The Cowards’ Den
We were going to write something today for the anniversary of Alex Salmond’s tragic death, but then we read Kevin McKenna’s piece in today’s Herald On Sunday and we can’t improve on it, so go and have a read of that before you do anything else.
Alex always believed in looking forward, not back, so we doubt he’d be overly fussed at the pathetic “tribute” paid to him at the SNP conference this morning. What would undoubtedly have exercised him a lot more would have been the wretched current state of the party he loved and built from almost nothing into the dominant force in Scottish politics.
And nothing typifies that wretched state better than the craven and gutless capitulation of a speech given by Tommy Sheppard yesterday, opposing the rebel amendments to John Swinney’s non-strategy on independence.
It said a lot more than he thought it did, but none of it good.
Dismissing the idea of using elections as plebiscitary votes, he said:
“There are two main flaws with this approach. The first is that although there may be 50% support in this country for an independent future, much of that support is shallow, is unconvinced, is critical. They want time. They want questions answered.
And if we say to those people that they’re not going to get the time and they’re not going to have the questions answered, the yes and no decision is in six months time, then we will drive away people that we would otherwise have on our side.”
And wow, let’s just unpack that for a moment. The indyref was more than 11 YEARS AGO. The SNP have been in government for all of that time, with all the resources and control of government at their command.
If they haven’t answered people’s questions in more than a decade, then (1) why the hell not?, and (2) what possible reason is there for anyone to believe that they’re suddenly going to now?
Because literally just days ago the party, using those governmental resources, put out yet another “White Paper” purporting to do exactly that. They’ve just given us what they claim is their best shot at producing those answers, and if the election was a plebiscite then seven months ought to be plenty time to explain it to people.
(The “questions and answers” paper is only 11 pages long. It really shouldn’t take that long to go through it.)
Of course, the new paper says nothing that wasn’t being said in 2014. It contained no new answers. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn after 11 years is that this is the best they’ve got, and if there’s no prospect of doing any better then there’s no point in any further delay. They might as well take the shot.
But wait.
“And the second the second problem is this. Even if it were possible to get a majority of people to vote for independence, 51% in an election when even all the independence parties added together are only in 41% even if that were possible,”
Should we pause here to ask why that number is only 41% when just five years ago it was 49%? Whose fault is it that it’s gone backwards? How likely is it that the same people who lost all that support are going to regain it any time soon?
“What do you do then when the British government says no, you didn’t have the right to make that decision? What do you do then? ”
You do the only thing you can do, when you have a clear mandate from the majority of your people in a legitimate democratic event. You declare independence and you call on the world to recognise it. It’s a path that has worked for the majority of countries that have become independent in the last 100 years.
Every avenue of getting the UK government to put it on a plate for you has been closed down. Asking politely didn’t work. “Demanding” didn’t work. Going to the Supreme Court didn’t work.
The only road left is to go to the rest of the world and say “We voted for this, as per our established rights under the UN Charter, in a wholly peaceful and legitimate democratic manner, now acknowledge it”.
There are no guarantees, but in world history it usually works. There is no coherent or sustainable argument against a vote conducted under a clear statement that if you vote for an independence party you’re voting to declare independence.
(It doesn’t matter what the people who didn’t vote for independence were voting for, because if the other side got over 50% then you lost anyway. That’s how votes work.)
“I don’t understand. I’ve never understood why people think that if we get a majority in the parliament to ask for a referendum that that will be denied by the British government. But a majority asking for full independence now is going to be okay with them. It is a nonsense to suggest that.”
Hold on. What Sheppard is saying there is that a mandate secured on 51% of the vote would be illegitimate and wouldn’t be respected by the UK government or the international community, whereas one in the shape of a one-party majority of MSPs (which on current polling could be achieved on as little as 29% of the vote) WOULD be. It’s the most obviously fatuous drivel imaginable. Indeed, it’s so disingenuous it borders on outright treachery.
Not one government on Earth will for a single second regard a “mandate” for independence based on 29% or 33% or 35% of the vote as valid, and in those circumstances the UK government will – and quite rightly – tell Swinney to take a flying jump down a deep dark hole.
A party which hasn’t managed to make the case for independence or win a convincing majority of voters around in 11 years has lost any right to lead the campaign. It is demonstrably not fit for purpose. All it’s offering is five more years of failure.
But what Tommy Sheppard said yesterday amounted to even less than that. He said that because the SNP have been so useless we can’t possibly win, so we shouldn’t even try.
We shouldn’t make the election about independence, says Tommy, we should fight it on all the things the public thinks the SNP is doing a terrible job on, and then somehow that’ll magically turn into independence in some unspecified amount of time, because the one thing we know about governments that rule for 25 years is that they just get more and more dynamic and popular.
“Vote for us, we’re making everything worse, we’ve wasted the last 11 years of your life failing to make an inch of progress on our primary goal, and the best idea we have for turning that round is to do all the same stuff some more” is a bold election pitch.
It’s certainly not one Alex Salmond would ever have tried to sell to the voters of Scotland, because he had too much respect for them.
They deserve better than to be insulted any longer.
I fail to see why we should take seriously the strategies of the same people who oversaw the most cataclysmic drop in MPs of the party’s 90 year history. Even Nicola Sturgeon “only” lost 21 of 56 seats in the disastrous 2017 election.
Yet we’re supposed to believe that the same people who reduced the SNP from 48 seats (the 2nd highest in the party’s history despite their abysmal “leadership”) to *9* have any remotely feasible or believable strategy?
That there hasn’t been a wholesale riot at SNP conference at their absolute failure is breathtaking to me. But then, outside a few poor souls too invested in the SNP over decades to extricate themselves, I really don’t think there’s anyone left.
Tragic, Rev, absolutely tragic. I’d like [well, up to a point] to know more about the SNP delegates who voted in support of the garbage and claptrap. Are they the people already on the gravy train or hope to be? Are they incredibly dense?
However it is now completely clear that pro-independence people have to vote for candidates whose sole aim is for independence and who we know have argued and fought for improvements in the lives of the Scottish people for years. I’m thinking of independents and the parties under the Liberate Scotland umbrella. Don’t vote for candidates who are mired in their party’s systems and problems.
Just say the majority of folk ignore SNP 1/2 in May, has anyone asked Swinney if he will actually work with pro-liberation parties?
That’s a wonderful evisceration of today’s SNP by McKenna. Thanks for the recommendation, Rev.
Has anybody noticed that the strategy for independence is always for everyone to vote SNP?
Maintenance of the gravy train is priority one for the SNP.
Q. “What do you do then when the British government says no, you didn’t have the right to make that decision? What do you do then? ” asks Tommy Shepherd
A. You just stick your hooter back up their arse and start breathing through your nose Tommy, that’s what YOU and your pals do. Oh and keep taking the money of course.
What do you do then Tommy when a majority of electors vote for independence and the English / British government say no, you shall not pass.
If majority voting does not work where are we. Why bother voting then Tommy.
Of course looking into Tommy’s background he is from a Protestant unionist Northern Ireland background wherefrom he originally expoused unionist views. Thereafter he says he changed to embrace left wing views.
From his speech at conference it is clear that he has had no road to Damascus conversion.He is Brit masquerading in a party that’s prime focus is to stymie independence.
But yes Tommmy we know all about your type and the rigging of politics in favour of the Brit state. Norn Ireland, the loyalists, the sectarian RUC together with the administration of governmental process knew all about that.
In hindsight, the SNP is the worst thing that’s ever happened to the movement for Scottish independence.
Alex Salmond was a great man, a once in a generation political talent and anyone who met Alex knew he was the real thing. He had a great big heart and a generous spirit. It was because of those good qualities that he was blindsided by the people we used to call “careerists” back in the day when the SNP was a serious political party. It would never have occurred to Alex, until Nicola Sturgeon and her pals tried to railroad him into prison over false allegations, how sneaky, nasty, cowardly and dishonest those careerists are. He was too big hearted to be a backstabber or even think of such things.
The Nu SNP, which is controlled by people who are actively hostile to Scottish nationalism, is bringing the cause of independence into disrepute by association. Independence should not be any party’s political property. Democracy and self determination are not gimmicks or slogans to get halfwit clapping seals to keep electing the same pension-seeking losers who would never get a job at Burger King. (Aye, I’m thinking of low IQ grifters like the former ‘Minister for Independence’, Jamie Hepburn, but there’s plenty of others)
Scotland doesn’t belong to the SNP, Scotland belongs to all of us. This land was made for you and me.
But please don’t lose heart my dear Scots. We are living through a very tumultuous and uncertain period of history and the future is there for those who have the courage to grasp it. There’s a great awakening going on out there, the future will not be like the past.
As a great American president said, we will not go quietly into the night. We will not vanish without a fight. We’re going to live on, we’re going to survive!
shitebags
by
David MacBrownPants
( massive fripp chord )
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo …. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
I, I’ll serve the king
And you, you will be *nonbinary* “queen”
Though nothing will drive the anglo away
We’ll never beat them, not for one day
We can be shitebags, just for one day
And you, you will be mince
And I, I’ll drink buckie all the time
‘Cause we’re yoons, and that is a fact
Yes, we’re yoons, and that is that
Though nothing will stop us better-together
We could steal votes, just for one day
We can’t be heroes, forever and ever
What d’ya say?
I, I wish you could mince
Like the trannies, like trannies can mince
Though nothing, nothing will stop us better-together
We can’t beat them forever and ever
Oh, we can be shitebags, just for one day
Sheppard has always been a duplicitous shyster.
When it comes to independence it is lying grifters like him and indeed the rest of the Scottish Nonce Party that are the WOUND AND NOT THE BANDAGE.
And you are just as guilty by ignoring the fact that Liberation are at the UN well into the process.
This eternal focus on plebiscites is just classic Alba flailing about just to be different. Why not just change the site to Wngs Over the Alba Party and have done?
All this daring the rest of the world did not avail Catalunya & is still not availing Kosovo. No matter the 51% outcome if the government has not called it in advance just like Sturgeon was careful to declare each one was NOT.
IF you are expecting John Ultra Glacial Swinney to do other I have bridges over the Tay tae sell ye.
The key difference is that the election will be held in a traditional platform so it can not be argued that the vote had no legitimacy.
The uk government could do a Spain but Scotland can continue to declare it won, that independence is the settled will of the Scottish population.
That makes the liberation case at the UN even easier to win. Whereas at the moment, the best the liberation case will get is a referendum.
We can hold a plebiscite election at every election going forward without UN permission.
I believe both approaches are needed, that is why I support, Liberation, Alba, Wings and even Ash Reagan. We need more people fighting the good fight in different ways, not less.
Let’s keep fighting for independence in the way we all think is best and then celebrate victory together.
Who’s this Ash Reagan that you are supporting?
And where does she fit into all of this?
Is she Ronnie’s secret love child?
And you are just as guilty by ignoring the fact that Liberation are at the UN well into the process.
This eternal focus on plebiscites is just classic Alba flailing about just to be different. Why not just change the site to Wngs Over the Alba Party and have done?
All this daring the rest of the world did not avail Catalunya & is still not availing Kosovo. No matter the 51% outcome if the government has not called it in advance just like Sturgeon was careful to declare each one was NOT.
IF you are expecting John Ultra Glacial Swinney to do other I have bridges over the Tay tae sell ye.
The Damage is done, so what are we now going to DO!
The SNP is a party we are the people.
We need to unite not for Indy but to destroy the SNP its the SNP who are our jailers and if we can’t do it for ourselves then lets do it for the fallen and Alex Salmond.
“There are two main flaws with this [plebiscitary election] approach…”
The greatest of the main flaws being – for the SNP and its Westminster pals, anyway – that a plebiscitary election might actually deliver Scotland’s independence.
So, of course, the SNP is against the idea and will do everything in its power to put it back in it’s box after Sturgeon let it slither oot in one of her ‘it’s-never-gonna-happen-so-it’s-safe-for-me-to-suggest-it-and-get-a-cheap-round-of-applause’ distraction and diversion tactics.
Give the scot-plebs actual genuine power to terminate the Treaty of Union and reclaim Scotland as an independent sovereign nation?
“What a ridiculous notion!” exclaimed Rodney as great swathes of pompous, up-its-ain-erse, laughter reverberated around the well-out-of-the-way-of-prying-eyes Whitehall basement meeting room.
Apologies if this text is confusing. I had an urge to string lots of words together with hyphens.
I see no optimistic interpretation of the SNP Conference. Swinney is like Steve Clarke. Beat the the Diddy teams and qualify. No passion, no tactics and no strategic understanding of what needs to be done. For once the BBC commentary team nailed it. What action on a Sunday night?. The answer watching paint dry. And yet the Scottish team has some good players unlike Holyrood full of duds. Their is no hope for the foreseeable. Bring on super sub Sarah always full of optimism.
This is what you get when a headless chicken eventually runs out of steam, runs into a wall and falls over for the last time, twitching, a bunch of nerve ends still firing, but aimlessly and not for too much longer.
Your clearly an expert on chickens, any other skills we need to know about.
How does he know the 50% support is shallow? Perhaps the 50% is strong and there is another 15% willing to be converted?
All over the Indy movement the die hard loyalist SNP 1st 2nd and can do no wrong because we were all lying, have today woken up and it only took it coming from the horses mouth.
I just checked the latest polling. SNP gaining ground at 6 short of an absolute majority average based polls. Throw in a few Greens and we are there. Ross Greer the deputy First Minister like I said weeks ago.
The words of Ian Paisley Jr. have caused a stir in Northern Ireland and the penny is dropping (albeit belatedly and slowly) that the DUP are effectively finished as the biggest party there and that a border poll in Ireland is becoming more and more likely.
For years, both communities in NI asked what an independent Scotland would mean for “Tha Yun Yin” over there. Now, Scotland should be asking what a United Ireland will mean for Scotland. It will on one hand expose that what was once (outside SE England) the strongest, most staunch Unionist stronghold has now abandoned the status quo. Conversely, it could mean an exodus of Orange types to Scotland, who will probably fight even more vociferously to keep Scotland in Tha Yun Yin.
Nationalists are still far from a majority of seats at Stormont, Unionists still lead on most border poll questions and DUP and TUV dominated Antrim could declare UDI rather than accept Dublin rule
It was under Salmond the SNP abandoned the long-held independence strategy that a winning vote for the SNP was a vote to open independence negotiations with the UK Govt.
Under Salmond the SNP became a party whose first goal was power to administer the Scotland colony. It became “Both votes SNP” under Salmond.
David Cameron gave Salmond the second part of Salmond’s strategy: an indyref.
The UK Govt having recognised the foolishness of Salmond’s great gamble of abandoning Scottish sovereignty for a puppet parliament and a WM sponsored indyref.
Now, Salmond is gone, the SNP’s goal is to keep enjoying the personal wealth, abuse of power and privileges of the British political ruling class.
@Chris Donwnie 9:41pm.
The worst analysis of Northern Ireland politics I have ever heard. Specific conditions have to be in place for a Unification vote. No where near that. Of course I am entitled to an Irish passport. Disinformation doesn’t help. Would I go to Ireland? No they have given over their country to others.Thoudands of deaths handed over to their to now superior religion. Catholicism is finished be prepared for Islam.
George,
Here are some recent polls showing what support there might be for Irish reunification. I don’t think it is likely in the near future.
The historian Brendan O’Leary has noted the changing demography in NI with the possibility that nationalists will outnumber unionists by 2030. O’Leary says that irrespective of what the voting intentions might be, preparations should be made so that people know what a reunited Ireland would look like.
Of course, that is something that the SNP has not done and only very broad brush strokes for 2014.
Recent Poll Results
Key Polls and Findings
Date Polling Organization Yes (United Ireland) No (Remain UK) Undecided Sample Size
May 2025 Northern Ireland Life and Times 36% 42% 11% 1,199
February 2025 LucidTalk/Belfast Telegraph 41% 54% 10% 1,050
August-September 2024 ARINS/Irish Times 34% 59% 14% 1,000
June 2023 Institute of Irish Studies 36.1% 57% 10% 1,017
January 2023 Northern Ireland Life and Times 35% 57% 10% 1,200
Sheppard is an intolerant extremist who banned acts and people from his club whom he disagreed with. He is a enemy of free speech.
I have refrained from commenting on here for a very long time thanks to what appears to me to be a bunch of frothing nasties whose main goal seems to be to fight amongst themselves.
HOWEVER I want to say firstly, “chapeau” to Kevin McKenna for his brilliant dissection of the callous shallowness that is the essence of the current SNP leadership and to you, Stuart, for your generosity in recognising the profundity of McKenna’s article.
Secondly, as a lifelong supporter of Scottish independence who’s now pushing 73 and has pretty much given up hope, I will put on record that I spoiled my ballot at the last election by scrawling “ # Independence now” on it and will likely feel the need to do something similar next year, possibly also involving the statement that Swinney J and others will need to assure me that they have finally discovered what a woman is (I’ve always believed one should go to the polling station, as a matter of principle – it’s still less than 100 years before women were granted that right).
Btw, the very elderly English couple who canvassed our street last year on behalf of the SNP suggested I write to SNP HQ. Like that would have worked. And before the resident nutjobs get going, I’m actually half-English so make of that what you will. I’m no longer insultable!
I would suggest that you do vote.
Polls indicate today that the SNP is supported by 34% while those in favour of independence are around 50%. There could be opportunities for real independence supporters on the list vote.
I too spoiled my ballot simply because there was no one to vote for and also tried to get a petition running before the election to threaten the snp
But things have changed since SALVO , Liberation.Scot , SSRG , and now Liberate Scotland , I will be voting for ANY Liberate Scotland candidate in my area because they are grass root independence FIGHTERS not gravy train slurpers
Liberate held out the hand of friendship and UNITY to ALBA but Kenny MacAskill rejected it preferring to beg the Scum Nonce Party for alignment , we see how that was treated with contempt , because John the redactor wants the LIST vote as an emergency backup in case the electorate wake up and sack him
I believe that Liberate Scotland deserve a chance and lets face it they can’t do any worse than the clowns that are infesting HR , + they are ALL determined indy fighters NOT gravy slurpers
SNP is a containment operation
definitely.
Where referendums are concerned, Swinney has morphed into Oliver Twist…
“Please Sir, I’d like one more”
And we all remember how that turned out…
youtu.be/FYCu9-r6B8E?
We are hearing from different people how the SNP plan for Independence has locked Scotland into the union indefinitely. I believe the SNP Independence plan is more damaging than people realise, the plan setup by the SNP wasn’t just to deny us Independence it was also to have lifeline for the union at the UN. Scotland has taken its case to the UN-C-24 and at some point the British state is going to have to explain to the committee that Scotland isn’t a colony and that the nationalist themselves have set out their own plan in which they can exit the union and its one back by the UK.
A well-written and poignant piece by McKenna.
Definitely worth a read – not least because of the accompanying photograph of Swinney graphically describing the size of his penis – which is, allegedly, several magnitudes greater in every dimension than the measure of his balls – which, if the stories are true, shrink almost away to nothing when the subject of Scottish independence is broached.
I don’t mean to diminish the memory of the great Alex Salmond – although such an outcome seems almost inevitable when the likes of Swinney is mentioned in the same sentence as Alex – with my crude joke.
I sought not the admiration of those masses ‘impressed by my wit’, but to reduce in stature, using a little crude humour, a man who does not remotely deserve the office he currently holds nor the privilege of having his weasel words heard by more than himself and his mirror.
Isn’t it wonderful to imagine a world where Scottish Indy is achieved by the simple expedient of eternally posting about people’s genitals?
No need for imagination, folks!
Pay heed to NC (and others), and they can take you to that magic world.
I don’t understand the overarching strategy at all… why would you make it statistically more difficult to get independence than take every opportunity to weigh it in your favour?
Make sure the people voting are born here or live here permanently. That way the people who it affects the most have the vote.
I always get uncomfortable when I hear the argument about “natural born Scots” voting.
I could accept something like maybe 10 years permanent residence to be able to vote in a referendum.
However I don’t think there will be another vote in my lifetime anyway and even if there was, without something changing dramatically in the country I think it would fail anyway.
What I cannot understand is why anybody still votes for the SNP nor why folk vote Green.
No taxation without representation, Rob.
If the state is happy to steal a (big) percentage of the grafter’s hard-earned to re-distribute or waste as it sees fit, then the grafters deserve a say in what the state is all about.
Wars have been fought over this, and they will continue to be fought, because despite what many on here believe, there is no divine right for any authority to extort cash from ordinary people just because.
That’s of the essence of democracy. As is the recognition that if more people with views opposed to your own vote for what they want, then it’s suck it up time.
This thumbnail sketch of the bleeding obvious will, of course, attract the usual pelters.
Yet there is nothing I have written that would stop a couple of hundred Scots growing the balls they need to stand on a plebiscitary platform for Indy and if elected, declaring UDI.
Nothing whatsoever.
I’d like to read McKenna’s article but refuse to subscribe to the once mighty Herald.
WoS have provided a link to an archived page for the McKenna piece in the first paragraph of this article – the link has the title “Kevin McKenna’s piece in today’s Herald On Sunday”.
Here it is again:
Link to archived McKenna piece referred to by WoS in this article
Rev Stu , I have an unexpected inbox full of very previous articles of yours – is someone playing silly buggers?
Stu included a link to an archived copy of the page – it’s right at the start of the article. Ergo, no need to go near the Herald 🙂
oops! Thanks!
It occurs to me that some are waking up to the fact that no matter how many mandates you give them, what the % is for independence in Scotland. How much we talk or write about it, regardless of past marches for independence, who counts the ballot box votes,
The answer is going to be managed.
It will always end up no.
Because the puppet parliament is not a Scottish parliament, it is only a parliament sent to Scotland for management,
It even managed Alex at the end of the day with false allegations,
It ran of with our funding support for independence and got away with it.
A colonial establishment parliament that breaches the treaty of union if you believe in that old parchment,
That now have a protection racket going on whereby the distance kept between parties and people is a void, the same as Westminster,
The answer for Scotland will never come via a pretendy parliament for management that calls out the results of elections that are never counted in public or on your door step,
And even if we obtained that level of honesty in Scotland and achieved the percentage required, Westminster do not acknowledge it as binding.
So what then?
The problem is the control and the controller,
The muppet puppet politician tools.
And the ones placed in situ counting your votes.
No one has explained why it was necessary to remove the ballot papers for counting in 2014. The local authorities have years of experience in running the polling stations efficiently, and surely a binary question is far easier to count than a multiple choice one or the STV L.A elections?
Were ballot papers removed for counting? Do you have any evidence of this happening? I have found none. The count proceeded in the normal way.
So, having done his best to talk down the SNP and the ScoGreens, and ALBA now a joke party with few members and many of them Brexity anti-vaxxers etc, I wonder who the NotRev would actually want us to support in the upcoming election? He clearly hates both the major pro-independence parties, and his favoured ALBA are finished, down in Count Binface territory in the polls.
I came here because, despite disagreeing with many of the NotRev’s emphases, I was grateful for the dissection of extreme Trans ideology. Sadly, the website no longer has anything else; to the extent that I wonder if the NotRev even supports independence. He’s talked himself into a bit of a cul de sac if he does.
“I came here because, despite disagreeing with many of the NotRev’s emphases, I was grateful for the dissection of extreme Trans ideology. Sadly, the website no longer has anything else; to the extent that I wonder if the NotRev even supports independence. He’s talked himself into a bit of a cul de sac if he does.”
Please, I’m all ears – what is it you want?
What is it I want? World peace, free fruit pudding on the NHS, EU membership, a gentler, kinder country, Scottish independence, a place in the World Cup finals and some serious action on poverty and inequality.
I don’t know why you even ask. What I want is irrelevant. I’m nobody.
You, on the other hand, and your band of feral followers (I read ‘the SNP is the worst thing that’s ever happened to the movement for Scottish independence’ upthread!) do everything to knock the SNP and the Scottish Greens. Fine. What are you offering in return? What’s your electoral route to independence? What if people read your pieces, are convinced that the SNP are BAAAD, and change their vote leading to a sizeable Reform UK phalanx in Holyrood? Warning – any answer involving the word ‘ALBA’ will be greeted only with laughter.
“What if people read your pieces, are convinced that the SNP are BAAAD, and change their vote leading to a sizeable Reform UK phalanx in Holyrood?”
Then we’ll be in a better place in terms of achieving independence than we are now.
“What if people read your pieces, are convinced that the SNP are BAAAD, and change their vote leading to a sizeable Reform UK phalanx in Holyrood?”
Then we’ll be in a better place in terms of achieving independence than we are now.
Really? You think so? You think having lots of Reform UK australopithecines in Holyrood would lead to a better Scotland, an independent Scotland?
I would ask to see your working on that sum, but actually I won’t.
Delusion. Dangerous delusion.
The delusional one here is you I’m afraid DMcV. There is no route to independence with the current SNP as the engine of the movement as they have essentially become a devolutionary force rather than a truly committed force for independence.
Anyone insisting otherwise is either purposefully blind or just another tribal Nicophant or “SNP do or die” loyalist. Or perhaps you’re just a bad faith actor, as though we didn’t have enough of those BTL!
There will be many pro-indy readers and contributors here who share the Rev’s sense of despair about who to vote for in the current political climate. Many like me may even have been members of one of the parties.
Reform aren’t likely to gain enough seats at the 2026 Holyrood elections to make that much of an impact. They’ll chiefly cannibalise the right wing Scottish Tory / loyalist vote and a smaller number of pro-brexit, blood and soil anti-vaxxer types we’re better off without.
As the recent Caerphilly bye-election just proved, there is even the likelihood of at least some tactical voting on behalf of some wet Tories to try and spike Farage’s guns.
We do seem to be entering uncharted political territory. The real “threat” in Scotland isn’t Reform though, it’s the devolutionary stasis of the SNP which has inexplicablt turned its face against using plebiscitary elections to reach our goal.
Rather than conjuring illusory Reform bogey men, you’d be better employed addressing the real issue: replacing the milquetoast devolutionism of the SNP with a real nationalist party.
Yep. A bit of McKenna Gold there.
Debate for the treaty of union being genuine,
The reality of Scotland being able to choose a government that best suits Scotland is a propaganda story,
As it is still attached by an umbilical cord to Westminster,
and as circumstances and major events unfold in politics over those years, wether it has been Brexit, Austerity, migration, housing fails, ID and technology and all the global control over people.
When the devolved Scottish government was preposed to voters in Scotland the spin in the tin was not what unfolded.
Not what was promised,
And nearly all promises made have been watered down.
And as Scotland and its people voted ” yes ” to a empty hollowed out promise sold as milk and honey, the reality of that false list of promises has sunk in.
Self determination for our nation has been withdrawn for Scots, having control over ones future is only applicable if Westminster says it applies.
This imitates the treaty of union empty promises, that have altered and repealed Scotlands side of the supposed union, where as soon as signed, one of the union members was instantly dissolved,
When Westminster sells Scotland a bridge in the future, we better make sure the watery words running underneath are not going to wash the foundation of Scotland away,
But Scotland is still a nation, still a Country, and has the right to self determination, and has a right to the “Claim of right” wrote into the old international parchment paper treaty or not,
As England, Ireland the UN, the EU and all other Countries still have to recognise it as a Countries nation of people of Scotland that is there in its own right, has its own original land borders, sea borders, its own original laws and religion,
For if all those nations and institutes fail to recognise Scotland as the other half of a international treaty as a independent Country,
Then they fail to recognise the creation State of Great Britain, and all treaties that followed since 1707.
To this end Westminster parliament cannot repeal or alter any of the text of Scotlands side of the treaty and has to adhere to it.
Other wise it is a instant failure for all governments treaties based on one treaty in 1707.
Anyone who thinks UDI is a good idea is an idiot.
“Anyone who thinks UDI is a good idea is an idiot.”
As opposed to what?
I have serious reservations about a plebiscite election. Mainly that it could no be conclusive enough. However, Swinney’s pathetic and treacherous proposal serves to make even the dubious idea of a plebiscite election look attractive.
My preference remains that the plebiscite part of the election be on the question of the Scottish Parliament’s powers in relation to the constitution. That mandate is both easier to obtain and more powerful than a purported mandate to declare independence.
The Scottish Parliament asserting legislative competence in constitutional matters is equivalent to a declaration of independence. But it puts into the Parliaments hands to power to legislate for a proper constitutional referendum – and much more besides. When you control the constitution, you control everything.
The primary issue is not independence. The primary issue if access to the exercise of our right of self-determination. With full constitutional powers we could have a confirmatory referendum on a proposal to dissolve the Union that would be unchallengeable.
Make the plebiscite referendum about our human right of self-determination and we take the moral and legal high ground – while putting the British state in a very awkward position.
#ScottishUDI is the way.
How can anyone take you serious when your attitude is to disagree with any opinion that isn’t your own, maybe this is your game plan.
Haven’t you learnt anything in your life?
You don’t have the ability to engage or to get on with people not even the one’s on the same side as yourself, your an one man band who’s rude and aggressive to others, when if you changed your manner you’d find a lot more people and organizations would welcome your opinion.
Roddy, has started liberate Scotland and its encouraged others parties to sign up and has given the Indy movement options when there was none. Just out of curiosity who have you signed up to UDI I know you have set up a new party that doesn’t have members and won’t be fielding candidate, so I have to ask you who are you appealing to and how can UDI work unless its election issue.
Broadly in agreement with your post, but your bias shows through:
“With full constitutional powers we could have a confirmatory referendum on a proposal to dissolve the Union that would be unchallengeable”
What you should have written is:
“With full constitutional powers we could have a DECISIVE referendum on a proposal to dissolve the Union that would be unchallengeable”
As with most on here, you’ve chosen to believe that when Scots are asked a second time, we’re guaranteed to say Yes.
Big day in the world today, huge, momentous, even.
With an affirmative nod towards the half-Scot responsible, President Donald Trump, I want to describe it as the bigliest, bigly, beautiful day of the decade so far.
Rejoice! Hallelujah!
3000 years my ass, the problems started between the Arabs and the Jews between the wars encouraged by the french then the US.
If the US had not backed the Jewish settlement of the middle east against all the agreements with the incumbent Arabs we probably would not be in this mess.
What I have found the most worrying is that the Jews have become the very thing they were fleeing from over the years.
Sorry, Rob, but the only connection I can make between my post and what appears to be your response to it is that they are both written in English.
“the Jews have become the very thing they were fleeing from over the years”
Have they? If they have, we can expect them to start suicide bombing pop concerts, ramming vehicles into public gatherings, and bursting into dance classes to carve up helpless little girls with big knives.
Ah hae the most serious doots aboot all o that, so ah think we’ll be grand.
Can somebody tell me the difference twixt 250 prisoners and 1,700 detainees ? and would somebody like to ask the question ‘why’ so many ??What is the reason for ‘detaining’?
I didn’t say they were fleeing the Arabs, who have a genuine grievance here even if the methods they use are abhorrent.
I mean the Nazis which Israel was supposed to be the answer to. As far as I can see Israel is now doing to the local population very similar things that were done to them in the 1930’s.
I have said right since the start of this current mess that neither side wears a white hat, they both wear black hats.
Debate for No treaty,
If Englands Westminster assumes it has captured, colonised and annexed Scotland through trickery, bribery. And threats of violence or financial ruin or blackmail.
A suggestion of a voluntary partnership union would not hold up as a international treaty at all,
[ As no one in Scotland ] witnessed the Scottish Oath that was supposed to have been taken by the monarch of England in England, other than by those in favour of a union between the two Countries, Scotland only had “heresay” and Englands opinion reported back to Scotland that this event happened.
The monarch down south had already held their coronation in 1702 as the monarch of England France and Wales,
( The France bit was a false claim by England and a lie.) so Scotland really had no need to worry that Englands parliament told porkeys.
Later on the The English parliament passed the English Act of settlement and the Bill of rights, limiting the succession to the throne and crown of England, to England. Prior to the treaty of union.
England disposed king James as the king of England .
The Scottish three Estates offered the crown and regalia of Scots to England,
England having disposed of king James as a royal monarch of England, then decided that they would insert a nobody by decent of a broken line of monarchs and unrecognised disposed of pretender to the crown of England king James as there new Queen monarch.
Scotland could not offered the territorial community realm of Scotland as it did not belong to the Scottish parliament or the monarch,
The Scottish crown constitution being distinctly different from that of Englands.the territory belonged to the Scots people.
England accepted the offer for succession on behalf of the Hanoverian line of descent, as the monarch of England, which ended with queen Victoria.
When a new succession house line took over,
Meanwhile Scotlands vacant throne being left vacant caused Scotland to be a republic Country,
And it was as the territorial republic of Scotland, the peoples republic of Scotland,
that Scotland supposedly entered into a voluntary treaty of union with England,
Except the Scots were not asked to join the treaty as the Scots in all probability would have voted NO.( see Westminster parliament )
The treaty articles, terms and conditions themselves is what supposedly bought about a monarch of England becoming the monarch of Great Britain,
Englands parliament presuming that the English monarchy Constitution was the same as the Scottish constitution Crown and included territory of the community of Sovereign Scots,
This has always been a wrong presumption by England.albeit a beneficial financial one to them over the years,
The reality of the monarchy positions in both countries is important to the treaty explanation and whom was monarchs and over what.
There is a lot of information to run through just on monarchies alone.
Perhaps Xaracen I may appeal to your generous nature in correcting your amendments and placing all in chronological order before I continue the debate into how we arrive on the question of the wether there is treaty.?
And if it stands up to scrutiny. please feel free to apply further info I may have missed meanwhile.
OK, James, I’m working on it!
@James Cheyne;
I’ve rejigged your comment into date order with some annotations of mine in [square brackets]
I hope this is what you had in mind. Cheers.
Debate for No Treaty;
December 1688: James VII of Scotland and II of England flees to France.
February 1689: England disposed King James as the king of England. [ England didn’t depose him, they declared him to have abdicated when he fled to France. ]
April 1689: The Scottish Convention of the Estates deposed James VII, and offered the crown and regalia of Scots to England, [ The “three estates” refers to the Scottish Parliament, but it was the Convention of the Estates that offered the throne and regalia to William and Mary as monarchs of Scotland, and not in their role as English sovereigns. This just reaffirmed the Union of the Crowns, and not submission to English monarchy. ]
December 1689: England’s Bill of rights, limiting the succession to the throne and crown of England, to England. Prior to the treaty of union. [ Could not affect Scotland’s choice of succession to Scotland’s throne.]
June 1701: English Act of Settlement. Limits succession to Protestant heirs of Sophia of Hanover, excluding Catholics.
April 1702: Coronation of Queen Anne. As no one in Scotland witnessed the Scottish Oath that was supposed to have been taken by the monarch of Scotland in England, other than by those in favour of a union between the two Countries, Scotland only had “hearsay” and England’s opinion reported back to Scotland that this event happened.
[ That ‘hearsay’ was a formal legal document, James, a legal attestation signed by witnesses of high rank. There is no good reason to doubt that Anne took the Oath that I can see, as she had nothing to gain from lying about it, and there was a risk if it came out that she had lied. The Convention of the Estates would have taken a very dim view of it, and could have decided to depose her as unfit to rule. ]
The monarch down south had already held their coronation as the monarch of England France and Wales, ( The France bit was a false claim by England and a lie.) [ Granted, I’ve also thought that, but it was symbolic more than anything substantive. ] So Scotland really had no need to worry that England’s parliament told porkies. [ Not so sure about that, though, James. ]
England having disposed of king James as a royal monarch of England, then decided that they would insert a nobody by descent of a broken line of monarchs and unrecognised disposed of pretender to the crown of England king James as their new Queen monarch. [ Queen Anne was hardly a nobody, she was the daughter of James the VII/II, next in line for the throne if James VII/II died! ]
September 1704: England adopted the succession of the Hanoverian line of descent, as the monarch of England, which ended with Queen Victoria. When a new succession house line took over. [ This was the succession to Princess Sophia if Anne died heirless. It was stated in the Treaty. By the time it happened in 1714, though, Sophia had died, and her son George thus took the throne as next in her line. ]
May 1707: The Treaty of Union. Meanwhile Scotland’s vacant throne being left vacant caused Scotland to be a republic Country, [ no, James, Scotland was still constitutionally a kingdom, and its sovereignty still intact in the form of her sovereign people, the formal Crown of the Scots, also known as the Community of the Realm. The Scottish monarch, though sovereign, was still only one sovereign Scot among hundreds of thousands of others, and among millions today. ]
And it was as the territorial republic of Scotland, the peoples republic of Scotland, that Scotland supposedly entered into a voluntary treaty of union with England, [ It was not voluntary, however it was dressed up by the English establishment. ]
Except the Scots were not asked to join the treaty as the Scots in all probability would have voted NO.( see Westminster parliament) [ It was the nature of the times, James, democracy was in its mewling infancy. The real constitutional crime was the flat out undisguised dismissal of Scotland’s sovereignty by another sovereignty in their shared parliament, a crime that the UN will come to recognise and deal with hopefully before too long. ]
Scotland could not have offered the territorial community realm of Scotland as it did not belong to the Scottish parliament or the monarch, The Scottish crown constitution being distinctly different from that of Englands.the territory belonged to the Scots people. [ England couldn’t have cared less, and it showed, and still does. ]
The treaty articles, terms and conditions themselves is what supposedly bought about a monarch of England becoming the monarch of Great Britain, Englands parliament presuming that the English monarchy (and) Constitution was the same as the Scottish constitution (and) Crown and included territory of the community of Sovereign Scots. [ Like I said England couldn’t have cared less, and still doesn’t. ]
This has always been a wrong presumption by England, albeit a beneficial financial one to them over the years,
The reality of the monarchy positions in both countries is important to the treaty explanation and whom was monarchs and over what.
1954: The ‘transmission’ to the UN of the UK government’s description of its internal constitutional and governance structures.
If Englands Westminster assumes it has captured, colonised and annexed Scotland through trickery, bribery. And threats of violence or financial ruin or blackmail. A suggestion of a voluntary partnership union would not hold up as a international treaty at all.
[ Perfectly correct, James. The UK submitted a formal statement to the UN’s Fourth Committee that “Scotland is a voluntary partner in a Union, not a dependency of England.” as its formal ‘transmission’ describing its internal arrangements in 1954. Since it was framed as I’ve just stated, it is a simple binary decision. If Scotland is constantly overruled and its own choices ignored by the English half of the Union, then it is clearly not a partner, and so by the UK’s own statement it must be a dependency. That is a logical trap that the UK needn’t have put itself into, and hopefully will come to regret. ]
There is a lot of information to run through just on monarchies alone.
Perhaps Xaracen I may appeal to your generous nature in correcting your amendments and placing all in chronological order before I continue the debate into how we arrive on the question of the wether there is treaty.?
And if it stands up to scrutiny. please feel free to apply further info I may have missed meanwhile.
Short list of dates for reference;
– 1688–1689: Glorious Revolution
– December 1688: James VII of Scotland and II of England flees to France.
– February 1689: William and Mary are declared joint monarchs of England.
– April 1689: Scottish Convention of Estates declares James VII deposed and offers the Crown to William and Mary.
– December 1689: : English Bill of Rights. Establishes parliamentary sovereignty in England and limits royal prerogative.
– 1701: English Act of Settlement
– 12 June 1701: Limits succession to Protestant heirs of Sophia of Hanover, excluding Catholics.
– 1702: Coronation of Queen Anne
– 23 April 1702: Anne crowned Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland. England still claims the title “Queen of France” symbolically.
– 1704: Scottish Act of Security
– September 1704: Scottish Parliament asserts right to choose its own successor if no agreement with England.
– 1705: English Alien Act
– March 1705: Threatens economic sanctions if Scotland doesn’t negotiate union.
– 1706: Treaty Negotiations
– 22 July 1706: Articles of Union signed by commissioners from both kingdoms.
– 1706: English Ratification
– 23 December 1706: English Parliament passes the Union with Scotland Act.
– 1707: Scottish Ratification
– 16 January 1707: Scottish Parliament passes the Union with England Act.
– 1707: Treaty Takes Effect
– 1 May 1707: Treaty of Union comes into force. Parliament of Great Britain is established.
– 1707: First British Parliament
– 23 October 1707: First sitting of the new Parliament of Great Britain.
-1954: The ‘transmission’ to the UN of the UK government’s description of its internal constitutional and governance structures.
@James Cheyne;
The list of dates contains something I missed, and don’t recognise; Microsoft’s Copilot AI came up with it when I asked it to identify the dates associated with your list of events that I didn’t already have.
“-23 December 1706: English Parliament passes the Union with Scotland Act.”
My best guess is that it is when the act was initiated, then held, pending the completion of the Scottish Act of Union.
There is a LOT of dis/misinformation on the internet about ‘The Act of Union’, as if there was only ever one!
There comes a point where discussion around the treaty has to bear fruit in favour of one side or the other, as that is what is controlling Scotland,
It decides our voting systems in Scotland,
The devolved parliament.
Our laws,
ID roll outs.
Private rights
Right to Self determination.
Our Monarch.
Our pensions.
Our energy Supplies.
Scotlands disappeared burgh Councils.
Our reduced voting Counties.
Our mineral rights and licenses.
Planning permissions
Scottish trusts,
Fishing and farming.
The border of Scotland.
And every treaty signed since 1707 if Scotlands sovereign nation is not recognised as a voluntary partner with a clause for leaving included the same manner and way as England has,
If not then it is not a voluntary treaty of union with Scotland in which to hang any other treaty on,
It becomes Colonisation of Scotland
And so much more not mentioned here,
the anglos are going nuts that they aren’t stealing more of our oil, faster
link to archive.ph
– good map a little way down, shows how large our seas are; england’s zone is from the border to the triple point. They tried to steal a bit by trying to draw the boundary up at a 45 degree angle, but no international body would ever recognise that – they don’t have a leg to stand on.
Lots of other good information if you read all the way to the bottom.
Be fair, Confused. As the Jocks have unilaterally decided to virtue-signal ourselves to Nutt Zero 5 years ahead of the Anglos, their need will be greater than ours.
Of course, we could see sense and vote ourselves a HR government not hell-bent on virtue-signalling us into disaster (Reform?), but then you were bumping your gums about them too, just the other day.
Face facts, Confused. Our home-grown Scottish elite class find the oil & gas to be a bit of an embarrassment these days. Best let somebody else take it off our hands.
At this point I’d usually point the finger at you and the other gullible eejits who have been repeatedly voting these numpties into power at HR since 2014, but today I can’t be arsed.
Oil and gas will remain important for the rest of this century. Now check the map. Ideally we run our own needs on the hydro/wind and sell the rest, having processed it into high profit petroleum and chemical products.
Energy, is what “real money” is; we value energy in currency, but it should really be the other way. Point is, this is a possession and heirloom of the Scots people, for them to dispose of as they see fit. Even leaving it in the ground, if they want. Being looted to create another “economic boom” and asset bubble for the little englanders of London and the south east is not something any sane Scot should countenance, nor voting for any party which intends to do that.
Some years ago now, I went for a job with a very impressive oil services company, they did the lot, they ran entire operations, oil fields, and controlled all aspects; they had this very sophisticated software to optimise every operation – and they only hired the best … obviously why they were talking to me.
– so it’s one of those interviews when it’s just went great, the tough questions were knocked out the park, the vibe is building and you are getting a sense of -enthusiasm- from the guys who would be employing you.
So, on the wind down, informal quesions, I have to ask about “the oil running out” … what I saw next, it kindof unsettled me.
– it was a flash, a micro expression, of derision and hilarity, like he was going to burst one, but he quickly suppressed it, like he couldn’t say too much and what came out, when he was back in control was a curt, but completely authoritative :
there will be significant oil and gas production for the foreseeable future (which I took to mean – “we’re all fucking dead … don’t worry about it).
The “couldn’t say too much aspect” I always remembered, like he wanted to blow some insider secret, but he couldn’t. This guy KNEW – HE FUCKING KNEW – because among his many jobs was to analyze seismic survey data, and he had seen a lot of it. Loads.
– looking back, this was not only commercially sensitive, but politically – and it was down to us; the oil had already been a problem for the unionists, and they had to tack this strange course of simultaneously downplaying for domestic consumption, but also pumping it like fuck and making sure the foreigners, the forex investors, all knew we had plenty.
It could well be that the truth is astonishing – like “pissing on norway from a height”.
For contrast, the massive oil discoveries in “British” antarctica are of immense interest to the UK, despite the practicalities of – we need the treaty torn up, we need other people to recognise “our” claim, we need to have the tech to get at it and the money to spend to build up the infrastructure; now, bear in mind, they would scrape every inch of our seabed before they would do this.
The oil industry is very crooked, in general, and you cannot trust what people report because it is in their interest at various times to lie about reserves and production in either direction; they get up to all kinds of tricks. Tankers, full of oil, just sail around, or park up; and on the other side, the investors are up to industrial espionage, flying drones with thermal cameras to monitor oil storage facilities. OPEC is a cartel. Aramco and Statoil are state monopolies – it is an arena where the rules are strange and people can make and lose a lot of money. But it is all a big boys game, with big boys rules. Notably, no one -ever- (really) “makes any money” at it, yet amazingly, still persevere in it.
Point is – no one, ever, “just believes the numbers” presented; it’s an elaborate dance, and if say you were trading oil futures at JP Morgan, you would certainly be trying to source your own numbers.
Right now, it suits a lot of agendas in the UK to claim “the oil is running out”.
You’re confused again, Confused, terminally so, I’d say.
Take Statoil for example – that ceased to exist over 7 years ago.
Don’t feel too bad about being unable to get basic facts straight. Things change – some would even say things are changing at an accelerating rate.
The trick is to move with the times, and for Indy folk, accept it’s not 2014 any more, and never will be again.
Today in stories that definitely never happened . . .
Confused, you are quite correct. I remember being at school in the 70s when there was a huge amount of talk about oil and how it was going to help business and the ordinary punter, by paying less for their energy bills.
It is a finite source, ergo, it is running out.
Of course, we were then told it would have all dried up by the end of the 80s,
then we were told it would all be gone by the end of the century,
then we were told there was very little left and it wasn’t worth talking about in the noughties, then we were told it was costing more money to bring the awful stuff up out of the ground than it was worth,
during the independence referendum, we were told by Alistair Darling that it would run out sometime in 2015,
now we’re being told again to forget about it as it’s not that important anyway because there is alternative energy to solve all our problems.
Apart from the petrochemical industry being critical to every aspect of the modern world, we’re told yet again, it’s not important.
Gullible fools can believe that the only interest that the USA has in facilitating regime change in Venezuela beneficial to the US, is to stop drug smuggling within Venezuela’s borders instead of its own and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with access and control of the biggest oil reserves in the world.
A good post. Agree with every point.
On the subject of “gullible fools” dating back to the 1970’s, a smart onlooker might want to consider the revolutionary technological advances that have been made in the half century since then.
A smart onlooker with some knowledge of the natural resources extraction industries would also know damn well that the question “How much oil is left?” is a meaningless one.
Because before it can be answered, the counter-question has to be fired back: “At what price will the market purchase the oil that will be produced?”
I’ll spell it out in monosyllables for you, Breastplate. You seldom succeed in extracting every last drop of a natural resource from its mother lode. The resource is depleted until the cost of extracting it exceeds its sale price. A change in technology that reduces extraction costs automatically increases the recoverable quantity of resource. As does an increase in the selling price.
None of this is rocket science. All of it can be easily grasped by watching a few episodes of Aussie Gold Hunters.
Statoil had a name change/rebranding/reorganisation. BP was once called “Anglo Persian” oil. Google is really alphabet. Opal Fruits is now Starburst. Trying to make a point about nothing, as usual? Your comebacks are somewhat flaccid these days, best you take a time-out.
rebrandings are interesting, for the reasons – statoil, state oil, the norwegian state oil monopoly – it sounds bad to modern business ears; likewise “anglo persian” oil, that’s a bag of snakes isn’t it, given geopolitics – mossadegh, the coup of 54, the shah, the ayatollahs … its a can of worms that no one wants to be reminded of; neo colonialism, empire, black ops – business likes to look clean, as if totally separate from politics (forgetting the CIA intervening on behalf of US corporations)
As for the true limits to extraction, that comes when it costs the energy equivalent of a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil; this was what made the “fracking boom” so stupid – it was nett energy negative and was really all about wall st being able to make a lot of loans. Fracking is super stupid as the wells fall off abruptly. Real waste of time, an environmental disaster and there just so bankers can make loans … I mention this because inevitably some tit will suggest fracking as some way to “get the economy back on track”.
The real point is the clever way the Norwegians managed this resource, this jackpot; they actually had a strategy – they would not allow it to be looted by foreign oligarchs (- before Chavez, the venezuelans got a 1 percent royalty on their oil, they were giving it away), or leave it all up to the “market”; markets only optimise profits for private interests and are highly wasteful – if you have other criteria and you know what the solution should be, you just go there immediately. So the norwegs setup a state monopoly to control their industry; private industry was made a partner, but was never in control.
– the other part of this equation was the wealth fund, setup so that future generations would benefit long after the last extractable drop was gone; thus they would not “pish it up a wall” like the english would do. Notably the wealth fund has to diversify and does not invest in oil and gas; the norwegian people now likely own decent chunks of apple, google, nvidia, etc.
This notion of “having an overall strategy” is something the english won’t do : the city has to be let to do what it wants, and when wilson came up with this idea in the 60s he almost got coup-de-tatted. This short sightedness is why they got so bad at capitalism, the game they invented; things we were once good at – shipbuilding – withered because investing in new tech was “wasting profits”. Being fucking crap at it was one further reason thatcher enthusiastically deindustrialised – everyone else was eating our lunch.
There are further benefits if you have an energy monopoly which encompasses oil and renewables, all together; for example windpower, when in over production could be stored in hydro. And when the wind drops, you switch to hydro, or gas. With control of everything, nothing is wasted.
My interview yielded more in the informal phase; I asked the guy how far they could drill down – “as far as you want”; then I asked him about geothermal energy, dig 2 holes, inject water down one, get steam coming back up and electricity. Easy, and the geothermal “reserves” dwarfs anything else, by a mile. Well, the reason why we don’t do many things is – it is not “economic”, i.e. something equivalent exists which is “cheaper”. Like oil, it’s like “sticking a straw into a sponge” and up it comes, free money. Oil extraction is a mature, well developed industry, heading off to these “boondoggles” – what’s the point. It is okay in Iceland, the whole country sits on top of a magma chamber and it is easy to get at – they essentially have free energy.
Technically, the trouble is this “nonlinearity”; in most places the energy is down between 5-10 km. And the thing is the cost of drilling is not linear, it gets more expensive the deeper you go and it gets expensive – you guessed it – just where you need to be. Now, have a watch at this –
link to youtube.com
– if you get into it far enough the moneyshot is these guys have put – a fucking LASER (microwave laser, so a maser) onto a drill head to melt the rock so that drilling becomes cheaper. That is so cool. And the heating produced vitrefies the rock, so you don’t need to put steel casings down there … wouldn’t it be great if oil companies could pivot to geothermal? But, as I pointed out earlier – there is, and they are just not telling, a lot of oil left, so why not just “do what we know, that works”. And this is not even considering all the “unconvential oil” in the world – Venezuela has bigger reserves than Saudi, but it is like tar, not the light sweet stuff. You also have a lot of coal. You even have “methane hydrates” under the sea, but they tell us methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
Undersea drone tech is going to be massive and open up the currently unreachable; we could get in on this, but with the usual lack of imagination we will get left behind and end up buying it off china.
Since 2012, this has been my very favourite source of information about our politics. BTL discussion used to be great. Well worth trawling through hundreds of posts
to catch the many gems. Debate could be vigorous, but always pretty civilised.
It has become obvious that this happy situation just could not be allowed to continue, and BTL would appear to have been infiltrated by people and bots from the “dark side”. The antagonism towards the cause of our freedom, and those of us who are its champions is, at times, quite sickening.
The attack on Peter Bell from someone calling themselves “100% yes” is what moved me to write my first ever comment today. I am no great PB supporter, and I understand why he upsets some folk, but he does have some good ideas, and I for one, think that this is one of his better ones. To see him rubbished in this way is quite disgraceful.
O.K. Peter.
OK Peter !
Spot on.
Insider. You’re one of them, and I’m calling you out.
Nurse !
Don’t be surprised if hundreds of thousands of independence supporters [like on the July 2024 Westminster election] refuse to vote at next year’s Holyrood election.
What would that achieve?
Mibbe a Reform landslide!
Check out Liberate Scotland on Barrhead boy Prism on youtube, do a bit of investigating rather than deciding just now
UDI.
If said in an Northern Ireland accent has a whole new feel to it.
We’re the UDI. “Give us the fuckin money”. ” We know where you stay”.
According to the mid-2025 rankings, the top five most dangerous cities in Europe are Bradford, Marseille, Coventry, Birmingham, and Naples.
You mean Numbeo’s crime index?
‘Numbeo’s Crime Index is based on user surveys, scaled 0–100, and reflects perceptions of crime and safety rather than official statistics’
So the rankings are not for the most dangerous cities statistically (or indeed, factually) but are for people’s perceptions of crime based on surveys.
link to newdiplomatng.com
Say what you like about Farage at least he had guts to fight for a cause no matter what much as Salmond did. Swinney and Sheppard and the SNP elite care only about keeping their power at Bute House and Holyrood
A rather anger-inducing read, but pretty much the norm for a Scotlandshire run by arsehole devolutionists that lack vision and practical nous.
link to robinmcalpine.org
This has all been happening under Swinney’s watch as deputy FM and now FM, so maybe time some of the remaining SNP voters started to seriously question just what type of self-governing country they want to live when the utter cretins currently empowered to control the limited powers we have continue to make such an utter mess of our land and society.
Isn’t Bradford the city of culture???
If it is, it won’t be our culture.
Nobody going to Bradford is going to be saying “White, White, White”.
Yes and there has been some wonderful events there as part of it that reflect its diverse history and culture. Bradford is not an attractive city in the centre really (60s planning ruination) but I lived there for a while, have friends there and visited many times since. It is, like many places, unfairly maligned, and the nearby countryside is lovely.
You might think you’re doing something good, voting for a so-called pro-indy MSP or MP. You’re not. You are endorsing a system of fake democracy, where Scots are denied basic self-determination no matter who you vote for.
But it’s a lucrative career. Working for the UK state as colonial oppressors for the English Crown.
Indy first! Aye right! They can’t wait to swear allegiance to the English Crown to start collecting their salary.
Politicians are egotistical moneygrubbing lying scumbags and that’s the nicer ones.
Thank you Stuart Campbell yet again.
Thank you Kevin McKenna yet again.
A handful of excellent posts produced by Confused, Young Lochinvar, and Twathater through the night.
Xaracen deserves a mention, too, for his work on rejigging James Cheyne’s informative comment from 13th October @1:17 pm into date order – a very useful and educational exercise… thanks, Xaracen.
If you’re trying to claim you read Xaracen’s post through from end to end, then I’m stating your pants are well ablaze.
” YOU WIIL NOT WORK IN THE UK IF YOU DO NOT HAVR DIGITASL IS ” declares Starmer.
Of course the concomitant to that is you will not have a bank account, you will not access health care, you will not be able but=y a home, or get a phone or internet account.
But the basic human right to work is going to be denied.
Is this the state you voted for. Is the state on your side. And where do you go when you are denied the right to work. How do you enforce it.
Ah well with no cash, only digital money, the hordes will soon come to heel.
Starmfuhrer can do one. His disastrous political career will be over long before the time Digital ID is able to be implemented, and that’s discounting the British Big State’s innate ability to completely cock anything and everything up. For these two reasons alone, I doubt Digital ID will ever happen. For liberty’s sake, I pray so.
I fervently hope you are right.
_____________________________________________
Stu and Kevin’s articles are both top notch.