The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The elephant in the courtroom

Posted on April 12, 2018 by

In one way or another, a lot of politics is being played out in courts at the moment. Whether it’s Spain trying to crush the Catalonian independence movement, America frantically trying to impeach its President before he does something REALLY crazy or the UK trying to redefine the most basic of human freedoms out of existence without ever putting an act before Parliament, judges are having as much say as ministers in deciding the future shape of Western civilisation.

Of the most direct interest to Scotland, of course, are the UK government’s attempts to trample all over the 20-year-old devolution settlement.

The urgency of the situation, with Brexit now less than a year away, has driven the Yes movement into one of its occasional paroxysms of dispute about when a second independence referendum should be attempted, with SNP MP Pete Wishart attracting some overheated opprobrium by warning against acting in haste, and in the process serving up a juicy gift-wrapped opportunity for Unionists and a news-starved media.

But the furore masks a key issue that the Yes movement – and more crucially, the Scottish Government – has failed to address for the last three years, and which it’s really going to have to deal with at some point.

Scottish voters consistently say in opinion polls that they think the holding of any more referendums should be a matter for the Scottish Government, not the UK government, to decide – even though most of them still oppose independence and also say they don’t want another indyref in the near future. The current Scottish Parliament has both an electoral mandate and a democratic mandate to call another vote.

There’s only one problem – it doesn’t, at least not in any indisputable sense, have the actual power. And that raises one huge, crucial question:

What if the UK government just says “Now is not the time” forever?

Because there’s very little discernible downside for Westminster in doing so. What’s Scotland going to do about it, elect the SNP again? Elect Labour? LOL, as the young people say. The worst-case scenario for any UK Prime Minister is that they end up with what they’ve already got now – the SNP dominant in Scotland but unable to achieve anything in the House Of Commons against the vast suffocating mass of English MPs.

(And if Labour did somehow win in Scotland, better yet for a UK PM, of either stripe. That way Scotland’s MPs won’t even bother trying to stand up for Scotland, because they’ll be the obedient servants of UK Labour. The Feeble Fifty will ride again.)

The matter of whether a referendum is within the devolved powers of Holyrood has in fact never been settled. There is extensive learned legal opinion on both sides, and the Edinburgh Agreement of 2012 merely avoided answering the question by kicking it down the road and hoping that events would make it go away.

Any referendum attempted without the consent of the UK government would therefore almost certainly find itself in the courts for a long spell of lawyer-enriching wrangling, because any citizen could challenge it even if the UK government itself did not.

So if the UK government simply elects to continue to ignore the democratic wishes of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people, the Scottish Government – and more pertinently the SNP – will find itself in a tricky pickle.

Nicola Sturgeon’s current position is unenviably awkward, caught between conflicting strands of public opinion (“no more referendums” vs “Holyrood should have the power to decide”) and the impatience of her own supporters to go back to the polls before the referendum mandate expires in 2021, with few people currently believing that another pro-independence majority will come out of the Scottish election that year.

Barring a UK government change of heart – which seems a long shot to put it mildly – there’s only one Alexandrian sword she can possibly wield to cut through this knot: the courts will have to decide.

So here’s the only way we can see through the problem: the Scottish Government has to bite the bullet and legislate for a second independence referendum now.

It doesn’t have to, and shouldn’t, put a date on it. It just has to pass some sort of bill announcing its intention, any form of preparation that unarguably sets out on the path. The opponents of independence cannot allow that to go unchallenged or they lose the argument by default, so it’ll go to court. And then, after some time passes, we’ll know where we stand one way or the other, once and for all.

Politically it’s unlikely to be a very popular move, but with over three years until any scheduled general elections there’ll never be a better time to swallow that unpleasant medicine. Other than that it costs nothing – if the Scottish Government loses the case, it’ll be no worse off than it is in practice now.

And the longer they wait to start, the more academic the point becomes. It’s a fat lot of good winning the theoretical power for Holyrood to call a referendum if you haven’t got the votes to pass the bill any more. We cannot afford to lose sight of how hard a pro-indy majority at Holyrood is to actually achieve and how lucky we are to have one now.

Because make no mistake, time is running out in all sorts of ways. The clock is ticking on the mandate. The clock is ticking on Brexit. Independence won’t be easy to win in 2019 or 2020, but it’ll be a hundred times harder in 2022 or 2025 – even if by some miracle there’s still a Holyrood majority.

If we let this chance slip past, it’s very difficult to see how another could arrive in less than 20 years. What event could possibly be more seismic than Brexit to justify it, if Brexit doesn’t? (Barring WW3, which would make it a moot point.) And if we’re talking about 2040 then what happens now makes no difference.

As we watch events in Catalonia with horror, we cannot afford to simply sit passively and put our trust in the UK government to play fair if we ask nicely enough. A peaceful, democratic, legal route is open to us. We have to get on that bus and get on our way before the service is cancelled forever.

Print Friendly

    2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 12 04 18 12:56

      The elephant in the courtroom | speymouth

    2. 14 04 18 01:52

      The Scottish Government Are Being Filibustered – The Independence Live Blog

    427 to “The elephant in the courtroom”

    1. RogueCoder says:

      Excellent. I’ve been musing this thorny problem (and having many online debates about this) for some time. My most recent interactions with the learned Mr Tickell led me to a similar conclusion, but its good to see it articulated in such a skilled manner as above.

      Share the heck out of this article, folks!

    2. Macart says:

      @RogueCoder

      Consider it already shared. 🙂

    3. mogabee says:

      Taking that route would at least focus minds one way or another.

      If we just sit waiting as now, more infighting will do irreparable damage. So let’s push for this at minimum or for some direction from the FM.

    4. heedtracker says:

      Come on Scots gov. We’ve nothing to lose but our tory masters, in another country.

    5. Breastplate says:

      Well said Rev, also a referendum should be considered an obligation to democracy rather than some sort of privilege.

    6. HandandShrimp says:

      His call that this is “no big deal” is a brave one*.

      *Sir Humphrey Appleby.

    7. Bob Mack says:

      I totally agree Stu. Last night we were discussing the attempt to create the new Act of Union by Westminster, which would be based solely on a UK majority referendum. This Act is not that far away from being presented to Parliament

      In other words ,even if the vote in Scotland was against this ,the rest of the UK if voting to agree would lock us in permanently to the UK . No matter what we decided in Scotland.
      Same old same old.

      We must not have a vote on those terms. We must choose by ourselves for ourselves, before that proposal comes to fruition.

    8. Marc Rich says:

      I fear this is indeed the best way to go.

      Whitehall are so unlikely to say ok, off you go, try again. It is not in their interest to do so.

      The SNP are reluctant to pick a fight with the UK Gov on the fact that the letter the First minister wrote was never replied to.

      But at the moment the UK Gov are calling our bluff.

      Asking isnt going to do it.

      Legal challenge, conflict, is the only language Whitehall, Westminster and the Tory party understand.

    9. Flower of Scotland says:

      This is a good piece from Stuart. The YES movement is anxiously waiting on some word of a new referendum from senior SNP folk. Differences in opinion as to an actual date is keeping things going but we need something more substantial from the Scottish Government.

      Theresa May saying “now is not the time” is not acceptable. We are waiting for the Scottish Government to give us a new timetable.

    10. schrodingers cat says:

      i think we would be better to wait for jan 19 to start this process, ie launch indyref2 then, but hold back on announcing a date,

      either way, this is a better discussion to have, focusing on the actual date of indyref2, misses the important issue of the process required, legal, political etc, just to get to the point where we can hold one.

      could we summarise the options as, announce the launch of indyref2

      1. today
      2. sept 18
      3. after A50 bill is voted on, about jan19

      If we are talking about launching indyref2 and not about fixing a date, I cant see any reason to wait any longer than jan19?

    11. DeepFriedPenguin says:

      I have been voting for the SNP since the early 80’s. My view then and I think it was everyone’s view (including Thatcher), was that a vote for the SNP was a vote for Independence.

      I can’t remember any talk of referendums, a simple majority of votes at a G.E. would be enough for the Independence negotiations to begin.

      I see no reason why we can’t return to this “fundamentalist” viewpoint. It may require the current leadership to stand down in the event of another failed referendum or failure to call one, but the idea we can’t campaign and fight for Independence without a “material change of circumstances” is wrong in my opinion.

    12. Peter A Bell says:

      Incredible! Another commentator looks at the issue of the timing of a new independence referendum, observes the fact that the clock is ticking on the mandate and that the clock is ticking on Brexit, but fails to even mention anything that the British government is likely to do besides drag Scotland out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people. As I wrote elsewhere,

      “It’s as if, in the scenarios they consider, the British government ceases to exist. The British political elite is simply disregarded. The British state’s pressing imperative to lock Scotland into a ‘reformed’ Union is just ignored. The ongoing ‘One Nation’ British Nationalist project isn’t a factor. It doesn’t figure in the Postponers’ calculations when they’re considering timing of the new referendum. (Note to Biblical scholars: Give me a break, eh! It’s a nice image.)”

      https://peterabell.blog/2018/04/12/the-options/

    13. heedtracker says:

      May not be an issue for much longer. Always fretted UKOK red and blue tories would destroy us all sooner or later. Vote NO Thanks vile sep Scots, UKOK Trident keeps you safe.

      https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/689309/Britain-Russia-War-Nuclear-Vladimir-Putin-Theresa-May-Trident-Sergei-Skripal-Spy-Poison

      Theresa May prepared to use nuclear weapons against Russia
      PRIME Minister Theresa May is prepared to use nuclear weapons if Britain went to war with Russia.

    14. Bill McDermott says:

      This doesn’t in any way negate the need for Yes DIY to get up to speed. A mass movement of grassroots activism will drive the Scottish Government and Parliament to do the necessary to secure the legislation to enact a referendum.

    15. manandboy says:

      What’s the hold up? It’s beginning to look like we’re afraid.

    16. Nigel says:

      Perfect analysis – totally agree.

      I always thought that NS was painting the SNP and ScotGov into a corner on this issue and time is running through our fingers like sand – time we cannot pick up ever again.

      By holding back, we are handing cards back to the UkGov when we could have had it over a barrel.

      I must admit, the court route is not ideal, but something, somehow has to be done soon or I won’t see Indy in my lifetime.

    17. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “i think we would be better to wait for jan 19 to start this process, ie launch indyref2 then, but hold back on announcing a date,”

      I think a pretty conservative estimate for the legal wrangling would be two years. So delaying for another nine months makes the calendar very challenging.

    18. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “fails to even mention anything that the British government is likely to do besides drag Scotland out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people”

      Um, the article opens by talking about Mundell and the attempt to crush devolution. It’s literally the second paragraph and the main image.

    19. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      12 April, 2018 at 12:38 pm

      Marc Rich says

      Legal challenge or conflict is how most UK colonies have gained their independence, most by the latter

    20. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      Turning now to Syria.

      Could that not be the tinderbox?

    21. Capella says:

      Apparently, Westminster is referring the Scottish Government’s Continuity Bill to the Supreme Court. They would obviously refer any Referendum Bill to the Supreme Court.

      Looks to me that they have already broken the Treaty of Union in so many ways that it’s pointless to carry on participating in the farce that is Westminster. They are not called “Perfidious Albion” for nothing.

      So yes, let’s legislate and start campaigning to bring about Independence.

    22. Ian Brotherhood says:

      I’m lobbin in ma tuppenceworth now then fekkin off to clean the oven because this place will be covered in hair and snotterrs before tea-time…

      If we don’t have a referendum date carved in stone before Brexit then we’ll never ever get another one. Cameron had the luxury of ‘believing’ that ‘No’ would win in 2014, so signing the Edinburgh Agreement wasn’t a big deal for him. May, however, daren’t even ponder another close-run thing so ‘Now Is Not The Time’ will be her default position for whatever time she has left.

      I’m with Peter Bell on this, and echo his call for Sep this year. Yes, it seems too ‘soon’, too ‘near’, and I understand the caution of Wishart et al but this is no longer a constitutional matter – it’s existential.

    23. Bob Mack says:

      @Rev Stu,

      I know you mention Mundell, but he and his challenge is not the main issue. The real problem is the proposed new Act of Union. That is happening as we write.

      That would destroy all hope of peaceful means to independence.

      The British establishment have been concocting this behind the scenes and it is a real threat should it be rolled out before a new indy referendum date.

    24. Breastplate says:

      Rev, as you say the clock is ticking on our mandate to have a referendum and it has to be used but we definitely do not need to have excuses to have any future referendums.

      Like Deep Fried Penguin says we don’t need caveats to have our independence referendums only a mandate to do so, that is enough none of this double lock or triple lock nonsense that it seems to have morphed into.

    25. Ottomanboi says:

      Another wellknown blogger has written that the SNP needs to realise that Scottish independence is a revolutionary act. It will not be granted free of charge by the British state it will be resisted by every means at that state’s disposal. Effectively by employing every conceived resource in the arsenal.
      I am truly stunned by how naïve some Scottish nationalists are. They appear to have an idolatrous faith in the rule of law but whose law are they genufecting before?
      In the end there will be a showdown. We must have the leaders in charge who are wised-up and prepared for that.

    26. schrodingers cat says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      12 April, 2018 at 12:51 pm
      “i think we would be better to wait for jan 19 to start this process, ie launch indyref2 then, but hold back on announcing a date,”

      I think a pretty conservative estimate for the legal wrangling would be two years. So delaying for another nine months makes the calendar very challenging.
      ———————

      i dont know enough about the legal process to comment, it would be good if the peat worrier could do an article.

      if 2 years is a fair estimate then the 9 months would be critical.

      btw, i used jan 19 as an estimate as to when WM will finally vote on the A50 bill. point being is if nicola puts indyref2 back on the table and WM stops brexit, she will need to take it back off the table, less indyref2, more hokey cokey.

      then again, maybe we should risk it?, recent comments from labour it looks like corbyn will vote for the bill, cant really see what choice he has.

    27. Joemcg says:

      There has already been a test case with the Supreme Court in London over ruling the SG over article 50. We are fucked.

    28. Robert Louis says:

      Excellent article. Well said.

      This is the point, at some time Scotland WILL HAVE to assert its democratic rights. Westminster only ever takes, it does not give – and certainly not to Scotland. They will do whatsoever they please, until such time the ScotGov take affirmative action.

      Once the issue is nailed, then either a referendum will be held, or, in the unlikely event the pretend ‘supreme’ court in London, England, tells Scotland ‘it can’t’, then the SNP should stand at the next election on a clear cut mandate either for independence (and stop piddling around with referenda), or the assertion of FULL executive powers.

      The union is NOT and never has been unbreakable – indeed Westminster has done so many time. It is an international treaty, and may be ended unilaterally by either of the two signatory parties.

      At the end of the day, however, the reality in all of this, is that Westminster only has the powers it has because it says it does. Its power does not come handed from some deity. In essence, it does whatsoever it likes. Within that same context then, it is hard to argue that only the Scottish parliament has to abide by the ‘rules’. If the rules do not apply to Westminster then they cannot be held as enforceable in Holyrood either. In such circumstances, the Scottish Government may also choose to do whatsoever it pleases, because in the end, what would London do? Send in the army? arrest the Scottish Government? Westminster is a cesspit, but it is not Fascist Madrid.

      Either way, it is clearly time for action. Appeasement and compromise are spent, and have proved pointless. That window of opportunity is gone – and we need to hear no more of it from NS. Finished.

      As a first step we need every member of the SNP Government to start making the case for independence – and start attending the indy marches (with a few honourable exceptions like Joanna Cherry and a few others). Time for all those MP’s, MSP’ and councillors who get our votes to start doing rather than just saying. Time to do it NOW, or their endless procrastination may never be forgiven.

      We, the indy supporters, are ready and waiting, so get on with it.

    29. Dennis Nicholson says:

      Yep. Absolutely. Totally. Wings nails it again…

    30. Monica Worley says:

      Why not put a date on it? Or something saying ‘on or about March 1, 2019’? I think the Yes people, including me, would like some idea of a goal to aim for.

    31. Robert Louis says:

      Ian brotherhood at 1258pm,

      Yip. Agree with every word, bar the oven cleaning bit.

    32. schrodingers cat says:

      If we don’t have a referendum date carved in stone before Brexit then we’ll never ever get another one

      —————–

      ian, if we have a legal pronouncement to hold indyref2, before 29/03/19

      then surely we we can hold it on a date after the 29th?

    33. Muscleguy says:

      @Mr Panda buggerer
      NZ, Australia and Canada achieved increasing independence by simply passing parliamentary bills breaking links. NZ and Oz created an Australasian Supreme Court then broke finally with appeals to the Privy Council in London for eg.

      Some of them were with London’t agreement (lower admin costs for London) or were seen as natural as the Dominions created legal etc capacity, expertise and infrastructure.

      Somewhat ironically if Scotland had Dominion status we could have legislated our independence into existence. Hell if we had Crown Possession status like Man or Jersey we could have done it too. Please Sis Theresa please throw us in the constitutional briar patch.

    34. I also believe that if the SNP got a majority of,votes that was the mandate for independence no referendum required I mean every one new the reason the SNP were founded was to bring back independence to Scotland so anyone who votes for them is voting for that .,why they did not implement this when they had the 56 MPs is a mystery to me I fear we have to many faint hearts in the SNP just now they have the mandate but refuse to act they seem to believe all the phoney polls And just keep on playing by the rules that are there to keep us enslaved please SNP live up to your founding principles and act on them now

    35. David Smith@@@ says:

      Agreed@ Ottomanboy

      Anybody who thinks we’re going to achieve our right to self determination by being nice about it is in for a very ducking rude awakening very soon.
      And you think Rajoy’s reaction to Catalonian Normalism is brutal..?

    36. Frank Lynch says:

      I don’t know how true this is, but I heard this morning that Rees-Mogg, Scottish and English Tory MPs and assorted Labour and Lib-DumDums, will be raising amendments to the constitution to make Scotland reflect the set up in Spain postBrexit. Power will be devolved directly to their satrap Mundell; Scotland’s parliament will be a mere regional debating society, and any referendums will be deemed illegal unless expressly created by Westmonster. Maybe we should have Indyref2 asap, because if we hold one without England’s say-so, expect Scottish heads to be broken on the way to the polling booth by agents of the English state just like Catalonia.

    37. HandandShrimp says:

      I’m still of the view that we need to see what Oct 18 brings in order for the manifesto pledge to call a referendum if faced with a significant change in circumstances to be activated. The inability for Davies to nail anything down has muddied those waters delaying the inevitable but they have to empty the pail soon.

      I think we have to move quickly after Oct 18. I would lean to a May 19 vote (earlier is feasible but winter votes are hostages to fortune weather wise) but between now and Oct the Scottish Government needs to get its ducks in a row. Consideration needs to be given to our own currency and quite probably a period of EFTA membership pending. The latter would I think be acceptable to both Remainers and Leavers as breathing space.

      Yes, the British State may move in devious ways but if we go off at half cock against a threat that is difficult to articulate in the 2 minute soundbites that TV allows then we will lose the vote and quite possibly get stitched up like kippers as a result.

      I appreciate that not everyone agrees on strategy but that is the case with every campaign from politics to choosing the right football squad. I am happy to consider other positions.

    38. Or we could follow the DUP lead and threaten violence if we don’t get what we want. GCHQ,I’m hypothesising here, get off my case.
      There’s a lot going to happen, specifically in October 2018, when according to the Article 50 timetable, the Brexit negotiations will have been finalised, ready to be presented at WM and set before the parliaments of EU27 for sign off and approval, for implementation in April 2019.

      There is no solution to the Open Border issue between Norn Irn and the Republic. The ‘backstop’ is an open border between the North and South, with a hard border somewhere in the Irish Sea.
      Arlene has already spat out as many teeth as she can afford rejecting the notion that ‘British’ Norn irn citizens would be subject to immigration and customs checks at Cairnryan, Holyhead or ‘Mainland’ UK airports.
      It is the classic immovable object/irresistible force conundrum.
      Let’s not forget Gibraltar.
      Let’s not forget the EU’s red lines. Nothing agreed until everything’s agreed.
      No cherry picking. It’s either a Customs Union, Single Market, Freedom of Movement, ECJ jurisdiction, or No Deal.
      Scotland is small beer in their Bigger Picture.
      Mundell is a pointless waste of a Carbon Footprint.
      London will barnstorm through legislation that forbids any sort of Independence Referendum. They’ll make sure that the Law Lords are hand picked for the job.
      Stu knows that, so is, in his own convoluted way, arguing that we couldn’t win a Referendum this year or the next anyway, so we sit back, let the Judicial Review run its inevitable Pro WM course, and hope that Scot’s public opinion will sway towards Independence when Brexit bites and Eurmageddon unfolds between April 2019, and December 2020.
      Fuck that for a game of soldiers.
      They already have a ‘Reform Group’ rewriting the UK Constitution, which is designed to crush devolution, remove Scotland’s sovereignty, and introduce an Upper House at Holyrood of WM MPs from all over the UK.

      Why don’t they just cut off my cajones right now and be done with it?
      I’d argue that there will be plenty of Brexit disasters over the next 12 months which will dramatically shift Scottish opinion; we are only a few percentage points short of victory as it stands.
      If we wait until after Brexit is implemented in April 2019, then the 184,000 EU workers will be barred from voting in Indyref 2. Indeed the English Homeland Security may be deporting Scots based Furriners by the tens of thousands as a quick win/least harm to England’s economy option in a Spring’19 cull.
      The Constitution Reform Group has already explicitly excluded 16- 17 year olds from voting in their Brave New UK, so it can be taken as read that Brexitland will not ‘allow’ Scots youngsters to vote in any future plebiscite, never mind an Independence Referendum.
      I understand the ‘wait and see’ caution, but do not agree with it.
      In 2040 I’ll be 97.
      Are we really saying that in my seventh decade, I no longer have a dog in this fight?
      We go now. Start a 12 month campaign, with ‘A’ Day sometime in March 2019.
      Post April 2019, Scotland will be crushed.
      I for one am not prepared to let that happen. Sorry, Stu.

    39. Doug Daniel says:

      This sudden flurry of arguments about the date bores me to tears, not least because the reality is Nicola Sturgeon has already stated when she’ll make her mind up about this – Autumn 2018 – but one thing I would point out is that the manifesto mandate that many people online are screaming about states “such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.”

      If that’s the basis of the mandate, then we don’t actually have it yet, because Scotland is still in the EU. Therefore, the earliest we can have a referendum based on that mandate is 29th March 2019.

      (Unless, of course, a referendum is held this year and the question is “If the UK does leave the EU on the 29th March 2019, do you believe Scotland should become an independent country?”)

    40. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      schrodingers cat @ 12:39:

      i think we would be better to wait for jan 19 to start this process […]

      Err, no. There’s nothing, not even the uncertainties of Brexit, that justifies any delay on this fundamental issue. Finally getting onto the front foot again, like this time last year.

      Such an attempt at clarification will no doubt itself provoke the necessary crisis that we all know has to come.

      As someone recently said, what better time to challenge the UKGov than when it’s in the midst of the biggest guddle of the last half-century?

    41. Normski says:

      Pete: “We need to make sure the conditions are right”.
      Chris: “Right, about 18 months time then”.
      Keith: “Let’s man up and get this show on the road”.

      I have no doubt there will still be those arguing over the date once it is patently clear to anybody with half a brain things are underway.

      Don’t forget about the March for Independence on 5th May in Glasgow.

      And if you are in the Central Scotland area there are two upcoming campaign workshops – one on the 27th May in Stirling and one in Dundee on June 3rd.

      You will need to access these via your local Yes group.

      [What do you mean you don’t know who your local Yes group is? Oh yeah, that’s right, you were too busy arguing over the date of the next #IndyRef on Twitter].

    42. Ottomanboi says:

      @BlairPaterson
      The SNP government was not elected to administer,however competently, North Britain on behalf of the Raj.
      This is a government that needs to grow fighting fangs and sharp claws.

    43. X_Sticks says:

      Can’t but agree with every word. I think we’ve got one last chance. Failing this Scotland won’t be cast aside until her natural reserves are gone.

    44. Robert Louis says:

      Doug Daniel,

      the line about ‘taken out of the EU’, is cited as an example of a material change in circumstances. I think the fact Scotland is going to be forcibly removed from the EU, is a pretty huge material change in circumstances, whether we have actually been taken out of the EU yet or not.

    45. S.Perspective says:

      A good article. The counter argument is that the SG could just hold a consultative referendum if WM does not budge. On an island where politics are made on the basis of opinion polls, a yes would be hard to ignore. To prevent it, WM would have to decide whether it wants to sink to the moral lows of Rajoy.

      There again, they probably wouldn’t care, as on so many fronts they already have.

    46. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “If we don’t have a referendum date carved in stone before Brexit then we’ll never ever get another one.”

      I basically agree with that, certainly in my likely lifetime. But we have a BIT more wiggle room than you imply – thanks to the Brexit transition period – and September this year is an absolute non-starter. Even if Theresa May gave us a Section 30 this afternoon that’d be a tight squeeze, and (SPOILER!) she’s not gonna.

    47. Ruglonian says:

      Thank you Stu for a succinct summary of what is an increasingly urgent matter.

      If there’s not decisive action sharpish then the question of another SNP led Government in 2021 becomes an irrelevance, as they will have all the credibility of Labour if they allow the mandate to expire.
      Folk don’t want to vote for parties they can’t trust.

    48. Luigi says:

      Ah the courts.

      “We are the law!”. By all means, an excellent idea Rev, and one that must be tested – pronto. But remember our imperial masters are the ones who decide the law – talk about conflict of interest.

      Well one solution if you really want to up the stakes is go the Catalonia way and ignore the imperial courts.

      Of course, it means NS and others will end up in jail but for sure it would mean the end of the UK in due course. The precious union would never recover. How badly do people want independence? Most peoples have had to fight hard, break “laws”, loose jobs and suffer to win freedom.

      Remember the once great Labour party was set up to defend their own, working class folk but sadly Labour politicians were not up to the job and decided to feather their own nests at the expense of the people. I would hate the SNP politicians to end up this way. Some seem to be getting comfy. However, they have a short shelf life if they think they, like Labour can sit on their remit for years (or decades).

      When all else fails – go nuclear. A wee bit time to try different options, but in the cold light of day, it may come to this.

    49. HandandShrimp says:

      Talking about the Glasgow march in May, the Facebook going and interested is up at about 11,000 so it is likely to be a pretty big affair. Is Wings doing anything specific? I plan to head up on the train with our local SNP members but wondered if there was anything else planned?

    50. heraldnomore says:

      I’m with you there Doug, but remember “such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will” was given only as an example of what a major change in circumstances might be.

      Might I suggest that the proposals coming forward from the CRG give another prime example of a major change in circumstances, and thus change the ball game, and the timing – if it ever gets close to formal discussions and proposed legislation.

      The campaign will formally open when it formally opens. Meantime lets get the Yes Hubs open, the literature on the streets, the facts out there – and be ready for that starting gun to be fired. Needless to say Yes Hubs will not be under the auspices of any one party or group, but all groups working together.

    51. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Doug Daniel @ 13:17,

      You’re missing the crucial element here, Doug, which is that there will have to be a deal ready and waiting in the autumn of this year if Brexit is to proceed in March of next year. Unless there’s some kind of agreed postponement before that point it’s in effect a done deal then, it’s only a matter of time.

      The fuse will be lit at the end of this year, and the delayed-action detonation will happen some months later. Once the first has happened, why on earth would we be stupid enough to hang around to get caught by the big bang?

    52. mike cassidy says:

      This was Nicola Sturgeon a year ago.

      “Prime Minister Theresa May has rejected Sturgeon’s request for a legally binding vote on independence within two years. Sturgeon could ignore her and call a consultative vote, but she told The Associated Press in an interview that a new referendum “should be on the same basis as the last referendum in Scotland, which was by agreement and consensus.” “

      http://archive.is/Ree0y

      So both sides got to avoid the issue of sovereignty last time.

      But as Stu says.

      If ‘now is not the time’ is an ongoing stance, then agreement and consensus is as relevant as a Cliff Richard b-side to a teenager.

      Sovereignty does become the issue.

      So Judge Judy it is.

    53. Luigi says:

      Big question – which is the case:

      A) A consultative ref can be held but the result can be challenged.

      A) Even a consultative ref can be prevented by court action.

      If it’s A, then we are on a winner – hold a ref and worry about implementing the result later. If it’s B then we have a bit of a problem. Still it looks bad for WM if a ref is prevented by legal challenge(s).

    54. schrodingers cat says:

      wm will strip holyroods powers, they have already started

      as to the legal process, referendums cannot be illegal if they are not legally binding. this is the case at the moment. I cant see a mechanism to actually stop a referendum

      i believe the legal process refers to getting a section 30 from WM,

    55. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @schrodingers cat (1.11) –

      ‘…if we have a legal pronouncement to hold indyref2, before 29/03/19

      then surely we we can hold it on a date after the 29th?’

      A legal pronouncement from whom? We currently have a Presiding Officer who is quite happy to assume legal incompetence of the SP without even consulting the Lord Advocate.

      Don’t want to sound too fatalistic, so let me put it this way: we’re hog-tied but haven’t been hamstrung. Yet.

    56. Eilidhsma says:

      Brilliant article! I am with SNP because they said they would take us to Independence, but the reality is for many that we will go with whoever WILL get us Independence. Many think there will be a massive drop in membership of SNP if we don’t get our arses into gear. It’s also a fact that the British state have been working on making sure Scotland is a permanent fixture within UK since Sept 14. I don’t think May can handle a battle on two fronts, so Now is the best chance we will ever get.

      “Now’s the day, and now’s the hour”

      We’ll done Stu.

    57. Macart says:

      When do you call a referendum?

      I get the cautious and some would say pragmatic, approach. You build your campaign, prepare your ground and engage your opponent when you can win. Sound strategy. No question. I’m a big believer in winning people over through gradual steps myself. Walking with, rather than dragging along.

      Events however, can and do make a nonsense of the best laid plans and intentions. Not to mention your opponents may have made some plans of their own (see ATL). This, I’d say, is pretty much one of those times. Impending Brexit and the march of time on the length of this parliament are the deciding factors for me.

      Brexit WILL be bad and when I say bad, I really mean financially and constitutionally, catastrophic for our population. If people think austerity ideology and Conservative government has made things rough for whole swathes of the population to date? If they’re a bit grumpy at the loss of services, loss of jobs, rising prices across the board right now? They’ll maybe need to rethink their definition of austerity if we’re still party to this nonsense when it is finalised.

      Scotland’s population shouldn’t have to go through that. They didn’t vote for it. Too many will suffer.

      So when do you go for it? When there’s a need and when you have the mandate to do so and I’d definitely say there is a need.

    58. Craig P says:

      DeepFriedPenguin says:

      I have been voting for the SNP since the early 80’s. My view then and I think it was everyone’s view (including Thatcher), was that a vote for the SNP was a vote for Independence.

      I can’t remember any talk of referendums, a simple majority of votes at a G.E. would be enough for the Independence negotiations to begin.

      I see no reason why we can’t return to this “fundamentalist” viewpoint.

      I expect we will end up here eventually once the referendum route is blocked. But to get there an attempt has at least to be made to hold a referendum.

    59. Artyhetty says:

      Great article, thanks.

      I avoided discussions, and arguments on twitter about timing, no point feeding the Britnats. They have enough amunition at their disposal as it is.

      So the Britnats at the top want to rewrite the act of union eh. Not bullies are they. The union is on a shoogly peg, so they are terrified, but does ‘union’ not need the consent of both parties involved. No, the colonial, bullying, arrogance of the English government and their hangers on at the HoLs, and elsewhere, will ride roughshod over any kind of democratic process to keep Scotland shackled. Siphoning away more of Scotland’s resources and wealth.

      I am of the view that the Scottish government have the measure of things, they are not daft! Revealing your cards too soon is not a good idea. So, let’s see what happens in the next few months, keep countering the media lies and bias and sharing the positive policies and practices of the SNP at the moment. The Britnats absolutely hate the SNP government successes and are trying to silence the information of this going out to those less informed.

      Avoid feeding the Britnats.
      Peace to all.

    60. Alan says:

      Tracks with my assessment of the situation.

      >
      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      12 April, 2018 at 1:27 pm

      “If we don’t have a referendum date carved in stone before Brexit then we’ll never ever get another one.”

      I basically agree with that, certainly in my likely lifetime. But we have a BIT more wiggle room than you imply – thanks to the Brexit transition period – and September this year is an absolute non-starter. Even if Theresa May gave us a Section 30 this afternoon that’d be a tight squeeze, and (SPOILER!) she’s not gonna.
      >

      The transition period is a very recent development. Barnier and Davis only agreed its terms a little less than a month ago. Up until that happened, a lot of speculation was taking place about what those terms would be.

      Instead of a referendum 18 months after March 2017, I think we’ll see one 18 months after March 2019 – in September 2020.

    61. Derick fae Yell says:

      Perhaps I am unusually dim (possible!) but I still can’t see what relevance March 2019 has? The EU offers no protection whatsoever to the Scottish Parliament, so leaving it makes no difference at all. The Scottish Parliament is still devolved and Westminster can do what it wants, within the confines of Scottish public opinion.

      Brexit is largely an irrelevance to the matter of Scottish independence, with the exception that if it happens then the old Project Fear (unusually for them, actually true)scare story that we’d be out of the EU on independence will become irrelevant, because we are out now anyway.

      The current mandate is ‘such as’, not ‘is exactly like’. It’s a trigger, not a route map.

      Assuming that the First Minister does, as she has said for the last year that she will, decide on whether to try for a referendum ‘when the terms of Brexit are known’, she’ll decide sometime between October 2018 and January 2019.

      If the decision is to proceed, presumably she’ll renew the calls for a S30. I agree with the argument above that Westminster will not provide one. I’m not so sure that an unconsented referendum that would tie it up in the courts for years is the best next step. We’d risk being in court until well past the next Holyrood election.

      The other alternative if a S30 is refused, is to put an unconditional statement in the 2021 Manifestos of the SNP, and ideally the Greens also. No ‘believes’, no ‘if’ this happens or that happens. ‘We will hold a referendum on Scottish Independence within the term of this Parliament’

      If we can’t win a majority in a broadly proportional parliament on that, we won’t win a referendum. A point that Tommy Shepherd made recently, and which Pete Wishart has also made. I think we could win on that.

      So we win a majority in 2021 and Westminster still refuses, what then?

      Refusal on the grounds that only Westminster is Sovereign leads to the immediate and inevitable conclusion that only a majority of Scottish MPs elected in a Westminster election is a mandate for either a referendum, or a direct move to independence. 2022

      There are multiple paths, all options are risky and there is no magic bullet, but we can and will win this, if we keep the heid. And are clever, and lucky. Easy.

    62. Doug Daniel says:

      “Might I suggest that the proposals coming forward from the CRG give another prime example of a major change in circumstances”

      A “proposal” is not a change, so unfortunately not.

      “You’re missing the crucial element here, Doug, which is that there will have to be a deal ready and waiting in the autumn of this year if Brexit is to proceed in March of next year”

      Which could still be cancelled at the last minute, meaning no material change had taken place. Again, my point is those screaming “USE THE MANDATE!!!!” haven’t read the mandate properly.

      “I think the fact Scotland is going to be forcibly removed from the EU, is a pretty huge material change in circumstances, whether we have actually been taken out of the EU yet or not.”

      “going to be” is not “has been”. The mandate people are screaming about says nothing about a PROPOSED material change in circumstances.

    63. Perhaps we’ll all be charged with acts of terrorism if we go ahead without England’s permission?

    64. Socrates MacSporran says:

      I have always understood the situation as being: the Scottish Government has a democratic and parliamentary mandate to call an Independence referendum at a time of their choosing.

      The intended time for making this call will be once the final agreement between the UK Government and the EU has been reached, and when that agreement goes to the other 27 national governments for ratification.

      At that point, we SHOULD know the terms of Brexit and the SG could say to the people of Scotland is: “This is shite, because…… We need to be independent to avoid this shambles.”

      Unfortunately, the UK Government has created such a shambles on top of the existing shambles, the SG’s mandate might run-out before the final deal is known and they can act.

      The SG is now finding how difficult it is to negotiate and act when you are dealing with idiots such as the current UK Government.

    65. Flower of Scotland says:

      I’m with Peter Bell and Ian Brotherhood on this. We need a new referendum in September/October this year.

      The Constitutional Reform Group is busy in the HOL creating a New Act Of Union.

      The English MPs at Westminster outnumber all the devolved countries in the U.K. Scotland is the other half of the Union but we will not be given a say in our future.

      The SNP have proved that they can run Scotland better than any other Unionist party, so just get on with a new referendum before we are locked into this godawful Union without a say.

    66. Derick fae Yell says:

      Alan – agreed.

      If we have a referendum before the next Scottish Parliament election then September 2020 is a good shout, just on process. Maybe May 2020, but then we wouldn’t get the fine weather for the campaign. September 2019 probably wouldn’t leave time to get the Bill through the Scottish Parliament and leave time for the Campaign?

    67. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Rev (1.27) –

      ‘…we have a BIT more wiggle room than you imply – thanks to the Brexit transition period – and September this year is an absolute non-starter. Even if Theresa May gave us a Section 30 this afternoon that’d be a tight squeeze, and (SPOILER!) she’s not gonna.’

      Let’s accept no Section 30 from May (or her successor) as a given. That’s yer ‘Now Is Not The Time’ on permanent loop, and who could blame them? Why on earth should the so-called ‘transition period’ make any difference? Does anyone really believe that ‘transition period’ is anything other than a euphemism for ‘stay of execution’?

      I know, I know, everything has to be viewed through a legal prism, no matter how complicated and frustrating it may be. My point is that Brexit-sparked chaos (whether next March or March ’21) will be used as the pretext for a new ‘UK’ constitution, and if there’s one thing we can bet on it’s that the input of the Scottish parliament will not be required.

      No binding referendum on indy this year, aye, because WM/May won’t agree. Okay, I get that. But what we could do is have a referendum which affirms our committment to staying in Europe and gives WM fair warning – if hard Brexit goes ahead then we can and will organise indyref2 with or without WM’s ‘blessing’. Doesn’t that sound fair enough?

    68. Flower of Scotland says:

      @Doug Daniel

      Material changes are not just Brexit. The UK Government have not honoured their promises to Scotland given during the last Referendum.

      It’s not just about Brexit.

    69. heedtracker says:

      Flower of Scotland says:
      12 April, 2018 at 1:58 pm
      I’m with Peter Bell and Ian Brotherhood on this. We need a new referendum in September/October this year.

      Then it has to be announced by end of May.

      What about currency though?

      Almost all of Project Fear 1.0 has turned out to be both flat out lies or what they threatened nation state Scotland with, has all happened in the last 3.5 years of UKOK austerity rule.

    70. galamcennalath says:

      Winning a YES vote may not necessarily mean independence. Certainly not if WM has its way. Timing is of the essence.

      One obvious scenario is that we have ScotRef in 2020, WM won’t play ball, HolyRood2021 proceeds, then BritNats win a majority. Does anyone believe Indy will then happen?

      I think we need to be well on our way to Independence long before May 2021!

      18-24 months before May 2021 would seem the latest for a vote.

      Our next Holyrood election must be to choose our first independent administration, and definitely not our last devolved one!

      Brexit is the other time variable, but to a minimal extent. We will know little of the post transition arrangement prior to late 2020. (Barring EU negotiations collapse and crash out). WM will probably accept the currently available exit terms to get that transition period. We will know nothing of the final trading arrangements. The details we are likely to find out about Brexit before ScotRef are therefore already known.

      Basically, by the time we know the future EU relationship, it will be too late.

    71. t42 says:

      Whats the chance of a scottish gina miller trying to block it? Im trying to think of a docile loudmouth establishment puppet married into the banking aristocracy and calling themselves an “entepreneur” who might fit the bill.

    72. Breastplate says:

      I’ve always seen the SNP as an independence Party as I’m sure have many others. The only reason I’ve voted for them was for independence, not potholes not hospital waiting times not taxation.
      To me, if the SNP don’t have independence front and centre, there is no point to them whatsoever, slowing down damage coming from Westminster instead of stopping it is a complete kick in the arse to the Scottish People.
      I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in this way of thinking.

    73. Fred says:

      With Peter Bell as well, this is no time to be treading water when there could be a tsunami coming. Another snap election could change everything. Pete Wishart take note!

      Self-cleaning oven!

    74. Nation Libre says:

      It has to be stated at every opportunity the fact that Northern Ireland has the right to a border poll by obtaining a simple majority in the NI Assembly. Why not Scotland?

      Secondly, if Westminster refuses a referendum voted for by the democratic process of a majority vote in the Scottish Parliament, we should then be stating that if that route is being denied us, the only option is the previous mandate of a majority of pro independence MPs at a Westminster GE

    75. heedtracker says:

      Indref2 must be called by May for Sept/Oct this year, assuming we’re still here. Word is, USA msm wise, its Orange Hitler that’s cooling our tory master’s jets of war. Its that mad in toryboy teamGB, 1818.

      http://metro.co.uk/2018/04/11/theresa-may-orders-submarines-syria-britain-prepares-strike-7459992/

    76. Sinky says:

      We all need to step up the pressure on UK government regading their Power Grab and attempts to use Supreme Court to thrawr the democratic wish of the Scottish Parliament.

      A good read here from Iain Macwhirter

      https://iainmacwhirter.wordpress.com/2018/04/12/power-devolved-is-power-retained-why-brexit-needs-a-unitar/

      and a timely response to the nonsence spounted in Herald this morning by John McKee

      http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/16152962.Agenda__Holyrood_must_mature_now_the_terms_of_the_Vow_have_now_been_met/

    77. heedtracker says:

      t42 says:
      12 April, 2018 at 2:09 pm
      Whats the chance of a scottish gina miller trying to block it? Im trying to think of a docile loudmouth establishment puppet married into the banking aristocracy and calling themselves an “entrepreneur” who might fit the bill.

      https://twitter.com/MichelleMone

    78. Flower of Scotland says:

      Westminster has already taken power away from the Scottish Parliament when the outrageous Supreme Court was established.

      Both Kingdoms have their own legal systems and this Supreme Court has just been accepted by Scottish Governments because they were Unionist at the time.

      NOW IS THE TIME before any more powers are taken away. We have to stand up for ourselves.

    79. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Heedtracker –

      ‘What about currency though?’

      🙂

      Heedy, ye’re such a card, can never be sure when you’re just having a laugh.

      Currency?

      What about it?

      Right now, in Scotland, people are paying for everyday necessities with fivers bearing a portrait of Winston fuckin Churchill.

    80. Breastplate says:

      Heedtracker,
      The currency is going to be Sterling for a transitional period.
      Transitional period would depend on circumstances unknown yet but the currency immediately after a Yes vote will be Sterling.
      If someone has a better idea, I’d like to hear it.

    81. heedtracker says:

      Right now, in Scotland, people are paying for everyday necessities with fivers bearing a portrait of Winston fuckin Churchill.

      I am a card Ian.

      Its just that, I spent a lot of 18th Sept 2014 watching BBC 24 ref1 coverage and they had on a Herald SLab apparatchik colomonist, ex Lord Darling “adviser,” can’t mind her name, and this nice and tearfully frightened Scottish lady sat in front of beeb gimps all day, hamming like a Rada queen, “Alex Salmond can’t even tell us what money will be in our puir wee Scoattish purses tomorrow, so of course I am BetterTogether.”

      That’s the level beeb gimp zone were prepared to stoop to 2014. And beeb gimpery knows no depths.

      What was that SLab ham’s name again? Her son got a nepotism boost up the Treasury greasy pole not long after too, surely not because of her oscar winning acting on the grand ole beeb gimp network?

    82. Spikethedee says:

      Publish (not sure if that’s the correct term) and pass a Holyrood Bill setting a date for Referendum before end of the next SG Election. Petition EU to allow Scotland to remain in EU if the result is Independence and we are still in transition period at the time.

    83. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      I can’t help but think that there seems to be two entirely different schools of thought here on how to proceed, though some disguise their basic motives rather well.

      Some follow the SG line that with the “material change of circumstances” of Brexit we have a legitimate reason and mandate for a timely second referendum in order to allow the people of Scotland to decide something as fundamental as that for ourselves, not be dragged into it by a remote government we didn’t elect against our clearly-expressed majority will. For them a referendum must take place before spring of next year, before it’s too late to make any difference.

      The other view is that Brexit is nothing more than a bothersome inconvenience because some yes-voters (for whatever reason) voted “leave”, and those in this school of thought are anxious that not all of these folk would therefore vote “yes” a second time around. (Even though nothing material in the indy case has actually changed since.) So they prefer to allow the UK to have its – and our – Brexit in the hope that, having had their minority way, all the yes-leavers will somehow happily return to the fold and be willing to vote “yes” again. (And never mind all those disillusioned Remainers who already were, or could have been, won over to Yes, plus all the hundred-thousand-odd EU citizens who will be automatically disenfranchised by April next year.)

      For this school, Brexit isn’t an immediate opportunity at all but a mere nuisance that just has to be seen through first, with the hope that the likely ensuing economic difficulties will eventually change more minds. Hence their typical constant urge to delay, delay.

    84. heedtracker says:

      Breastplate says:
      12 April, 2018 at 2:29 pm
      Heedtracker,
      The currency is going to be Sterling for a transitional period.
      Transitional period would depend on circumstances unknown yet but the currency immediately after a Yes vote will be Sterling.
      If someone has a better idea, I’d like to hear it.

      So what happens when tory Chancellor Hammond does exact same as what Chancellor Gideon Osborne did, flies up to Edinburgh, press conference, “Scotland will not be allowed to use our sterling,” good lunch, fast jet back to No.11 for tiffin?

    85. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Heedtracker –

      Okay, the pound it is, the pound it is, and we should just pound that intae abody’s heid – pound, pound, pound – each and every time it’s raised.

      ££££££££££££££££££££

      And then we say, okay, dry yer eyes missus, please stop sniffing so we can get on with the discussion we were having.

    86. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “If that’s the basis of the mandate, then we don’t actually have it yet, because Scotland is still in the EU. Therefore, the earliest we can have a referendum based on that mandate is 29th March 2019.”

      I’m not talking about the date, though. (Although as you know I’ve been advocating Spring 2019 for about two years now.) I’m talking about what happens if we say “Right, 29 March 2019 it is” and the UK government says “No, fuck off”.

    87. RogueCoder says:

      Apologies for OT and gratuitous link to a fundraiser (I already posted a comment on the article), but we’re at 68% for oor wee postcard campaign debunking the Tory “highest taxed part of the UK” BS, with Colin Dunn’s excellent wee chart on the reverse showing how often Tories lie.

      I’m fair desperate to get these out to Yes groups ASAP, so any help you can give us in doing that would be fabulous! Just £505 to go to get it fully funded!

      https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/scottish-tax-fact-check/x/6905220#/

      Cheers

    88. ScottishPsyche says:

      The feeling after we lost last was a physical pain for some of us. I understand people who feel they cannot cope with the disappointment of losing but we have to try again and soon.

      The SNP seem to be talking themselves out of it for fear of losing votes but what use is a party whose stated main aim is Independence if they don’t go for it with every opportunity? They become like Labour, a ‘socialist’ party in name only – that is the way to lose votes.

      If you achieve a mandate from the Scottish Parliament then do it or be damned because people won’t give you another chance.

      The gradualist model of building up Independence will not be allowed under this current government or a Corbyn govt anytime soon.They are set on diminishing the Scottish Parliament so we either go for it or sit passively as it is taken away from us.

      I see SiU and the other one, These Islands, as the ones who will mount the legal challenges as they have money and establishment backers.

    89. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      heedtracker @ 14:33:

      they had on a Herald SLab apparatchik columnist, ex Lord Darling “adviser,” can’t mind her name

      Catherine MacLeod. I’ll never forget her name. Or that appearance. The very personification of smug and dismissive.

    90. Marcia says:

      Why not have a private Referendum? Sanctioned by an Act of the Scottish Parliament now that some elections have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Must have X amount of signatures in each Scottish Constituency for it to be enacted. Move it out to the grass routes. I’m sure many No people would sign too.

    91. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Let’s accept no Section 30 from May (or her successor) as a given. That’s yer ‘Now Is Not The Time’ on permanent loop, and who could blame them? Why on earth should the so-called ‘transition period’ make any difference? Does anyone really believe that ‘transition period’ is anything other than a euphemism for ‘stay of execution’?”

      The point about the transition period is that if we’re not technically out of the EU yet – and we effectively won’t be – then it’s a lot easier to credibly argue the case that a Yes vote is a vote to avoid Brexit.

    92. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I’m with Peter Bell and Ian Brotherhood on this. We need a new referendum in September/October this year.”

      Really, seriously, let go of this one. Not happening in a million years, and a bad idea anyway. The cold hard final terms of Brexit will need time to sink in.

      The whole point of the article is that as things stand, THE DECISION IS NOT IN OUR HANDS. If the SG tries to call a vote, councils will refuse to participate. By one route or another it has to be legal, and if a Section 30 isn’t happening – which it isn’t – we need to force the issue.

    93. Ian Brotherhood says:

      A referendum in September, this year, with these questions:

      1. Do you want Scotland to remain in the EU?

      2. If the UK leaves the EU would you vote for Scotland to become independent?

      Double-Yes campaign – twice as fast, twice as fun!

      😉 😉

    94. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “A referendum in September, this year”

      …is not going to happen. How are you going to get, say, Stirling Council to go along with it?

    95. Breastplate says:

      Heedtracker,
      The problem with 2014 was we allowed the ball to be in their court by telling everyone there was going to be a Currency Union.
      Wouldn’t you like to tell people that we will use Sterling for a period of time until we set up our own alternative?

    96. ScottishPsyche says:

      Forgot to address the actual point of the article – what do we do if they keep saying no?

      If we mount a legal challenge with the bare bones of what having a parliament and sovereignty is all about laid bare and lose, then we know that we live in a country who will never be allowed to govern itself.

      What then?

    97. Richard Hunter says:

      I agree with this. You have to act when you have the power to act.

      Incidentally, I was one of those calling for the SNP to make UDI the central plank of their manifesto for the last election. I still think I was right about that, but that’s academic now.

    98. Dr Jim says:

      I am the Law:

      If the Tories decide to go all Judge Dredd on Scotland and just deny Scotland is a country they’re placing Scotland in the same position as Northern Ireland which in all but name now is under direct rule from London

      If Scotland is placed in that position then the rule of previous law will have been overuled by the invention of new English law to do it and like Northern Ireland there are very many in Scotland who won’t put up with that, let’s just call them *the other guys* and those *other guys* will do just exactly as their Irish cousins did and we’ll have *the Scottish troubles* but unlike our Irish cousins time and technology have moved on so the kind of disruption available to them to be caused by them is massive, does the Westminster government dare to take this on or like the Northern Ireland border situation right now do they dare not to care about the result of not caring

      The Westminster cabal love to just keep kicking problems as far down the road as often and as far away as possible so’s not to have to deal with them, and of course in the hope the problem goes away by tired and worn down apathy

      It may suit the Unionists in the short term for a quick celebratory victory of their demonstration of superior power and Ruth Davidson and the Orange Lodge will be delighted over her success as the future new hope for the *First Order* but if I know about *the other guys* and what they’re capable of then so does the UK, you would think!

      I am not one of *the other guys* coz I’m ancient, but if I was I’d be sharpening my Laptop and plugging in all my computery gadgets because it’s not about bashing somebody in the kneecaps anymore to make a point when you can bring an airport to a standstill or disrupt entire networks of communication at will with the click of a mouse

      Does the UK of England care to risk that, we have a few clever *other guys* in Scotland I would guess

    99. Col says:

      I never thought that we would have to declare independence through a UDI but it may be necessary if Westminster are going to try to take away any peaceful and democratic route. We also must never refer to the UK as a union. Especially if Westminster tries to lock us in forever. Dangerous times indeed. Things could start moving very fast very soon.

    100. Scottish Steve says:

      If it’s up to the courts then we really are f*cked then. The UK Supreme Court would never allow it, just like how they’ll never allow Scotland and Wales’ Brexit bills to pass. The courts will side with the UK government always because it’s in their self-interest to preserve the British state.

      What a depressing read that was!

    101. harry mcaye says:

      Should it go to the courts and we’re still waiting come the Holyrood elections in 2021, and the Brexit disaster has played out as we think, then I could certainly see an SNP majority of 2011 proportions. The news and papers will be full of the Brexit aftermath, even the most ill-informed people would surely be in no doubt as to the cause (sad to say this, but I think Nissan pulling out of Sunderland would wake a lot of people up). I would hope there would then be a clamour for independence from at least 60% of Scots. No one expected the 2011 result. Why so pessimistic about 2021 just because current polls aren’t great for an Indy majority?

      What then happens with another Indy majority is a good question but I’d like to hear a PM come out with May’s rhetoric when there is a distinct majority in favour of breaking away.

    102. Breastplate says:

      ScottishPsyche,indeed.
      The gradualist route will be put into reverse with the power grab at the moment and have already downgraded the Sewell Convention to an unwanted turd.

    103. heedtracker says:

      Catherine MacLeod. I’ll never forget her name. Or that appearance. The very personification of smug and dismissive.

      Oh god that’s her. All day throughout the indy ref1 day, there she was hamming it up as hard as any oscar winner could do it, looking really frightened, clutching her poor wee Scottish purse, what Alex Salmond was going to empty.

      Is it even worth mentioning that not once did any beeb gimp that whole day, actually tell us that this poor wee timorous Scottish housewife guest in the studio, from 1950’s Scoatland, was actually special advisor to boss of BetterTogether 2014, ex Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer and future Lord Darling MP?

      Niet.

    104. manandboy says:

      Can we all agree on one thing:as presently constituted, England will not agree to let her Scottish Colony gain its Independence.

      No one with a goose that lays golden eggs lets it fly away.

      We may need additional material circumstances to emerge before enough of Scotland’s British Nationalists shake off their brainwashed condition, and vote Yes to Independence.

    105. heedtracker says:

      Wouldn’t you like to tell people that we will use Sterling for a period of time until we set up our own alternative?”

      I certainly would but I refer my honourable friend the answer I gave Breastplate at 2:29 pm.

    106. WHY OH WHY has the SNP opted to hold the hustings for the deputy leader on 5th May in Glasgow. Do they not like the YES movement? I am a long-time SNP member and activist but this really annoys me. I will be going to the March and probably not to the hustings. The date of the March has been known for months; why choose to clash?
      The leadership of the SNP needs to get out more and smell the grassroots.

    107. Dr Jim says:

      Currency:

      The UK after Independence would still owe Scottish pensioners their pensions for a transitional period of time to be agreed on transference of funds owed to Scotland for those purposes
      so when the UK says *yer no gettin oor £* they’re talking mince and everybody knows it, what are they going to pay them with *Goldfish*?

    108. Doug Daniel says:

      “I’m not talking about the date, though.”

      No, you’re not, but everyone else who’s pontificating about this is. And those demanding it happen this year are just setting themselves up for a fall, because it’s simply not happening. The idea that a referendum can be legislated for, fought and won all in the space of five months (with summer holidays in the middle) is for the birds.

    109. Ruglonian says:

      Stu – do you have a proposal to solve this *potential* impasse you describe?

      I predict that this article will be extremely widely read with an unintended consequence being that the UDI advocates gain prominence again.

    110. Breastplate says:

      Heedtracker, the reality is that the Toons do have ammunition, fear of the unknown.
      We have to accept that. It will weaken our argument if we pretend to have all the answers. We’re allowed to not know everything. We answer what we can and our best guesses for things we don’t know but the Yoon guesses are going to be portrayed as fact and most negative. Accept it.

    111. Dan Huil says:

      Thoughtful post by the Rev.

      I completely agree that the ScotGov has to “…legislate for a second independence referendum now.” thereby making “…preparation that unarguably sets out on the path.”

      But?

      “The opponents of independence cannot allow that to go unchallenged or they lose the argument by default, so it’ll go to court.”

      I presume the so-called Supreme Court? If so I can tell you the verdict now: get lost Scotland. It still is worth doing, however, because it will shove the constitutional problem right into the smug face of Westminster along with all the other problems about to occur over brexit.

      Then?

      “…we cannot afford to simply sit passively and put our trust in the UK government to play fair if we ask nicely enough.”

      Westminster will never play fair over this.

      But?

      “A peaceful, democratic, legal route is open to us.”

      For a short period only. Yet, again, it doesn’t really mean anything if Westminster ignores it and/or decides to play nastily.

      Thus?

      Pro-iny politicians must be prepared to follow Catalonia’s peaceful example of UDI, and these same pro-indy politicians must be prepared to make personal sacrifices, including facing the threat of imprisonment, or worse. Similar sacrifces must be seriously considered by pro-indy individuals.

      People of Scotland: how much to we really want independence?!

      Now’s the time and now’s the hour.

    112. Breastplate says:

      Yoons supposed to be

    113. Duncan says:

      I have a very simplistic (and probably naive) view. I agree with the need to legislate now. They can send whatever they like to the Supreme Court, it has no jurisdiction in Scotland which is why they are trying to rewrite the treaty of the union.
      The people of Scotland are sovereign which we tend to use to point at the monarchy and uk govt. The Scottish govt answer to us too. All these marches and hand holding exercises are just vilified and belittled by the media we know the SNP feel stuck between a rock and a hard place.
      We need to apply pressure, petition parliament to seek legislation and use the mandate instead of bickering between ourselves over dates etc. There are some amazingly clever, eloquent people in the grassroots movement (even you Rev Stu) who could help kick the backside out of the union if only we could all push together at once

    114. Bill Hume says:

      I honestly believe that the starting pistol has been loaded and we are just waiting (some more patiently than others) on the command “On your marks”

      Hope to see lots of you on May 5th.

    115. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Stu – do you have a proposal to solve this *potential* impasse you describe?”

      Um, yes, the entire point of the article is that I propose the solution…

    116. Jimbo says:

      This Union was supposed to be two countries of equal standing entering into a union for their mutual benefit.

      It wasn’t a case of one of them agreeing to be subservient to the other and having to ask the other’s permission to return to its former independent state.

      If the boot was on the other foot, does anyone think for a minute England would be asking Scotland’s permission to have a referendum to leave the Union?

    117. yesindyref2 says:

      Yes to this article, and there is an additional point. If the actual right for Holyrood to call a referendum is tied up in court, the constitutional status of the UK is therefore uncertain. The EU as they tell us about Catalonia, respect the Rule of Law. Here’s the relevant part of Article 50 which the UK invoked to leave the EU:

      1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

      But what if its constitutional requirement is tied up in Court? Seems to me the UK could not leave the UK as an entity until the court case, and any subsequent appeaal, were resolved.

    118. yesindyref2 says:

      It is barely possible by the way that that’s why Wishart and now Keith Brown are putting delays delays in, because of the possible forthcoming challenge by the UK Government of the Continuity Bill.

      It’s barely possible the whole thing is happening even sooner than any of us think, but shhhh, I didn’t say that.

    119. ronnie anderson says:

      heedtracker You should see the contortions oan Churchills face when ah wee bitty heat fae ah lighter is applied or even at the corners , cash machines says naw lol

    120. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Rev & Doug Daniel –

      None of us, apart from Adam Tomkins, are constitutional experts.

      If a Sept referendum was explicitly ‘consultative’, what power would Stirling or any other council have to block it?

      The point of it would be to satisfy ourselves that the majority of Scots still oppose Brexit – the indy question would be an obvious corollary, even if it didn’t appear as a question. We all know that the % wishing to remain has, if anything, probably increased.

      Many Remainers in E&W are crying out for such a poll, but they keep being palmed-off (even after the Cambridge Analytica revelations) with ‘the vote has been cast, we’re leaving, and that’s that.’ – exactly the same argument Davidson deploys against Indyref2.

      ‘The whole country voted for this.’

      No, it didn’t. And we have to find a way of underscoring our objections – how else do we do it, apart from huge demos and marches which will be ignored even by our ‘own’ broadcasters?

      The Scottish govt has the mandate for such a national consultation anytime it likes – it doesn’t require Section 30, WM goodwill, blessings from Barnier/Verhofstadt or anyone else.

      Our business and our decision.

    121. Andy-B says:

      Well said Rev, the SNP government should set the wheels in motion, I’m sure most folk would rather have a indyref and lose (though we could just as easily win) than wait pensively in the wings for a right time, which may never come.

    122. Ken500 says:

      Even with the Thatcher and feeble fifty Scotland achieved Devolution. Later rather than sooner. What’s the panic. Every Westminster leader who opposes Scottish Independence lasts on average two years. They will soon get the message. If they want to save themselves. Scotland just needs to continue to vote for it. Vote SNP/SNP. Vote for Independence. Do not falter or the opposition will gain. Get someone else to vote. It is won.

      Catalonia is entirely different. The constant comparison without qualification could harm Scottish Independence.

    123. heedtracker says:

      ronnie anderson says:
      12 April, 2018 at 3:36 pm
      heedtracker You should see the contortions oan Churchills face when ah wee bitty heat fae ah lighter is applied or even at the corners , cash machines says naw lol

      Ha! Keep buggering on Ronnie.

      That’s what my ex tory now SNP voting Nana says Churchill said to them in the war. Nana’s also a very YES vile sep, who sits in front of all the full on, no holds barred, Beeb Scotland gimp network SNP Out fury and nary bats an eyelid, night after beeb gimp zone night.

    124. James Munro says:

      Tommy Sheppard MP was the speaker at a recent meeting, his view was that the next Holyrood election – with an Indyref manifesto promise – is more important than Indyref2 and that the mandate for Indyref2 would be achieved by winning the next Holyrood election. He anticipated a successful Indyref2 would be held around 2022-23.

    125. yesindyref2 says:

      I said “the UK could not leave the UK ”

      should be “the UK could not leave the EU”

      I keep doing that 🙁

    126. Andy-B says:

      Here’s a thought, what if the Scottish government becomes really obstinate, and decides to call a indyref when it wants to, and even if we were to lose declare UDI anyway.

      Now Westminster would need to override Holyrood, relieving it of its powers as Westminster is supposedly sovereign. I’d be hoping that the collective outcry from Scots would be so great that the support for independence would be overwhelming.

      Failing that the Scottish government must become more disobedient more rebel in nature, pussy footing around Westminsters laws will never see Scotland independent.

      I should add I don’t give a hoot about English law, when it comes to the need for independence. You can’t do this or that because Westminster says so. The union was a farce to begin with.

    127. Foonurt says:

      Awe thae hings, thit huv tae bae sid.

      Iz Reverend Stuart siz. Stert yoan referendum cairt rollin. Iz Teazy shit urr pants, thoan last tum Nichola Sturgeon wis gonnae gee ah date, fur thurr aff. Cawt yoan GE, in jist aboot loast, baur thoan fundamentalist ten.

      Couldnae gee ah fuck, aboot thoan Lunin MPs. Git yoan Scoattish baun, Win’s big baw advert, oot ah yoan cloazit.

      Currency – fuckit, hoo abbot thae yowpindails.

    128. Johnny says:

      James Munro @ 3:49pm

      Did he explain at any point why *another* mandate was required?

    129. Ken500 says:

      Tomkins is not a constitutional expert. He is likely not even trained in Scottish Law, history or economics. He just havers on. Usually googligook nonsense. He is a 3rd rate reject being funded with Scottish taxpayers money. An embarrassment.

      No word from the polling expert about the pollsters illegally manipulating the polls or the result. Despite being head of the professional body? Honours and cash for silence.

    130. Big Jock says:

      I think this route would be just as risky as holding back like Pete Wishart suggested. If a conservative estimate of the legal wrangle is 2 years. That takes us into May 2020 and we still wouldn’t have held the actual vote.

      I am sorry but Like Peter Bell, I feel that once we are out of the EU it will be the end of Scottish Self determination. A UK out of the EU will punish Scotland. We have seen some of the stuff floating around the twittesphere from the reform group etc.

      We need to have the vote on independence first win it and then act accordingly. We are not Catalonia and our legal status is completely different to theirs. If the UK declares our referendum illegal then let them. But for heavens sake lets make sure we have a vote before they shut us down completely.

      I am pretty confident that the Supreme court would rule in the UK’s favour in both circumstances. Waiting 2 years for them to tell us we can’t hold a legal referendum achieves nothing. Having the referendum and winning gives us the will of the people.

    131. James Munro says:

      “Did he explain at any point why *another* mandate was required”

      Yes, Tommy stated that the SNP dropping from 50% to 37% at the 2 most recent general elections was effectively a rejection of the mandate.

      PS I disagree.

    132. heedtracker says:

      I should add I don’t give a hoot about English law, when it comes to the need for independence. You can’t do this or that because Westminster says so. The union was a farce to begin with”

      A lot of psephologists, yes teamGB only has the one, Prof Poultice of the great beeb gimp zone, but a lot of political experts argue that we do not vote on facts and stats, that you can throw a million of them at us and we still vote how you tell us to statistic wise.

      They argue that we in fact only actually vote on our feelings, how we feel about stuff deep deep down. And so, Strong and Stable Teresa may well make majority England feel they’re in Strong and Stable hands or that wee jimmy krankie is ruining greater England’s Scotland region, that Corbyn is a probably a mad trot hellbent on 21st century communism for teamGB and their UK is the greatest country in the world with British Empire 2 on the way…

      and that teamGB will never be in a nuclear war, because it’s just not British?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmDP-PYpPRY

    133. Aldo says:

      Now is the time or never. How much do we need to take. Wake up Scotland.

    134. Dr Jim says:

      So today the commemorations are about the 58.000 or so RAF killed in British Empire wars

      So you see what they make you give and then if you come back have the cheek tell you you’re not entitled to a vote on something

      There were Scottish Airmen in wars as well, mibbees they’d like a vote on Independence seeing as how the other choice was no choice and die

    135. Alan Rooney says:

      I donate to the site and don’t normally post. I said I think we want to go for indy2 rapid with the present situation. Why was my post blocked. Can’t understand.

    136. Ruglonian says:

      Aye Stu I read that, and agree with you that it is a way forward.

      Apologies for not being clearer but I was looking beyond that. So the ScotGov legislate, it’s taken to court and ruled illegal – what then?

    137. Big Jock says:

      Heedtracker- Exactly.

      The problem at the moment is that the SNP are pontificating when they should be acting. Allowing the English legal system to challenge the authority of our independent legal system and government smacks of capitulation.

      I can’t believe anyone thinks kicking a bill around the Supreme court for 2 years will actually achieve anything. Once we go down that road the UK can do whatever it wants to Scotland for 2 years. This is exactly the wrong thing to do. Had it be done on day one after the Brexit result I might have felt differently, but it’s too late now.

      We are now in the last 11 months of independence movement. It’s make or break time. Give us the date and we will give you the people. It’s not impatience, its a question of survival.

    138. Johnny says:

      James Munro @ 16:02

      I agree with you then.

      If 37% is not enough to do the things they pledge to do via mandate then none of the governments or assemblies of the UK should have any ability to put forward any legislation whatsoever and a good many councils shouldn’t be able to do anything much either.

      No-one thinks that Alex Salmond didn’t have a referendum for indyref 1 after the 2011 election and that was won with less than 50% of the vote (and on a decent, but not stellar, turnout).

      We could play around with numbers all day and that seems to be what some are doing in order to move the goal posts, having already asked for permission to pursue a second indyref.

      The ScotGov and Greens have voted in favour and so a mandate exists now if they want to use it (or attempt to, as per the theme of Stu’s article ATL).

    139. Derick fae Yell says:

      James Munro 3:49 and Johnny 3:54

      The current SNP mandate is heavily qualified and the Green mandate even more so(from memory the Green manifesto just says that they will campaign for independence in any future referendum, not that there should actually be one). It’s easy for May to find justifications to refuse a S30.

      The 2011 SNP manifesto was unqualified. It said “We will give Scots the opportunity to decide our nation’s future in an independence referendum”. No ifs and buts ‘will’. A majority on that manifesto was the mandate.

      Assuming that no S30 will be forthcoming then, if the SG doesn’t take the route of precipitating a legal challenge as Stuart suggests, we would need to repeat what we did in 2011 in 2021. Refusal of an unqualified mandate would suggest a direct electoral route in 2022 on the basis that the referendum route was being unreasonably blocked.

      The case for Scottish independence is based on the fact of Scottish nationhood, not on irrelevant external factors. Scotland is a country, and should always get the government it votes for, end of. I believe I read that in a certain Wee Blue Book

    140. March 22nd 2019,

      Thursday, a week before Article 50 is signed off,

      in or out of EU could give us the 6% we need for Independence.

    141. Dr Jim says:

      BBCs Douglas Fraser comparing Nicola Sturgeon to some buildings in China says she has *shrunk to the size of a hashtag*

      Some people may find that amusing but I know exactly what he meant after having BBC expense travelled (our money) to China along with the FM to report for the BBC but so far no such report has been forthcoming

      I don’t care for paying the BBCs expenses to belittle the FM of my country
      Away and belittle the PM of your own country BBC

    142. Archbishop of Dork says:

      The early 20th century German sociologist Robert Michels studied the evolution of left wing political parties and trade unions. The insights he gained are contained in his book ‘Political Parties’. A classic of sociology.

      Michels observed how such parties and movements start out as radical attempts to change the world. As such parties acquire more and more elected parliamentarians, these elected officials become less inclined than the rank and file to radical action and become at peace with the world.
      As the parties become more and more organized it sets up a dichotomy between the full time organizers or legislators who acquire specialist knowledge and the ordinary members.

      This status acquired by the legislators not only makes them conservative with a small c, but gives them a new ‘reference group’ which influences their actions. In other words they start to identify more with the legislators of rival parties than they do with their own party’s rank and file. Has this happened to Westminster SNP MPs? They would vehemently protest not. But isn’t it merely human nature?

      As the ‘professional’ elite of a party or movement acquire more legislative knowhow and become satisfied with their place in the organization they can lose touch with members and with the historic goals. You only have to look at the history of the British Labour Party to see that Michels was essentially correct.

      Pete Wishart not only shied away from action on independence but appears to think that he isn’t required to debate about it with unelected people. Validation of Michel’s thesis? Regrettably I reckon so.

      However the rank and file in the Yes movement must resist the temptation to be holier (or indyier) than thou. We must accept the sociological reasons for the ultra-caution of some SNP senior figures and seek to rally us all round the indyref2 flag. Pete Wishart is a decent hardworking man who wants the best for his constituents and still wants independence for Scotland. Likewise the others who are shy of indyref2.

      The time for gradualism has passed. It served the independence movement at one time in order to make progress. Now we are up against an authoritarian Britnat assault on Scottish democracy. Their goal is to abolish Scotland, to all intents and purposes.

      We must proceed with another independence campaign and be proactive, not cautious.

    143. Ottomanboi says:

      Scotland is a nation. The British state is not. No matter how they dress Britannia tartan will never suit her colouring.

    144. Derick fae Yell says:

      One further point.

      If we hold a referendum, or independence election (which is the same thing effectively) after Brexit, as e.g. Tommy Shepherd is suggesting, ‘remaining’ in the EU will no longer be a divisive issue for Yes voters, no?

      I don’t subscribe to the view that the sky will fall in on 29 March 2019. The relationship between Westminster and Holyrood will be as it is now. WM can do pretty much what it likes, constitutionally. The safeguard of our Parliament is not an external body like the EU. It is the opinions and actions of the people of Scotland. Observe that the Continuity Bill was supported by all Holyrood Parties, and the Tories were completely isolated. Any attempt to neuter Holyrood would meet that response in multiples

    145. Big Jock says:

      The mandate has hee haw with the WM vote. We had the referendum in 2014 with a handful of MPS at WM. The mandate was won at Holyrood. Same as now it’s the Holyrood mandate that gives us the power to hold the referendum.

    146. heedtracker says:

      We are now in the last 11 months of independence movement. It’s make or break time. Give us the date and we will give you the people. It’s not impatience, its a question of survival.”

      Next Scottish GE Thursday 6 May, 2021, is maybe the end of it all for a generation. No other gov has survived this BBC level of relentless SNP Out attack propaganda for so long.

      It may be that SNP deciders consider a 2020 indyref2 campaign loss, would still then give up the same Scottish SNP vote levels from 2015.

      Project Fear 1 saved unionism in Scotland but look at the damage it did to SLabour. And SLab don’t seem capable of undoing the damage they did to themselves fighting BetterTogether with the Scottish haha tory creepshow. And all that despite massive BBC Scotland led tory media support too.

      So pragma and survival, may also have an influence. Remember, in politics, losing is always an option.

    147. Robert Louis says:

      The point is, no matter when the date for the referendum is, we and the Scotgov need to start the fight now. Courts, bills/legality and all that. By continually pushing via the courts, it will eventually raise the subject once again in the minds of the London based media and politicians. Just push, push, push, and make London realise this matter is NOT settled. PLUS, and this is really really important SNP leadership, STARTING TO MAKE THE CASE FOR INDEPENDENCE LOUDLY AND CLEARLY.

      Also agree with comments above, let’s make the indy March on May 5TH in Glasgow, the mother of all indy marches. Make your plans now, no excuses, no ifs, no buts – and that means YOU SNP MP’s, MSP’s and coucillors. As regards the depute hustings on the same day, all I can say is that if true, WTF SNP????

      Let’s get everybody, their granny and their cat to the indy march on May 5TH. Last years was big (even despite the terrible weather and thunderstorm), so let’s make this huuuuuge, so nobody is in any doubt that Scotland will not tolerate England’s moronic brexit nonsense being imposed against our clear wishes. Not for one second.

      http://www.thenational.scot/community/16135059.All_Under_One_Banner_march_heading_for_Glasgow_next_month/

    148. harry mcaye says:

      Rev advocates a Spring 2019 vote, fair enough, I can see the sense in it. However, if it’s called, say, in October, we can forget about getting our points across to the public from the end of October until the New Year, as Halloween, Guy Fawkes and especially Christmas is what the average, non-politically obsessed person will be bothered about. And if we have a harsh winter, that impacts on campaigning after the festivities. The mass gatherings we had in 2014 won’t happen in the cold, this is why it really has to be another summer campaign and if it’s not this summer then it’s next and we may be losing the EU nationals vote by then. It’s all rather depressing, 2014 was really our chance. Not giving up though.

    149. Derick fae Yell says:

      Big Jock

      Read what I wrote again.

      A Westminster MP mandate only comes into play if an unqualified referendum mandate won at Holyrood is ignored by WM.

    150. Dan huil says:

      For SNP members there is an opportunity coming to send a message to the SNP leadership via the vote for SNP deputy.

      Chris McEleny wants indyref2 in the next 18 months.

    151. Andy-B says:

      Meanwhile.

      The BBC will air a complete recitation of Enoch Powell’s infamous “rivers of blood” speech to mark its 50th anniversary.

      http://archive.is/Tsp7f

      Says a lot really.

    152. Big Jock says:

      Derrick – Sorry…yep agreed. Not sure what I read these days as there are so many strange opinions floating around.LOL

    153. Flower of Scotland says:

      @Doug Daniel
      “The idea that a referendum can be legislated for, fought and won all in the space of five months (with summer holidays in the middle) is for the birds”

      Well, they got the Continuity Bill up and going in the Parliament very quickly. It was called an emergency bill

      I reckon that a new Independence Referendum is an emergency! Where there,s a will there,s a way!

      Leafleting and canvassing in the winter months is not good. September 2019 is not an option for me. That gives the British Government plenty of time to close things down. A transition period after Brexit is a completely different scenario.

    154. heedtracker says:

      Andy-B says:
      12 April, 2018 at 4:51 pm
      Meanwhile.

      http://archive.is/Tsp7f

      Says a lot really.

      Holy fcuk. If that doesn’t scream fascist beeb gimp network on the warpath, nothing will. Stinky olde The Graun slip in he’s a Scottish actor too. So, as we all goose step Better Together with our imperial masters and their ghastly beeb gimps…

      “Since only a short section of Powell’s 1968 speech was recorded, the Scottish actor Ian McDiarmid will read the full text for the broadcast. He played Powell in a theatre show that included the speech in Edinburgh last year.”

    155. James Munro says:

      Surely the optimum timing of Indyref2 is March 2020. The mandate is still in place, Brexit will have unravelled, Tories and Labour in disarray.

      Indyref2, before and close too to the end of the all important transition period.

    156. James Munro says:

      And.. enough time to mount the campaign.

    157. Colin Dunn says:

      One way or another we’ll lose any London court case. Either Westminster will win the legal arguments, or they’ll make the process drag, and drag, and drag to maximise media opportunities for ProjectFear, and so people are fed up of the entire thing.

      Final throw of the dice is for 2021 election to be on SNP platform of ‘Do you think Scotland should be an independent country again?’. SNP will need to make it clear that if they win, the first thing that will happen after Indy is a general election, otherwise the Yes supporters in Labour, LibDems and Toriess will stay at home on vote day.

    158. June Maxwell says:

      Seems to me if Scotland is ever to be governed autonomously, we will either have to fight in the courts or on the streets. Can’t see other options.

    159. Dr Jim says:

      Have the ref a 3am I’ll bet the true believers in the Union wouldn’t believe in it enough to get up for that

      But we wid

    160. galamcennalath says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      at 2:48 pm

      The cold hard final terms of Brexit will need time to sink in.

      We are unlikely to know the post Brexit arrangements until late 2020. WM will ensure that. Then if we allow ‘sink in’ time, we will be getting close to Holyrood2021.

      I expect the Tories to accept the current EU position on divorce/exiting so they get their transition. That will be towards the end of 2018. However, I don’t expect we will know anything about the final terms at that point. I think it will still be talk of red lines and cherry picking.

      Conversely, if negotiations collapse in the next year and a crash out in March is on the cards, then we know do where we stand.

      Otherwise, I don’t think we will know anything more about final Brexit than we do right now for two and a half years.

      I firmly believe timing of ScotRef is now unrelated to release of Brexit details (barring crash out) because it may be too late by the time we know anything of consequence. This is the Tory plan to deal with the ‘Scotland threat’.

    161. Habib Steele says:

      Robert Louis asks, “what would London do? Send in the army? arrest the Scottish Government?” The question is rhetorical and presumes an answer of, “no”. Westminster’s tradition IS to send in the troops. Remember 1820 and 1919.

      If Westminster calls an election, I think that the SNP should stand on the platform that if it gains a majority of Scottish seats, that will be a mandate for independence.

      6th April, 1320, Declaration of Arbroath. 6th April, 2020, Independence Day!

    162. Breeks says:


      Flower of Scotland says:
      12 April, 2018 at 1:58 pm
      I’m with Peter Bell and Ian Brotherhood on this. We need a new referendum in September/October this year.

      The Constitutional Reform Group is busy in the HOL creating a New Act Of Union.

      I agree with this as much as I agree with anything, but I still don’t think we are grasping the right thistle here.

      We can debate about the timing of a referendum indefinitely, but we cannot debate about a the timing of a referendum to save us from Brexit indefinitely, because in less than a year, that mandate, that sovereign edict, that democratically robust instruction to keep Scotland in Europe becomes void and irrelevant and we will have squandered a heaven sent, Constitutional watershed upon which to break the back of the Union.

      Never again are any of us likely to see the perfect planetary alignment of our two sovereign nations diametrically opposed to each other in a straight battle over constitutional sovereignty, where the will of Scotland has been unequivocally expressed as a decisive democratic mandate which the Westminster government must either unconstitutionally subjugate, or Constitutionally recognise, (pause for breath), and all against a backdrop of vital imperative for our economic future where the stakes could not be higher, but where Westminster is making a complete pigs ear of its own Brexit. There are no other options. If we leave this issue too late, and “too late” means the deal cannot be resolved before Brexit occurs, then that mighty, once in a lifetime Constitutional crow bar we have given ourselves in resisting Brexit, is squandered for good and forever, and for absolutely no gain. That’s not just shooting ourselves in foot, that’s giving our foot the gun to blow the rest ourselves to oblivion.

      I think Peter Bell is both right, and wrong. Yes of course Westminster is determined to outmanoeuvre us and steal a march on Constitutional reform, but the essence of Scotland’s constitutional sovereignty is not just what we Scots are empowered to do, but what Westminster if it doesn’t have sovereignty cannot do. Let them fiddle and faff about rewording a Constitution they don’t have the power to change.

      If a Constitutional Court, and that I think has to be the European Court of Justice, can be persuaded of the existential legitimacy of Scottish Sovereignty, then the reciprocal proof established simultaneously is that Westminster is not sovereign over Scotland and has no constitutional authority whatsoever to legislate or alter any facet of Scotland’s Constitution.

      Brexit too is vital, because Brexit represents such a massive potential disaster and definitive Constitutional benchmark for Scotland’s economy, societal cohesion, and European citizenship that a submission which petitions the EUCJ to recognise Scotland as a sovereign interlocutor can and must be power driven through the court process on an accelerated timescale specifically because it MUST be determined before the glass shatters upon Brexit whereupon there is no going back. We need the jeopardy of Brexit to make the matter an emergency because the matter needs resolved to avoid Brexit happening. Too late, and Brexit is inert and academic, and all the steam is squandered.

      I stress, this sovereign recognition is vital to secure Scotland’s timely recognition as sovereign interlocutor in time to avert Brexit catastrophe and constitutional subjugation, but it does not by itself constitute an end to the UK Union. It is not Independence by the back door of the type to outrage the BritNats, but it IS material recognition by a diligent formal disinterested arbiter, – a bone fide Constitutional Court of International status, that the UK Union IS what it purports to be, and that is a Bipartite Treaty between two EQUAL sovereign Kingdoms, where the sovereignty of one CANNOT overrule the other. That’s it. Job done. UK still exists, but only just.

      That distinction is the ONLY watershed which matters, and we need the looming injustice and impropriety of our involuntary Brexit to ratchet up the Constitutional jeopardy and strive to save ourselves from Brexit before it happens.

      Nevermind about Westminster or the UK Supreme Court. The fight for our Constitutional Sovereignty only begins once we make it our confirmed position that Westminster has no legitimate claim over Scotland’s Sovereignty. We do not do any favours for our claim to be sovereign by immediately setting our test case before their asserted sovereignty in a UK Supreme Court. That’s the very mistake the 13th Century Scottish nobles made in asking Edward 1 to oversee Scotland’s constitutional crisis, and we all know how that turned out.

      Do not let ourselves be distracted by electoral mandates and majorities, nor whether we “forfeited” sovereignty in 2014, (we did not), nor even a tipper truck full of UKOK propaganda tipped on the lawn.

      If WE are Sovereign, THEY are not.
      Scotland decides if we leave Europe. Westminster does not.
      Scotland decides if we hold an Independence referendum. Westminster does not.
      Scotland decides if Scotland’s goes to war. Westminster does not.
      If Scotland decides to terminate the Union, Westminster cannot stop us.
      If the Sovereign people of Scotland want a referendum on every day of the week, then the sovereign people shall have one.

      WE HAVE THE SOVEREIGNTY. BELIEVE IT! We merely require the EUCJ to recognise it and the whole world changes.

    163. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Breeks (5.47) –

      ‘That distinction is the ONLY watershed which matters, and we need the looming injustice and impropriety of our involuntary Brexit to ratchet up the Constitutional jeopardy and strive to save ourselves from Brexit before it happens.’

      This makes sense, but presents a dismal medium-term prospect – that we must suffer, and be *seen* to suffer for longer than WM is prepared to dish out the punishment? To ‘prove’ how much we want this? What else has to happen? If, as many of us fear, WM moves swiftly, post-Brexit, to shut down the Scottish parliament, what legal democratic process is open to us then?

      Better to have non-violent civil disobedience between now and Brexit than violent uprising when the front doors of the Scottish Parliament are padlocked for good.

    164. Habib Steele says:

      We must remember that the principle reason that the English Parliament wanted the Union was for England’s safety.

      “At Westminster on 29 November 1704, Lord Godolphin, the Lord High Treasurer, explained to the House of Lords why Queen Anne had approved the Scottish Act of Security – which preserved the Kirk, trade and the gains of the 1688 Revolution in Scotland.

      He said the Act contained some undesirable elements, but it was essential that any Scottish threat to England’s safety should be neutralised.” https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/westminster-passes-the-alien-act-1705/

    165. Breeks says:

      And all this guff about knowing the final Brexit and letting the shock subside… BEHAVE!

      Farage, Gove and Johnson have brought the whole the UK charging towards the sheer cliff edge of Brexit when they hadn’t a Scooby-do what Brexit was actually going to mean, what the consequences would be, and there were certainly no impact studies involved beside the impact of a big red double decker bus crashing to the bottom of some chalky white cliffs.

      It’s a MYTH that we need to know the final forensic detail of Brexit. It’s an act of procrastination! Do you expect some minor clause that might transform Brexit into a good idea?? We know enough and we’ve known it since 2016 when 62% of us said Nope. Not happenin’.

    166. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell at 2.41

      We need them to say “fuck off” to clarify matters. So we need the challenge and as soon as possible.

    167. Abulhaq says:

      A projected independent Scottish state on England’s northern border might well be considered a security risk. That was how Westminster perceived the Irish until fairly recently.
      After Brexit such paranoia might intensify.

    168. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Just went on to Twitter and found this, pretty much at random.

      The sheer frustration expressed here is common. How can it be factored into this discussion? Ignoring it is not wise.

      ‘I’m not willing to compromise, I’m not interested in any alternative, I’m not up for waiting around, I’m not willing to believe the rest of the UK will change in any way, shape, or form. Unless you’re asking me if I want to leave this shithole ‘union’, get the fuck out my face.’
      @KatieKhaleesi

    169. Smallaxe says:

      Ian Brotherhood says:

      “Better to have non-violent civil disobedience between now and Brexit than violent uprising when the front doors of the Scottish Parliament are padlocked for good.”

      Well said, Ian.
      Non-violent civil disobedience would also be very difficult for the MSM and the BBC to ignore. Any violence would play right into the hands of Westminster and give them every excuse they need to ‘put us back in our box’.

    170. Sinky says:

      Good old BBC Reporting Scotland failed to mention that it was SNP MSPS who raised the issue of delivery charges to Highlands and Islands

    171. Jock McDonnell says:

      Sovereignty is asserted, pure and simple. A court can decide as it pleases, ultimately it’s just deciding who has the most convincing argument from among the informed opinions put forward, according to rules set by accountable politicians. The law is what the politicians make it & the politicians are made by the people in a democracy.
      Nothing is written in stone, nothing.
      Westminster assertions of sovereignty are pure bluster & a court decision only lasts as long as the people in a democracy are prepared to tolerate it.
      This is where I disagree with Breeks, a court can’t approve our sovereignty- we need to do it ourselves. Sooner the better in my view.
      Ultimately it’s about who has the biggest balls- real power cannot be given – it must be taken.

    172. ROBBO says:

      Never forget that when we started the Yes campaign in 2014 the POLLS were suggesting we would never get close to a result. Once the campaign got underway we managed to get the message across on the doorstep to whittle that gap away to within a whisker of success. As many have already mentioned we are but a few % points short now and given the lies, threats and failed promises that have gone before and particularly the Brexit fiasco we will have no better chance of getting the Independence we all crave for. How fitting it would be to fix the leave date for 6 April 2020 (700 years since the Declaration of Arbroath). As the fundraiser for WOS discovered there are many who would gladly put there money where their mouth is to mount a serious sustained campaign.

    173. Thepnr says:

      There will be another referendum at some point, as to when that may be i have no idea. I very much doubt it will be this year for two reasons.

      Just supposes the Tories do have their proposal ready by October this year, I assume it will first be laid before Westmister for a vote before being submitted for ratification by the EU 27.

      Let’s assume it get’s through a vote in Westminster then how long before the EU27 agree? I’ve no idea, but if it goes the other way around and Westminster waits on the EU 27 ratifying any proposal who’s to say Westminster will agree to the deal?

      Again I have no idea what the outcome of these two votes might be.

      So broadly I agree with this article, my view is we cannot be sure what Brexit means anytime soon but that should not stop the Scottish Parliament going ahead and producing a referendum bill to be used at a time of their chossing. Definately before the next Scottish elections though I feel.

      There really is no simple solution but we might as well get the ball rolling in challanging the “now is not the time” mantra from Theresa May.

      So let’s just do it, doesn’t require a date for that.

    174. yesindyref2 says:

      For some reason the title of this article makes me think of the lyrics for “Tusk”.

      @Alan Rooney
      You might have some word in your posting that hits the block filter, it can even be inside a word. r*pe is one example, so if you wanted to say the gr*pes of wrath it gets blocked.

    175. yesindyref2 says:

      @Ian B
      I think I recognise that style as a poster (KK) in the Grun. Forthright!

    176. galamcennalath says:

      Breeks says:

      WE HAVE THE SOVEREIGNTY. BELIEVE IT! We merely require the EUCJ to recognise it and the whole world changes.

      Possibly, not sure how responsibilities of courts all works.

      HOWEVER, who do you trust most, guys? Supreme Court in London, or ECJ? Rhetorical?

      ALSO, we will probably be cut off from the ECJ sometime soon!

    177. PictAtRandom says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      12 April, 2018 at 2:48 pm

      “I’m with Peter Bell and Ian Brotherhood on this. We need a new referendum in September/October this year.”

      Really, seriously, let go of this one. Not happening in a million years, and a bad idea anyway. The cold hard final terms of Brexit will need time to sink in.

      The whole point of the article is that as things stand, THE DECISION IS NOT IN OUR HANDS. If the SG tries to call a vote, councils will refuse to participate. By one route or another it has to be legal, and if a Section 30 isn’t happening – which it isn’t – we need to force the issue.

      So would you argue that a 2021 Independence Mandate Election would be illegal and that local authorities would not cooperate in holding such?
      The decision/timing on whether the 2021 Election should be fought on this basis is very much in independence supporters’ hands.

    178. The Scottish Government should pass a LAW that the Scottish High Court is Scotlands Supreme Court, not the English Supreme Court.

    179. Athanasius says:

      I dunno. I really can’t see any happy resolution to this. Give it a few years, and it’ll be a Northern Ireland situation all over again. The English consider Scotland their curtilage, not exactly their house, but enclosed ground attached to it which they own, like the garden, and the natives are the gnomes. Labour Party people have no loyalty to their country, absolutely none whatsoever, and they don’t give one infinitessimal damn for its inhabitants. All they care about is getting out and getting down the road to London, so absolutely no representation will be forthcoming from them. Ditto the LibDems. Do we even need to mention the Tories here? The SNP and other nationalist parties DO care about Scotland, but, as Stu points out, there’s little or nothing they can do in the face of an intransigent English establishment. But now that Scottish nationalism is no longer a joke on a shortbread tin, the sh1t is out of the horse and it ain’t going back in any time soon. Put all that together and really, unless something changes very substantially in the English mindset, what happens next will be inevitable.

    180. Hoss Mackintosh says:

      Great article Rev Stu,

      I have been thinking the same for a while – The Scottish Government has the democratic mandate so has to use it – or lose it.

      There will never be a time that is suitable for WM to grant a referendum – they will always find a reason to delay so the issue has to be forced before 2021.

      If the SNP and Greens don’t use the mandate that they have now then they will never be able to use it again.

      Even if they win the mandate in 2021 again – which will be a hard task with the current electoral system – WM will just ignore it saying you had a mandate before and you never used it then so you can’t use it now.

      Time to move on this – no pointing in waiting. We have to force the issue and see what the Scottish and Supreme Courts and perhaps even the EU Courts judgements are.

      From an EU point of view the next couple of years will also have to resolve how they treat Catalonia and how they react to a second Scottish referendum. This will determine if we can join and be welcomed into the EU.

      So all to play for – no point in waiting for our economy to be destroyed by Brexit.

    181. Liz g says:

      Can Holyrood (while probably too messy) take direct control of the Councils.
      Anybody know?

    182. Shinty says:

      “ALSO, we will probably be cut off from the ECJ sometime soon”

      Well said.

      It’ll be off to mother england and her ‘supreme’ court for you jocks (caps deliberately excluded) – Good Luck with that.

    183. Liz g says:

      Can Holyrood take direct control of the Councils ?
      Anyone know?
      Not sayin its a good idea,just wondering if it’s an option?

    184. Jock McDonnell says:

      And one more thing – we don’t need a S30 order, thats just to make post scotref deals easier – but we don’t need one.

      One thing that does frustrate me is nobody of note is prepared to call out Westminster’s assertion of sovereignty – maybe powder is being kept dry but as in many things, the very act of questioning it, is enough to undermine it.

      Much as this article really floats my boat, the very crux of our issue, it also raises my blood pressure. Time for a deep breath & to trust in some very capable people who have a lifetime’s commitment to this cause.

    185. Bruce MacDougall says:

      In view of the urgency of the situation is a referendum really necessary. As I understand it, the old Scottish parliament signed the Treaty of Union as a sovereign nation and shortly afterwards went into abeyance, not dissolved. The current Scottish MPS at Westminster are the elected
      representatives of Scotland. If they withdrew to Scotland and voted as a group to rescind the Union. Create an act to that effect and assert their independence it would be legal under Scottish and international law.

    186. Ghillie says:

      Excellent Rev.

      I fully expect the SNP are on it =)

      The YES movement is waking.

      Most of us never slept 🙂

    187. Big Jock says:

      If Brexit is a disaster. I expect Scots will run away from independence not embrace it. Throughout our history we have lived in relative poverty but have always been scared of going it alone. I am afraid many no voting Scots don’t see the link between poverty and the union. They see Scotland as poor and England as wealthy because we are not as good as them.

      I think if Scotland was doing relatively well there would be more chance of independence. Waiting for an economic disaster to befall will not help us. We go for independence as a democratic right given Scotland voted remain. Any Brexit at all is against the democratic wishes of Scots.

    188. Mark Russell says:

      Fuck another referendum; given the unfolding disaster in Westminster and the Middle East the Scottish Government should declare an immediate Declaration of Independence. Aside from sending a message to the rest of the world, it might just divert May’s attention away from starting the ultimate disaster.

      Particularly if Mundell and his Tory colleagues were detained under an emergency anti-terrorism legislation in an independent Scotland.

      Stand up and be counted.

    189. Famous15 says:

      1..Councils must obey the law.

      2.An advisory referendum can be arranged intra vires the Scottish Parliament.

      3. The result of an advisory referendum does not precipitate action but “real politique” does.

    190. Famous15 says:

      Real Politik works just as well also.

    191. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      The UK Government does not have the right to refuse independence to Scotland and the UK Supreme Court (which is possibly a contradiction of one of the essential conditions of the 1706/1707 Treaty of Union) has no legitimate right in international law (the United Nations Charter)to refuse Scotland self determination.

      Neither does the UK Parliament.

      Should the Scottish Parliament, for instance, declare for independence following an election fought on that prospect in which an independence majority was legitimately returned to the Scottish Parliament international law supports that independence. Problem of course is the weakness of the United Nations which has destroyed its credibility on a number of issues,particularly the behaviour of Israel against the Palestinians.

      The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s norms. It states that a people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.
      Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[20] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights(ICESCR)[21] reads:
      “All peoples have the right of self-determination.
      By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

    192. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      @ Liz G: “Can Holyrood take direct control of the councils?”

      Holyrood can just ignore the councils and claim it is because the issue is of ‘national importance’, just like what is happening with the chinese power plant deal in East Lothian.

      Hope all’s going well in China, Nicola. Say herro flom me.

    193. Moonlight says:

      Time for the SG to complete and launch a Blockchain voting system.
      Time to get all those qualified to register for the Blockchain voting system.
      Time to stop worrying whether or not councils, Westminster, the BBC or anyone else, will cooperate or block a referendum not held with a section 30.
      Time for the SG to know that anytime it wishes to consult with their electorate they can, with or without anyone’s permission.
      Time for action to ensure that when the time comes, one click of a mouse will set everything in motion with a response on whatever timescale is considered desireable.

    194. Shinty says:

      ” have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.”

      Q. Am I correct in thinking – if no S30 – then WM cannot interfere in any way with our referendum?

    195. Rock says:

      “So here’s the only way we can see through the problem: the Scottish Government has to bite the bullet and legislate for a second independence referendum now.”

      Rock (27th August 2017 – “Underneath the Goodyear blimp”):

      “Scotland was on the verge of independence immediately after the Brexit vote.

      The unionist parties were without leaders and completely lost, the SNP had 56 out of 59 MPs and 50% of the vote, the EU’s eyes were (favourably) on Scotland.

      But Nicola squandered a once in a 1000 years golden opportunity by wasting more than a year flogging a dead horse – a separate deal for Scotland which was never going to happen.

      The result: Nicola outsmarted by the collusion between Saints Theresa and Ruth on one hand, and Corbyn on the other, fall in SNP support from 50% to 37%.

      It is my prediction that there will be a “snap” Brexit and the SNP will be caught napping and unable to hold a second independence referendum.

      Or another “snap” Westminster election with the SNP again losing support.

      Despite the pretendy “sovereignty” and boasting of the clueless pompous armchair pundits posting here, Scotland is again as far away from independence as ever.

      If they succeed in neutralising the Rev. Stuart Campbell and WOS, independence will be “stone dead” for at least 620 years.”

    196. Big Jock says:

      The SNP have always had the option of resigning and calling an early Scottish election. They could run on a clear ticket of vote SNP declare independence. That way they coukd get the cross party independence minded Scots to back them. One caveat is that they would have to 51% of the vote share and there would have to be 80 plus turnout.

      So young could sabotage by not turning up to vote. Remember what happened in Catalonia!

    197. Big Jock says:

      That was Yoons not young….

    198. Big Jock says:

      This article and point would have been relevant and correct 2 years ago. I am afraid it’s too late for the legal ball kicking. 2 years from now WM will have made sure Scotlands economy flatlines.

      Middle class Scots will run away from independence.

    199. Rock says:

      “Because make no mistake, time is running out in all sorts of ways. The clock is ticking on the mandate. The clock is ticking on Brexit. Independence won’t be easy to win in 2019 or 2020, but it’ll be a hundred times harder in 2022 or 2025 – even if by some miracle there’s still a Holyrood majority.”

      Rock (24th June 2017 – “Come On Arlene”):

      “Admit it or not, Nicola has now been left dithering about a second independence referendum before Brexit has been completed.

      Who in the SNP will now advice her to call a second independence referendum with SNP support having gone down 13 points to 37%?

      A second independence referendum before Brexit is completed now looks doomed.

      After Brexit, Scotland will be at the mercy of Westminster.”

    200. Rock says:

      “Any referendum attempted without the consent of the UK government would therefore almost certainly find itself in the courts for a long spell of lawyer-enriching wrangling, because any citizen could challenge it even if the UK government itself did not.”

      Rock (28th February – “Here come the monsters again”):

      “There is ZERO chance that Saint Theresa will allow us to hold an independence referendum before Brexit has been completed.

      There is a 1% chance that establishment lawyer Nicola will dare defy her and hold an illegal referendum.

      Why would she and the rest of the SNP leadership want to go into exile in Belgium when they are doing fine here and at Westminster?

      Before there is a flood of posters claiming that Scotland can hold an independence referendum whenever it wants to, the fact is that it has never yet done so without Westminster’s approval.

      You can only prove me wrong if and when it does.”

    201. PictAtRandom says:

      If there were a concerted Unionist boycott of the 2021 elections — and that’s a big If because first of all you have to get the likes of Kez and ‘Tricky’ Dickie Leonard singing from the same hymn-sheet before The Colonel and followers join in — then it would make pretty clear how the Unionists viewed Holyrood’s future.
      So it would be Independence v. Centralist Unionism. I would go for that.

    202. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      “Who in the SNP will now advice her to call a second independence referendum with SNP support having gone down 13 points to 37%?”

      Not accurate. Polls suggest that around half of Labour voters will vote for independence and some Tories and LibDems will also. That 37% was achieved in General Election at which independence was not an issue. The 43 – 46% polled support for independence is a more reliable guide

    203. Robert Peffers says:

      @Robert Louis says: 12 April, 2018 at 1:08 pm:

      “The union is NOT and never has been unbreakable – indeed Westminster has done so many time. It is an international treaty, and may be ended unilaterally by either of the two signatory parties.”

      The above bit is correct, Robert Louis.

      “At the end of the day, however, the reality in all of this, is that Westminster only has the powers it has because it says it does. Its power does not come handed from some deity.”

      Indeed Westminster only has sovereignty because Westminster says it has, but it does so under the Rule of Law of England.

      Westminster operates under English Law and under English Law and under English law Her Majesty the Queen of England is Sovereign, not Her Majesty’s Parliament at Westminster. However, all, “Their Majesty’s”, of England since 1688 have legally delegated their sovereignty to Her Majesty’s Government at Westminster which is legally NOT the parliament of, “Their Majesty’s Kingdom of England”.

      It is legally The Parliament of the bipartite United Kingdom, and the treaty that begat that United Kingdom clearly states that The Rule Of Law of both individual Kingdoms in that United Kingdom shall remain independent in perpetuity and under the Rule of Law of the Kingdom of Scotland the monarch is NOT sovereign as under Scots law the People are sovereign.

      To sum that up Under English law the Sovereign does indeed have sovereignty, ” handed down from some deity and when the Monarch of the Kingdom of England is crowned it is in the name of that deity , “But not under Scots law”, and that is why Westminster is only sovereign over Scotland, “because Westminster says so”

      That is why this legal point has to be settled by the international Court of Human Rights and not under the Westminster Establishment established Supreme Court.

      All the evidence required to prove that Scotland has the legal right to end the United Kingdom, “Government”, is contained in The Treaty of Union of 1706/7.

      It is all there black upon white. In the Kingdom of Scotland the people are legally sovereign while in the Kingdom of England the Queen of England is legally sovereign but must legally, (under English Law), delegate Her English Kingdom Sovereignty to Her Majesty’s Parliament of England, and there has been no such Parliament of England since the last day of April 1707 – That Parliament at Westminster is the bipartite parliament of the United Kingdom but has long operated as the de facto Parliament of England while calling itself the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

      The simple question is this, If there is still an actual United Kingdom then why has only England not got a parliament but gets run by Westminster?

      What that all boils down to is that The Scottish Government already has a mandate to hold a referendum but requires that referendum return a majority of the legally sovereign people of Scotland saying the United Kingdom is over.

      There is probably not a chance in hell that the Westminster instigated Supreme Court would rule in favour of A Scottish Government with a majority of the electorate voting to leave the United Kingdom and, what is more no chance that court would allow the matter to be referred to the international courts – for the very good reason that they know Westminster would lose the case there.

      aw In essence, it does whatsoever it likes. Within that same context then, it is hard to argue that only the Scottish parliament has to abide by the ‘rules’. If the rules do not apply to Westminster then they cannot be held as enforceable in Holyrood either. In such circumstances, the Scottish Government may also choose to do whatsoever it pleases, because in the end, what would London do? Send in the army? arrest the Scottish Government? Westminster is a cesspit, but it is not Fascist Madrid.
      Either way, it is clearly time for action. Appeasement and compromise are spent, and have proved pointless. That window of opportunity is gone – and we need to hear no more of it from NS. Finished.
      As a first step we need every member of the SNP Government to start making the case for independence – and start attending the indy marches (with a few honourable exceptions like Joanna Cherry and a few others). Time for all those MP’s, MSP’ and councillors who get our votes to start doing rather than just saying. Time to do it NOW, or their endless procrastination may never be forgiven.
      We, the indy supporters, are ready and waiting, so get on with it.

    204. Rock says:

      If my understanding of this article is right, the Rev. Stuart Campbell is calling for a “constitutional crisis” sooner rather than later.

      Rock (14th March – “Spinning down”):

      “The SNP should have pulled out of Westminster immediately after they had 56 MPs elected.”

      heedtracker (14th March – “Spinning down”):

      “What difference would that have made Rock?”

      Rock (14th March – “Spinning down”):

      “It would have led to a constitutional crisis and the end of the union, Guardian reader with a Slovene (ex-)girlfriend.

      Now the SNP has embedded itself into Westminster.”

    205. Crackerjack says:

      The EU have given Treeza until October of this year to sign off on some kind of Brexit deal, including the Irish Border Conundrum.

      So, we will have a clearer picture of what kind of deal is on the table for Scotland. It will be a bag of nails.

      Nicola can then announce that the Brexit Deal is not in Scotland’s best interest and because of this Scotland will hold a second Referendum on Independence.

      Probably for the following springtime.

    206. Rock says:

      Dave McEwan Hill says:
      12 April, 2018 at 8:49 pm

      “That 37% was achieved in General Election at which independence was not an issue.”

      The unionists made absolutely sure that independence was THE issue in Scotland at the last election.

      The unionists talked about nothing else while the SNP went completely silent on it.

      As a result, the SNP lost half a million voters and 23 seats while the Tories gained 12 seats because of nothing else apart from the independence issue.

    207. Breeks says:

      Oh dear.

      I mean, it’s mostly good news… Trump seems to backtracking a bit on WW3 in Spring, (hip, hip, hooray!) but with the Skripal Whodunnit turning into the Skripal Whocareswhodunnit, and the “new” Syrian war all being over a thoroughly unpatriotic 8 months before Christmas, Theresa is going to be pacing up and down the corridors of power looking for some other unlucky Russian she can rashly threaten to bomb as a populist diversion to the grim reality of Brexit negotiations.

      The question of everybody’s lips is will it be Eastasia? Eursasia? Or the other team in England’s group, Russoasia?

    208. scowley says:

      The SNP supporters NEED to form a list vote party for the Scottish Parliament elections called “Freedom” or similar.
      Vote 1st past post SNP list vote “Freedom”. This will neuter the proportional system working against the SNP.
      The 2 parties will then form a coalition government.

    209. Daisy Walker says:

      Well said Mr Peffers, and very informative at the same time.

      I want the above article, which is news to me, I want it addressed, as a matter of urgency by my local SNP Branch. And they had better have clear well reasoned arguments and a plan for dealing. Cliches won’t cut it.

      In the mean time, the SNP need to educate their electorate.

      There’s enough knowledge about Brexit now, the final deal doesn’t matter, its Brexshit and Bad folks, only the depth is in doubt.

      Keep keeping on folks.

    210. heedtracker says:

      “The SNP should have pulled out of Westminster immediately after they had 56 MPs elected.”

      Rock what are you on, or in for that matter? a tardis.

      Sure there’s all kinds of “if only” or “why didn’t they” stuff available for your usual Sturgeon bad, SNP Out ranting of an evening but what would you do now oh wise one?

      Or is that not your usual swipe on 8pm til last bus passes Scottish haha Office remit Rock?

      Its OK Rock, you never have anything even remotely interesting to say, about the past or the future. As long you save your union.

      Yoons eh.

    211. Robert Louis says:

      Shinty at 0830pm

      That is correct. The terms of the last indyref were ‘agreed’ BECAUSE David Cameron went down the section 30 route – I guess he felt that gave London a modicum of say in how things were run. Remember that at that time, London was obsessively concerned (quite incorrectly) that Alex Salmond wanted to add a ‘devomax’ option to the referendum. London was determined to stop that happening (even though in reality the FM had no intention of offering such an option), so perhaps that may have been part of David Cameron’s motivation for offering section 30.

      Had it not happened, then the Scottish Government would have proceeded with the referendum anyway.

    212. handclapping says:

      In Fluffy’s Case the Supreme Court will rule that the matters are devolved as not being reserved and that Westminster can reserve whatever powers they want if they put them explicitly in an Act but that the matter is political and the parties should seek a political solution.

      The referendum is another question. Power to alter the constitution is reserved to Westminster but nowhere is the power to prevent a question on the constitution being raised, so, not being reserved the power to hold a non binding advisory referendum on a change to the constitution must have been devolved/ This would be a winning argument if the Supreme Court made the decision in Fluffy’s Case outlined above.

      Interesting times

    213. Paul Wilson says:

      If Westminster can “Just say No” Then what is the point of voting at all?

    214. ronnie anderson says:

      Am no wan fur biblical punishments but Stoned Dead sounds ok fur wan poster oan here , an ah wid cast the first stane , hiv that ya bass.

    215. heedtracker says:

      If Westminster can “Just say No” Then what is the point of voting at all?

      Westminster’s not actually going to allow indyref2, until they decide the time is right, ie never.

      So you wont even get to vote, let alone there actually being a point in voting.

    216. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Ronnie Anderson –

      As we all know, you are indeed without sin, so fire away Big Yin, and may yer aim be true…

      😉

    217. Robert Peffers says:

      @Eilidhsma says: 12 April, 2018 at 1:40 pm:

      “I don’t think May can handle a battle on two fronts, so Now is the best chance we will ever get.
      “Now’s the day, and now’s the hour”!

      There’s just one teeny-weeny wee fault with that argument, Eilidhsma.

      It doesn’t matter when the referendum is called if we do not get a majority of the people of Scotland voting for independence we may as well forget it.

    218. ronnie anderson says:

      Ian Brotherhood Ah’ll no be short o ammunition ma driveways ful o granite rocks lol.

    219. schrodingers cat says:

      good article stu, genuinely thought provoking

      switching the discussion from the scotref date to the date of the campaign launch has focused minds.

      I’m still wary about launching the campaign before oct18, we could suffer a backlash from the voters if the unionsts blame us for the brexit fiasco. i’d rather the tories at least conclude the negotiations (oct18) before we launch the campaign. that way, they alone will be blamed for brexit.

      I realise that a S30 isnt an absolute requirement but it is preferable and the process of getting one could be lengthy and there is time pressure to announce this before oct18.

    220. Shinty says:

      Robert Louis – thanks for the confirmation.

      I’m thinking our Sovereignty is the key to iScotland. Too many Scots think the Declaration of Arbroath is some historic novel and do not understand it’s relevance today.

      Sovereignty of the people of Scotland was written into the Treaty of the Union 1707. (in perpetuity) so it cannot be given away, sold, stolen or bartered. It is ours for all time.

    221. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Basically what a section 30 does is make the result legally binding. There is nothing to stop us holding consultative referendums.

      I was thinking of the past today.I remember many years ago at a fringe meeting at SNP Conference saying that “It’s Scotland’s Oil” campaign came with problems.
      Oil I said was a compelling reason for us to have independence – but also the biggest reason why we wouldn’t get it. I was right.

    222. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      I note BBC Scotland appears to have missed the SNP’s Westminster demand for a recall of Parliament.

    223. boris says:

      Prof. Adam Tomkins (MSP). Arch Republican Can he really a staunch Tory Party member and supporter of the Union of the Crowns lead by a constitutional monarch? OR does he work for M.I. 5/6?

      Let his previous political past history decide!!!

      Declaration of Scottish Independence Calton Hill – 9th October 2004

      Adam Tompkins, Law Professor, of Glasgow University reminded the crowd of the Queen’s previous reluctance to pay tax despite her massive income.

      He said that the queen had special powers or “prerogatives”, which included being able to appoint anyone she liked as Prime Minister.

      He said Tony Blair used these special powers to attack Iraq and there would have no Iraq war without the crown.

      In a democracy it is the people who are sovereign and not the crown!

      He then urged the abolition of the monarchy stating: “If you want democracy down with the crown!”

    224. Crackerjack says:

      You just know Question Time is going to be wall to wall “Bomb the Russian Bastards”.

      So will give it a miss,,citing my sanity must take priority.

      The warmongering BBC are caught in the middle here because Donald Trump is also at the top of their hate list.

      What is it about the english establishment and wars???

    225. Cubby says:

      Message to the SNP. Stop kicking the can down the road. If the answer from Westminster is always going to be now is not the time we may as well find out now rather than in 2020 or 2025.

      If we are a country and not a region we have to act like a country and stop accepting no as an answer because they will always say no because they may lose a referendum. Indyref1 only happened because Cameron thought there was absolutely no chance of losing. The Britnats are not democrats. They do not play fair. They play to win. If they were democrats we would not have the media we have.

      Scotgov has a mandate for a referendum use it now. If refused call a Holyrood election and SNP stand on indepence for Scotland.

      If we delay we risk Holyrood being diminished by the Britnats and losing EU votes (assuming we ever get a vote). There is no guarantee that vast swathes of the electorate change their minds after brexit even if it is a mega disaster. Some people, on the other hand, may change their minds to prevent a brexit disaster. Once the disaster has happened a lot may not want to risk any more upheaval from Independence. Also it may be made illegal as per Spain to hold a referendum on Independence. Think that cannot happen – look at how the Britnats behaved in Ireland.

    226. Shinty says:

      “Oil I said was a compelling reason for us to have independence – but also the biggest reason why we wouldn’t get it. I was right.”

      Remember watching a video of a guy from NI – wishing us well for indyref, but said it was never going to happen no matter how we voted. The British Establishment would never allow the loss of Scotland.

      Tried to find it again on youtube but no luck – maybe someone has a link.

    227. heedtracker says:

      He then urged the abolition of the monarchy stating: “If you want democracy down with the crown!”

      Tomkins is a carpetbagger.

      http://thenational.scot/news/16154592.UK_set_to_launch_unprecedented_legal_bid_against_Holyrood_Brexit_Bill/

      Without consent from Scotland and Wales on Westminster’s EU Withdrawal Bill, a constitutional crisis could be sparked.

      The UK has until May 8 to strike a deal with the devolved nations, but the Bill’s parliamentary passage could be blocked before then in the House of Lords.”

      Constitutional crisis means indyref2.

    228. Cubby says:

      The Westminster dogs of war are straining at the leash to get going.

      Is there anywhere left in Syria that hasn’t been bombed?

    229. yesindyref2 says:

      With the UK Gov allegedly going to take the Continuity Bill to court starting Monday, though I have my doubts if they will, they do have to Wednesday to lodge their claim so it could be a bit of brinkmanship trying to bluff the SG, but if it does go to court it does two things.

      First is to test many of the discussions here on Wings, in the court of Law, and potentially answer a lot of questions. It would take weeks and probably go to appeal either way.

      The second is put the UK Gov squarely against the SNP and Greens. And Labour and LibDems in Scotland apart from Mike Rumbles, leaving the Tories isolated. Perhaps it’s this second thing is ultimately the most important.

    230. Robert Peffers says:

      @Craig P says: 12 April, 2018 at 1:42 pm:

      @”DeepFriedPenguin says: ““I can’t remember any talk of referendums, a simple majority of votes at a G.E. would be enough for the Independence negotiations to begin.”

      Aye! That was fine until after devolution for devolution changed the whole picture. When it was, (supposedly), a two partner United Kingdom then a simple majority of Scots MPs elected on a manifesto of independence was enough to withdraw and tell The Kingdom of England that the Union was over.

      However, devolution changed that a bit.

      “I see no reason why we can’t return to his “fundamentalist” viewpoint.”

      Thing is it was nothing to do with fundamentalism but of international treaty. It had been a bipartite Treaty of Union and had only two kingdoms as partners and one had decided to divorce the other.

      Now it is more like two parents and two kids but one parent is also an abusive partner.

      Might even be a divorce and a legal battle for custody of the children.

      “I expect we will end up here eventually once the referendum route is blocked. But to get there an attempt has at least to be made to hold a referendum.”

      No! A referendum must not only be held but must be won. If it isn’t won then a Scottish Government, or even a Scottish political party would not be ending the United Kingdom but a part of a United Kingdom making a Unilateral declaration of Independence.

      My own view is that a referendum, with a yes to independence victory, is 100% legal under the terms of the Treaty of Union.

      Whether Westminster likes it or not, the Treaty of Union has only two signatory kingdoms as partners and If one partner decides the union is over then it is indeed over but as each of the partner kingdoms has a different legal system. Only the Kingdom of Scotland can legally end the Union for the Kingdom of England is a Constitutional Monarchy and has an unelected head of State that is legally sovereign.

    231. heedtracker says:

      That’s great you can pick up the old BBC in United Arab Emirates CJ.

      Is there a UAE Question Time equivalent?

    232. manandboy says:

      Scotland is like my budgie.

      He was born in captivity.
      He lives comfortably in a cage.
      When I leave the door to his cage open, he will not leave.

      But he knows he has wings.

    233. Robert Peffers says:

      Anyway, I’m for a wee bit earlier night so I’ll leave you with this little link just to keep you from getting too complacent.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzti04WUx04

      There really is nothing like a wee bit of reality to make you think clearly of what could be the consequences of NOT thinking clearly when you go out to vote idiots into high office.

    234. yesindyref2 says:

      It does make you wonder though if it’s all just sleight of hand, to distract from the main game in town, if you know what I mean. The key thing there though is to react naturally – that works both ways, true, or false. I even do it to Herald headliines!

    235. Hamish100 says:

      so it looks like the English government will take us into armed conflict again. One thing about the EU it could never make us do this. The price of the britnats union’

      Fairness to ruk– another week with brexit off the tele. Not one quote from Rees-mogg.
      Has Davidson been told just to shut up?
      Wonder she didn’t congratulate Grimsby for the new jobs they have just won courtesy of M&S. The North East fishermen (Scotland branch) kept their mouths shut of course. Full Surrender.

    236. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi William Purves at 7:20 pm.

      You typed,
      “The Scottish Government should pass a LAW that the Scottish High Court is Scotlands Supreme Court, not the English Supreme Court.”

      When I studied Scots Law for my banking exams in 1969/70, we were told that the highest court of appeal was the Scots law lords in the House of Lords.

      Has anything happened, under the terms of the Treaty of Union, to provide the “Supreme Court” with more importance than the Scottish Law Lords, under Scots Law?

    237. Cactus says:

      FUCK Question Time.

      Callin’ frae Crail.

      Aye can see ra Firth of ra Fourth.

      Scotland.

      Aye X.

    238. Ealasaid says:

      Is the Supreme Court recognised in Scotland?

      I remember the other year when the Supreme Court came up to hear some small cases in Scotland that it was refused permission to sit in any Scottish Court of Law. It therefore had to hear the cases in some Town Hall when the Councillors were on their summer holidays.

      I believe that allowing it to sit in a Scottish court would have given it some recognition that it was not entitled to.

    239. Cactus says:

      Now is ALWAYS oor time.

      1 way or anither.

      FUCK war.

      Love.

    240. Cactus says:

      Aussi et avec PASSION X.

    241. Jock McDonnell says:

      another Kremlin mouthpiece I suppose

      https://www.rt.com/shows/peter-schmeichel-show-rt-sport/

    242. Liz g says:

      I think in this instance the issue might be..?

      No about if the Supreme Court has any say over Scottish Law.
      But rather that…The Supreme Court is where ye take Westminster to keep it within it Own laws and mair tae the point it’s Treaty obligations…
      As the Parliament created by the 1707 Treaty of Union,it is answerable for the Treaty arrangements while they still stand too.
      Its just that no one ever took it to court over it before.

    243. Cactus says:

      @Yes People of Scotland ~

      Ye rarin’ tae go like?

      Rev Stu’s called it.

      Let’s do this.

    244. Liz g says:

      Cactus @ 12.25
      Hi Cactus,count me in my friend.

    245. Cactus says:

      Hey Liz g ~

      Counted ye in mwah…

      We are two in out of at least one hundred.

      But YOU are One in a Million.

      You’re a shooting star.

      Drink Yes.

      🙂

    246. Liz g says:

      Cactus @ 12.38
      Watter of life…. of course

    247. Dr Jim says:

      @Heedy

      He’s been found!

    248. Cactus says:

      Hey Liz g ~ xx

      ONE was walking on the watter tonight.

      Just like Scrat after he finds his Ice Age 3 acorn.

      Still walking.

      Still game.

      Be still.

    249. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      Peffers @ 11.26pm

      Here’s another vid, this time considering what would happen AFTER the bomb dropped.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXxGBazVr1A

    250. Liz g says:

      Cactus @ 12.51
      Hey right back at ye xx
      Are ye tryin tae walk 5,000 miles?
      Because I hope ye realise ye wull then hiv tae walk 5,000 more!!
      Its Traditional

    251. Cactus says:

      5,000 more… ah was walking it earlier on ra east shore Liz.

      Many miles tae go to get there.

      Just like our iScotland.

      Friday is callin’

      Love da love.

    252. Liz g says:

      Cactus @ 1.14
      Well…take care of you my friend,save sumthing fur Friday mind!
      night night xx

    253. Cactus says:

      Night night.

      See you on da flip side.

      Back to you Friday mornin’ Wingers.

      This stage is yours…

    254. Cactus says:

      Spell checker correction…

      Tisra 5th of forth.

      Fuck Sookie!

      U knows.

      😉

    255. Cactus says:

      Sounds like hallelujah tae me…

      Take it away Leonard C.

    256. Cactus says:

      “We have to get on that bus and get on our way before the service is cancelled forever.”

      When is now.

      Get ready.

      X.

    257. Molly says:

      Just trying to get this clear in my head

      I see the arguments about the date for another referendum but

      Why do I have the feeling if NS named a date for an Indy ref,Westminster would announce a final ref to’the people’ on the Brexit deal the week before or Theresa May would step down and the next PM would cancel Brexit or something.

      I don’t know,it’s going to take some special character to pull what’s left of ‘Britain’ post Brexit out of the mire and that’s not going to be Theresa May is it?

      Jeez reading that back,it’s not a choice is it , we must get that legal right!

    258. yesindyref2 says:

      @Molly
      Yes, that’s the problem. why she hasn’t been able to do it before, and still can’t for a time anyway. Timing will be very tricky. What some of us worry about of course is – is there actually an intention, with the likes of Wishart and even Brown making mutterings. I’d say so, but no harm in giving the leadershipe a bit of a kicking occasionally! Hey, it’s all about Indy …

    259. Liz g says:

      Molly @ 2.49
      The only clear and consistent message we have had so far is..
      The Scottish People will have a vote as soon as they demand one!
      So I reckon that’s our direction.
      Do everything we can to wake people up to the concept — It doesn’t have to be like this —
      We have a choice…
      We can have a Government,WE, control!!
      Democracy!!! As we understood it to be.
      The kind of thing we were told we had.

      It’s a pretty picture… Let’s really have it.. Why not??

    260. TheWealthOfNations says:

      I’ve been suggesting since before the last Scottish Parliamentary election that what we should do is take it out of the hands of Holyrood entirely.

      I might even suggest that it was hubris to squander an absolute majority in the way that we did.

      The Scottish Parliament clearly has the power to call a consultative referendum, what it may or may not lack is the power to act on the result depending on the issue in question.

      What we might yet do is devolve that power to call referenda to the People. An Act that gave the Sovereign People a right and a mechanism to express that Sovereign Will, modelled on Swiss systems, would forever rid the SNP of the tricky question of when to call another #indyref. By guaranteeing to enact, if not reserved, or seek a section 30 order to enact, if reserved, the results of such referenda we could bind future Scottish Governments to our Will in a way we can only dream of now.

      It would protect us against any hypothetical future where a pro-indy majority at Holyrood was lost and put the Unionists in the uneviable position of having to actively remove rights from the electorate to repeal.

    261. Robert Louis says:

      Ealasaid at 1158pm,

      The pretendy ‘UK supreme court’, was created, after being literally dreamed up by some guy called Tony Blair. It literally was his creation. It is an English invention. Literally invented a few years ago.

      The supreme court of Scotland and Scot law is the Court of Session in Edinburgh, which has existed as a fundamental part of Scots law and the Scottish constitution for HUNDREDS of years (since 1532). It was at the time the treaty of union was signed the ultimate legislator on both criminal and civil cases in Scots law, and was EXPLICITLY preserved as part of that treaty.

      Very soon after the treaty of union was signed, the house of lords in London took it upon themselves to arbiter on Scots civil cases, above the court of session, and that remains to this day. The house of lords had no authority to do so, and was and still is in breach of the treaty of union. This is what I mean when I say that Westminster only has the powers it has over Scotland because it says it has. It literally just does whatsoever it wishes.

      If a case goes before the pretendy ‘UK supreme court in England’, whereby the true nature of the Scottish constitutionals settlement is not recognised, then with immediate effect the Scottish Government should cease to recognise the ‘pretendy uk supreme court’. In my and many others opinion, the Scottish Government should never have recognised the pretendy’ uk supreme court’ in England, in the first place. It has NO PLACE within SCOTS law. English law is NOT applicable in Scotland.

      Their are no two ways about this.

      I’ve actually been down to the pretendy ‘uk supreme court’, in England. It is just across parliament square from Westminster. It is in all reality a tool of Westminster. No more, no less.

      The Scottish Government needs to start asserting Scotland’s constitutional place and rights, and stop meekly going along with the power drift, whereby Westminster makes final decisions on things. They need to start asserting such things, because if they don’t then LONDON will make assertions about Scotland instead.

      I hate to say it, but Nicola Sturgeon has been away too lax about such things.

      A lot of people in Scotland, and many within the Scotgov, need to sniff the coffee and wake up to just what exactly westminster is up to. It is not just going to take powers that were originally in brussels, it is going to make sure the Scottish parliament and Government becomes a second rate, low level debating shop, with power held by Mundell and his menagerie of England worshipping ‘proud scot buts’.

      This is a real fight for Scotland, and is no time for fearties.

    262. Jock McDonnell says:

      @Robert Louis

      Yup, its all pure assertion, drilled into the public mindset by the state broadcaster, to engender Jockholm Syndrome in the subjects

    263. sinky says:

      I missed the media coverage of Brent Crude Oil increasing to $72 at a time when production costs have halved since 2014

    264. Famous15 says:

      BBC and your propagandist Sir Mark Lyle Grant.

      War?

      NOT IN MY NAME.

    265. Famous15 says:

      Thereza May if you are hoping for a Falklands War bounce beware it could be a Suez War disaster for you.

    266. Fred says:

      If Keith Brown is serious about the Deputy Leadership he’s going about it in a strange way, he would get my vote but?

    267. Abulhaq says:

      The National party is expected to challenge any aggressive ‘démarche’ by England. I hope it does.
      A step in the right direction.

    268. sensibledave says:

      Robert Peffers

      Morning All

      … just popped in to say hello and see what is going on.

      Peffers wrote “All the evidence required to prove that Scotland has the legal right to end the United Kingdom, “Government”, is contained in The Treaty of Union of 1706/7.”

      I think we can bring things a little more up to date than that Mr Peffers. I know, through your constant references back to he 1700s, that you are not “into” denmocracy and prefer the dictats of unelected Kings, Queens, Lords and Lairds who carved up the country to suit their own pockets.

      However, those of us that live in the 21st century and quite like the more modern concept of something called “democracy”, thought it would be a good idea to ask the good people of Scotland whether the would like an Independent SCotland.

      The instruction to Westminster was unequivocal.

    269. Old Pete says:

      @ Robert Louis
      You are spot on as regards the supreme court and the compliance of the Scottish government.

      We have wasted so much time ‘dancing’ to the English governments tunes, maybe the SNP Scottish government should finally stand up and refuse to conform and start pushing Independence for Scotland now.
      ‘Brave hearts’ are required, time the SNP showed strong leadership and took control. If we don’t ‘strike’ soon and push for another referendum then we are going to be tied up in legal fights by the unionists until the next Scottish election.

    270. Old Pete says:

      Reading ‘State of Emergency’ by Richard Drysdale, interesting read and after what happened in Catalonia a very plausible outcome.

    271. Ken500 says:

      Oil tax is 40% since Jan 2016. The Tories ruined the Oil sector with illegally high Tory taxes when the price had fallen. Since 2010. The high price just puts up the costs in the economy. It’s not the price it’s the tax Westminster crooks put on it. Frack gas in the rest of the UK pay no tax. Tax free.
      An arrogant, ignorant attempt to ruin the Scottish economy.

      If people in Scotland had any sense they would in the SNP, donating, campaigning and participating. If they are able, Instead of ‘little red hens’ in their armchairs moaning complaining and criticising. Letting the unionists walk all over Scotland. Without Nicola,Alex and Co. That’s what they would be doing. Nicola and Co the best leader in the UK with the most support. Standing up for Scotland.

      The elected representatives will decide the time of the next Ibdependence Ref. That is why they were elected. Whenever they decide is when it will be won.

      Just keep onvoting SNP/SNP. Vote for Independence. Make sure another does too.

      The dirty fracking unionists illegally tried to get rid of Alex Salmond. No chance. Dirty Tory chancers. They will soon be out.

      Alex Salmond got the AWPR and the bay turbines built. The Golf Development will be built in spite of the greens. The unionists are despicable liars. Wasting public money like there is no tomorrow. £1.2Billion in debt in the City. £7Million a year in interest for an empty shopping centre and hotel. No one wanted. The blight on the landscape. £200Million wasted when peopke want pedestrianisation and open spaces. Not an illegal concrete jungle.

      Cuts to essential services, education and social care. To accommodate the mess. Traffic chaos. The SNP the largest group kept out of power by the 3rd rejects running down the City. Bedlam. They only time the City has been run properly and the books balanced etc is when the SNP were in charge and everyone was happy,

    272. Walter Hamilton says:

      You certainly have provoked a response with this one Rev. could we not just collapse the Holyrood government now and ask the People of Scotland to chose (A vote for SNP or Greens) is a vote for independence.

    273. Breeks says:

      There needs to be some legal initiative to secure formal recognition of Scottish sovereignty. The Scottish Government is by far in the best position to instigate such proceedings, but frankly, seem to have no instincts leading them in this direction.

      Mike Russell talks about a constitutional battle over powers being ejected from Europe, which does in fairness begin to consider the definition of sovereignty, but the action has all the hallmarks of a Constitutional skirmish, not the definitive existential battle for sovereign recognition which we need, and need to win.

      Perhaps however it wouldn’t need to be the SNP. Perhaps YES2 could evolve into a grassroots champion for Constitutional awareness and distribution of educational literature which spreads awareness of Scotland’s sovereign history. In my limited experience, it might be improving but such knowledge barely exists in our ranks.

      Have YES2 coalesce around the issue of sovereign recognition. I hate to use the word for its unwelcome connotations, but become identified as Constitutional fundamentalists.

      To repeat myself, I think the EUCJ is the place to go, and go quickly, citing the desperate inevitability of Brexit as due cause for the importance of a test case and equal due cause for an accelerated consideration. There is no point dwelling on the amount of time which has been squandered, but perhaps this quest for Constitutional clarity becoming an Emergency initiative can perhaps be turned to our advantage.

      I repeat again too, we cannot afford to let slip the unique circumstances which Brexit creates, our democratic majority rejection of Brexit, our threatened subjugation to the will of Westminster, the material damage to our economy which Brexit will cause, the insanity and unfairness of a sovereign nation’s democratic expression having less say over Brexit than an unelected peer.

      FORGET FOR THE MOMENT whether you are pro or anti Europe. Put the issue to one side. This is the fight for Constitutional Sovereignty and Brexit whether you are for it or against it brings a truckload of jeopardy and imperative to the fore. You don’t open the Constitutional Pandora’s box unless you have good reason and no alternative. Well, Brexit gives us that very good reason and leaves us without alternative.

      Please see that, and help the SNP to see it too. There isn’t a moment to lose, and postponement of action until 2019 or beyond is dangerously foolhardy and reckless because everything will already be lost. Not just Brexit, not just the circumstance and jeopardy of Brexit squandered, but we will also be damned by Scotland’s supine submission to the unconstitutional sovereignty of Westminster in meekly allowing Brexit to wash over us.

      We would only stand up and be sovereign afterwards ? Carpe diem. Seize the day Scotland. It is so nearly upon us and we dangerously divided and ill prepared.

    274. sensibledave says:

      Famous15 8:30 am

      You wrote “Thereza May if you are hoping for a Falklands War bounce beware it could be a Suez War disaster for you.”

      We live in dangerous times. The quote above, I assume, is a reference to the current situation in Syria. THe situation that exists today.

      It appears that many of the leaders of western democracies believe that Assad has, once again used chemical weapons against his own people.

      Just so I know, if you were our Prime Minister and if it is the case that Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people – which, apart from being an abominable act, is also in contravention of every relevant Treaty that every country in the world has signed up to …. what would you do?

      Would you take the view that it is nothing to do with us and we should turn our heads the other way, or, do you think that”the west” let Assad know that there are repercussions for such illegal and abominable actions and that some of his military installations will be picking up his tab?

      I listened to Diane Abbot on the Today program on Radio 4 this morning. She gave another appalling display of uselessness, irrelevance and obfuscation of the type that, I am guessing, you subscribe to.

    275. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      O/T

      Getting old. Can anybody remind me who it was that invented napalm and incinerated whole communities with it? And while we are at it what is Porton Down for? Is it for inventing advanced household detergents or something?

      Or are we just seeing lies and hypocrisy at a levels we have never experienced before?

      PS Facebook has just removed some of my posts as “spam”. Another correspondent online with the same complaint.

      We are just experiencing the strongest argument we could ever hope for for independence. We must get out of the evil axis.

    276. orri says:

      The proposed enactment of a law re the Supreme Court is unnecessary. What is needed is a motion to officially recognize where the Treaty of Union says ultimate authority should lie as regards the laws of Scotland. To do otherwise risks a defeat that by default grants power to the UK Supreme Court. The motion has to be carefully worded so there’s no chance of a hijack by unionist parties.

      There must also be an acknowledgement of the fundamental difference between the Continuity Bill and a referendum.

      The CB concerns how you read the clauses in the Scotland Act regarding powers not in the control of Holyrood because they currently rest with Brussels. Most reasonable people might take that to mean that once we leave the EU Holyrood gains control. More precisely at the moment we no longer have elected MEPs exercising those powers rather than at the end of the transition period. There is the troubling codicil in the act that says Holyrood may not pass laws contrary to the UK’s international agreements. However that does not by itself give Westminster any right to unilaterally enter into those agreements on Scotland’s behalf. The nub of the argument is whether a government can legislate for future events. In this case that in due course powers retained by the EU due to the UK’s membership will finally “devolve” to Holyrood. As the Scotland is presently written and has yet to be changed then that’s what’s going to happen.

      On the other hand a referendum is simply a question. The same as might be said to be asked during an election. In Scotland where we are sovereign it’d be against international law to limit our self determination in that way. Self determination in this case, and others, means choosing for yourself. In 2014 Scotland chose to continue the union. That doesn’t mean it gave up the right to choose again. The original proposal for a referendum avoided the issue of s30 by proposing that Holyrood negotiate on our behalf for the very reason that Westminster might try it’s hand at questioning the legality of it. Scotland self determining that Holyrood should negotiate on it’s behalf is exactly what happens in a Holyrood election. For that to be legally barred is opening a can of worms that would mean SNP supporters would be in the same legal position as any party barred from standing.

      The small elephant hiding behind the big one is that even if an s30 were granted Westminster could always hold an emergency vote to withdraw it.

    277. Abulhaq says:

      The English are such hypocrites. Killing kids with chemicals,evil. Killing kids with bombs OK for foreign trade. One rule in Syria another in Yemen. Twas ever thus in the history of England’s dealings with johnny foreigner. Bring back the East India Company! Opium anybody?

    278. sensibledave says:

      Abdulhaq 9.53

      …. I note that unadulterated racism is your default. You are a disgrace sir.

    279. heedtracker says:

      sensibledave says:
      13 April, 2018 at 9:57 am
      Abdulhaq 9.53

      …. I note that unadulterated racism is your default. You are a disgrace sir.

      If you mean the English sensible d, you’re not a race. Why a lot of you think you’re a race, is a bit weird really.

    280. We are about to go to war with Russia and our Parliament are still out on the ski slopes enjoying their Easter Hols,

      there are a lot of concerned citizens who want to know` what the f@cks going on`

      get Parliament back ASAP before Theresa and her Cabinet/Government make the biggest mistake in the history of mistakes and that includes Brexit.

    281. Bill McLean says:

      Abulhaq – agree with your sentiment but i’d have written “English governments are such hypocrites”. Most English people are just like us except they may not be so politically attuned. And now see what you’ve done? Awakened that most sensible and sensitive poor soul!

    282. Hamish100 says:

      Whatever the date of a reverendum between independence or brexit slowly but surely we should start our preparations recognising that the actual timescale between announcement and date will be short.

    283. galamcennalath says:

      Famous15 says:

      Thereza May if you are hoping for a Falklands War bounce beware it could be a Suez War disaster for you.

      Indeed. Karma’s a bitch and wishing to make political capital out of death and destruction isn’t a good way to win favour with the deities!

      May runs a real risk of not only having an Anthony Eden moment, but with the Brexit debacle of re-running Thatcher’s de-industrialisation, Major’s recession, and Blair’s financial crisis all at once!

      I’m a Scot, get me out of this!

    284. Abulhaq says:

      @sensibledave
      OK…les Anglais…that better?
      Perfide Albion etc.

    285. Bill McLean says:

      Abulhaq 1011 – now that I totally agree with!

    286. heedtracker says:

      I’m a Scot, get me out of this!

      You’re not in it.

      Last night’s BBC Question Time had a SLabour dude on their panel but its all about England, Scotland’s totally blanked out of everything UK now.

      If it wasn’t before, UK is England, England all the way forever and ever.

      Tory twerps like sensible dave here say this is what 21st democracy is, England style.

    287. Abulhaq says:

      @BillMcLean
      The English with their understated charm are endearing but that also makes them dangerous to know. Prenez-garde citoyens!

    288. Cubby says:

      Sensibledave = arrogant offensive Paid to troll British Nationaist.

    289. gus1940 says:

      Dave McE H @ 9.34

      It doesn’t require a Porton Down type establishment to make Chlorine.

      Although my school days ended 60 years ago I can still remember the lab process for producing it using Potassium Permanganate and Hydrochloric Acid.

      The 216>2258 formula has stuck in my memory all these years(I think correctly).

      2KMnO4 + 16HCl > 2KCl + 2MnCl2 + 5Cl2 + 8H2O

      I can’t remember the industrial preparation process but I don’t think it was particularly HiTec.

      In other words anybody can make it including any of the multitude of anti-Assad rebel groups including the ones backed by Washington.

    290. sensibledave says:

      Abulhaq 10:17 am

      You wrote “The English with their understated charm are endearing but that also makes them dangerous to know.”

      You can’t stop yourself can you. You are a racist sir.

    291. Bill McLean says:

      gus1940 – If I remember rightly – definitely not hi-tech, the PP was dumped in the acid and the gas collected in a jar of some kind!

    292. orri says:

      I suspect the refusal to recall parliament is not just the risk that they might say no to air strikes but also that they might say yes. I’ve no doubt that regardless of the outcome a victory of sorts will be claimed. Worst come to worst it’ll provoke a terrorist attack in the UK. That will then be used as retroactive justification and silence the critics.

      The point is that May must be seen as decisive and assertive and it must be seen as her government alone doing the right thing. Evidence is something others can worry about.

      The Big Lie wasn’t just about being so audacious that people accept what you say as truth because no-one would be that obviously a liar. It was also about control and suppressing expressions of dissent to such an extent that even thinking out of line became impossible.

    293. auld highlander says:

      Cubby @ 10.21, you missed out obnoxious.

    294. heedtracker says:

      sensibledave says:
      13 April, 2018 at 10:33 am
      Abulhaq 10:17 am

      You wrote “The English with their understated charm are endearing but that also makes them dangerous to know.”

      You can’t stop yourself can you. You are a racist sir.

      Well could you English at least try and not keep on voting for tory er, horrors, sensebledave.

    295. orri says:

      Swimming pool chlorine is stored as two elements that are mixed when needed. Oven cleaner and bleach can also give it off. Agent Orange was a mix of fairly common commercial products although perhaps concentrated.

      Also remember that the aim isn’t always to kill. Blinding and maiming are far more effective at tying up enemy resources. Think some, now banned, AP mines were designed along that line. So the alleged poison attack might have been genuine. It certainly tied up a lot of people caring for 3 victims.

    296. galamcennalath says:

      gus1940 says:

      the lab process for producing it using Potassium Permanganate and Hydrochloric Acid

      That particular experiment sticks in my mind too … later in the day we heard that our chemistry teacher had been taken to hospital suffering from chlorine poisoning. Inadequate use of the the fume cupboard.

      As Macron said, “we have proof that chemical weapons were used, at least chlorine” …. no evidence of anything else?

    297. Breastplate says:

      Sensibledave,
      Someone is making sweeping generalisations and you want to bomb the limbs off toddlers to send a message to someone you don’t like yet you believe you have the moral high ground.

      You’ve been on here for years now and proven yourself to be a liar. Nobody is surprised by your stance.

    298. Mikey2407 says:

      “Would you take the view that it is nothing to do with us and we should turn our heads the other way, or, do you think that”the west” let Assad know that there are repercussions for such illegal and abominable actions and that some of his military installations will be picking up his tab?”

      The UN should determine what steps need to be taken and, first of all, investigators should be permitted access to determine the nature and source of the chemical attacks.

    299. schrodingers cat says:

      france is in the middle of a wave of strikes, macron has his own reasons to want a falklands type distraction

    300. Bob Mack says:

      Aww, come on guys. The English love their wee military adventure now and then. Show the flag, kill some natives,and claim you did it on the grounds of morality or something or other.
      Dave is English.it is his heritage and right to kill something somewhere, to show how good he is..

    301. Archbishop of Dork says:

      Sensibledave

      You quickly call anyone here racist who protests the political hegemony the government in England exerts over Scotland in the form of enforced Brexit and the devo power grab.

      Leave aside the very obvious reality that objecting to political authoritarianism and overlordship is a legitimate stance that does not imply racism. Your claim that criticism of English government is racism is strange considering England, like Scotland, is multi-racial.

      If you perceive criticism of English political actions as racism then that suggests you see England as mono-racial and therefore Anglo-Saxon. Which would make you the racist sir.

    302. Abulhaq says:

      Sensibledave
      With my very mixed heritage I can tell you what real racism is like, covert, overt and winkwink nudge nudge….the English are quite skilled in the arts of self defence…i make no apologies.

    303. Abulhaq says:

      schrödingers cat
      Macron’s descent into unpopularity has been quicker than that of Hollande.
      Those that deal in anglosaxon economic models beware.
      In France the voice of the street is stentorian. He needs to watch his step. He could go crying to maman sorry, wife.

    304. sensibledave says:

      Abdulhaq 11.11

      I get it Abdulhaq, I really do. You make no apology whatsoever for being a racist. We are all clear on that.

    305. sensibledave says:

      Archbishop of Dork 11:05 am

      You wrote “You quickly call anyone here racist who protests the political hegemony the government in England exerts over Scotland in the form of enforced Brexit and the devo power grab.”

      NO I DID NOT!

      I said Abdulhaq was a racist for saying “The English are such hypocrites. Killing kids with chemicals,evil. Killing kids with bombs OK for foreign trade.

      That statement is a sweeping, negative stereotyping of the characteristics of the population of a named country.

      That is, pure and simple, racism.

      Its what you get when an ideology takes hold and replaces a perfectly legitimate, democratic, political aim.

    306. heedtracker says:

      Mixed heritage probably applies to most of us. If you’d said the “British” instead of the “English,” a tory yoon like sensibledave would rather have enjoyed that, we’re BetterTogether, for better or worse, the English like to tell Scots.

      Then there’s the duality of unionism in Scotland,

      SLabour’s James Kelly, Glasgow yoon hard core, Thursday 08 August 2013

      “Leaving aside the false hopes of many of its advocates that devolution would kill nationalism – Donald Dewar and George Robertson for two – this is an all-or-nothing vote on independence.

      When Yes loses, as it will, its supporters should not be awarded the consolation prize of additional powers for Holyrood. That will simply keep the argument open and continue the slide away from the Union. Losers should lose. The dream consequence of this loss should be a steady erosion of Holyrood’s powers until it can be abolished and the previous efficient unitary form of government restored.

      Is there a unionist brave enough publicly to take that position?”

      Outside BBC Scotland gimp network, there’s not. Even Viceroy Fluffie say’s Uk gov High Court action to end Holyrood devo’s no biggie.

    307. heedtracker says:

      NO I DID NOT!

      I said Abdulhaq was a racist for saying “The English are such hypocrites. Killing kids with chemicals,evil. Killing kids with bombs OK for foreign trade.

      That statement is a sweeping, negative stereotyping of the characteristics of the population of a named country.

      There is no country called England sensibledave. You English are the United Kingdom.

    308. Bill Hume says:

      FFS, please ignore Sensible. It’s raining here in Ayrshire but I can ignore it because I know we are on the verge of independence………and there is bugger all Sensible can do about it.

      That thought makes me feel warm inside.

    309. Lenny Hartley says:

      Dmh re Nalpalm one of my mates who I think you know was in the Navy as an Aircraft fitter in the sixties when the tanker the Torrey Canyon which carried 120,000 tonnes of crude oil went aground of the Scily Isles. An environmental disaster was occuring and the cargo had to be destroyed. Nalpalm by this time was banned. An oder came down from on high to fill some External Petrol tanks with a powder and fill them to the brim with avgas. The powder turned the petrol into Nalpalm. How easy it is to get around international treaties.

    310. sensibledave says:

      Bill Hume 11:32 am

      You wrote “FFS, please ignore Sensible. It’s raining here in Ayrshire but I can ignore it because I know we are on the verge of independence………and there is bugger all Sensible can do about it.
      That thought makes me feel warm inside.”

      … very Corbynesque if I may say so!

      To paraphrase, “let’s ignore the anti-semitism in our midst because I know we are on the verge ….”

    311. orri says:

      Think Napalm is a mix of soap, aluminium powder and fuel. The soap is so it sticks and the aluminum is what burns when heated enough by the ignited fuel. Think the soap gels the fuel so it stays in contact with the aluminium.

    312. sensibledave says:

      Mikey2407 10:55 am

      You wrote: “The UN should determine what steps need to be taken and, first of all, investigators should be permitted access to determine the nature and source of the chemical attacks.”

      … We would all agree with that Mikey.

      Unfortunately, the Russians vetoed, six times, every UN vote to do exactly that. So, try again, and give us another alternative because that isn’t ever going to happen.

    313. Cubby says:

      Bill Hume @11.32am

      I agree Bill do not engage with sensibledave he is just on to wreck and be obnoxious.

      Auld Highlander @10.42

      Sensibledave = arrogant offensive and OBNOXIOUS paid to TROLL BRITISH NATIONALIST

      Just pointing this out for newcomers to save them time finding this out. Still too many obviously paid to troll boring trolls.

    314. Foonurt says:

      Ms. H. Miller – Radio Scoattlin thurr moarnin (7-38am).

      Silver & bronze meedulls yissliss, oanlae gold maitturrs.

      Eilidh Doyle, jist aboot speechliss.

    315. Flower of Scotland says:

      Thanks for this Rev. You are the only one giving us a forum to discuss Scotland,a future.

      I agree with Ian Brotherhood about twitter. Folk are getting frustrated and demanding to be heard.

      It would be a good idea, I think, if the SNP just decided to call for a new referendum but held back on the date. YES groups are already reforming and we could relieve some of the frustration folk are feeling by campaigning.

      The NO side have never stopped campaigning because they know that we will have a new referendum.

      May already has a lot on her plate so let’s up the anti.

      Good stuff from Robert Peffers as usual. Very informative. Lots of good comments all round, people.

    316. Meg merrilees says:

      Anti-war demo at 5pm today outside Downing Street – will it be reported on the national news??? We’ll see.

      Why do they only report that Corbyn is agin T May taking the country into military action without Parliamentary consent – Vince Cable has asked for WM recall; Ian Blackford has asked for Parliamentary recall; the Father of the House – Ken Clarke has asked for Parliamentary recall and yet our arrogant PM continues to do her own thing to save the Tory Party.
      We cannot let them take us into war.

      Anybody seen or heard anything from (t)Ruthless – thought not, hiding in a bunker somewhere probably.

      Meanwhile on R4 this morning, Nick Robinson hosted an incredibly hostile interview with Diane Abbott- nasty, aggressive little man trying to fob off his opinion onto the listeners in the name of political debate. Top tip, why not let your guest put forward their thoughts and ideas and then react to that rather than try to twist the questions to agree with your own agenda and manipulate the answers. No wonder so many people are switching off from this programme.

      Folks, please don’t post any other recipes for ‘chemical weapons’ online- you don’t know who is reading this and what they might attempt.
      I do remember from Health and Safety training being told of an incident when two different cleaning contractors overlapped on the same set of toilets. Unfortunately they were using different product to clean said loos. The second team, unaware that the first team had already been in, put their product down the toilets which then basically ‘exploded’.

      I guess we should add “please do not try this at home”

    317. orri says:

      Thing is that, and it’s only wikipedia so could be wrong. It’s the Speaker who recalls parliament and not the Government. Under most circumstances it would be the Government making the “request” but there’s nothing to say that others couldn’t.

      An interesting tactic would be for MPs to converge on the HoP and demand entry in order to convene a session.

      Paranoia might indicate that this alleged chemical attack is at a convenient time due to parliament being in recess and the Government having temporary executive power just as it would during an election. With the bonus that it doesn’t risk the electorate turning against them.

      OF course this does risk a vote of no confidence in the “government” when parliament does come back from recess.

    318. Dr Jim says:

      It turns out Novichok is made in around 20 countries, they never told us that did they? That in itself is bad enough but it also turns out Sky news knew it too and just decided not to mention it
      Must’ve slipped their mind eh, a small detail Dermot Murnaghan

      Dermot Murnaghan was questioning the Russian press secretary but strangely not in the style and approach of a truth seeking journalist but in the style of a defensive British nationalist representative

      Anyone noticed the value of the £ rising all lovely since the Brits made up all this crap, wars and or the threat of them are really good for business aren’t they, which is really handy for the Brits at this moment because they were skint a week or so ago now everything’s going swimmingly

    319. Fred says:

      The aerial gassing of civilians was pioneered by the British in Iraq. Usual hypocricy, nobody does it better!

    320. schrodingers cat says:

      Flower of Scotland says:

      It would be a good idea, I think, if the SNP just decided to call for a new referendum but held back on the date
      —–
      agree with this, the only problem i have is I believe we should wait until the brexit negotiations are finished in oct 18

      a difference of 5 months, FOS

    321. Fred says:

      Hypocrisy!

    322. sensibledave says:

      heedtracker 11:31 am

      You wrote “There is no country called England sensibledave. You English are the United Kingdom.”

      Really heedy? Is that all you have got to say? A racist repeats racists comments and your only comment is to back him up by saying my country isn’t a country, thus implying it isn’t racism?

      I think that we can be certain that Independence fence-sitters that come here and read the comments of Abdulhaq and Heedy will be newly enthused and inspired by the thought of joining with the likes and sentiments of Abdulhaq and Heedy … errr, not!

      But hey, I am sure Abdulhaq and Heedy know best how to attract people to the cause. The BNP were very successful with that type of thing …. no, wait …..!

    323. Abulhaq says:

      @sensibledave
      You bring antisemitism into the equation…my Jewish Mizrahi grandmother can give you some stories about that.
      Btw im Abulhaq not Abdulhaq….im no ones servant.

    324. K1 says:

      You have to be one the biggest clownfuckwittednumptyinabasketmadeofwaterarseholes that’s ever graced these pages Dave.

      Carry on being the obtuse wanker that you are.

    325. heedtracker says:

      Really heedy? Is that all you have got to say? A racist repeats racists comments and your only comment is to back him up by saying my country isn’t a country, thus implying it isn’t racism?

      Lots more to say on it all sensibled. But start with facts sensible.

      There is no such a thing as the English race.

      So critical stuff about the English part of the UK, or who you keep voting for, is not racism.

    326. schrodingers cat says:

      SD

      you mentioned democracy, now that we see that indyref2 will undoubtably be launched in the next 5 months………..

      how do you think westminster should react?

    327. ronnie anderson says:

      K1 You’ve incurred demerit points for your post at 12.34 , there’s 26 letters in the alphabet an you hiivnae uased the aw lol.

    328. Dr Jim says:

      David Mundell says there’s no such country as Scotland since the Act of Union so that must mean there’s no such country as England then, and if you think about it they have no parliament, but wait yes they do, it’s all the one big UK parliament of England, sorry Britain now in which all four of our great nations are ignored except the English one but we all vote as one country although we’re four nations and we’re precious and strong and stable and united except when it comes to taking decisions on our one pecious nation which is four when it’s convenient for the English British part of the main one of the four nations who speak for everybody

      Are you all damn well clear on who’s in charge and who’s the bestest most preciousist Nation now, isn’t it obvious it’s…… America

    329. Clydebuilt says:

      Herald Online Poll

      95% opposed to UK involvement in a military strike on Syria

      4785 people took part

      Hidden away in an article on page 7 , 13/4/2018

    330. Foonurt says:

      Urr thae hebrews, no anti-semitic tae yoan Palestinians?

      Jist wahnt tae ken.

      Git thoan, Scoattish Independence baw rollin.

    331. Dr Jim says:

      Britains media rates at 40th in the world for truth and accuracy, just think about that for a minute

      A big chunk of the rest of the worlds media says the Brits are liars and we shouldn’t believe them

      The Brits say, Naw Naw, it’s thame Ma, it’s thame, they’re the liars, honest!

      I don’t know why Unionists get annoyed at Scotland for calling them liars when everybody else does as well

    332. Abulhaq says:

      @breeks
      Good find. It demonstrates the folly of holier than thou attitudes and the my hands are cleaner than yours posturing.
      Truth and fact are early victims too.

    333. orri says:

      Mundell and those claiming Scotland lost it’s distinct identity do so in face of the wording of the

      https://www.parliament.uk/documents/heritage/articlesofunion.pdf

      Which may not read as a treaty in modern terms but sure as fuck is one according to how things were done at the time.

      All through it there’s reference to distinct provisions in Scotland and England.

      Never is it mentioned that there’s only a single country involved. This solely concerns the union of two Kingdoms and how they are to be administered. It’s a political union. Given Ireland was already under the control of the English Crown and part of that Kingdom there’s nothing in that document that means Scotland loses it’s identity as a separate country.

      The argument was that Scotland had lost it’s international identity. Given the ongoing attempts to silence us on that stage it’s probably correct. The same could be said of England though.

    334. If we are not all toast by Tuesday,

      Former Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix will give evidence to Commons CMS next Tuesday 18th April from 2.15pm. You can watch on http://parliamentlive.tv

      since being dumped by CA/Strategic Communication Laboratories Group he might be willing to spill some beans,

      hope Brendan O’Hara asks about his/their involvement in Indy1 as referenced by Christopher Wylie in his evidence to Committee.

    335. gerrycan says:

      May can say “now is not the time” as many times as she likes, but it does not change the validity of the request and Sturgeon knows it. What Sturgeon also realises is that this is as much about public perception as it is about the law.

      What WM knows and fears is that Schedule 5 of The Scotland Act is not set in stone and is very open to a wider interpretation than the wording might suggest. It is deliberately written in very general terms to allow legal interpretation to accomodate the wide range of issues that can arise from that schedule.

      The guiding principle though, is that The Act’s purpose is to empower rather than to stifle the will of the Scottish people, and given the current SNP mandate it would be unthinkable for the UK (which cannot express ONE sovereign will politically) to use a percieved expression of will from the UK to circumvent that of the Scots, not least because a percieved UK will is in part that of the Scots.

      David Cameron avoided going to court pre indyref1 because this fact would have been laid bare, not just to Scots, but to the N Irish and the Welsh also. However, the fact that he did cave in to a referendum is a form of precedent that could be taken into account ultimately.

      I believe that May’s last roll of the union dice was the last GE, and the election of an indy majority to HR sealed the deal in terms of scotref. If the result had went the other way slightly, she could have claimed to have neutralised the mandate and attacked it as having been invalidated. That election was called with the intention of strengthening her UK hand, not her brexit hand.

      As it stands, WM’s only hope to stave off scotref would be to try and stall it beyond the next GE in the courts, and if that happened, HR could just call it as advisory and seek a mandate to validate the result after by standing on a mandate to enact the result. Given that prospect, WM could hardly not participate in an advisory referendum campaign as that would be handing the SNP victory conditional to a subsequent GE indy majority at HR.

    336. Big Jock says:

      Love the way that Sensible Dave bloke keeps banging on about racism and bigotry. Then commits the obligatory sin of every unionist by lazily comparing the yes movement to the BNP recruitments strategy.

      The truth is the Tories and Brexit voting English are much more closely aligned to the BNP and that tasteless flag than the SNP or yes movement. That’s fact not opinion BNP right wing, Tories right wing, hard Brexit supporters right wing. SNP left wing, Yes movement left wing, Greens left wing. We are open to anyone coming to this country , even the English we allegedly hate! Hence we gave them the vote in the referendum but the UK denied EU nationals the vote in their referendum. Yes their referendum, it was never Scotland’s.

      The things we are against are the very things that have ripped English society apart. Those things are capitalism at the expense of the poor, closed door anti European bigotry, illegal wars, privatisation of schools and the NHS, tuition fees, anti Scottishness and Welshness, the unelected house of lords, cheap nasty tabloid journalism.

      England is truly the sick man of Europe but we don’t have to watch our society die the way theirs has.

    337. sensibledave says:

      gerrycan 1.23

      … rather than do the “tin foil hat” conspiracy “thing”, have you considered an alternative?

      That being that the UK (made up of 60 odd miilion people had a referendum on the subject of the EU and the vote was to leave … so leave we will. The negotiations to leave are the most difficult and most important negotiations in terms of the futures of those 60m folk.

      You say, contrary to the result of the last vote on Scottish Independence, that the majority of Scots want to leave the UK now, or before the country Brexits.

      That may or may not be the case.

      It is however in the best interest of everyone in the UK (including both Scottish yes and no voters) that the negotiations produce the best possible results for the the UK. Either because Scotland remains in it, or because Scotland subsequently decides to leave via another referendum post Brexit and the UK becomes one of SCotland’s biggest trading partners.

      Given that Scottish voters voted to remain in the UK and, more recently, the majority of Scottish voters voted for parties in SCotland whose manifesto commitments were to leave the EU, the “sane” amongst us recognise that another indyref at the very moment of Brexit is designed to nothing other than wreck the UK’s chances of a successful Brexit.

      I of course understand that you couldn’t care less about the futures of £58.m voters, and you believe that this is the best opportunity to wreck the negotiations, wreck the UK economy and damge the Uk’s interest as much as possible.

      You will of course understand that others understand this desire to wreck – and therefore opposed to the timings being suggested. Most of us will quite happily accept another indyref post Brexit. Again, contrary to the general agreement of this echo chamber, and just like last time, most people in the UK only want the Scots to have what the majority of SCots want. Be that Yes or No.

      Again, contrary to the propaganda spouted here, it was via a majority vote of Westminster MPs that indyref1 happened. Those nasty, tories and labourites voted for Scotland to have a referendum on Independence.

      If there is evidence of a change (Ms Sturgeon’s words) in the future and Ms Sturgeon wants to hold another referendum then so be it.

      BUt not now. Not just so you can wreck.

      I have formed the view that these calls are becoming increasingly strident now out of fear. Fear that a successful Brexit will probably lead to indyref 2 being shelved for some time, maybe even a real generation (25 years).

      Do you see it as your last chance, your “Hail Mary” play? Is it now or never? Is that what this is all about?

    338. auld highlander says:

      The Russian Ambassador on sky news at the moment and he’s not taking any shit from the press.

    339. heedtracker says:

      sensibledave says:
      13 April, 2018 at 2:03 pm
      gerrycan 1.23

      Why will nation state Scotland, that voted Remain, wreck Brexit sensibledave?

      Tories keep ranting at us like this, from Strong and Stable down but you never say why.

      Saw this and thought of perfidious toryboys sensibledave

      Who’s talking to this toryboy?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAOQzP7r_pg&feature=youtu.be

    340. North chiel says:

      “Dr Jim @0105pm” British media rated 40th in world for “ truth& accuracy”. The evidence on this as far as Scotland was concerned was irifutibly confirmed prior to sept 18th 2014 with the most outrageously biased state propaganda campaign led by the “ state broadcaster” in favour of “ better together” . Many people in Scotland really “ had their eyes opened” by the “ 24 hours per day propaganda blitz” against Independence, for weeks& months prior to the vote. Little wonder people since then do not believe a word “ reported” by the state broadcasters and printed press and the latest “ media outbursts” over the Skripal affair, the simoultaneous anti Semitic attack against Corbyn, and the latest Syrian chemical weapons allegations , should and undoubtedly will be viewed in this context by the people of Scotland. Little wonder the “hastily closed early “ online herald poll was 95percent against U.K. military intervention in Syria.

    341. schrodingers cat says:

      gerrycan

      good post, i would add that the near future direction of travel of WM becoming clearer

      1. corbyn recently fired a shadow cabinet minister for publicly supporting calls for euref2. without corbyns support, i cant see an euref2

      2.recent comments by Emily Thornberry, saying labour would probably vote for the A50 bill when it comes before parlaiment after oct18, I cant see how the labour party can even vote against the bill, it would ensure that the transitional deal would not happen and the uk would default to WTO rules in mar19. they would get blamed for the hard brexit. the A50 bill gives corbyn a real hobsons choice, ie damned regardless of what he does. It makes me wonder why he voted for it??

      barring outside legal challenges, i think we can be certain that by jan19, the A50 bill, and whatever crapshit deal DD manages to cobble together with the EU, will be voted thro’ the HOC and any euref2 proposal will be dead in the water.

      remainers are not going to like this. rees moggs faction will be furious as they dont want this transitional deal. I can see leadership challenges, votes of no confidence and perhaps even another GE in may19.

      if we announce scotref, then this ge will be the first chance for WM to challenge nicola’s mandate to hold it

    342. Hamish100 says:

      When will the apologists of brexit stop coming out with the guff of the best possible deal fro the UK. Just say England.

      It is easier and more honest. What will be agreed is not the best for Scotland or for the peoples of both Irelands’. That is why tory Davidson and labours whatshisname has kept silent for weeks because they know the best deals for England means selling off Scotland’s agriculture, energy, fishing, retail and commercial interests to the lowest common denominator.

      That’s is why they should be called out. Independence or brexit.

    343. dakk says:

      @sensibledave

      Britain,UK,Great Britain,,UK of GB and NI, England. You can try hide behind whatever opaque contrived country you want.

      War loving hypocrites whatever you choose to call yourselves.

      You are a Warmonger and Hypocrisy denier Sir!

    344. North chiel says:

      The credibility of the “ state broadcasters” and associated MSM is now regarded as zero by a large section of the Scottish people. The BBC and other cronies of the Westminster ruling elite will never again recover their credibility in our country . 2014 revealed to the people of Scotland how “ anti Scottish” our supposed national broadcaster is and continues to be on a “ daily basis” .

    345. Big Jock says:

      Sensible oh dear where to start.

      He blames the SNP or yes supporters for trying to wreck Brexit. I mean really has he seen what May and Davies are doing on that front! Nicola’s job is not to assist with Brexit, but to challenge it’s authority in Scotland, because we didn’t vote for it.

      Using his logic if England jumps off a cliff we shouldn’t try and stop them we should assist them over. Ultimately the English will do what they want, as they outnumber us 10/1. So Nicola’s job is to protect Scotland from what they do not assist them.

    346. colin alexander says:

      Excellent article Stu.

      In my view, the SNP have become the British Raj administrators at Holyrood instead of being the leaders of the independence movement.

      The Wings SNP cheerleaders can call me all the names under the sun but, that does not change the facts:

      Until the SNP use the mandate given to it; until they actually take a stand for independence, they will remain nothing more than Westminster’s lackeys.

      The clock’s ticking down on the mandate.

      Unlike many here, I have no expectation of the SNP calling an indyref. I have no expectation of the SNP seeking an electoral mandate to dissolve the Union.

      Since 2014, independence to the SNP is like Labour promising to abolish the House of Lords.

      Something they occasionally talk about but, when they have the opportunity to do something about it, they do nothing.

      Prove me wrong, SNP or stand aside and let others lead Scotland to independence.

    347. heedtracker says:

      Prove me wrong, SNP or stand aside and let others lead Scotland to independence.

      Who then Coco?

    348. Proud Cybernat says:

      Nicola Sturgeon, as leader of the SNP, has given enough hints at party conferences recently (and I imagine will do so again in June) for the indy activist to get active; to get the band back together.

      All these YES groups aren’t reorganising all over Scotland right now just to say “hello – long time, no see”.

      Nicola might not have quite fired the IndyRef2 starting gun – but her finger is most definitely on the trigger, awaiting the moment the ‘material change’ of BREXIT is set in stone (which will be before we actually BREXIT).

      But BREXIT notwithstanding, even before that calamity occurs, we could very well find that there is a demand for Indy by a majority of Scots (50% +1). That is the other condition the SNP placed in their manifesto. If that event happens then IndyRef2 will occur. It’s that simple. If BREXIT is viewed by the SNP hierarchy to have reached the point of no return, then IndyRef2 will follow – Scots will be given a choice if they want to go over the cliff edge or climb into the indy lifeboat.

      If, for whatever reason, BREXIT is cancelled or stalled and IndyRef2 could still go ahead if there exists a majority in Scotland who favour Indy – and on that score it’s becoming closer by the day to reaching that tipping point.

      We know it, Nicola knows it, the meeja most definitely know it as does WM.

      It’s coming. Soon. And YES will win – no doubt about it.

    349. Capella says:

      This “Russians vetoed resolutions x times” has appeared several times today. I understand that the UN resolutions all contained a clause permitting military strikes against Syria. Which is why the Russians vetoed them.

      The US vetoed resolutions ordering Israel to stop killing Palestinians. But we don’t hear so much about that.

      Now I can’t be bothered looking all this up ATM. The point I’m making is that our politicians are world class liars and the media don’t hold them to account. In fact, the MSM amplify and broadcast the lies.

      I can’t remember a time when the British state was as openly mendacious as now. Maybe I just didn’t pay as much attention. But something has to be done about the appalling state of the media in this country. Stu can’t cover every angle.

    350. schrodingers cat says:

      SD

      there isnt time to finalise the details or campaign for an indyref2 beefore oct19. so WM will be able to finalise the negotiations.

      indeed, my preference is to wait until oct before launching indyref2, i dont want scotland to be blamed for the result (good/bad or indifferent) of the negotiations. that is and will be entirely the fault of the unionists

    351. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      Rosbif SensiDave really is outdoing himself here. War, never been so much fun..

    352. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      sensibledave.

      You typed,
      “…and the UK becomes one of SCotland’s biggest trading partners.”

      You just don’t understand the constitutional construct of the UK do you?

      If Scotland becomes independent, one of the first effects will be dissolution of the 1707 treaty which was responsible for the birth of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom will be no more, bereft of life, gone before.

      You should, of course, have typed,
      “…and England & Wales becomes one of SCotland’s biggest trading partners.”

      You betray the willingness of some from your nation to use UK, Britain and England as interchangeable terms, which all mean the same, as others up above have mentioned.

    353. sensibledave says:

      Capella

      You wrote “I understand that the UN resolutions all contained a clause permitting military strikes against Syria. Which is why the Russians vetoed them.”

      You are just plain wrong Capella. The resolutions did not contain the clauses you suggest.

      You are just acting like an apologist for Assad and Russia now.

      Russia has annexed Crimea, invaded Ukraine, sponsored the doping of its International athletes, shot down a Passenger airliner, supported a regime using chemical weapons in Syria, and (probably) used a nerve agent to try and kill people in Salisbury …. in just the last couple of years.

      Doubtless, you hold Theresa May to blame for all of those events. But that is because you are d**k.

    354. schrodingers cat says:

      if eng and wales want to be the successor state after scots indy, and continue to use the name, i couldnt care, as long as they take the uk’s debt with them

    355. sensibledave says:

      Brian 2.54

      You wrote “You should, of course, have typed,
      “…and England & Wales becomes one of SCotland’s biggest trading partners.”

      Haha Brian. I think you are forgetting that “Independence” works both ways.

      If Scotland does leave the UK then we, in the UK, can call ourselves whatever we damn well like – without reference to you or, god forbid, one of Peffer’s history lessons from the 1700s.

      If you stick to this line then I might have to insist on Scotland changing its name post Independence. Many Wingers have argued that Scotland’s voting patterns have suffered unfair influence of non-scots voters. So Non-Scotland would be more acurate wouldn’t it? Haha.

    356. heedtracker says:

      If Scotland does leave the UK then we, in the UK, can call ourselves whatever we damn well like – without reference to you or, god forbid, one of Peffer’s history lessons from the 1700s.

      When not if, sensibled.

      Interesting that you’re hysterical with rage at perceived Scottish racism, yet you can’t answer pretty straight forward queries like why nation state Scotland can spoil England’s Brexit future.

      Just the usual for some in England and yoons in Scotland, progress towards nation state Scotland is racist and anti democratic.

    357. Big Jock says:

      The English think the UK is England anyway ,so post independence they will continue as before with the name. They are welcome to it!

      I am still of the opinion that the Tories will take us out of the EU with no deal. The Irish issue cannot be resolved as the Tories are relying on a DUP party who hate Eire and anything Green. They will self harm to get a hard border.

    358. galamcennalath says:

      North chiel says:

      state broadcaster … national broadcaster

      In those words lies the essence of the situation.

      The BBC is the state broadcaster of the UK state (aka Greater England). Its mission is to protect and promote that entity.

      The BBC is also the de facto national broadcaster for the nation of England. Take a look at its commonwealth games reporting to see which nation it represents and supports.

      A few years ago we might have put some of this down to ignorance and arrogance. Not now. It’s a concerted effort to play down everything Scottish or openly treat it negatively.

      Scotland desperately needs a national broadcaster right now, however that won’t happen. With Indy we will have a state broadcaster which will of course focus on the nation of Scotland.

    359. schrodingers cat says:

      sensibledave says

      You are just acting like an apologist for Assad and Russia now.
      ———-
      i look forward to welcoming our new russian overlords 🙂

    360. geeo says:

      I was taking a step back from posting on here, but reading some of the comments, i felt i had to chip in.

      ……..

      “Now is not the time”.

      Really ?

      The UN states otherwise.

      http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml

      In particular…

      3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
      ………….

      That says very clearly that “Now IS the time”.
      ……..

      If WM refuses to Co-operate when indyref2 is called, quoting “now is not the time”, then Scotsgov can simply quote This UN charter in an INTERNATIONAL court.

      The WM supreme court have ZERO say in such a matter as they do not require to be bothered by the Scotsgov in such an instance.

      Too many people are getting their knickers in a twist on these issues in my opinion.

      We Scots, as Sovereign power, MANDATED indyref2 in 2016.

      Our PARLIAMENT, as our mandated elected representatives in 2016, VOTED to APPROVE a Parliamentary mandate to hold indyref2.

      The UN, as shown above, AGREE, nay…they STATE that we can hold an indyref AT A TIME OF OUR CHOOSING.

      WM has a very stark choice.

      1. Refuse to play ball with S.30, and watch as Scotsgov makes a legal representation to the UN and the international courts, quoting UN charter quoted above, and illegal subjugation of the Sovereign Scots people, contrary to the Act and Treaties of Union itself.

      2. Agree to a S.30 and referendum, at the timing of the Scotsgov’s choice and avoid being ruled against by the international courts/international bodies.

      Thats it, there are no other plays here, and WM know it. Yes, they will continue the bluffing game, and hope enough people believe it is real, but it is not.

      If people think the SNP Scotsgov are not on top of their brief re indyref, they need to take a good long look at themselves.

      The risk to SNP political dominance is not by holding Indyref2 and losing, it is by not holding it until the prime moment for it has passed.

      It is THAT factor which will define timing, that and the fact the Scotsgov have ALWAYS said what the timing will be, it has NEVER changed.

      AFTER the deal is known, but BEFORE actual brexit is completed on March 29th 2019.

      There is not a single scrap of evidence, that timing has been changed. The thoughts of Pete Wishart are NOT proof of a policy change by the SNP, no matter how much some seem to want it to be.

      This is a time for calm heads, and a modicum of bladder control.

      Indyref 2 is coming, and with it, independence.

      Keep the heid folks, let the unionists lose theirs, which the evidence on here clearly indicates.

    361. Dorothy Devine says:

      Foonurt, I heard that dreadful phrase “minor medals’ said by a BBBC commentator.

      I thought the BBBC did an amazing job of ruining the Glasgow Games but I take my hat off to them for doing an even worse job on the Ozzie ones.

      I’m not up to speed yet on whether we are going to war on two spurious excuses or not – mind you living 20 odd miles away from Faslane it’ll be quick end.

      The idiocy and evil of Westminster and their money men never ceases to amaze me.

      Do you think Mr Putin would respond to any attack by us by taking out Westminster ? Or would our ‘communications ‘ centres be of greater strategic interest? Just wondering.

    362. Cubby says:

      Sensibledave = arrogant offensive obnoxious British Nationalist paid to TROLL

      Sensible must be on a bonus soon for all the dross he is producing for his masters.

      Any newcomers reading just ignore his posts. A wrecker and troublemaker by profession.

    363. Abulhaq says:

      Sensibledave
      I know Syria. Home of some of my ancestors. If England were destroyed in this manner what would you feel? Al Assad is the least bad option having tried the western backed alternatives.
      Btw Crimea was given away by Khushchev against will of the regions population which is Russian majority.
      You are no posterboy for your country.

    364. sensibledave says:

      Heedy

      You wrote “Interesting that you’re hysterical with rage at perceived Scottish racism, yet you can’t answer pretty straight forward queries like why nation state Scotland can spoil England’s Brexit future.”

      … not sure why you find that interesting Heedy. they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. One is to do with Abulhaq being a self-confessed, unashamed racist that you choose defend, the other is not allowing 1.5 million UK citizens to wreck the outcome of a negotiation that affects the lives of the whole of the UK.

      As previously stated, I, together with millions of other non-Scots, really are ambivalent as to whether Scotland chooses to be Independent or not. My Parliament voted to hold indyref1 ffs! However, as it turned out, Westminster mis-judged the mood of the SCottish people and discovered that it was a very noisy minority that wanted Independence – not the majority.

      Anyway, Ms Sturgeon said she wasn’t bluffing about indyref 2 and we should have no reason to disbelieve her. Unless she already knows she can’t win it because she does not believe that Scots will vote to leave the Uk AND the Eu? Again, as I said some time ago, she overplayed her hand and has cornered herself. She might get some satisfaction giving the UK government a difficult time, but she is not going to actually win an indyref2 before we Brexit is she.

      If you thought Project Fear killed the Yes vote last time, can you imagine what would be shouted in the run up to indyref2. Here’s one headline “Sturgeon wants to give Scottish fishing grounds to EU!” or as many Wingers have argued vociferously “hard Border” to be installed as Scotland leaves the UK and joins EU. What about Scots to apply for work permits to work in UK”?

      It would be absolute mayhem.

      It would be absolute mayhem and I just cannot see a way that the No vote could be overturned … but I am sure you know best.

    365. Bill Hume says:

      Hey, it’s stopped raining in Ayrshire (just thought Sensible might like to know).

    366. sensibledave says:

      Cubby 3:46 pm

      Once again, I take it as a huge compliment that I am perceived as being so clever that I must be a “professional”. Thanks Cubby.

      If you had been around a bit longer Cubby, you would know that I have been popping in for years on my mission to educate and inform. Sadly, no one has ever paid me though. Maybe you could organise some crowd funding for me?

    367. Foonurt says:

      Dorothy Devine – aye, Eilidh Doyle bit urr lip, in wiz kind tae urr. Ah wiz swearin, ett yoan wireless.

      Furst – tak oot yoan land-grabburrs, oan thae Golan Hichts. Foallit wae retaliation, if attack iz stertit, oan attackers’ adjacent bases, aircraft, boats, submarines etc. tae thae desist.

      Thoan leeurrs, huv stertit anuff stirrins tae last ah lifetum.

      Roll, thoan Scoattish Independence baw.

    368. sensibledave says:

      Bill 3.52

      … funny you should say that Bill. Me and my chums are just setting up the croquet lawn now.

    369. Dr Jim says:

      In the beginning there was the word (no not Kaboom!)
      Then a wee while later along came Noah and his magic Zoo boat
      After that along came the DUP who fundamentally believe everything I just wrote, and they believe in it so strongly they think a mythical superbeing told them explicitly that anyone who thinks differently should be killed but because of modern laws they’re not allowed to do that anymore so life must be at the very least made intolerable for everybody else who refuses to go along with the notion that there never were dinosaurs and it’s a scientific conspiracy to deflect from *The mighty Truth* Di di di dah! *rumble*

      At this very moment the DUP have more control over what happens to Scotland than Scotlands own parliament, if for no other reason in this universe that alone should justify Scotland removing itself from England and their Union because it’s abundantly clear to anyone with eyes England will do deals with anyone and anything just to keep up the vanity of their own appearance and grip on power over others for powers sake and to hell with what’s right to even the breaking and twisting of their own laws and others legal systems to achieve it

      Today the Russians are presenting their truths about England and its behaviour and given that the great British media keep being caught lying all over the place who’s to say Russias version isn’t correct, I have no idea, and that’s the point England deals with the Saudis who they say are fine and dandy guys, a little dodgy but basically OK yet we know they are murdering Yemenis in their thousands using weapons sold to them by the English whose media never utter a stutter about it on the BBC or Sky news

      The only folk I ever see or hear in the media or online who always seem Gung Ho about murdering folk as quick as possible are Unionists Britishists and mental Trump zoomers so if I get the odd thing wrong now and then at least I figure I’m pretty much in line with the majority of Scotland who aren’t all that keen on being so murdery at every opportunity, so maybe that’s another good reason for Scotland to put up a bit of simple self defence strategy and

      *Not be here anymore* *Leave* *Vamos* *Gettyfuh* away from these people

    370. heedtracker says:

      It would be absolute mayhem and I just cannot see a way that the No vote could be overturned … but I am sure you know best.”

      Ok, its not much though sensibled.

      YOure saying, England will not allow Scots indyref2 until after Brexit is just formally concluded next year and for several years more, until you know exactly what Brexit is going to be like.

      And you already know Scots would vote NO too sensible.

      Nice.

      I also like your NO indyref2 because, “the other is not allowing 1.5 million UK citizens to wreck the outcome of a negotiation that affects the lives of the whole of the UK.”

      Not being allowed, by the English, does seem to be the future of Scots, sorry some Scots, for the foreseeable, in this union with England.

      I just can’t see where you explain why Scots indyref2, let alone a very likely nation state Scotland outcome will, “wreck the outcome” of tory Brexit negotiations, or “the lives of the whole of the UK.”

      And once again sensible, Scotland voted Remain.

    371. Soda says:

      “We cannot afford to lose sight of how hard a pro-indy majority at Holyrood is to actually achieve and how lucky we are to have one now.”

      Is it tho? All it takes is for 2/3rds of SNP voters to vote green on the list to give us a substantial pro-indy majority.

    372. yesindyref2 says:

      @sensibledave
      “When Scotland leaves the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom ceases to exist”. These were the words of a Conservative peer – Lord Forsyth, ex secretary of state for Scotland, he should know.

      Now, if you consider the family home in the case of divorce, it either gets sold and the proceeds split 50-50 if the marriage was long enough, or one partner buys out the other.

      The assets of the UK are reckoned to be around £9 trillion, so to continue to use the name “United Kingdom”, the rest of the UK would have to pay Scotland the sum of up to £4.5 trillion, less common debts and obligations.

      If your solicitors want to talk to our solicitors we can draw up the agreement, and terms of payment by the rUK.

    373. Derick fae Yell says:

      Walter Hamilton says: 13 April, 2018 at 9:25 am

      “…could we not just collapse the Holyrood government now and ask the People of Scotland to chose (A vote for SNP or Greens) is a vote for independence”

      The Scotland Act contains provisions for ‘Extraordinary General Elections’. These can only happen if 2/3 of MSPs vote for it to happen. So in the current context Labour would need to vote with the SNP to do that.

      If Westminster really is stupid enough to attempt to overturn the draft Continuity Act, passed by Scottish Parliament NOT by the SNP, then we may get or defining court case sooner rather than later.

    374. ronnie anderson says:

      Dorothy Devine Worry not . Dorothy Mega Mooth Trump & his minions the British Cabinet are way of base in public opinion , sabre rattling at its worse .

    375. sensibledave says:

      Heedy

      You wrote “And once again sensible, Scotland voted Remain.”

      … as did I Heedy, together with 70% of the people around me. However this was a vote of the whole Wesminster Parliamentary constituency on a one person/one vote basis.

      You chose to argue that Scottish voters should have different rights to me. You believe that Scottish voters should have the right to veto UK referendum outcomes.

      You will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with you.

    376. Capella says:

      For anyone who wants to check the recent UN Syria resolutions outcome for themselves, here is the link. Sorry I didn’t include it earlier being too lazy at the time to look it up:

      https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13288.doc.htm

    377. Capella says:

      @ Yesindyref2 – snap!

    378. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Oh, what a an immense waste of a day. Up pops insensible, blows his whistle, and the usual pack of Pavlov’s doggies promptly all bark away on cue. On and on and on and on. Even Coco the Clown joins in with his usual SNP-baad howl.

      I just don’t see the point of arguing the toss over UK foreign policy. Unless you’re a committed Unionist. duh.

      I prefer to get an independent Scotland. Then it will be worth arguing about our own foreign policy.

      But first we have to win. And time is passing. It seems that far too many people on here are happy to while away this precious time by axe-grinding on here (and elsewhere) about their own irrelevant minority obsessions, while there is a party within the SNP as represented on here who seem perfectly happy, nay even desirous, to let this unique constitutional opportunity slip quietly away, leaving us before too much longer at the mercy of the whims of an undistracted UKGov no longer restrained in any way by EU laws and practices.

      We either move forward or we founder. That’s the real lesson of the last UKGE. And too much activity on here these days seems to signify the latter.

      So I’m quietly despairing here. I’m beginning to understand why people like petra have given up posting as being a waste of time, despite there being sensible people who talk a lot of good and relevant sense (even if I don’t always agree with everything they say).

      I just can’t understand why so many others who supposedly support independence are behaving instead like a rabble of unruly schoolkids. It may provide very satisfying jack-offs for minority zealots, but convinces absolutely no-one else.

      And if we can’t achieve that, what exactly is the point…?

    379. Dr Jim says:

      Sorry Greenies but a vote for the Greens is not no way ever a vote for Independence (especially on the list)
      A vote for SNP is however a definite vote for Independence because it’s in their constitution and every second vote should be SNP as well

      Wee Patrick and his pals got away with that con trick once, no SNP voter will ever give their second vote away again

      Patrick Harvie has blown it with SNP voters now that they’ve seen what he’s all about with his taxation ideas for Scotland

    380. Breeks says:


      Proud Cybernat says:
      13 April, 2018 at 2:34 pm

      Nicola might not have quite fired the IndyRef2 starting gun – but her finger is most definitely on the trigger, awaiting the moment the ‘material change’ of BREXIT is set in stone (which will be before we actually BREXIT)…

      An awkward question, but not meant as a disruptive question, is:- If we remain perplexed and unsure about the mandate for a referendum, and / or whether May would agree to a Section 30, and / or whether May could retreat from Brexit and leave the SNP in perpetual limbo, and / or whether Westminster would recognise the result or feel bound by it… blah, blah, blah, blah, and all the other myriad possibilities and variables which cloud this debate, then isn’t holding any Referendum at all premature without first formally establishing the formal protocols and boundaries of sovereignty?

      If you want to know what happens when you go ahead with a democratic Referendum based upon blind faith in democracy and a presumption of sovereignty, then we need only look as far as Catalonia to see what can happen.

      We need to learn from Catalonia and get this right.

      Step 1. Before we have a vote or referendum, determine absolutely whether the result will stand and be lawful. (And determine absolutely does not mean “ask Westminster” in the same way the 13th C Scottish nobles should not have “asked Edward I” to assist with their constitutional dilemma).

      Step 2. To establish Step 1, first establish who is sovereign.

      Step 3. Once Step 2 is complete, and Scottish Sovereignty is established, forego Step 1 as an obsolete necessity and proceed directly to step 4.

      Step 4. Conduct your affairs as a Sovereign Nation.

      Do you see? Establish the necessary credentials to hold an “untouchable” referendum which requires no permission or Section 30 Agreement, which Westminster cannot stop, and which Westminster has to recognise,…..is merely the process of establishing a sovereign hierarchy, just by another name.

      We can short circuit and kinda nullify the whole Referendum process by establishing Sovereign hierarchy in a Constitutional Courtroom. The effect is instantaneous and absolute. This is no longer a matter predicated by a “material change”. We need no excuse to be sovereign, nor should we apologise for it.

      The IndyRef is the bath water where every is sticking their elbow in, concerned about the water temperature, … but Sovereignty is the baby.

      Forgive the iRobot metaphor, but when our responses are limited by a UK Constitutional straight jacket, it is crucial that we ask the right question…

      If we get the Sovereignty issue sorted right before we even begin, then IndyRef becomes a ratification plebiscite which we can never lose. It’s like taking a reality pill and seeing the world as it really is. Sovereignty is all we need as a Brexit kill switch with or without a majority, but as luck would have it, we also have a 62% majority mandate to throw it.

    381. Flower of Scotland says:

      schrodingers cat@12.23pm

      I’m hoping for a titbit during the SNP conference in June ?

    382. heedtracker says:

      You chose to argue that Scottish voters should have different rights to me. You believe that Scottish voters should have the right to veto UK referendum outcomes.

      I’m not choosing sensible. 2014, Scotland was pretty heavily threatened with losing our EU citizenship you know, unless we kept this union with you.

      That aside, you’ve still not explain what and how Scots indyref2, let alone the likelihood of YES winning, will “wreck the outcome of a negotiation.”

      At least do us all up here in your Scotland region of greater Brexit England, the courtesy of backing up your NO indyref2 until England decides case sensibled.

      At its most basic, off loading Barnett alone will surely be a lovely wee boost for the hard grafting English taxpayer?

      Because god only knows, you lot never stop griping about it sensibled.

    383. Dorothy Devine says:

      Ronnie , I’m not really that concerned because if there is nuclear war we’re aw buggered and there is hee haw I can do about it!

      Nevil Shute’s “On the Beach” springs lithely to mind.

    384. Proud Cybernat says:

      “We can short circuit and kinda nullify the whole Referendum process by establishing Sovereign hierarchy in a Constitutional Courtroom.”

      I think Is aid to you before, Breeks, get yourself a crowd-fundraiser going and test this in court.

      Irrespective of such and such, as far as I am concerned, Scots are sovereign in their own country and I don’t need that tested in a damned court. Period.

      Have the referendum first and, when YES wins (virtually guaranteed), let the detractors who claim the Ref wasn’t legitimate test our sovereignty in Court after we get our YES result.

      We’re a sovereign people. As such we can have a referendum any damn well time we please. If WM don’t like the result then THEY can take it to court and test our sovereignty.

      We should learn from the Tories, y’know. Shoot first, ask questions later.

    385. Foonurt says:

      It’s five-tae-five, it’s….. .

    386. P G McLaughlin says:

      After OBFA I will never vote Green again.

    387. heedtracker says:

      For what its worth sensibled, up here in 2014, Scottish EU membership wasn’t that much of a big deal, for Scotland. If only because nobody actually expected England to waltz out of the EU less than two years later.

      Nation state Scotland NOT being allowed in the EU, unless we kept this union with England, WAS a giant deal though.

      Vote YES and you can kiss goodbye to the wonders of EU membership Scotland and they will never let you back in because you’re such a bunch of etc.

      Actually cant remember why the English said the EU would never allow nation state Scotland back in, maybe they thought that England could veto our application.

      How things change. Here’s a ferocious beeb gimp in vote NO Thanks or else BBC action, 2014.

      BBC anti Scots indy attack propaganda at its most aggressive sensibled?

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26215963

    388. yesindyref2 says:

      “Wesminster Parliamentary constituency”

      I put this into google translate and it said “WTF are you talking about?”.

    389. Soda says:

      @ Dr Jim,

      Please dont presume to speak for this life long SNP member and voter. If a pro indy majority is required then there really is only one way to go about it and thats by using our legitimate right to return as many pro indy MSPs as we can.

    390. K1 says:

      Ronnie…ah must try harder 😉

      Foonurt… ‘Loadacack’? 😉

    391. dakk says:

      sensibledave said
      ‘If you thought Project Fear killed the Yes vote last time, can you imagine what would be shouted in the run up to indyref2. ‘

      The Yes vote polled around 27% at start of Indyref1 and Project Fear got Yes to 45%.

      Natural wasteage of souless old Britnat hypocrites in Scotland will also hinder the efficacy of your British lie machine.

      Next time we start at circa 47% Yes and with far more Scots now knowing that the Brits are cheap liars,so you shouldn’t be too cocky.

      England may yet have to learn to be a nation again Dave.Instead of a parasite hiding behind a plethora of identities.

    392. yesindyref2 says:

      @Capella
      This is interesting from that UN link:

      Similarly, a competing draft – penned by Russia – which would have established the mechanism for one year as well but would have given the Security Council the responsibility to assign accountability for the use of chemical weapons in Syria, was also not adopted.

      This draft received six Council members’ votes in favour (Bolivia, China, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Kazakhstan and Russia), seven against (France, the Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States) and two abstentions (Cote d’Ivoire and Kuwait).

      So the UK amongst others vetoed the Russian resolution which was similar to their own one, and supported by China, but required further UN decision-making in case of findings. Well, that’s actually fair enough.

      So the UK, US and France are “cetoing” Russia’s resolution. You won’t see that on the news.

    393. schrodingers cat says:

      Soda
      I think dr jim is right, snp voters will never back the greens, lack of trust etc. your plan only works if the voters follow your idea. they wont. not now

      but your point is still correct, if we stood YES candidates in 5 of the 8 regions, and 2/3rds of the snp voters backed them. an indy majority would win. no question

    394. Capella says:

      @ Yesinyref2 – yes I think as ever we have to go and look ourselves to see what is true and what is self serving rubbish spooned out by the media.

      On the Syria issue, I’ve found Craig Murray’s articles and the comments section very helpful.

      Rule of thumb – if it’s on the BBC or most newspapers, it’s not true.

      I just watched the Syrian Arab Republic representative end todays UN session by telling the United States, Britain and France that, if they attack Syria, Syria wll defend itself as per UN Charter. Not a threat but a promise, he says.

      Hopeful that the three named belligerents will now start the climb down process. Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Gavin Williamson should be in the dock of public opinion very soon.
      Maybe a GE will be inevitable unless the BBC can demonise the opposition further.

    395. heedtracker says:

      Rule of thumb – if it’s on the BBC or most newspapers, it’s not true.

      Nice display of Murdoch’s crew in action. Planet toryboy really wants to bomb someone, anywhere,

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43_dPKJmbBc

      Former head of British Armed Forces gets cut off by Sky when he goes…

    396. schrodingers cat says:

      great if uk sails into med on war footing and trump decides to take a golfing holiday

    397. ScottieDog says:

      @Dorothy Devine

      Regarding “on the beach”, I believe elites have been buying up property in NZ. Maybe they saw the film and thought the winds won’t reach NZ.. 😉

      Perhaps they’re looking at something more limited as per The Shock Doctrine.

    398. Dorothy Devine says:

      Scottie Dog , they’d be wrong!

    399. heedtracker says:

      It would be absolute mayhem and I just cannot see a way that the No vote could be overturned … but I am sure you know best.

      Awe, sensibledave’s chickened out. I really wanted to ask sensible d why no Scots are involved with Brexit negotiations at all. No Welsh either. All of our elected Scots reps completely excluded from everything Brexit.

      Long way from toryboy conman Cammers begging us to vote No Thanks, Lead us, don’t Leave us Scots, wept a very very rich toryboy, 2014

    400. Breeks says:


      heedtracker says:
      13 April, 2018 at 5:50 pm
      Rule of thumb – if it’s on the BBC or most newspapers, it’s not true.

      Nice display of Murdoch’s crew in action. Planet toryboy really wants to bomb someone, anywhere…

      It’s the “Best Before” date on Trident. If they don’t use it soon they’ll have to throw it away.

    401. heedtracker says:

      It’s the “Best Before” date on Trident. If they don’t use it soon they’ll have to throw it away.

      If reports are true a lot of radiation has seeped into Faslane already.

      Why Scots in the locale think they’re bettertogether I have no fcuking idea. Its not like its all that much of a local employer. Online gossip’s got them at defcon 2.

      Across the water, Greenock and Port Glasgow have long died as major ship building ports. Despite being onshore to one of the world’s largest offshore oil and gas sectors.

      But every now and again, a RN nuke sub comes up the Clyde with its tug escorts.

    402. Dr Jim says:

      @soda

      If you voted Green then you’re a Green voter and that’s your choice but it’s no choice for SNP voters after OBFA and Patricks insane tax proposals

    403. Chick McGregor says:

      Robert Louis
      The UK Supreme Court was dreamed up long before Tony Blair.

      During the Patriation talks between Canadian and UK mandarins way back in the early 1980s in fact.

      I saw transcripts of one meeting in particular where the main agenda item was whether extending the powers of the Canadian Supreme Court to include constitutional matters would be necessary to bring about the patriation of Canada.

      As an aside, one contributor noted that such powers could be coincidentally useful in managing future potential calls for Quebec independence, a British contributor then pointed out ditto for Scotland.

      I have been warning folk for over 20 years on the internet that a UK Supreme Court would be formed, long before any such notion entered the public radar, also that it would be used in an attempt to thwart Scottish independence.

      However1, unlike in Canada’s case, a new enabling UK Bill of Rights has not been passed and rendered into law to extend that purview, so a UK Supreme Court would be acting illegally, even by its own domestic standards, if it did so. One of the ultra right cabal, Grayling, has allegedly written a new Bill of Rights but although we can probably guess what it contains it has not been made public.

      Also, whether a national court can so rule on such matters at all has not really been tested internationally. The Canadian Supreme Court ruling which declared that Quebec could not unilaterally secede from Canada has not been tested internationally and will not be until Quebec says yes and Ottawa says no.

      However2, we have the more recent example of Kosovo’s secession from Serbia, which they did without even a referendum. Serbian courts ruled it illegal and it was Serbia which took the case to the UN/ICJ BUT the ICJ ruled that Kosovo had not acted illegally when they declared UDI. Kosovo is currently on the pending list for full EU membership and has already made effectively equivalent agreements with EU institutions like the Central Bank. There are currently more EU civil servants in Kosovo than in any other EU state working towards Kosovan full membership.

      More recently still, we have seen UN condemnations of Spain’s actions in Cataluña.

      The right to self determination is enshrined in various international, legally binding, treaties to which the UK is still a signatory.

      We know that May and the cabal have long wanted the UK to leave the ECHR from way before they eventually ousted Cameron and installed the annointed one. Not that that particular action matters in regard to constitutional sovereignty issues because its remit does not extend to that area any but it is a useful thin end of the wedge for the cabal.

      Once it is established that leaving the ECHR for reasons of removing an external interference in UK law making, it is a relatively simple matter to extend the same argument for the UK leaving the ICCPR.

      However3, that does not mean the UK government won’t try to use the Supreme Court as a veneer of legality, they will.

    404. yesindyref2 says:

      @Heed “Port Glasgow have long died as major ship building ports

      Rumours of its decease are greatly exaggerated:

      http://www.fergusonmarine.com/

    405. heedtracker says:

      Rumours of its decease are greatly exaggerated:

      I know. But when catch a glimpse of what once was, its heartbreaking. Greenocks especially should have boomed with striking not Scots oil and gas feilds. Ravenscraig even more so.

      Good old Rock likes to say we’re the stupid people and you to have to wonder how anyone in Scotland does for yoon parties, let alone the red tories.

      That whole area is a bit like the Buchan coast, lots of ex RN retired. Moray’s got the RAF. Lovely places, serious deprivation, I’m alright UKOK pensioners.

      Its what colonialism is all about.

    406. Breeks says:

      Getting back to business…

      What’s the feeling about actually putting some heads together and making a few strategic enquiries about formally petitioning somebody like the European Court of Justice, or perhaps a Court of Human Rights to make a ruling regarding Scotland’s popular sovereignty?

      The logic makes sense in my head, but I’m not a lawyer.

      Would such a scheme get a nod from the SNP? How about from YES? Would it be standing on anybody else’s toes? Constructive and welcome? Or risky loose cannon action?

      What actual experience of Constitutional Law and appropriate protocol can we throw into the kitty? Don’t tell me Lawyers for Yes haven’t got a scurrilous wee blueprint hidden away in a secret wee drawer somewhere… If not, why not?

      Crowdfunding seems a certainty, but what kind of money are we talking about? 10k? 100k? More?

      Which Court? Whenever I talk about it, I’m thinking the European Court of Justice. Given that Brexit is such a primary issue in proceedings, it’s seems a European Court will need less in the way of explanation about Brexit and UK “negotiations”, but beyond that, the EUCJ describes itself as interpreting EU laws and uniformity in compliance across different countries, and it also settles disputes between EU Governments. Does that mean you need to be a sovereign interlocutor just to be heard? Would it cover the UK’s Westminster Parliamentary Sovereignty becoming a disputed Sovereignty? I’d say yes, especially if another EU Government, perhaps Ireland, Germany or France came onboard to ‘sponsor’ Scotland’s place at the negotiating table. There’s a good tangent too… what would Europe’s governments think about wee Scotland getting stroppy and flexing a bit of sovereignty itself?

      If not EUCJ, how about Court of Human Rights? I know National Sovereignty and Human Rights are often heard spoken the same sentence, but usually because it’s the sovereign state guilty of infringing somebody’s human rights. True, the faux sovereignty of Westminster could indeed be infringing our Human Rights if it obstructs our rights to self determination, but does it have jurisdiction over creating and recognising a Nations actual sovereignty? I don’t know.

      Constructive feedback please….

      Do we need our own Gina Millar? Death threats would seem a realistic possibility. Do we need / want a big YES component in this? And / or a big SNP component to it? Should it be a wildcard Maverick venture or a formal move in a strategic grand plan? Should it even be Scotland’s Court of Session taking this on?

      Do I remember right that Ronnie Anderson has tried something like this before? How far did you get and what ultimately stopped you Ronnie? Did you get anywhere or can you warn us of blind alleys?

      … A million and one questions…

      Maybe joining the Sovereign Nations club isn’t a European thing at all but a global U.N. issue.

      We need to start quartering the map and getting some astute advice I think.

      The floor is open to suggestions. … (but anybody who replies to a Troll is recording the official minutes).

    407. John from Fife says:

      Regarding the best time for Indy Ref 2. As previously pointed out if the vote is after MARCH 29th 2019 NO EU NATIONALS WILL GET A VOTE which could cost the Yes vote 300,000 votes. Think about it !!!!!!

    408. Robert Peffers says:

      @sensibledave says: 13 April, 2018 at 8:56 am:

      “I think we can bring things a little more up to date than that Mr Peffers. I know, through your constant references back to he 1700s, that you are not “into” denmocracy and prefer the dictats of unelected Kings, Queens, Lords and Lairds who carved up the country to suit their own pockets.”

      As usual not only do you miss the point but you fail to understand the argument that you oppose.

      In the first place it is nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with law. The Westminster Establishment recently used a tenet of English Law dating from many centuries age and used it illegally against Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Not only that but your English Law is largely based upon Magna Carta, of 1215 – 815 years age and well before there was a United Kingdom. It has no place in scots law. It also saw fundamental change in 1688 when the three country Kingdom of England became a Constitutional Monarchy.

      So in fact there is no actual democracy in the Kingdom of England as the changes in 1688 kept the Monarch of the Kingdom of England as a sovereign monarch. In fact do you Englanders not refer to Elizabeth of England as your sovereign?

      You are factually legally Her Majesty’s Subjects not so we Scots. We legally put a stop to that kind of thing in 1320. As the Queen of Scots Her Majesty is legally the protector of the sovereign people of Scotland’s sovereignty. Not that any monarch of the so called United Kingdom has ever done so. Which fact, is in itself legal cause for the legally sovereign people of Scotland to declare her cast out and to replace her with another best able to do so. That is under Scots law.

      I fancy that a certain Nicola Sturgeon is doing that job remarkably well at the present time. As to whether Scots law would cover a commoner, rather than a Royal, to tale the position of defender of the people’s Sovereignty I would not hazard a guess. I’ll leave that to the legal profession.

      So there you go, SD. Scotland is more a democracy and England, (the kingdom of), is a monarchy and a monarchy cannot be democratic. Everything in England, including you, legally belongs to Her Majesty but in Scotland her Majesty belongs to the people and we have legal right to sack her if she does not protect our best interests.

      So SD, you are as usual talking pish. Now I know you dislike that phrase as used in that context – shall I tell you where, in that context, the phrase, “Pish”, is derived from?

      I read it while still at school and was forced to study English under threat of severe physical punishment by an instrument of torture known as, “The Lochgelly Tawse”. These implements of torture were made around a mile or so of my present cottage in Fife.

      Now allow me to quote for you the part of the Declaration of Arbroath that covers Scottish Sovereignty:-

      <blockquote“But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless prince, King and lord, the lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, bore cheerfully toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Maccabaeus or Joshua. Him, too, divine providence, the succession to his right according to our laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our prince and king. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by his right and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand.

      Yet if he should give up what he has begun, seeking to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own right and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be subjected to the lordship of the English. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself. “

      “However, those of us that live in the 21st century and quite like the more modern concept of something called “democracy”, thought it would be a good idea to ask the good people of Scotland whether the would like an Independent SCotland.”

      So there you go, SD. You do indeed live in the 21 century and you may indeed fancy the concept but legally you are owned by your sovereign monarchy, who in 1688 at your English, “Glorious Revolution”, was forced by your revolting parliamentarians, to legally delegate their sovereign, (it means God Given), powers to the parliament of England. However, there has not been such a legally elected parliament of the Kingdom of England since the last day of April 1707.

      Go figure THAT ONE out for yourself.
      The instruction to Westminster was unequivoca

    409. Chick McGregor says:

      Breeks

      The European Court of Justice is concerned only with EU law and disputes thereof, furthermore cases even these have to be referred by the highest court from the member state concerned or in the case of international dispute between two member states, by one of them may be sufficient. It has no codified remit to adjudicate on matters of constitutional sovereignty or to uphold the principle of self determination.

      The human rights enshrined in the ECHR have superiority over EU Law but again, they do not extend to adjudication on matters of constitutional sovereignty.

      The only body with a clear remit to adjudicate on matters of constitutional sovereignty as enshrined in international treaties like the ICCPR is the UN and its judicial body the ICJ.

      Supplication to the UN is possible by individuals but only after ‘all local remedies’ have been exhausted. That includes prohibitively expensive exhaustion of the local court and appeal system. Unless the courts have made their position clear on the specific issue in other cases.

      The waiting list for such cases is long.

      It is possible that the interest of a UN special rapporteur could be invoked such that they would voluntarily take up and champion the case.

      Generally, the priority order is based on cases where violence is current or potentially very likely.

    410. Chick McGregor says:

      “cases even these”
      should be
      “even these cases”

      Wish I could get into the habit of rereading my post before hitting return.

    411. Breeks says:

      Thanks Chick.
      Hmmm. Perhaps a stronger chance of timely success might be to lobby the EU to recognise Scotland’s probationary Sovereignty… If we cannot deliver the ratified sovereignty itself, at least persuade them the claim has legitimacy and sovereign recognition is a technical formality. That might take the form of a warning- do a Brexit deal without Scottish consultation and we’ll sue.

      If we cannot secure recognition of Sovereignty, perhaps securing recognition that the UK has disputed Sovereignty is a more expedient objective, because logically the Brexit Negotiations would them need contingency proposals for all possible outcomes in the disputed scenario; one scenario where UK Sovereignty is recognised, and a second Scenario where Scottish Sovereignty prevails. At least that provides one step forward because Europe would have to engage with and partially recognise Scotland as a potentially sovereign interlocutor.

      That begs the question what criteria the EU might apply for Scotland to make the case for probationary recognition… and that puts us in Catch 22 territory. How do you discuss recognition criteria when you don’t have interlocutor status to enter formal negotiations?

      While there is potential for the U.N. to formally recognise Scotland as sovereign, Europe could perhaps be breaching some protocol if it doesn’t make contingency allowances for Scottish Sovereignty to be recognised. That I presume would, at minimum, require Scotland to register a formal protest that UK Sovereignty was disputed. And that I presume would require Holyrood to ratchet up the pressure and urgency of having some input on Brexit.

      I also,presume the only way, or rather the easiest wat to truncate the ICJ recognition of Sovereignty is to declare it and defy others to recognise it or dispute it… and suddenly we are back to a Catalonian scenario.

      Food for thought… hmmm.

    412. Chick McGregor says:

      Breeks
      Errant procedural aspects of EU members who deny self determination, if not the act itself, can fall within the remit of the ECHR/ECJ e.g. infringements of the right of expression.

      Spain, IMO, has fallen foul of those in the case of Cataluña and I am fairly certain that challenges to extradition requests of Catalan political exiles in local European courts will lead to a legal exposure of Spain’s malfeasance which national politicians have been until now understandably reluctant to acknowledge.

      The sooner the better. Politicos will then fall in line behind the law.

      Without any legal basis, the EU has demonstrated willing, at least on a consensual if not unanimous basis, to uphold, where possible, the principle of self determination and to get involved as much as they can.

      Examples are Montenegro, where the EU provided good offices and sought and obtained recognition of a referendum result by Serbia, working with the UN.

      Kosovo too, has seen the EU act as overseers for Kosovan independence albeit under the auspices or deputised by the UN.

      However, it is also clear that that consensus is not universal, several EU states (5 I think) are opposed to the principle of self determination for often obvious reasons which of course, is why that area is not covered by EU law.

      In regard to Scotland,
      If Scotland gains independence recognised by thr rUK I have no doubt that entry to the EU will be very speedy, Scotland already meets the acquis just minor negotiations regarding net contribution etc. Any ‘provisional’ status will be very short lived.
      If Scotland votes for indy but the non EU UK disputes it, the EU can only try to influence things again possibly under the auspices of the UN. Like in the case of Serbia/Kosovo.
      If a non EU UK ignores Scottish self determination and EU support for it then the UN can refer the matter to the ICJ but if the non EU UK also withdraws from UN treaties like the ICPPR then the UK becomes effectively a rogue state operating outside international law. Something I believe to be quite likely and even welcomed by certain elements within the UK elite.

      At that stage it becomes a question of UDI or not for Scots with almost certain violent consequences.

      It will boil down to how many have the opinion ‘Better slave than grave.’ or not.

    413. Sensibledave says:

      Peffers 10.66

      …. So, to summarise, you prefer the dictats of unelected kings, queens, lords and lairds in the 1700s to the democratic decisions made by ordinary Scots in the 21st century.

      I get it Robert, I really do. You have contempt for modern democracy.

    414. K1 says:

      England is run by your betters from Eton. But you call that ‘modern democracy’. Your allegiance to that set up is…predictable and intellectually immature, your outlook predicated upon such illusions reveals you as a man incapable and/or unwilling to be informed by history with an inability to reason and debate. That marks you as a fool at best and an absolute zoomer at worst.

      We can safely assume which term best describes you to a tee.

    415. heedtracker says:

      I get it Robert, I really do. You have contempt for modern democracy.

      UKOK Project Fear 2014, is modern democracy sensible d? your relentless hysterical BBC Scotland SNP Out attack propaganda, belching out of Scotland’s tv, radio, internet, how modern and democratic.

      Trust you to sneak back later too sensible dave. An old unionist tory btl trick, red and blue, creep back after everyone’s gone and get your sneaky shit yoon shots in.

      How modern democratic of you sensibled:D

    416. Foonurt says:

      The Not Sensibles – ‘I’m In Love With Margaret Thatcher’
      (1979 – punk single).

      Dauvit’s theme-tune.

    417. Liz g says:

      Breeks. If you’re still reading…..re going to court
      I doubt that you/we would get to the courts you mentioned without the support of Holyrood.
      Why don’t you try looking into going after the Treaty itself
      ….as in
      Suing Westminster for breaching your Sovereign Rights as a Scot, by breaking the terms and conditions of the 1707 Treaty?
      I think it would need to be something that they have done since 2014 though !

    418. Chick McGregor says:

      Liz and Breeks
      In regard to self determination at the constitutional sovereignty level, the only court with superiority over all others and therefore the final say on the matter is the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

      This is the judicial body of the UN.

      There is a procedure available to present a case to the UN.

      There are several criterion which must be met before such a complaint may be considered.

      The complaint must be factual and truthful supported by clear evidence of a claimed violation.

      It must be made by individuals or groups and NOT by government organisations (like the Scottish Government). It should also be made by individuals or groups directly suffering from the claimed violation although that requirement is not absolutely essential.

      It must not be politically motivated.

      It must not already be under review elsewhere in the UN or any other body which may resolve the issue.

      All local potential remedies which may resolve the issue have been exhausted unless the time factor involved is itself unacceptable.

      In regard to self determination leading to independence:

      It must be shown that the individual or group is/are members of a ‘people’ i.e. they must occupy a geographical region and possess a distinct cultural identity or set of cultural identities which would be better served by national self government either through protecting against exploitation or unfair treatment already existing or by better serving the economic and/or cultural needs of the proposed new nation in the future.

      It must be shown that there is good reason to believe that the desire for self determination is or could be a majority position in the ‘people’ concerned.

      It must be shown that the government of the host nation is violating one or more rights of the said ‘people’ to self determination as enshrined in international law in treaties like the ICPPR, which the UN and ICJ are bound to uphold.

      For example, not allowing or making clear a mechanism whereby the ‘people’ can pursue their right to self determination.
      e.g. refusing to accept a majority of pro independence parliamentary representatives and refusing to accept a properly carried out plebiscite indicating majority support for independence and refusing to state what other mechanism is available to attain independence.

      These are the basic criterion.

      At one time the UK government was refusing to acknowledge that a majority of pro independence Scottish MPs would be sufficient, was refusing to allow an independence referendum and was refusing to state any alternative mechanism whereby independence for Scotland might be pursued. There is documentary proof of that.

      A complaint to the UN was duly prepared at that time but then the impossible happened and an SNP government was formed in the devolved parliament with a promise by them to hold an independence referendum despite Westminster’s wishes. This new situation made the lodged complaint redundant on various levels and it was withdrawn.

      If the May cabal refuses to allow another independence referendum or accept a Yes result in an advisory one then it would be game on again regarding UN supplication.

      As it is, the UN Special Rapporteurs would not even pass the claim on to consideration by the UNCHR while it is unclear that local remedies might still resolve the issue.

    419. Breeks says:

      Wow Chick. My mini bagatelle ball bounced down that list hitting every word on the way.

      Even for “unclear that local remedies might still resolve the issue”.

      We can’t pursue a local remedy with Brexit galloping towards us because Westminster won’t even let us into the Negotiating chamber.

    420. Chick McGregor says:

      Well Brexit wouldn’t strictly factor in to the indy argument as such, other than being an additional reason to believe a second indy ref might win because of it, but great analogy.

      It is a bit like that game show where a disc bounces down through a wall of pins. Often no result in form of getting discs out the other end but eventually tipping point is reached.

      Main strategy for the contestants is deciding whether to put in a disc or pass it to an opponent. ?

    421. Chick McGregor says:

      My new PC, the popup keyboard smiley I selected came out as ? it should have been 😉

    422. Cubby says:

      Sensibledave = arrogant ignorant obnoxious British Nationalist paid to troll.



    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. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top