’s the factual evidence. We have never had an English First Minister of Scotland and I don’t think we will have one in our lifetimes.

        So which colonising strand really presents the biggest threat?

      • Captain Caveman says:

        “2000 years of fascism”

        Quite apart from your trademark childish gibberish as a means of expression, this assertion (if we can call it that) is pathetic even by your intellectual barrel-scraping standards, Baird. Both my grandparents fought ACTUAL fascism in WW2 and they paid a heavy price (including loss of life in tragic circumstances). So for one thing, I find your petty grievance-driven, childish polemic particularly offensive. To be clear: you wouldn’t know “fascism” if it slapped you in the face with a wet flatfish.

      • Northcode says:

        It’s getting easier and easier for me to understand Scots without having to look up every word or mentally and deliberately process those expressions and figures of speech and such that are unique to Scots.

        It’s proof that the Scots leid was never entirely lost to me and was always there lurking just below the surface of my conscious awareness – as I suspect it is for many other Scots tae.

      • Northcode says:

        Fasci “groups of men organized for political purposes” has been a feature of Sicily since around 1895.

        The totalitarian sense probably came directly from this but was influenced by the historical Roman fasces.

        Nae dout ther wir pleenty o’ facists kickin aboot in thon Roman times, tho.

      • Northcode says:

        There isn’t a single comment scribbled doun by anglo-quills and deposited here that is anything more than some form of abuse directed at the Scots – not one.

      • Captain Caveman says:

        One of the many issues of you and your ilk, Northcode, is that you actively seek (nay, crave) grievance. Unsurprisingly, therefore, you will see it pretty much regardless of whether it is actually there, or not.

        This permanent victimhood must be so exhausting. Go out and have a walk in the fresh air if you’ve nowt else to do. It’s a lovely day.

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        “abuse directed at the Scots”

        Sorry to have to put you right, NC, but we Scots delight in puncturing pompous, bloviating blethers.

        The fact you believe wrapping yourself in the saltire should protect you is simply a misunderstanding on your part – a misunderstanding that suggests to me you know a lot less about us Scots than you profess.

        We Scots, whether or not we support Indy, are not going to be forced into speaking, reading and writing what to the majority of us is a foreign language.

        We are not going to be encouraged into it either by somebody like yourself who employs the King’s English every time he has something important to convey. If you reckon Scots is so great as an everyday means of communication, then you have a wonderful platform on here to “walk the walk”. So why don’t you?

        As for “abuse”, I’ve told the cat in the corner and he’s having a laugh. Get a grip, man.

      • Northcode says:

        “We Scots, whether or not we support Indy, are not going to be forced into speaking, reading and writing what to the majority of us is a foreign language.”

        The Scots language was at one time – not that long ago – banned by the English and the Scots forced to speak a foreign language cawd… whit wis it agin? Oh aye. English.

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        “The Scots language was at one time – not that long ago – banned by the English and the Scots forced to speak a foreign language”

        Bending the truth so far out of shape that it snaps.

        Speaking in Scots was banned in schools, up to the point where kids were tawsed. Nobody was ever so daft as to try to force the people of Scotland as a whole to stop using Scots.

        As for the people banning it in Scottish schools being English – get a grip. They were as Scottish as any Sovereign Scot who ever lived.

        But sure, NC. Eternally greet and gurn about the historical events nobody can do anything about, while ignoring the elephants crowding the room. You can’t turn the clock back. Thrawn Scots won’t be browbeaten into using a language they neither know nor want nor need. And for discussing contemporary issues, Scots is as much use as Chaucer’s English would be to a cockney.

        Which is why, of course, you will be continuing to post on here mostly in the King’s English.

        Now am I right? Or am I right?

      • Northcode says:

        “As for the people banning it in Scottish schools being English – get a grip. They were as Scottish as any Sovereign Scot who ever lived.”

        Some fowk should read my comment again – perhaps taking greater care the next time.

        I didn’t say the people banning English in Scottish schools were English. In fact I didn’t mention schools at all.

        But now that schools have been mentioned I can report that the teachers in my primary school who belted me for using Scots were every one of them Scots themselves – that’s colonialism for you; it twists the minds of the colonised out of shape along with the truth and turns them into stunted caricatures of their beloved master.

        Perhaps the English language reading skills of some fowk aren’t as strong as they might think they are. Or perhaps those fowk can read English perfectly well and it isn’t me who’s twisting the truth.

        Which of those two options could it be, I wonder.

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        And now, NC, you’re just having a laugh.

        The only places speaking in Scots was ever banned was in schools. Those are the facts.

        Ergo, when you claimed speaking Scots was “banned by the English”, I extended you the courtesy of assuming you must be writing about schools.

        Specifically, English teachers and/or administrators in schools.

        I can read English perfectly well. Some people should avoid writing it though. As I’ve pointed out before, NC, if you post in Scots you won’t find yourself tied up in knots.

        And nobody will twig how you avoided dealing in any way with the substantive parts of my previous post.

      • Northcode says:

        “This permanent victimhood must be so exhausting”

        I am looking out of my study window here in my NoHo penthouse apartment in thoughtful contemplation of your recent comment in which you address me directly.

        First of all your concern for my well-being is appreciated and your comment deserves a serious response.

        Of course, three centuries of oppression has left its mark upon me as it would any ordinary but extremely capable and intelligent man.

        And it is unsurprising that my sense of victimhood was bound to grow keener with each new incarnation.

        Awakening life after life after life to discover the English are still hingin aboot Scotland stealin aw Scotland’s stuff is demoralising to say the least.

        But I am an emotionally strong – yet still manly in that vulnerable sort of lost boy way appreciated by the ladies – Scot and consequently made of robust stuff; succumbing only rarely to the tiniest of tears when I’m sure no-one is looking. Although on occasion I am almost caught out

        “What’s the matter, Northcode?” a friend asks.

        “Oh, nothing.“I reply. “An eyelash, nothing more.”

        And on I doggedly press until it is time for the next incarnation always hoping hoping hoping… hoping that this time I’ll awaken to an independent Scotland. A Scotland freed of the harsh and brutal shackles of colonialism.

        But I must set down my quill for now.

        My housekeeper has arrived with luncheon – for it is that time here – and I must away before the tea becomes too tepid and my Miso Mushroom Dragon Rolls slip below 20 degrees Celsius and are made inedible.

        I thank you once more for your kindness. May the remains of your day pass in the pleasant hazy mistiness of blissful uncritical thought.

      • Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh says:

        Alf, identifying the language you champion with Pictish is semantic porridge stirred backwards and spiked with hallucinogenics. The truth is, hugely ironically, that you are an obsessive promoter of an Anglo-Germanic language which began with a Northumbrian invasion of what was hitherto a Celtic-speaking country.

        I have to no avail posted screeds of academic material to clarify your error, but you simply ignore it and reassert your fiction that Teutonic Scots is the indigenous offspring of Celtic Pictish, and moreover that Pictish-related Gaelic is somehow a mortal enemy. And I would alert readers again to your habitual legerdemain of drawing linguistic conclusions from non-linguistic premises.

        Though you will no doubt be impervious to the following quote also, I will provide it for the sake of the broader readership. It highlights again Northumbria’s takeover of the Lowlands. Your Scots language descends directly from the colonising Northumbrians and not at all from the P-Celtic Picts who were overthrown by them:

        « The key to the conflict between the Picts and the Northumbrians, which reached its climax at the battle of Dunnichen, lay in the disappearance of Gododdin; this was the name of the territory, and also of the people who occupied it, which lay in the area of what was to become the Lothians, though probably extending west and south of the boundaries of the modern counties.

        « The Gododdin suffered a major catastrophe around the year 600 when its heroic warband marched out of Din Eidyn (Edinburgh) and into Northumbrian territory, only to be almost totally annihilated at Catraeth (Catterick).

        « The story is told in the epic heroic poem Y Gododdin by Aneirin, who was said to be the sole survivor of the campaign. With Gododdin on the wane, the question was which of its neighbours would move in and annex the territory.

        « The cousins of the Gododdin, the Britons of Strathclyde, were pinned back by the remorseless Northumbrian advance in the west.

        « Alarmed by this, the Scots of Dal Riata marched to repel them, but were decisively defeated at the battle of Degastan in 603.

        « This left the Northumbrians as the obvious power to take over the Gododdin territory, and during the next few decades they pursued their objective of capturing its key strongholds, which climaxed in the siege and fall of Din Eidyn in 638. Its north-western extension of Manau may have held out a little longer, but was under Northumbrian control by the middle of the century.»

        (Graeme D.R. Cruickshank, ‘The Battle of Dunnichen and the Aberlemno Battle-Scene’, being a chapter in the book ‘ALBA: CELTIC SCOTLAND AND THE MEDIEVAL ERA’, Edited by E.J. Cowan & R. Andrew McDonald, Birlinn, 2012)

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        For you to be repeatedly re-incarnated as the same brutalised, shackled victim, over and over for 300 years, you must be some serious piece of weapons-grade shit in every life, NC.

        But there’s good news. It’s not too late for you to break the cycle in this incarnation.

        Strive to become the better man while you still have time.

        Oh, and get yourself a food taster. If you are stuck where you are claiming on the endless cycle of existence, you must have accumulated many enemies with your vile and evil behaviour.

        Trust no one.

      • Captain Caveman says:

        My word, Northcode, you’ve suffered *three centuries* of oppression…? Crikey, keep quaffing the (still warm) Miso Mushroom Dragon Rolls says I – they’re clearly working wonders for your unheard of longevity.

        As for “blissful uncritical thought”, well, I’m afraid it’s the only way to remain sane whilst reading some of the BTL comments (and their sentiment). Sometimes very selective ignorance and the accompanying tin ear really is bliss.

        Though I feel your acerbic wit may have fallen slightly wide of the mark, it did make me laugh. 🙂 So thanks for that on a soggy Friday evening, albeit the pub now awaits. (Very proletarian of me no doubt, but the clue’s in the moniker).

      • Alf Baird says:

        “So which colonising strand really presents the biggest threat?”

        Important question, Hatey.

        Our friends Memmi, Fanon and Cesaire appear unanimous that the worst kind of colonizer is actually the assimilated native, i.e. what we have come to know as a ‘Unionist’.

        There are of course a great many examples but politicians such as Rifkind, Lang, Forsyth, Reid, Liddell, Darling, Dewar, Alexander, Murphy, Moore, Carmichael, Murray etc come to mind, although there were many before them, not least Dundas.

        Swinney simply continues the theme under a different guise – he has proved he is no nationalist, therefore, given our reality, he can only be a ‘Unionist’.

        It therefore matters little that such ‘Scots’ become ‘Scottish’ secretaries or First Ministers, for they are all tasked with maintaining the colonial racket, which is precisely what they have done and still do. In any event Whitehall’s finest are aye sent north in significant numbers to manage colonial affairs here.

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        “So which colonising strand really presents the biggest threat?”

        It’s not rocket science, Alf.

        The one with the explosive vests and the knives. The one blowing up and hacking to pieces our youngsters. The one that sees our women folk and girls as less than human.

        “Our friends Memmi, Fanon and Cesaire appear unanimous that the worst kind of colonizer is actually the assimilated native”

        No doubt. But then they lived in a time when an Islamist was a colourful character who wore a fez and liked raunchy (by the western standards of the day) poetry.

        Those days are gone.

      • Alf Baird says:

        Fearghas, you have read a good bit but you cannot easily change the archaeological record, and neither can the heavily state-funded Gaelic lobby and successive colonial administrations despite their best efforts.

        After the takeover by Dalriada Scots creating a ‘Scotland’ out of Pictavia the Picts may have succumbed to Gaelic (and Norse) domination for a period; however, it wisna verra lang til the ‘Scots’ language came to the fore and was being spoken in maist Pictish areas, where it remains the “Lingua Scotorum” to this day, despite the efforts still of all UK governments including the Swinney/Forbes colonial ‘Department’ to obliterate it.

        Forby, aiblins the heid pint ye canna denee is that today it is primarily the Scots language whit aye gies maist o oor fowk thair naitional identity, nae Gaelic, and that is why our colonial administrators continue to marginalise the Scots language.

      • Andy Ellis says:

        @Alf

        I see you’re still clinging to your frankly rather odd analysis of a continuity between Pictish and Scots. Needless to say this a view so outré that it begs the question of how anyone can take any of your analysis on other issues – including post colonial theory and it’s applicability to Scotland – remotely seriously?

        No serious academic authorities support your views about Pictish. As Feaghas and others have tried to point out to you, it is Scots (a member of the West Germanic language group brought to Scotland by Anglo Saxon incomers) which represents a colonial imposition on the P-Celtic / brythonic inhabitants of the Pictish lands and the the Cumbric lands south of the Forth and Clyde.

        Similarly, there is no archeological evidence supporting your views: if there was, we’d know about it and you’d be able to cite it.

        Scots is historically just as much of a colonial imposition on brythonic “Pictavia” as you call it as Gaelic is an imposition on what became Dal Riata, or Norse languages were in the Northers and Western Isles and Caithness and Sutherland.

        If you were truly that keen to promote “indigenous” language and culture of the Picts, you’d be trying (with very scant evidence and back up to help you given the dearth of any Pictish writing) to resurrect the brythonic based Pictish language. I suppose it might be done: after all they “reconstructed” modern Hebrew, altho’ they had more to go on than you would for Pictish.

        I’d say the prospect of resurrecting Pictish are about as likely to be successful as your quixotic attempt to have the majority of Scots who speak standard English to convert to using broad Scots. Good luck with that!

      • Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh says:

        Okay Alf. Là math dhut. Have a good day.

        Not Catholic myself but Dunbar’s poetry in these excerpts is highly enjoyable – begins to sound like crunluath variations in ceòl mòr. (Spellcheck fought me all the way):

        ANE BALLAT OF OUR LADY
        by William Dunbar (c.1420-c.1513)

        Hale, sterne superne ! Hale, in eterne,
        In Godis sicht to schyne !
        Lucerne in derne for to discerne
        Be glory and grace devyne.
        Hodiern, modern, sempitern,
        Angelicall regyne!

        Our tern inferne for to dispern,
        Helpe, rialest rosyne.
        Haile fresche floure femynyne !
        Yerne us, guberne, virgin matern,
        Of reuth baith rute and ryne.

        Haile, bricht be sicht in hevyn on hicht !
        Haile, day sterne orientale !
        Our licht most richt, in clud of nycht,
        Our dirknes for to scale :
        Hale, wicht in ficht, puttar to flicht
        Of fendis in battale !

        Haile, plicht but sicht !
        Hale, mekle of mycht !
        Haile, glorius Virgin, haile !
        Haile, gentill nychttingale !
        Way stricht, cler dicht, to wilsome wicht,
        That irke bene in travale.

        Etc

      • Alf Baird says:

        “Scots is historically just as much of a colonial imposition on brythonic “Pictavia” as you call it as Gaelic is an imposition on what became Dal Riata, or Norse languages were in the Northers and Western Isles and Caithness and Sutherland.”

        Linguistic imperialism tends to come about with regime change so is a question of power and domination. Hence we see the ongoing demise of Scots and the domination of English after the faux Unions of 1603 and 1707.

        There is evidence of a formative Scots language at the time of the Dalriada Scots takeover of Pictavia, and the domination for a period thereafter of Gaelic. However the developing Scots language returned fairly rapidly as the language of court and parliament in Scotland, albeit not through conquest but rather as mostly a natural phenomenon yet also inevitably linked to cultural interaction, travel and trade influences, particularly with the continent, as Billy Kay well describes in ‘The Scots Mither Tongue’.

        The key factor here is that the Scots language, whilst influenced by other languages, as all languages are, was developed in Scotland by Scots and yes also by Picts who became Scots as the country was so renamed from Pictavia, whereas other languages introduced into Scotland were imposed by conquering powers.

        The state-funded Gaelic language lobby maintain that Gaelic is Scotland’s only indigenous language. This is a falsehood and discriminates against the Scots language and Scots speaking majority. It represents another form of linguistic imperialism, as does the longstanding domination of English language teaching in Scottish schools.

        As Albert Memmi wrote: “the colonialist is always unsure of his identity”, but tries his best to make the native assimilate, and the main method of assimilation is through the oppressor’s language. This explains why ‘a peoples’ language is always a key determinant of independence:

        link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        “a falsehood and discriminates against the Scots language and Scots speaking majority”

        I’ve already corrected you on this, Alf, yet here you go cutting and pasting it again.

        The majority of Scots ARE NOT proficient in Scots.

        You are the one pushing a falsehood.

      • Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh says:

        « There is evidence of a formative Scots language at the time of the Dalriada Scots takeover of Pictavia, and the domination for a period thereafter of Gaelic. However the developing Scots language returned fairly rapidly as the language of court and parliament in Scotland, albeit not through conquest but rather as mostly a natural phenomenon yet also inevitably linked to cultural interaction, travel and trade influences, particularly with the continent, as Billy Kay well describes in ‘The Scots Mither Tongue’. »
        __________
        Alf, your ambiguous use of the term “Scots” makes that (third) paragraph too unclear to reply to. Please quote some of the evidence to which you refer.

      • James says:

        Come on now, everyone. The Franchise Fanny has spoken.

        End of debate.

        As you were.

      • Andy Ellis says:

        @Alf 11.10am

        There is evidence of a formative Scots language at the time of the Dalriada Scots takeover of Pictavia, and the domination for a period thereafter of Gaelic.

        The language of the Anglo-Saxons you’re referring to at that time who conquered SE Scotland wasn’t Scots at that point though Alf: that’s an anachronism. The language they spoke existed in a language continuum with the anglo-saxon spoken in Northumbria. It diverged over later centuries. At the time the Gaels were establishing Dal Riata and imposing Gaelic, the anglo-saxons were imposing their language on the Brythonic/Cumbric speaking peoples of what is now the Scottish lowlands.

        There is no difference al all between the two in the respect of being colonial entrants imposed on the indigenous P-Celtic speakers, whether Picts or Goddodin.

        However the developing Scots language returned fairly rapidly as the language of court and parliament in Scotland, albeit not through conquest but rather as mostly a natural phenomenon yet also inevitably linked to cultural interaction, travel and trade influences, particularly with the continent, as Billy Kay well describes in ‘The Scots Mither Tongue’.

        Anglo-Saxon based Scots….otherwise known an Inglis at the time….later supplanted Gaelic just as it had supplanted Pictish and brythonic/Cumbric, and just as Gaelic supplanted Pictish and later Norse in the isles. Your affectation that Scots is therefore unique as the only language indigenous to Scotland is erroneous.

        The key factor here is that the Scots language, whilst influenced by other languages, as all languages are, was developed in Scotland by Scots and yes also by Picts who became Scots as the country was so renamed from Pictavia, whereas other languages introduced into Scotland were imposed by conquering powers.

        Nope. The Scots speakers were a conquering power, because they were not native to what later became Scotland, they were Anglo-Saxon conquerors just like those in what later became England. What we now call Scots was indeed developed in Scotland by the multi-ethnic inhabitants of the areas of Scotland they settled and conquered, but exactly the same could be said of Scots Gaelic in comparison with Irish.

        The state-funded Gaelic language lobby maintain that Gaelic is Scotland’s only indigenous language. This is a falsehood and discriminates against the Scots language and Scots speaking majority. It represents another form of linguistic imperialism, as does the longstanding domination of English language teaching in Scottish schools.

        Some in the Gaelic lobby might, though I wouldn’t take the word of someone with you who has an obvious axe to grind and appears to have a limited and very skewed understanding of the linguistic history of Scotland and the British Isles.

        Scots and Gaelic are both indigenous languages, as indeed is English. Given the fissiparious nature of Scots dialects, you’d be hard pressed to determine which of the many Scots dialects was the standard, and possibly it doesn’t matter any more than it matters which dialect of German, French or Italian is the standard.

        Few would deny that Danish, Swedish and Norwegian are separate languages, but they’re mutually comprehensible for most Scandinavians, most of the time. Doubtless when we achieve independence folk who want to promote Scots language teaching, broadcasting and literature can ensure that more folk will use and understand the language: indeed there’s nothing stopping them doing so now.

        The Irish government spent decades promoting the Irish language with only limited success, but who knows…maybe one day most or all Scots will be able to switch effortlessly between Scots and standard English. It’s instructive however that few currently seem to bother. I probably hear more Polish, Urdu or Spanish being spoken around Edinburgh than I do Scots, and I doubt it’s because there are more native speakers of them than of Scots.

      • Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh says:

        @ Andy Ellis 3.18
        « The Irish government spent decades promoting the Irish language with only limited success »

        For the record, the European Union is doing far more for Irish than has the cynical foot-dragging tokenism of successive broken-promise Irish governments, civil service, post office, education authorities etc which are clearly all intent on strangling it. The Irish Post Office for instance discriminate against the use of Irish surnames and addresses, claiming that their computer system can’t handle characters with accents…

      • Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh says:

        Further to my previous comment, I have often thought that nothing unites the establishments of North and South Ireland more than their shared abhorrence of the Irish language.

        Which also brings to mind another intriguing question: “What is the colonial status of ‘Ullans’, ie the Ulster Scots language?”

      • Alf Baird says:

        Andy, depriving ‘a people’ of their language (and resources, history, culture etc) is a violation of human rights. It is also a key aspect of colonial oppression. This is the reality facing Scots language speakers.

        Fearghas, you desire evidence of the origins of the Scots language – I gave you the Kay reference, which is full of such evidence with links to more.

      • Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh says:

        Alf, I would have hoped you would be more specific. Meanwhile, I found the following extract from Billy Kay’s book to be spectacularly at variance with the Pictish-origin view you incessantly promote online:

        « The language of the Angles, Inglis, brought north from Northumbria into Berwickshire in the seventh century, remained the language of a minority in Scotland; but even when the power of Gaelic was at its height and it was absorbing other linguistic groups, the people of this south-east corner continued speaking Inglis. The area where Inglis was spoken did expand a little in the following centuries, spreading out into East Lothian, along the Solway and to an enclave in Kyle in Ayrshire.

        « Part of the great northern dialect area of Old English, the Inglis of the settlers was a Germanic language brought to Britain during the folk migrations from northern Germany by Anglo-Saxon tribes around the fifth century AD. The earliest example of their language in Scotland is to be found in the beautifully wrought runic inscriptions on the cross in the kirk at Ruthwell in Dumfriesshire. They depict passages from a poem called ‘The Dream of the Rood’, written in the Old English of the seventh century:

        « If the language of ‘The Dream of the Rood’ appears distant to modern Scots, it is even further removed from Standard English. Many of the distinctive sounds which characterise Scots and English speech today go back to differences in the dialects of Old English in the sixth century. They may be even older still, as the dialect differences may have arisen before the various tribes left the Continent for Britain. The major dialects of Old English – Kentish, West Saxon, Mercian and Northumbrian – probably reflect the pattern of settlement by Angle, Saxon and Jute, and their respective dialects, in different parts of Britain.

        « Scots is descended from Northumbrian, while Standard English emerged from the East Midland dialect of Mercia. Although markedly different, the Old English dialects did share a common store of vocabulary. Due to the different linguistic developments in the separate states of Scotland and England, however, the language of England lost many old words which are retained in Scots. Examples of these include dicht (to wipe), sweir (reluctant), blate (diffident), reik (smoke) and greet (to weep). Characteristic Scots sounds, too, such as coo and hoose for cow and house, or richt and nicht for right and night, were common to all the Old English dialects but disappeared from Standard English due to sound shifts which occurred in Southern and Midland dialects. If antiquity was any justification for a language’s survival, a special case could certainly be made for Scots against Standard English, as guardian of an older form of English.

        « This Northumbrian Inglis held on to its heartlands in the South-east, while Gaelic made spectacular gains elsewhere in the kingdom until its expansion was arrested at the end of the eleventh century. It was as if Inglis was biding its time until the political moment was right for its star to rise at the expense of Gaelic. The Gaelic kings of Scotland had already turned their back on their western homelands as Scone, not Iona, became their country’s spiritual centre. Their choice of capitals – Dunfermline, Stirling and Edinburgh – confirms that the political and cultural balance of the country was moving from the west and north to the south and east; in other words, from Gaeldom to the Inglis Lothians. There the Scottish court was wide open to influences from the south, and political turmoil in England at the end of the eleventh century was to have far-reaching effects on Scotland’s subsequent linguistic history. Here we can pinpoint the exact moment when Gaelic began its decline as the language of status in Scotland, to be superseded over the following centuries by the Germanic language called variously Inglis, Scots or English. »

        (‘SCOTS: The Mither Tongue’ by Billy Kay, Mainstream Publishing Company, Edinburgh, 1986, 2006, Pp 48-53)

      • Andy Ellis says:

        @Alf 6.26 pm

        Your analysis of the language issue is – as the comments from many people more knowledgeable and less ideologically blinkered by post colonial theory dogma than you demonstrate – decidedly flawed. In particular your weird insistence that Scots enjoys a status different from Gaelic because the former is “indigenous” while the latter was imposed is ahistorical nonsense.

        Both languages are in effect colonial overlays on the original P-Celtic speaking inhabitants. Time for you to accept things as they were, not how you wish they had been to suit your post colonial theory blinkers.

  106. Southernbystander says:

    I read Alf’s last post and it was nearly all easily understandable to an English speaker who has lived in England all his life and has zero knowledge of Scots beyond ‘aye’. Clearly therefore English and Scots are very similar which is not surprising when you look at the history of the development of Scots and the close roots is shares with English. The spoken version is somewhat harder to understand.

    I am all for the inclusion and diversity of languages so long may Scots do its thing. It is no unfamiliar as a sound to me anyway as the Yorkshire dialect I sometimes hear around here bears some similarity, which given some shared Old Northumbrian roots, is not surprising: ‘Experience is a dear schooil, but fooils will leearn i noa other’.

    Reply
    • Young Lochinvar says:

      Mary Queen of Scots was brought up speaking Scots and in France that language became her second language.
      During her illegal imprisonment in England the English didn’t understand her as they didn’t speak Scots, so used French.

      So much for Braveheart being the only historical film taking liberties for dramatisational effect.
      So much for all the Tudor programme p1sh not least Elizabeth Tudor hagiographies we are inundated with given the reality is they never met face to face, Elizabeth chickening out.

      Historical FACT, feel free to check..

      Reply
  107. Young Lochinvar says:

    Reply to P3nisbreath McP3nisbreathface @9.58.

    Wearing a fez..

    Who exactly??
    Tommy Cooper?

    If not, well, you sure have a serious embedded racism problem..

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but did WASPs like you not openly refer to such kowtowing natives back in the day as “White Oriental Gentlemen” (WOGs)? Or some such.

    What is it with you, was Pater a colonial governor with coloureds hired to wipe young master McP3nisbreaths arse every time he took a stop and squat?

    Where was it? Clearly somewhere hot. Failing immaculate conception how did they end up with a Damien like you?!
    Pater have a chug in the loo over the floor then let the flies do the rest with Mater spread out on the bed p1ssed?

    Sounds about right.

    Wouldn’t surprise me you perfidious troglodyte, you buzz about here like an insect irritant needing squashed.

    Reply
  108. Young Lochinvar says:

    Captain Caveman @11.56

    Well well well Fred “Estrogen” Flintstone..

    You had ancestors in the forces in WW2!

    Clearly their honourable sense of service and sacrifice never extended to you, you obnoxious middle class wannabe moron that would faint at the thought of active service, but, likes to take what they think is the p1ss out of those who have actually served their country when it didn’t involve conscription or national service.

    NEWSFLASH!
    Most of us have forebears that fought and died in the 2 world wars, it’s not actually that unique but nonetheless worthy of respect.

    Something your weak p1sh warm English beer addled brain seems unwilling to reciprocate to volunteers as opposed to the drafted..

    Middle class thing I suppose, war is for the toffs and the lower orders while you lot eff each other over for a percentage of war spending or related profiteering.

    People like you make me sick, an insipid demanding needy and above all greedy generation lacking fully the sense of duty your forebears had, under conscription.

    Another wanton me me me leech on society.

    Go and do one ya r3tard..

    And yes yes yes it’s 3am, it’s none of your business when I choose some quiet time to post but as you’ve boasted that you are out on the lash tonight, well, perhaps best to leave it till the morning and hangover time to read and understand what a complete and utter bullsh1t merchant wank3r you are.

    Sweet dreams A hole..
    .

    Reply
    • Captain Caveman says:

      😀

      Absolute state of you, pal, you’re a laughing stock. Any further comment is knocking the (severely) afflicted, you absurd, elderly drunk. Have a “wash and brush up” on me.
      /tosses 50p piece

      Reply
      • James says:

        You’ve certainly proved time and again on this site that you’re a ‘tosser’ tight enough….

      • Young Lochinvar says:

        There ye go:

        Another Rejoinders R Us failed piece of Estrogen fuelled trash talk.

        Your WW2 forebears must be so proud of you..

  109. James says:

    * You’ve certainly proved time and again on this site that you’re a ‘tosser’ right enough….

    Reply
    • Captain Caveman says:

      Yeah, we heard you the first time, Fatso. Your calling me a “tosser” in between flicking TV channels via remote control on your busted sofa, Pringles in hand, is just something I’m going to have to live with, eh. 😀

      Reply
  110. Confused says:

    lochinvar –

    you have to remember with our persistent friends that they project, as they are narcissists, thus

    – every accusation becomes a confession

    main calling people low IQ

    the illiterates questioning folks education

    or one of the other protoplasms talking about “grievance” !

    – the fucking english SHRIEK OPPRESSION IF THEY CAN’T GET -HOTPOT- IN A TAPAS BAR

    Reply
    • Captain Caveman says:

      Your latest coherent, ever-eloquent post, with trademark faultless syntax and punctuation [sub please check] causes me to ponder the likely unique, highly individualised design of your “graduation” university robes, Confused.

      A tall, pointy white mortarboard emblazoned with large, red, upper-case “D”, one suspects, teamed up with Rab C. Nesbitt’s famed “Vomit Cape”, perhaps?

      Lawks.

      Reply
      • Aidan says:

        I think a copy of these posts with an appropriately worded covering letter to whichever university supposedly educated “confused” might entitle him/her to a substantial award of compensation.

        I wonder if Stu can see the IP addresses where each poster is commenting from. I suspect the state hospital might appear on the list.

      • Confused says:

        where did u go to skool caveman klingfilm

        a decent public (private school) I hope

        how often did you get buggered?

        It is the vice which built the empire, you know.

      • Confused says:

        Lickle Aidan and his historian / constitutional lawyering fantasies, bless.

        We all need a hobby.

        You can do a course at the night school you know.

        Follow your dreams.

      • Aidan says:

        If my hobby is debating constitutional law, then what would you describe your hobby as?

      • Captain Caveman says:

        @Confused

        Nah. Went to a third rate comprehensive (subsequently put into “special measures”) – got expelled at 16 and straight to the shop floor at £35/week on a government scheme.

      • Confused says:

        Apologies Klingfilm – you are obviously a high class gentlemen. “book knowing” is not for everyone.

        “everyone is clever, nowadays”

        Aidan – truth seeking is my hobby, wielding facts and logic to discovery …

        I know my logic well enough, I think this is modulus pretense :

        All English are Tories

        All Tories are Paedos

        and thus by the power of pure logic

        All English are Paedos

        – facts. Logic. Proved.

        Which would explain a lot. Butt they get taught it at school.

        Bertrand Russell and Whithead would approve, it’s in the Principia.

        Anyway, that’s enough for now, little hobbits, you seem over excited.

      • Aidan says:

        Yes – enough excitement, I’m going to enjoy a few wine bars on this sunny evening in Paris. Whereas for you I guess it’s throwing empty cans of tenants super around your filthy flat?

      • Young Lochinvar says:

        Reply to Captain Caveman @ 2.08pm

        Aha!
        Knew it.
        I should do the pools, might win at this rate.

        Just to be clear, Fred Estrogen overdosing Flintstone, r3tard, alleged self professed captain of industry, failed Reform candidate:

        – R3tard: (you) “put in special measures” at school. TICK.

        – Estrogen soused: (you) “got expelled from school”, no doubt school toilet related. TICK.

        – Alleged “captain of industry”: (you) “worked on shop floor” (not that there’s anything wrong with working on the shop floor, however) TICK

        – Failed Reform Candidate: (you) “earned £35 a week on a govt scheme” ie very un-Reform State benefits claimant/ recipient. TICK

      • Captain Caveman says:

        Clingfilm…. Estrogen…. School toilets….

        Sheesh. An awful lot of wishful thinking going on here… joining the dots etc. maybe Hatey’s onto something 😀

      • Hatey McHateface says:

        This is quite the corner of concentrated wit and wisdom. The fat winker, the passed over for promotion, closet lurking, “shooter”, and the boy who once got knocked back at a sensitive age by a big-nosed lass and has been obsessed by antisemitism ever since. All vying with each other to kickstart Indy support out of the doldrums.

        Private Eye used to run a column called “From The Message Boards” (maybe they still do).

        I hope they pay Rev Stu commission. There’s several edition’s worth of material here. It’s all far better than anything those PE posh boys could ever make up.

      • Captain Caveman says:

        “This is quite the corner of concentrated wit and wisdom…”

        Well, quite. There’s something ghastly yet inexorably compelling about it all – much like watching a car crash. You don’t want to look and it feels almost voyeuristic to do so. It’s all so hilariously unhinged 😀

        I can only imagine YL – a dried up, pickled old gammon probably close to his 80s – ham-fistedly punching away at that (cracked) glowing phone screen at 3am on some God forsaken muddy river bank somewhere with mozzies buzzing hungrily around (attracted by that sickly-sweet reek of cheap booze and vomit reek hanging thickly in the air doubt). Furiously spitting impotent, semi-literate bile at some random on the internet, probably as the other old gimmers (if there are any stupid and bored enough to be there at that time in the wee hours, or indeed at all) looking incredulously on.

        I must confess to a rather base sense of satisfaction at getting under his aged, scabrous skin so much. You don’t want to laugh… but how can you not? Absolute state of it.

  111. Young Lochinvar says:

    Captain Caveman @ 6.48

    Nope, wrong yet again r3tard..

    Own your own crap, you have after all spouted it all on here ad nauseam for all to see.

    And:

    P3nisbreath is on(to) something?

    Hahahaha, you just can’t help yerself r3tard.

    Well I bet he is and it’s sure not what you’re suggesting there she-man..

    Reply
  112. James says:

    Nice to see the Rev named this post after “Aidan”….

    Reply


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.


  • About

    Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.

    Stats: 6,788 Posts, 1,222,257 Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh on According As We Need Them: “COGADH Z AGUS NA h-OS-LAOICH Teichibh! Tha na zombaidhean a’ tighinn! Tha Sràid Both Chanain a’ cur thairis leotha! Chan…Jul 19, 11:27
    • James Cheyne on Points Into Prongs: “What was the Ice Age? Ehmmm, that was the time period before the Climate changed too heating up. Did We…Jul 19, 10:40
    • James Cheyne on Points Into Prongs: “The politicians appear to be idealogical cult crazy,…not the people,Jul 19, 10:28
    • James Cheyne on Points Into Prongs: “Indeed it was the opposite way around as it was the Scottish Stuart dynasty that inherited Englands throne, But were…Jul 19, 10:23
    • agent x on Points Into Prongs: “I wonder if Peter Murrell’s court case will take place before the 2026 election? It has all gone very quiet.Jul 19, 10:11
    • James Cheyne on Points Into Prongs: “Here is another excellent example of a published lie. Being taught to children. Quote from , Kids Britanica .Com. Scotland…Jul 19, 09:55
    • James Cheyne on Points Into Prongs: “I watch as many or all posts, bloggers and government or approved governments information , and peoples opinion from around…Jul 19, 09:47
    • James Cheyne on Points Into Prongs: “Perhaps the SNP, old version and new pretended they had never heard of the right to Self Determination and have…Jul 19, 09:28
    • Northcode on According As We Need Them: ““… I am a lover of the Scots language, our culture and our history” Aye, TH… you and me baith.…Jul 19, 09:25
    • Young Lochinvar on Points Into Prongs: “I read that Bill Clinton (allegedly) said that Hillary had “eaten more pussy than he had”. Sturgeon had her famous…Jul 19, 07:32
    • DaveL on Points Into Prongs: “What is it about the above post that offends you? Maybe you’re just being abusive because you can, is that…Jul 19, 07:00
    • Young Lochinvar on Points Into Prongs: “I suspect the whole thing was a sting/ set up and that he (Upton) was the chosen but willing stalking…Jul 19, 04:57
    • Young Lochinvar on Points Into Prongs: “Begone Unionist foul sprite; your lot are just as bad, just trailing behind a little, but the rot and deviancy…Jul 19, 01:56
    • Hatey McHateface on Points Into Prongs: “Did you press the button too soon, TH, or are the “assistance” boys on a really tight schedule?Jul 19, 01:39
    • Hatey McHateface on Points Into Prongs: “That’s a touch mean spirited, x. You’re forgetting that for many years she held up half the sky (admittedly with…Jul 19, 00:32
    • Hatey McHateface on Points Into Prongs: “Could you be more precise? There have been several useless other ones.Jul 19, 00:25
    • Mark Beggan on Points Into Prongs: “Well put. Couldn’t agree more.Jul 18, 20:57
    • Young Lochinvar on Points Into Prongs: “Meantime NHS Fifes DEI “expert”(sic) Ms Bumba replied when asked to comment on the £9m £6m new (non working) House…Jul 18, 20:38
    • Frank Gillougley on Points Into Prongs: “Having just read all this political bollocks above, the simple thought occurred to me that to compare and contrast what…Jul 18, 19:47
    • Andrew scott on Points Into Prongs: “O/T REV YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A FIELD DAY WITH THIS SHAMBLES IN FIFEJul 18, 18:45
    • Confused on Points Into Prongs: “Frankly: The revelatory memoir from Scotland’s first female and longest-serving First Minister the greatest living englishmen provides us with much…Jul 18, 18:36
    • twathater on Points Into Prongs: “It just shows the level of contempt this arsehole Swinney and his fellow lying scum noncers have for the people…Jul 18, 18:32
    • Dan on Points Into Prongs: “Sheesh… I only got halfway through the first paragraph and haz concerns Robin is morphing into Kelly Given… https://robinmcalpine.org/scotland-has-no-controlling-intellect/ https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-stupidity-of-vanity/…Jul 18, 18:23
    • twathater on According As We Need Them: “NC I am not a dedicated lover of poetry but I am a lover of the Scots language, our culture…Jul 18, 18:19
    • 100%Yes on Points Into Prongs: “Alf Baird, I would have thought you would have been the best person placed to continue Iain Lawsons blog, Welcome…Jul 18, 18:07
    • socratesmacsporran on Points Into Prongs: “Mark Beggan @ 4.33pm You posted: “Swinney isn’t useless. You are quite correct, Swinney isn’t even competent enough to pass…Jul 18, 17:45
    • Alf Baird on Points Into Prongs: “Swinney and previous SNP leaders since 2015 have been very effective at delaying independence, which is clearly their main purpose,…Jul 18, 17:38
    • Dickie Tea on Points Into Prongs: “VeryJul 18, 17:05
    • joolz on Points Into Prongs: ““the way to deliver independence is only with an emphatic SNP win in 2026”. Goodbye indy. They never learn ?Jul 18, 16:39
    • Mark Beggan on Points Into Prongs: “Swinney isn’t useless. Useless was the other one.Jul 18, 16:33
  • A tall tale



↑ Top