The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The Enemy

Posted on February 05, 2021 by

The tl;dr is that Martin Keatings has lost his case over the Scottish Parliament’s right or otherwise to hold an independence referendum. Lady Carmichael in essence declined to make a decision over Holyrood’s authority to order any future vote, agreeing with the defenders in deeming the matter to be “hypothetical, academic and premature”.

We obviously haven’t yet had time to digest the full 72-page judgement, issued about an hour ago, and in any event aren’t really equipped to understand its dense legalese.

But there’s one thing we do understand.

Keatings was opposed by an alliance of the Advocate General for Scotland (despite his title, a representative of the UK government) and the Lord Advocate OF Scotland, who is a minister in Nicola Sturgeon’s government.

It was therefore the Scottish Government, alongside the one in Westminster, who were opposing the court even attempting to establish whether Scotland has the right to determine its own constitutional future.

We don’t believe that’s what a million people voted SNP for in 2016, nor 1.2 million in the UK election just over a year ago. We believe the Scottish Goverment’s actions in the case have been a shameful dereliction of their promises to pursue Scotland’s right to choose. Indeed, worse than a mere dereliction – an active betrayal.

This is a matter that should have been an urgent priority for the First Minister from the day after the Brexit vote. It being clearly in the interests of the Scottish people – on both sides of the constitutional divide – to determine the legal position with clarity and certainty, it should have been a task undertaken with the full resources of government, not left to a member of the public funded by the grassroots Yes movement.

Instead, the supposed party of Scottish independence threw obstacle after obstacle (and no small amount of abuse) in Keatings’ path, gobbling up time and money that could have been better spent. Its courtroom alliance with the UK government against the independence movement is no less shaming than that of Labour and the Tories in the 2014 referendum.

Today’s decision was widely anticipated, and it’s unlikely to be the end of the matter. There will, we’re sure, be an appeal, and the whole argument will continue to consume both time and money long into the future, whereas if it had been started years ago by a government which had a crystal-clear electoral mandate to do so – as this site urged – it would have been long settled by now. Instead of which, the prospects of a second independence referendum have once more receded into the distance, almost certainly for a significant number of years.

The Scottish Government have stabbed the people of Scotland in the back.

Print Friendly

    195 to “The Enemy”

    1. ScottieDog says:

      Yep, this was expected and is by no means the end.
      The appeal case is well funded

    2. Hugh Jarse says:

      ‘Declined to decide’ doesn’t seem like a loss, it’s just not a win.

      It’s hard to fathom the depth of denial it takes to carry on wheeshting.
      Look on poor cultists, it’s Official!

    3. Dave M says:

      They are a useless shower.

      Remember folks, when someone shows you who they are…

    4. covidhoax says:

      Guess there is zero reason to vote SNP in May now.

    5. 100%Yes says:

      The real culprite is the SNP by not putting their backing behind this case, but instead going against every single person who donated to Martin cause and the people who are seeking Independence. This will please Peter Wishart and the Murrels up on the Hill.

    6. Intractable Potsherd says:

      This could be worse in terms of the decision, but not in terms of the vertebra-free Scottish Government. The case for change grows bigger every day.

    7. Astonished says:

      She has got to go. And hopefully we will never be fooled again/

    8. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “‘Declined to decide’ doesn’t seem like a loss, it’s just not a win.”

      He sought a declarator and didn’t get one. It’s a loss. It just isn’t necessarily a FINAL one.

    9. Ron Maclean says:

      ‘The Scottish Government have let the people of Scotland down.’

      Again.

    10. Stuart MacKay says:

      I consider it money well spent as a) we know the approach has legs and b) we know who the opposition are.

      It shows that nothing is ever going to be handed on a plate and hats off to Martin Keatings to make a move that our devolved administration does not have the balls or the desire to pursue.

    11. ScottieDog says:

      The Cherry article in the National has pretty much done it for me. Unless there is a clean-out at the top, I won’t vote SNP.
      I see the BBC smell blood, Glen BBC is quoting ‘democracy must continue’ tweets, regarding English elections. Expect a big turnaround from the establishment media wrt holyrood elections. They don’t want a COVID delay now, funnily enough.

    12. Frank Gillougley says:

      Sorry to go all biblical here, but this verse comes to mind – the KJV version has a certain ring to it. Matthew 7:16-20

      …20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

    13. Scott says:

      When will a group of disenfranchised snp msps start a new independence party?!, the SNP are far too cosy and haven’t done anything to further the cause for years now.

    14. Jacqueline McMillan says:

      NICOLA STURGEON HAS LET US ALL DOWN. YES HER. TRAITOR AND COWARD.

      REAP WHAT YOU SOW YOU NASTY, JELOUSE MAN IN A FROCK!!!!

    15. Bob Mack says:

      The judge couldn’t decide because there was no official and competent referendum Bill . The 11 point plan is not legalky binding either. It is only a plan. I doubt an appeal kn thkse grounds would win or change the outcome.

      Until the Government actually puts forward a Bill rather than just a proposal of a Bill it will remain an impasse.

    16. Lene says:

      It isn’t just Martin who lost this Court case – we all did. At the very least those of us who funded the action. Deeply disappointed, to say the least, but ultimately just confirming my initial suspicion but now firmly established view that independence for Scotland will remain a sweet yet unattainable dream for a long time to come.

    17. Ian Mac says:

      The fact that the SNP and Westminster, with their minions in the legal profession, blocked what the SNP were elected for, tells you about as much as you need to know about them. The route to independence is to be kept under lock and key by them, and only wheeled out when they deem it safe to do so. Which is not for another ten years or so, if at all. In the meantime they can carry on canvassing for your vote under false pretences.

    18. Lollysmum says:

      Thats why she’s avoiding doing the Covid press briefing & sends out slimey Swinney instead. Can’t hide forever sunshine. we see you & are not impressed by her actions & inactions.

      Independence consigned to the flames because power & lies prevail in 2021.

      Lets see what the people say!

    19. aulbea1 says:

      The SNP Scottish Government our very own Vichy – polluted by Qhislings.

    20. John Digsby says:

      Having skimmed the judgement, the judge has highlighted a few potential weaknesses in the argument Keatings was making and on the other side. At best, this at least gives the principal arguments a bit of an airing, since this may well end up in court again at some point by someone with standing

    21. Captain Yossarian says:

      What’s going-on at Holyrood just now would never be allowed to go-on at Westminster – the press and BBC journalists would be all over it.

      What’s going-on in Scottish law just now would never be allowed to go-on in England.

      Andrew Neil is laughing at us.

      We need to either sort-out or close down Holyrood and end this incestuous relationship which goes-on between Holyrood Ministers and senior law officers.

      One case of malicious prosecution should be a national embarrassment. We have potentially 3 or 4 on the go at the moment.

      People should be removed and replaced. I cannot see any other possible solution.

      Forget the Keatings case until we disinfect and re-set Holyrood and our legal profession.

    22. dramfineday says:

      What can I say that more articulate writers are about to, or indeed, have written?

      I think I’ll leave it at FGS.

    23. No. The bastards have stabbed us in the front.

    24. katherine hamilton says:

      “Strike another match, let’s start anew,
      it’s all over now Baby Blue”

      B. Dylan
      Spin it all you like. We need Westminster’s permission. Gold Standard, after all. Another £200000 for an appeal? No thanks. Purse is shut.

    25. McDuff says:

      I think for most of us this is what we expected from the establishment.
      Once covid is sorted we should amass 100,000+ and demonstrate outside the Scottish parliant and Bute House with placards declaring that there has been a coup and Scotland is no longer a democracy.
      Do we honestly believe that if it was England challenging this in an English court the Judge would have come to the same decision.
      We are now officially an occupied country.

    26. wee monkey says:

      I don’t see how ANY indy supporter can now possibly vote SNP.
      I also don’t see how anyone who loves their country can possibly vote SNP.
      There must be legions of really fucking brainwashed, self centered people out there.

      Scotland is close to total disaster politically, socially, morally and legally bankrupted.

    27. To put it in mathematical terms:

      Martin Keatings > (47 MPs + 61 MSPs)

    28. Mighty S says:

      It’s the result Martin expected. He’s going to appeal because his lawyers have advised him to.
      Yes, it’ll take months/years.
      But tell me…what the hell else is happening to further our journey to independence eh?

      Nothing.

    29. Johnny Martin says:

      Yes this is exactly how I see it. Banding together to say ‘fuck your vote and mandate, WE’LL decide when it’s time and when it’s ‘premature'”.

      Well, my response to that is ‘no more votes for you, because I believe it’s way past ‘premature’ and into ‘too late”‘.

      There’s a thing called the political spectrum, and when a big enough group of people on that spectrum want something (i.e. independence quickly and with no more messing around) then you have a political vacuum in that space on the spectrum.

      Someone telling the conservative ‘uch, maybe in a decade we can go for independence types’ CANNOT be telling folk who want it quickly the truth. They are simply trying to con you into thinking they represent both parts of the political spectrum (or, in other words, they are triangulating).

      There is a place on the political spectrum (and at least some level of demand…how big, who knows?) for a party to step in and represent those who are sick of the mucking about of the SNP. Is anyone going to step up and take that space away from them?

    30. Muscleguy says:

      Posted to an ISP chatroom earlier. Martin Keetings’ statment giving a rosier virew.

      Decision in Keatings’ case out a bit early. Spoiler – he didn’t win, but its better than it could be. Email as follows:
      Update on Peoples Action on Section 30

      Confidential until 12 Noon.

      As we expected in this first round, the ruling of Lady Carmichael did not go in our favour. But neither was it a silver spike through the heart. It is a highly appealable judgement.

      While she may have dismissed the case on the hypothetical, academic, premature, it is clearly done on a neutral basis, and indeed in keeping with other cases of this nature.

      As I have said many times before – it is very unusual in this type of litigation to get an opinion in the outer house and it almost always ends up in the inner house.

      I note that she rejected pleas 3, 6 and 7 of the Lord Advocate. Pleas 3 and 7 was the contention of the Lord Advocate that this case should have been brought by Judicial Review, and even if it had been brought by Judicial review, it would then have been incompetent. She repelled both of those suggestions. Meaning that our methodology in this case is the correct one.

      The 6th plea in law was also repelled, namely that granting the declarators we asked for would have been “inconsistent with the constitutional structures established by the Scotland Act 1998. Again, thumbs up for the procedure.

      So the Lord Advocates arguments have taken a serious bruising as well. So not all bad news.

      It is interesting to note that in no less than two places in her opinion she mentions allegations of “unlawfulness” (141) and “unlawfulness or abuse of power” (25/2).

      It is also interesting to note that there is no mention of the announcement of the 11 point plan from the SNP the day after the hearing, which for all intents and purposes rendered all of the pleas in law for the defenders, meaningless.

      This means, that as a matter of course, it appears she believed she had no choice but to dismiss because she didn’t have all of the necessary information to move it from one column (hypothetical, premature, academic) to the other column (not hypothetical, not premature, not academic). This is purely a technical issue, which would not have been an issue if the Scottish Ministers had been more forthcoming in terms of the 11 point plan, lending weight to the fact that its release less than 24 hours was not done under the purest of intentions.

      But Lady Carmichael cannot be held responsible for something which was not divulged to her. She can only opine on what she sees in front of her, and you will all recall that I have already raised the issue of the 11 point plan released a day after the hearings and whether the Lord Advocate of SGLD already knew about that plan before arguing at the hearings during the two previous days.

      All-round one has done, is to show the public that the uncodified constitution of the UK is a bit like waving your open hand in front of your face. You can blur things in the short term, but eventually, you realise that there are still gaping holes that you can see daylight through it.

      The Advocate General and Lord Advocate have done everything they can to blur the lines in this case but the gaping holes in the constitution are there for everyone to see, and now they are on public display. The institutions of parliament which are supposed to represent the people are in fact deeply flawed when the electorate is deliberately blocked from trying to ask a reasonable question about their own constitutional future.

      It was, for all intents and purposes a neutral ruling because she did not have available to her, all the information she required to rule, and from first glance the ruling is highly appealable, especially considering the release of the 11 point plan, conveniently delivered to the public after the hearings.

      What we need now is a referral to a higher authority and that comes in the form of the inner house of the court of session, and as I told you before, this was the expected next step – we’re in better shape than we thought we would be.

      So, I’ve already instructed that process to commence and it’s off to the inner house we go.

      All the best,

      Martin

    31. stuart mctavish says:

      On bright side, SNP now knows that Plan A requires publication of a manifesto addressing such scurrilous self harm, preferably in advance of FM’s refutation of whatever the harassment committee intends delivering to her in the form of conclusion(s), or otherwise, to its investigation.

    32. Bob Mack says:

      This should change nothing but our determination to put in place in Holyrood,true representatives of Independence .

      We can do that. You might be uncertain about voting for a new party such as ISP and I understand that, but what you should have firmly grasped is that the SNP government opposed this action brought by Martin Keatings. Let that sink in.

      They have clearly spentvour referendum money and are looking to stall any chance they will be called on to use it.

      Is this the SNP you funded, leafleted for and promoted as the party who would make a difference? For me ,no.

    33. Muscleguy says:

      Note the guy who posted that was a law lecturer.

    34. Sharon says:

      I’d like to see a court deny that the EUref result and England’s subsequent departure from the EU basically nulled the Union agreement.

    35. Lorna Campbell says:

      Looked at another way, it closes off yet another corridor to independence and for all the world to see. I’m afraid that this was always going to be the ruling because this particular case can probably be decided, if at all, only in the Supreme Court, the UK constitutional court, where it would have ended up anyway, had it had a positive ruling but been challenged by the UKG.

      It would be much better if good money were not to be thrown after bad, and the next case concerned the Treaty, which requires to be ‘sound’ in Scots Law before being taken into the international arena. Here, we might have had a better chance of getting a favourable ruling, if only for the reason that the Treaty was co-signed by Scotland as an independent, sovereign nation state, so there is no question but that we have a locus standi.

      The SNPG, I it does hold a referendum, will now be putting themselves into the position of Catalunya, and the UKG will probably react like Spain, if a Scottish government led referendum takes place. I very doubt that it will, and we will be handing the SNPG pseudo ‘wokies’ yet another few years to get their insanity pushed through Holyrood.

      It is either a S30 Order/Edinburgh Agreement again or a plebiscitary election with immediate effect. In the next few weeks, if the FM and her coterie survive that long, we shall see what she and they are made of, whether they will finally defy Westminster, Whitehall and the British State and take our independence, as we are entitled, democratically and legally, to do, or whether they will sit tight for another term and add another few years to their pensions while Scotland and Holyrood are eaten alive by Queen Lizzie House, while they celebrate the victory over natal women who will eventually be pushed out of each and every safe space they fought so long and hard for, over so many years.

      Trans men will discover that cutting off their breasts will have availed them nothing. As women, they will still be despised and ‘othered’, and will also discover, too late, that discrimination against natal females, whatever excesses they perpetrate on themselves in the name of conformity, is based on their sex, not their gender, and is born in the bone. Just like other menstruators and womb havers, they will still be ‘females’, the sex that cannot speak its name, but, now, they will have no space where men, even in frocks and high heels, do not colonize, as Scotland will be colonized and dismembered by the victorious Brexiteers. The future of women and the future of Scotland are inextricably linked.

    36. ALANM says:

      Anyone keeping tabs on exactly how much cash has been diverted over the years from the hard earned wages & pensions of independence supporters into the well-lined pockets of the legal establishment? And after all this effort we’re left with the square root of fuck all.

    37. 100%Yes says:

      Would Ms Cherry like to stand up and be counted, as we need someone of standing then who better than our very own QC.

    38. PhilM says:

      The thing to get right in Scotland – in politics, in law, in the public sector generally – is to make people accountable for their actions and to make the rule of law mean what it’s supposed to mean. The malaise in this country over accountability and the rule of law is so deep that people just throw their hands up eventually because the sclerosis of the system burns up their energy.
      In some ways Martin Keatings’ push to reform the SPSO is even more important than the current court case. Even if we somehow secured independence this year, all the same institutions, with their narrow elite of pals going way back and their corrupt work practices, these would not have changed at all. An anti-corruption movement is needed just as much as an independence movement.

    39. Prasad says:

      The SNP have won a court victory.
      I am sure they will be celebrating and broadcasting this far and wide.
      I mean this was part of their grand plan to get Independence right? Only Martin Keatings and thousands of fanatics were standing in the way, right?

    40. Effijy says:

      Yes, great celebrations for SNP in temporarily stopping
      the declaration of Scottish Sovereignty and Declan’s £50.

      What more could you ask of an Independence Party after 14 years?

    41. zebedee says:

      para 4: I think he is not a minister.

    42. crisiscult says:

      Ok, so we’re getting closer and closer to May. Hard Yessers, as most folk are here, are now in the position where (as we’ve seen on the last few pages here via comments) we’re looking at not voting SNP. Now it’s obvious that the way things are right now, that doesn’t help us either.

      How are we getting on with a united front on the list at the very least? Also, how are we getting on with selective targeting of constituencies? And most importantly, without a) a high profile, and b) feet on the ground (tough with Covid) – how are those going to be achieved?

      I have no answers. Just questions 🙁

    43. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I think he is not a minister.”

      You think wrong.

      https://www.copfs.gov.uk/about-us/who-we-are#:~:text=The%20Lord%20Advocate%20is%20a,rules%20about%20collective%20ministerial%20decisions.

      “The Lord Advocate is a Minister of the Scottish Government”

    44. Bob Mack says:

      @Zebedee,

      He is indeed.

    45. zebedee says:

      Thanks. Happy to be corrected.

    46. Alf Baird says:

      Wha didnae ken thon Holyrood Pairlament an Scottis ‘Exec’ wis aye juist a wee puppet o Westminster, an aw thon Scottis establishment fowk tae? Gaun, haud yer haund up!

      I really do think Martin and the rest of us would be better taking this advice on board:

      “As a matter of law, a referendum is not a required part of the process of becoming independent (McCorkindale and McHarg 2020).

      And instead focus on this:

      Plan B: Plebiscite election on independence in May’s national election using either total Scottish constituency vote or total Scottish regional list vote as stated in any (serious) national party’s manifesto, and take any majority for independence result to the UN for recognition.

      (as is currently proposed by Solidarity and under consideration by ISP).

    47. Garavelli Princip says:

      So, the biggest obstacle to Scottish Independence is the Scottish National Party.

      I never thought I would ever write such a thing.

      I cannot fathom how this came about.

      I feel like resigning my membership of many decades – but I’m going to hang on just in case I can vote for a genuine supporter of independence to replace Nicola Sturgeon-Murrell

    48. Johnny Martin says:

      Crisiscult @ 1:12pm:

      Agreed, can the prospective list parties start getting their message out there please and, where there is common ground, start working together?

      Not a member of any, but willing to consider voting for one which i) is saying it will do what I am looking for (and doesn’t have a track record of saying as much before and then not doing so), ii) appears to be organised and capable of drawing voter attention to itself.

      I understand that the pandemic situation has made some campaigning difficult. This said, that hasn’t stopped me seeing the odd leaflet for unionist parties through the door or nonsense like window ad leaflets. If these entities are allowed to deliver leaflets, pandemic or no, then I think the gloves can come off for all a bit.

    49. Prasad says:

      Jesus wept, i was wrong, they are actually celebrating.
      Mad as hatters.

      Martin J Keatings #VoteAFI2
      @MartinJKeatings
      To all the SNP parliamentarians whooping today and about the ruling of lady carmichael and hashtagging with both votes SNP. Firstly, this result was expected. Very few of these types of cases succeed in the outer house. Going to the inner house was expected.

    50. Rikali says:

      One assumes the SNP elite will largely welcome this judgement.

      While not (yet) an exact analogy, the Sturgeon “government” has parallels to the État Français (French State) set up at Vichy, France in 1940 following German occupation.

      It has an authoritarian leader, is subservient to the leader of a foreign state; tries to suppress local nationalists and disidents, is economically conservative, perverts the justice system and has an intolerant cyber quasi-fascist arm: the “twittler youth”.

    51. Bob says:

      Well at least we have revealed without a shadow of a doubt, that the Scottish National Party led by Nicola Sturgeon joined Better Together during Brexit.

      I suppose it was a bit of a clue that their approach during Brexit was to protect England in support of a ‘better’ deal rather than negotiate a trade off with many Tory rebel’s still sitting at Westminster, to give support for the Bill in exchange for a Section 30 on independence.

    52. Willie says:

      Declined to issue a judgement is most certainly an example of wanting to dodge an issue.

      It is most certainly not a loss for a Martin Keating who with his legal team have done sterling work.

      The powers of the dark state, the imbedded MI5 are extensive and as we know they extend into the Police, the Crown Office and the Service. Indeed they may extend into the judiciary too and the example of this is maybe one Sir Muir Russell.

      Widely reported as being part of the deep state establishment and with a wide career spanning many public Sir Muir has sat on the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland . So from police to prosecution, civil service, to universities, the British state appoints well.

      Butvthstbis not to say that Lady Carmichael decided inappropriately here. Her decision against the tentacles of influence was not to reject the case, but leave the matter hanging.

    53. Bob Costello says:

      Not so sure it is that bad and I am sure there is a lot more in the judgment to come out but if the main thrust is “ hypothetical and premature “ then surely all that has to be done it disprove that. Whereas if it had been found that it was unconstitutional that would have been different

    54. Willie John says:

      Can we please stop calling it the *British* state. It’s not, it’s the ENGLISH state.

      It can only be a British state if all parts of it had an equal input – which they most certainly do not.

    55. Jacqueline McMillan says:

      brits is my preferred pronoun, vowel, vole, rat, mighty cat, dog etc

    56. Breeks says:

      Hmmm…

      Let me set out the problem I have with the Keatings case…

      On the one hand, you have the sovereign people of Scotland, who, by the Scottish Constitution are sovereign, and thus require nobodies permission to hold a referendum.

      On the other side, you have Westminster, professing to be sovereign, and seeking to subjugate the popular sovereignty of the Scottish people, and dictate to the people of Scotland when they can and cannot have a referendum, as though they were subjects.

      The Keatings case, in my very humble and inexpert opinion asked the wrong question by seeking to determine whether Holyrood, (let me emphasise, Holyrood – NOT the sovereign people of Scotland), had the authority to hold a referendum, and therein lies the problem, because Holyrood occupies a highly ambiguous and uncertain status in Constitutional terms. It exists in Constitutional no-mans land, with Westminster claiming it’s theirs and the people of Scotland claiming Holyrood is ours, and the truth is not clear.

      I don’t believe the Court of Session can adjudicate on what Holyrood can or cannot do, because that degree of certainty can’t be codified by the Court of Session when there is so much uncertainty about the legal Constitutional status of Holyrood. It simply isn’t for the Court of Session to write the constitution of Holyrood.

      In short, you are asking the Court of Session to interpret Holyrood’s constitution when there basically isn’t any Constitutional certainty to adjudicate. It’s like asking the Court to adjudicate on a criminal case when the crime doesn’t exist in legislation.

      I am disappointed that Martin Keatings chose to clarify Holyrood’s authority to hold a referendum. I think the pay dirt lies in the Scottish people’s authority to hold a referendum… as in a test case to affirm that Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty is still extant. That is a much higher principle than anything relating to Holyrood.

      There is a massive problem with Scotland’s “Government” under Sturgeon, and it’s craven complicity with Westminster’s version of a Holyrood Parliament that is subservient to Westminster rule. That is simply disgraceful, and in my opinion, constitutes grounds for impeachment. It is simply inexcusable for any “Scottish” Government NOT to respect, affirm, and defend our Nation’s Constitutional Sovereignty.

      These might be considered as two birds needing hit by one stone… The Scottish Government MUST be bound by Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty, and some mechanism must be introduced which gives the people of Scotland control over it’s Government and a codified process of impeachment to depose any rogue government or unconstitutional sell-out. We currently do not have any such protocol, but we very much need one.

      The one stone which would clobber both of these birds is a re-written Scotland Act which forms the constitution (small ‘c’) of Holyrood, but clarifies those omissions in the current Scotland Act which are not consistent with Scotland’s Sovereign Constitution.

      You know the delicious irony? The Court of Session has declined to arbitrate on the question asked by Martin Keating, and thus there is no adjudication which codifies a Constitutional principle and the ambiguity of the situation remains unclear. The delicious irony is this is the very reverse of what Joanna Cherry did successfully, and took the uncertainty of whether Boris Johnson could prorogue Parliament, and solved that ambiguity by confirming in law that he could not, and that adjudication is now part of the UK’s ‘unwritten’ constitution. There’s now a small chapter on the prorogation of Parliament that IS written…

      I believe Martin Keatings would have enjoyed the same success as Joanna Cherry IF he had chosen to defend the sovereign Scottish peoples’ right to hold a referendum, and left Holyrood’s roll in that process out of the equation completely.

    57. Margaret Lindsay says:

      Rev Stu, can it be confirmed in any way, how many have left the SNP (in droves I believe) over the NEC debacle and Joanna’s sacking from the front bench, not to mention the odious silence from this shower of charlatans ‘re the threats made to her?
      I can imagine there will be more after this, but it would be helpful if accurate figures are available. Cheers

    58. Captain Yossarian says:

      Alec Cole-Hamilton requested an urgent meeting at 1.00pm today with the other members of the Fabiani Inquiry team. He wants to discuss where they go from here as he is worried it is beginning to look like a farce.

      His take on it is that even although Alex Salmond is unable to have his statement made public, he can nevertheless refer to it at the Inquiry and so too can the Inquiry team.

      You have to ask why Linda Fabiani didn’t request the meeting?

      I know from experience that Jackie Baillie will just say: ‘Well if the lawyers say we can’t talk about it then we can’t talk about it’. She’s really useless.

      My take on this is that we really need to see some resignations from, number-one, The Lord Advocate and, number two, Nicola Sturgeon.

      That will do for me. We can then discuss independence in a country who’s government and judiciary we can all trust.

    59. Kat says:

      While this is a disappointing result my only concern is that it will take us beyond the #Holyrood2021 polling day to find out for sure. Which means we cannot force SNP’s hand for a plebiscite. 🙁

      Speaking of which, at the start of the week I asked on twitter how scunnered people were with the SNP (just for funzies like, hardly a robust poling methodology) and the results were clear.

      Both votes SNP 25%
      No votes SNP 48%
      Constituency only 25%
      Regional List only 2%

      Not for a minute gonna suggest this is in any way indicative of election results, with only 524 votes, but considering all that had been going on proir to & during, I think there is potentially a grain of truth to the results.

      Perhaps people are beginning to reevaluate their voting intentions after all the SNP shenanigans of the past few years. Betrayal is a powerful motivator.

      FYI some of the comments in the tweet were, well, quite uhm, illuminating.

      https://twitter.com/KatrinaWatson/status/1356288379797778433?s=19

    60. Skip_NC says:

      Margaret Lindsay, the best way of estimating membership of any party is by studying annual accounts. So the latest numbers available are for the end of 2019. Stu wrote an article about this, referencing levies on branches for elections. In that article, if I recall correctly, he argued that the SNP had about 87,000 members. So either Stu made erroneous assumptions or there is not enough staff at SNP HQ to count beyond twenty.

    61. Bob Mack says:

      @Breeks,

      I would agree with you. This was indeed about Holyrood as representativesv of the people and not about the people themselves.

      However that brings up the problem of how you gauge that popular will to have a referendum in a purely numerical sense.given the accepted basis of any Democracy is numerical majority. How could the judge gauge that ?

      I think Martin took the only road open which was Holyrood and the representatives therein.

    62. Mia says:

      I am so disgusted I cannot express it with words. I have nothing but contempt for this FM. She is nothing but a fraud in my eyes. A corrupt fraud, devoid of principles, devoid of ethics, devoid of respect and devoid of integrity.

      The prospect that she never intended to deliver independence is becoming more and more obvious by the hour and that first picture in the article proves it. The same prospect, of course, will continue if the new British State puppet Robertson takes over.

      Sturgeon has abused our trust. The way she has behaved, how she has attacked yes supporters, how she has viciously thrown under the bus people from her own party but then completely lacked the principles to actually apply her own discipline to herself, her husband, the conspirators or those UK civil servants cooperating to imprison an innocent man, suggests her aim and that of those close to her is and always has been to stop independence for whatever means possible. That woman does not speak for me.

      Her government has given corrupt unionist UK civil servants free reign to waste millions of pounds of our money in political vendettas to defy the law and smear and send to prison innocent people. She has made a mockery of our government, COPFS parliament and police, discrediting completely Scotland and anything that represents Scotland. That is not just disgusting. It is unforgivable.

      That she has actually gone against members of the public attempting to progress our right to self determination and she has allowed the democratic structures of the party to totally corrode and decay under her leadership is a disgrace. This suggests her uttermost contempt for the membership, for the party itself, for democracy, for international law and for the voters who put their trust in that party and her.

      This coward is now embarrassingly hiding behind a team of professional trolls doing the dirty work for her (for the british state?) of removing every political “obstacle” that may challenge her flawed “strategy”, the appalling levels of corruption under her leadership and government, her actual lack of ability and commitment to deliver independence and her contempt for democracy and our right to self determination.

      This fraud hides behind feminism only to utilise her position to help dark forces to demote women, to gag them and to steal female’s rights, knowing this could potentially alienate 50% of the vote.

      When you put all this together, it strongly suggests her goal might have always been to dismantle the SNP in order to destroy it as a vehicle to achieve independence and in order to remove the wheels from the Yes movement. Ejecting Mr Salmond from the SNP is another tacky move under her leadership that points in that direction too.

      This fraud has he brass neck to criticise others of being undemocratic when herself has continuously denied us of democracy by refusing to deliver a single one of our many mandates.

      This FM has the cheek to put the blame on Johnson for not having the referendum when she has been colluding with Westminster all along, and Keatings’ case is proof, to deny us our right to self determination. So not only she is corrupt to the core and devoid of principles, she is also a hypocrite and a liar.

      The way this sorry excuse for a “leader” continues to cling on to power by using ministers, the Lord Advocate, the COPFS, the police and of course now the committee and inquiry to stop the evidence leaking to the public to protect her own arse, is an insult to democracy and to our claim of right. It is also an insult to the justice system and simply embarrassing to watch.

      One has to wonder if Martin might have won the case if it was not deemed as “premature” because the fraud would have acted democratically and fairly by passing the bill through parliament in the first part of this government, as those of us who voted for her party in 2016 fully expected her to do. 5 years this fraud has had, and at no time she has actually attempted to do this. If that was the case, then this result is even more damning for her. It makes her look totally like she has been colluding with the British State all along and using our own money against our will to stop independence and to unlawfully denying us our claim of right and self determination. I do not see how it can be seen from any other angle.

      So shame on Sturgeon, shame on all the sycophants, reality deniers and opportunists who demand the Yes voters to “wheesht for indy” or to “keep the heid” when this embarrassing fraud has abused our votes for independence and has abused her leadership of the SNP to do the precise opposite: to deny us independence.

      People here keep saying to vote SNP1. How can you? After this, after watching how this fraud’s government is actively fighting against our self determination right, how she is using our own taxpayers’ money to deter us from demanding what we voted for, I do not know how anybody can continue asking for that vote. If we vote SnP, what exactly is what we are voting for? more collusion with the British state to deny us independence? more corruption? more control given to corrupt UK civil servants?

      For as long as this fraud, the dark forces of the british state protecting her and those corrupt civil servants working with her remain where they are, the SNP will never deliver independence.

      There it is in the picture of the REv’s article above in black and white: this fraud’s government has been colluding with the British state to purposely deny Scotland its democratic rights, its right to self determination and its claim of right.

      I find that disgusting and disturbing in equal measure.

    63. ScotGov unbendingly determined to ensure that our eventual (?) path to independence will be squeaky clean legitimate, acceptable to all nations of the Earth, from bandits to bastards.

      This despite the fact that we’re up against the most underhand bunch of thieves, murderers, and exploiters in the history of the planet, who will absolutely stop at nothing to keep Scots under their jackboots, while robbing us of our resources, our land, our culture, our history and our freedom, “which no honest man gives up but with life itself”.

      Time to move, Nicola, before I’m too old to enjoy it.

    64. Livionian says:

      Confirming what we all knew. No referendum until at least 2027, but most likely into the 2030s, and a huge number of variables will happen by then, nobody knows. But not this decade.

      I said that on here a while ago and somebody called me ‘an independence glacialist’. No I’m not. I’m just realistic and not naive. I agree with the Rev

    65. kapelmeister says:

      As Joanna says, wait for the appeal.

      Once Scotland has its second nationalist FM, following on from Alex Salmond, and if the right to an indyref hasn’t been resolved in our favour, it can be taken by a real nationalist SG to the UN Decolonisation Committee.

    66. Republicofscotland says:

      Nicola Sturgeon proclaims loudly that she wants an independence referendum sometime in the next parliamentary term. Then why would she and her government which includes the Lord Advocate, collude with the Advocate General for Scotland, who represents the UK government in hindering a private citizen from establishing whether or not we actually need an S30.

      By colluding with a UK representative to stop Scots finding out whether or not they need an S30, Nicola Sturgeon is betraying the very remit as to why we elected her in the first place. Not only that, it in my opinion proves beyond any doubt that Sturgeon is working against Scottish independence rather than for it, by colluding with the British government as in this case.

      How much more of taxpayers money will be spent by Sturgeon on this to make sure that we need to get Westminster’s consent first, (the appeal) its a clear cut case of betrayal by Sturgeon, a betrayal of Scotland.

      This might sound like a kneejerk reaction, but I now believe she’s a British state actor, and there’s quite a few of them at Holyrood in my opinion.

    67. From the Declaration of Arbroath : –

      “And now, the divine Will, our just laws and customs, which we will defend to the death, the right of succession and the due consent and assent of all of us have made him our leader and our king. To this man, inasmuch as he saved our people, and for upholding our freedom, we are bound by right as much as by his merits, and choose to follow him in all that he does.

      But if he should cease from these beginnings, wishing to give us or our kingdom to the English or the king of the English, we would immediately take steps to drive him out as the enemy and the subverter of his own rights and ours, and install another King who would make good our defence ”

      Does this apply to the Scottish Government that we the Scottish People elected?

    68. Republicofscotland says:

      Yes I know there’s still the appeal to be heard whenever, however the toast at Bute House by Sturgeon and her clique will be one.

      We, the SNP, have just won a great victory against Scottish independence.

    69. kapelmeister says:

      Livonian @2:11

      You say that there are a huge number of variables and in the same sentence say most likely no indyref until the 2030s. Do you not see the contradiction there?

    70. kapelmeister says:

      Any SNP figures who celebrate this result are akin to the Labour people who laughed and drank champagne with the Tories after the 2014 indyref.

    71. Neil Mackenzie says:

      Is “the right of self determination” a thing?

      ah… Yes it is. It is legally defined by the United Nations Charter.

      Who has the right of self determination?

      According to the United Nations Charter, peoples have it.

      Are the people of Scotland a ‘people’?

      I think so. The Scottish government certainly thinks so and so does the UK government or there wouldn’t be a parliament set up specially to represent them. The United Nations thinks so because it recognises the political state with a name that abbreviates to UK as two countries, a principality and a province and one of the countries is Scotland.

      Is the Scottish government the repository of representation for the people of Scotland who, as a people, have the right to self determination?

      I think so. The UK constitution certainly thinks so or else what was all that referendum stuff in 2014 about? That question has been irrefutably answered by history.

      So, if the people of Scotland vote by the democratic process in place to freely choose their sovereignty and international status with no interference as is their legal right defined by the United Nations Charter which the UK government is obliged to uphold, who or what has responsibility to administer the process?

      That would be the Scottish government, obviously.

      Why would the Scottish government need to run it past the UK government before going ahead?

      It wouldn’t. It has nothing to do with the UK government until after a choice has been made and then, only if the choice is independence. Until then, it’s none of their business.

    72. Bob Mack says:

      This is a sincere question.

      Could anyone on this site envisage Alex Salmond sending the Lord Advocate to fight against the case of Martin Keatings?

      It makes a powerful statement.

    73. Davie Oga says:

      I always thought that pursuing a republic at the same time as independence was too divisive to be successful. Not any more.
      Only a Scottish Republic, with a written constitution, and clear checks and balances on power, can deliver the wholesale structural changes required for Scotland to be a successful, independent, European state.

      The Crown Agent has participated in a criminal conspiracy to imprison an innocent man for political reasons.

      Therefore, The Queen has participated in a criminal conspiracy to imprison an innocent man for political reasons.

      She’s got to go.

    74. Republicofscotland says:

      According to Pete Wishart.

      “Sorry, that’s rubbish. It shows that the courts are not prepared to judge on ‘hypothetical’ situations. The Scottish Government were absolutely right to go nowhere near this.”

      https://twitter.com/PeteWishart/status/1357659017481498626

    75. Davie Oga says:

      Neil Mackenzie

      “It wouldn’t. It has nothing to do with the UK government until after a choice has been made and then, only if the choice is independence. Until then, it’s none of their business.”

      We have a supposed nationalist government who would beg to differ.

      Begging is the only thing they are good for.

    76. Confused says:

      The result of this would come as a surprise to no one but the most blindly optimistic.

      Still, you have to admire “the stones” on this guy; it was totally obvious everyone would be throwing bricks at him, including, most depressingly – people who claim to be for independence, including a govt which claims to want to do – the thing you are trying to facilitate – but instead are lined up against you …

      If you are “going down anyway” you may as well think big.

      – as a piece of POLITICAL THEATRE, the “CHARGE SHEET” is a great prop; it has a fine pedigree, James II (england) had one drawn up against him, as did George III by the american rebels; Martin Luther also did his own version, with added joinery

      We should do one –

      CHARGES AGAINST THE CROWN AS LAID BY THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND – the “15 VIOLATIONS”

      – blah blah blah; some of the cases before were exaggerations or stitch ups, but we do not have to resort to fabrications, start with actual breaches of the treaty, then add the theft, looting, pillaging, ethnic cleansing, using our soldiers as cannon fodder, false accounting, subversion, assassination, crimes of active violence and passive indifference; using scotland as a testing ground, the people as lab rats, and a dumping ground; attempting to destroy our culture, taking credit for our achievements … you could go on all day and all night. There is plenty meat on those bones.

      – and you can pull in international law, human rights, UN, papal bulls etc as you want.

      Then you should knock it down to a round number 10, 12 or 13; not too big, not too small – hard hitting, concise (with copious references to back it all up); if you can, get someone with some literary talent to do the final draft, someone whose words stick in your mind (this is one place where bombastic pomposity hyperbole etc plays well, so lard it up)

      The punchline is –

      IMMEDIATE DISSOLUTION OF THE UK AND REVERSION TO ORIGINAL SIGNATORIES, ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND AS INDEPENDENT NATIONS

      – and the people shall declare the next Holyrood elections to be a plebiscite, not the SNP!

      Consider Arbroath 1320 and this as bookends.

      For added spectacle, a delegation should take it to some obvious Crown office, or royal palace – and

      NAIL IT TO THE DOOR

      (- which is a nice comic touch to baffle the extremists of govanist tendencies.)

    77. Republicofscotland says:

      Stewart McDonald brushes aside the outcome of the case, then adds both votes for SNP in May.

      The SNP really is now a rotten barrel of apples bar a few.

      https://twitter.com/StewartMcDonald/status/1357658166893441027

    78. Johnny Martin says:

      Republic of Scotland @ 2:37pm:

      I wonder if Pete recognises that it wouldn’t have been ‘hypothetical’ if and his pals had called a referendum before now (given they had mandates coming out of their ears) and responded to any challenge to it? It would have been ‘real’ enough then!

      Deflection as ever from Pete.

    79. Socrates MacSporran says:

      I have been advocating on-here (albeit at infrequent intervals) for months – we should be using the Crown against the English in our independence battle.

      Elizabeth II is “Queen of England,” “by the Grace of God.”

      She is “Queen of Scots” because her right to that role is accepted by the Sovereign People of Scotland.

      If however, the Sovereign People of Scotland, having, let’s say, seen their expressed wish to remain within the EU, ignored, and their Queen failed to defend that stated wish of the Sovereign People of Scotland – then, does she still deserve to be “Queen of Scots.”

      Start using the Crown against the English, that will really freak them out, and perhaps make them more-willing to let these troublesome Scots go.

      Nothing should be off-limits when it comes to winning back our independence.

    80. Republicofscotland says:

      Johnny.

      As far as Wishart is concerned an indyref will always be hypothetical, Wishart omitted that it was a member of the Scottish government, the Lord Advocate that vigourously defended against Mr Keatings action.

      I could understand if the Tories or LibDems or Labour acted as the defendants but a member of the Scottish governments cabinet, its another act of betrayal from Sturgeon.

    81. Stuart MacKay says:

      Republicofscotland @2:24pm

      I don’t doubt you, but there’s a simpler explanation. The idea that the plebs might actually do something without the blessing and leadership of the SNP is utterly abhorrent to them. It just shows how far the sense of entitlement extends.

      They will always want to set the agenda as they want the party to live beyond a successful independence vote (that just might be the ISP’s Achilles heal as well, sorry it needs saying and probably repeated often).

    82. Tannadice Boy says:

      I have no objection to the SNP hierarchy adopting a pro-union stance as long as they are honest and declare their new constitutional position prior to the election. I find myself still part of the rebellion. Speaking of the election, the latest favourability ratings for Sturgeon are reinforcing an overall majority for the SNP. 68 to 72 MSPs is the most probable outcome. I will need to set aside some serious fundraising money for the forthcoming referrals to the Supreme Court in the next Parliamentary session. Some daft leglisation coming up.

    83. Paula says:

      Dear Rev. Stuart Campbell, is it possible to set up “Wings Over Scotland” in video format too ? I feel your vital information of what’s REALLY going on in Scottish politics is being missed by a HUGE potential audience. All we have at the moment is Broadcasting Scotland, which, lets face it, reports on everything but what’s truly going on in our OWN Government and Parliament. I’m sure you could get crowdfunding easily for this. Scotland desperately needs your information, especially from over the last few weeks and crucially in the run up to May’s election. I’m not sure what platform could be used, youtube perhaps but there are others which aren’t so censor friendly like Brand New Tube or Rokfin ? I’m not a tech person but please please consider video format to share your amazing work.

    84. Jacqueline McMillan says:

      Why block
      dick Gaughan Wings??

    85. Lorna Campbell says:

      Neil MacKenzie: I believe you are right. Modern sovereignty, as defined by the UN Charter, rests in the people, and, by representing the people in a democratic election, the SNPG has the sovereignty to appeal to the international community to recognise our self-determination via a plebiscitary election, which the SNPG can also hold by right, NOW. So, there are two reasons we can either hold a referendum (personally, I wouldn’t, for the reasons below) or a plebiscitary election without Westminster’s permission. Westminster need be involved only at the negotiation stage or, at the election stage, through the Unionist parties. It has no remit to keep us enslaved to the Union, despite that ‘forever’ in the Treaty.

      The Treaty created the Union and the Treaty must be resiled, to end it, unless we agree with England that we will make no claims on continuity, which is a bargaining chip in negotiations, but that would depend on where our best interests lie. The Treaty will also be crucial to negotiations after independence in relation to reclaiming our maritime and terrestrial territory – crucial because of the crippling spoiler of potential partition. Through the Treaty, our 1707 seas and lands belong to us, and international convention and law also favour us.

      The Treaty also bestows the right of the Scottish people to resile it, the ‘forever’ stipulation being considered onerous by today’s standards. However the agreements (in the Articles, re trade, political representation, status within the Union, etc.) are all very clear. We have to ask why none of these options has been taken up.

      Are the Scots a people as defined by the UN Charter? Yes, because they are the indigenous people of the land called Scotland, and, as such, again according to the Charter, they are entitled not have their desire for independence thwarted by people from the country from which they seek to depart – colonial influence. Yet again, why has this never been pointed out to NO voters of rUK and other origins? The UKG is a signatory, on behalf of us all, to the UN Charter, so it behoves all of us to stick to the rules. Scottish Unionists are a different prospect because they, too, are indigenous and entitled to vote NO if they choose.

      The point is, though, that, according to the 2014 vote breakdown, they could not possibly have won on their own. They needed the NO votes of non-indigenous (UN usage) NO voters to win the 2014 referendum. However, we did not differentiate between voters in 2014, except for psephological reasons, giving everyone in Scotland the vote on that day. Personally, I believe that if you live and work in a country, you should have the right to vote in its elections and referendums, within reason – that is, not if you have just arrived in the country in the months and weeks before said elections/referendums, which we know happened in 2014.

      Leaving that aside, however, the rUK vote was still a colonial vote, showing that around 75% of rUK voters, mainly from England, happily voted NO to Scottish independence, a strangely English Nationalist perspective? I draw no moral assumptions from that except to say that it is expressly against the tenets of the UN Charter, but, even more importantly for a referendum in 2021, the same result could well be the 2021 result. That is what is crucial to understanding how the vote might go, and it has nothing to do with anti Englishness or racism, as the hard of thinking always assume, but everything to do with not running the same unnecessary and completely avoidable risks again, and, by finding a different, but equally legal and democratic route, circumventing the knee-jerk opportunity for another NO vote.

    86. Daisy Walker says:

      100%Yes says:
      5 February, 2021 at 12:27 pm

      The real culprite is the SNP by not putting their backing behind this case, but instead going against every single person who donated to Martin cause and the people who are seeking Independence. This will please Peter Wishart and the Murrels up on the Hill.

      In fairness Pete’s in need of a wee pick up today after JC getting elected to a bona fide Westminster Committee as Deputy Chair, and she didn’t even go begging for it, they gave it to her. I mean from his point of view, ‘how’s the teaboy supposed to get experience’.

    87. Martin says:

      We know Sturgeon and co don’t want another referendum within the period of the next Holyrood parliament so this should now be crystal clear to many voters. The SNP are going to carrot dangle Indy 2 again knowing full well it’s not going to happen. In my view this makes it quite clear going forward on how to vote. I will not be voting anyone in the constituency vote and giving my list vote to one of the independence parties although it might not be the Greens as they are serious woke and I think are making their manifesto all about trans and to be honest I can’t be arsed with that!

    88. handclapping says:

      I find the concept that the Constitution does not endure and only comes into effect when somebody breaks its provisions somewhat bizarre.

      At least in the USA you know what the Constitution says and you may interpret it differently from the Supreme Court but that is a matter for debate.

      As a British subject I am expected to know what the law is under pain of penalty if I break it. It seems absurd that an application to the Courts of Law for a statement of what the law is can be dismissed as hypothetical.

    89. Eileen Carson says:

      O/T I’m 74 and have COPD, scar tissue on my lung and HBP, yet I’m still to hear if/when I’m likely to get the vaccine. I also know of a 97 year old who is only now being vaccinated because I told her daughter to phone her GP.

      On this evidence I can’t see the target of mid February for the 70-79 age group being achieved.

    90. stuart mctavish says:

      Since any appeal on grounds of standing will reasonably need to defer to resolution of Texas v US on electoral fraud (ie abdication of responsibility on similar swampy grounds) satisfaction within the necessary timescale seems unlikely – although a refund for wasting Mr Keatings time and money to date (the decision on standing having been taken at the wrong end of the process) would not be unreasonable.

    91. Mac says:

      It is quite difficult to address corruption in say the police force or the judiciary. You have all the complexities of employment law to negotiate, amassing evidence, tribuanls, appeals whetever.

      But with politicians we can remove them all in one day if we want.

      If Nicola Sturgeon is still in charge at the next election we MUST wipe out or severely reduce the SNP.

      This election is pivotal. Look at the immense damage done these last few years.

      Giving Sturgeon another four year to really go for it knowing it is her last term is insane.

      It is not hyperbole to say Scotland’s future will turn on it.

      In Nicola remains in charge we have to smash them. Four years of opposition will do the SNP no harm whatsoever. We select a new leader and candidates and go again the very next elections.

      This is also a way to wipe out the woke infestation at the same time. We kill two arseholes with one stone.

    92. ephemeraldeception says:

      With the principle of joint responsibility of Cabinet and nobody resigning due any of the recent activities under the responsibility of the FM then I think its safe to conclude that a party split and/or clear out of the top is required. Non of which is in motion or a certainty short term.

      Clearly the leadership are not representing members (Of which I am not and thankfully now living in France and currently adopting French Nationality due to Brexit and Scottish Governments and public intransigence).

      Also I wonder how much the PMs view on her Gold Section 30 standard guided the hand of the Lord Advocate against the petitioners.

      One way or another a recovery is needed and this will take years no matter the scenario and no matter the approach.

    93. ahundredthidiot says:

      and the strategy of ambiguity continues……..

    94. Davie Oga says:

      Nice investment bet.

      SNP under 47.5 seats at the next Westminster election. Only 57 in total after boundary changes.

      There are enough people with wool over the eyes that they will still be largest party in Holyrood. Can’t see any possibility of a majority given the ongoing “issues” and the inevitable, strategically timed attack on Scotgov/ Sturgeon in the run up to the election.

      But next Westminster-Fool me 4 times baby will be the theme song to that campaign.

      Under 47.5 SNP seats @ 5/6 (1.83) at Paddy Power.

      -Anyone who wants to throw their money away on a 2021 referendum can now get 12/1 @ Betfair

    95. Big Jock says:

      Perhaps I am being really thick.

      The judgement is that they can’t say yes or no because the question is theoretical. So in other words there has to material dispute before the court can decide if Scotland has authority.

      That is a ridiculous decision. Surely the law is the law. So just because something has never been a live case , it doesn’t mean that there is no law in situ. Are they suggesting they only apply laws after the event?

      It is illegal or legal for Scotland to have a referendum, which is it. Surely they are not suggesting that we have to break the law before we know what the law is.

      I smell shite!

    96. Prasad says:

      Wrote to Michael Russell congratulating him on the SNP victory.

      His Reply in full (he clarified in a follow up e-mail that the quotes were his).

      Here is what I am saying. You might like to note the last point in particular. It has always been crucial .

      “People in Scotland have the right to decide their future. The Scottish Government will therefore publish before the end of this current Parliament, a bill for a referendum to be held once the pandemic is over.

      “The bill will set out clearly the terms of that referendum and if there is a majority in the next Scottish Parliament for a post-pandemic referendum there can be no justification whatsoever for any attempt to block the democratic will of the people of Scotland.

      “This court action raised important legal and constitutional issues unconnected to the issue of independence. If it had been successful it would have opened the door for anyone to launch a legal challenge against any proposed new legislation– including a referendum bill – before the Scottish Parliament had even had a chance to consider it.”

    97. TNS2019 says:

      Big Jock says:
      The judgement is that they can’t say yes or no because the question is theoretical. So in other words there has to material dispute before the court can decide if Scotland has authority.

      I am guessing that the issue is largely based on the competence of the court in addressing significant constitutional issues rather than the referendum per se.

      The ‘theoretical’ bit is not so stupid. If you asked whether there was an offence in murdering a Scotsman (or woman or trangender) on the planet Mars, the court would not rule because there was no case law and because it would be outwith their jurisdictional capabilities.

      Had there been a concrete proposal and had that been submitted by ScotGov, there would have to be a ruling but that would also have to go to a higher court.

      You should trust my judgement because I got 92% in my cycling proficiency in 1971.

      In other words, don’t blame the judge in this case.

    98. crazycat says:

      @ Prasad at 4.06

      “Once the pandemic is over”, eh?

      Over doing a lot of work there.

    99. Hugh Jarse says:

      I think you’re being fiddled with Stu.
      Twitter link re/mis-directs, and pages are evaporating when refreshed.

      Her still clinging on seems to have emboldened various people.

      How would the population take it if a few voices/websites were silenced in broad daylight?

      My view? The majority are brow beaten by outrage after outrage. Propaganda has been deployed successfully, the demons are set. The bottom of the barrel was scraped away long ago.
      Cue Eastenders theme music

    100. Bob W says:

      OT

      Anyone else getting error messages and slow access to Wings?

    101. Tannadice Boy says:

      Bob W 418pm
      Same for me. The Turkish delight gin must taste good. Well deserved though.

    102. T.C. Nu says:



      ‘Anyone else getting error messages and slow access to Wings?’


      Yes, it’s been ‘weird’ for the past three days. I’m currently using a US VPN connection, as a straight connection via my ISP or the phone either just ‘hangs’ or loads as if the poor wee packets have had to swim through treacle all the way to get through.

    103. Big Jock says:

      I love Russell’s :” Once the pandemic is over”.

      A pandemic is classified by WHO. They decide if it’s a pandemic. So if Scotland has 0 cases ,but England has hundreds and Japan has thousands and mainland Europe has thousands. Then it’s still a WHO pandemic.

      In other words he is talking through his arse as usual. Or deliberately being indefinite!

      So using his logic. If the word pandemic is still being used 3 years from now , then there can be no referendum.

    104. Russell: “The bill will set out clearly the terms of that referendum and if there is a majority in the next Scottish Parliament for a post-pandemic referendum there can be no justification whatsoever for any attempt to block the democratic will of the people of Scotland.

      And that’ll stop them… HOW exactly?

    105. Boaby says:

      Surely no one thought the scottish unionist legal system would find in martin keatings favour.

    106. ScottieDog says:

      “ And that’ll stop them… HOW exactly?”
      Carefully chosen words from Mike Russell.

      If the SNP were serious, they would state “Scotland will have a referendum on independence regardless of the position of Westminster”.

      Simples.

    107. Bevrijdingsdag says:

      I’m sick to my stomach of the SNP’s behaviour.

      Stelletje Landverraders!

    108. John Thomson says:

      Shame on them and ourselves if we do not vote them out in May.

      We have only to vote correctly to get them out and for that we are going to need help from indy bloggers and sites such as Wings.

      Trust your own research or Indy sites to identify those that support indy.

      I am willing and able to vote for a unionist if it means getting the woke out.

      Imagine May with this shambolic Trans loving SNP much reduced and without their main players. That would be a victory for Indy as it would show without doubt that our Parliament was made from Indy for Indy.

    109. Bob W says:

      Error establishing a database connection

      Is the error message I get, then takes a refresh and a few minutes go actually see the page.

    110. 100%Yes says:

      @Daisy Walker 5 February, 2021 at 3:30 pm

      Thanks for letting us know about JC.

    111. Bevrijdingsdag says:

      I’m sick to my stomach of the SNP’s behaviour.

      Stelletje Landverraders!!

    112. Bob W says:

      Someone seems to have turned the power off then on again. 😉

    113. Davie Oga says:

      crazycat says:
      5 February, 2021 at 4:15 pm
      @ Prasad at 4.06

      “Once the pandemic is over”, eh?

      Always an excuse or a disclaimer.

      “Only An Excuse?” is starting to get a little stale for Hogmanay. Watson should give it a revamp, call it “Always An Excuse?”, and impersonate SNP politicians
      promising a referendum.

      SNP candidates should run with a single line manifesto.

      “Give me 70 grand a year and we might once again beg England for a referendum -if Nicola Sturgeon says it’s OK”

    114. steelewires says:

      I never saw the point of Keatings bringing this case. Independence is not a matter for domestic law, but international law.

    115. MikeW says:

      Actions, as they say, speak louder than words..

    116. Republicofscotland says:

      Martin Keating, and ourselves might not have gotten the result we wished for today, however, in my opinion a bright light has been shone, for those still in the dark, on who is actually hindering our advancement to dissolving this union, and caught in that bright light is the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.

    117. JGedd says:

      @Hugh Jarse

      Understand your paranoia. I’m having trouble refreshing pages on this site and getting strange error messages which I have never seen before.

      As to the electorate at large, whenever criticism is made of unpleasant or authoritarian regimes, we seem to overlook those who voted for them. Invariably in regimes such as this, there will be a substantial portion of their electorate who will vote for them no matter which iniquities they commit. In fact, as demonstrated by Trumpism, no matter what he did was backed to the hilt by his core vote.

      Is this not how you end up with dictatorship? In the end, there are a substantial number of the electorate who end up being anti-democratic once you set off down that road. Silencing opposition is something that they become more and more comfortable with in order to empower their chosen government.

      Apart form military coups, many authoritarian regimes actually become governments by ‘democratic’ means whether achieved entirely honestly or not. They become dictatorial by incremental steps by testing out the electorate, almost like grooming, to see how far they can go and what their voters will tolerate.

      I’m not suggesting at all that Scotland is on that road, or England, for that matter. But there are stops on the road to full scale authoritarianism which can happen to states who don’t set limits for those who govern them. You can end up with so-called ‘populist’ governments which stop short of fascism but who represent the most repressive instincts of an authoritarian part of their electorate who actually encourage the stifling of dissent.

      The trick is, don’t give unconditional loyalty to any politicians even if at first they were your choice. Politicians need to know that their voters will not tolerate any slippage in standards which they would not accept in their opponents.

    118. Contrary says:

      An appeal isn’t going to take years – it’ll take weeks or months at most (after the opposition delay things while they get a real argument together), all the arguments have been set, and the inner court I’m sure will be salivating at the opportunity to get stuck into this one. (Well, maybe not quite)

      If you read what Martin Keatings says about it, Lady Carmichael ruled on the ‘premature and hypothetical part’ – and that’s because when she heard the case there was NO 11-POINT (NON)PLAN from Mike Russell of the SNP to make it non hypothetical.

      Strange, such coincidental timing, doesn’t the world work in mysterious ways, that just the VERY DAY AFTER the case was heard, the SNP published their 11-point plan in pointlessness? Just the very thing that would have made the case non-hypothetical. Dammit, the SNP must have thought, the planets must not have been aligned, we really missed the boat on that one oh dear what a shame never mind.

      The SNP – I’ve had it, and the wheesht for Indy crew – they can start wheeshting if they even half-heartedly want Indy – which I personally doubt very much – the SNP spend more time vilifying pro-independence activists and supporters than doing anything else – you know, like debunking the shit that comes out of the MSM – like promoting proper proposals for independence – like actually saying what SNP policy is – like attacking unionists for talking shite instead of openly and crudely attacking their own parliamentarians. But no, going against the British establishment is not in the SNP vocabulary any more, it’s their ‘own side’ that deserves putting down, and Scotland deserves all the negative press.

      We’ve been told to wait for some kind of independence utopia where everything is fair and democratic and fluffy bunnies, and that the SNP is the ‘only route to independence.’ Really?! How well has that gone so far? Not just nowhere , we’ve gone BACKWARDS.

      After 2014 I expected more pro-independence parties to spring up, and we’d all get more choice – ken, like you’re meant to get in a democracy – and the SNP didn’t need to be ‘all things to all people’ hah. But no, we were told that we had to have one big monolithic party because that’s the BEST CHANCE we have of achieving Indy – so, how well has THAT gone?! Backwards as well, you say?

      And now we find that the internal SNP machinations have been destroying the last vestiges of democracy within the party so no one can even DO anything about the corruption in it – and I’m meant to believe this is the party that can delver some kind of utopia of fairness and democracy and transparency and fluffy fucking bunnies? – get a GRIP.

      The SNP has systematically suppressed any competing pro-independence parties – they don’t want to work alongside anyone, they don’t want anyone to have alternative political views or have to compromise, discuss, coordinate – except with unionists of course – left of centre?! My ARSE – NS is a raving right-wing neoliberal.

      The SNP will work with anyone and everyone as long as they DON’T support independence.

      And this pinnacle of transparency and democracy is the party I’m meant to believe will (a) deliver an independence that they don’t even want to talk about and actively suppress anyone else talking about, and ignore any negative press about, and (b) deliver a vague utopia, that they don’t even pay lip service to.

      Everything, everything, now that I look back on the things they’ve done since 2014 with fresh eyes, all those things I frowned at and thought ‘strange’ but let it be, has been aimed towards the SNP becoming British establishment.

      They can get on their bike.

      Thanks, I feel much better after letting all that out.

    119. Effijy says:

      If Mike Russell is right that a victory for Martin today
      could create an opening for all sorts of legal challenges
      he thinks this is the right time to inform everyone?

      If the referendum is out sovereign right and proven to be so
      how does another country challenge that when the people of
      Scotland have the overriding power to rule themselves?

      For years now and under various Prime Ministers and multiple
      Mandates that we want to have a referendum, what changes with
      another majority and another mandate that didn’t apply to all the rest?

    120. Brian says:

      All I see is a week Scottish Judicial system that at it’s best is weak and at it’s worst more corrupt than most of the people it prosecutes.

      Some sweeping changes are required.

    121. Mia says:

      ” never saw the point of Keatings bringing this case”

      If he had not brought the case forward, we wouldn’t know today that Sturgeon’s government has been colluding with the British state government to deny us our right to self determination and that her government is actively fighting against delivering our democratic mandate for indyref betraying their promises to get our votes.

      No matter the final result, Martin’s case has already served a huge purpose: it has presented Sturgeon for the fake she is. Sturgeon and her SNP can no longer be trusted neither to be democratic, nor to respect our legitimate right to self determination nor to ever have any intention to progress independence.

    122. Effijy says:

      The vaccine roll out will hit target as Westminster is ready to
      pounce on how they did it with British Soldiers.

      That’s Scottish Soldiers in Scottish regiments paid for
      by Scottish tax payers.

      They have sent this out to say the U.K. government has
      saved you from yourselves and the virus.

      https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1770063086512812&id=159100234275780&anchor_composer=false

    123. deerhill says:

      Someone said that NSP office bearers were celebrating the “defeat” of Martin Keatings case.

      Can anyone put a name to these wheeled agricutural vehicles?

      Pension Pete?
      Stewart McDonald?

      Any more?

    124. John Thomson says:

      Mia
      Well spoken
      We now know beyond doubt that SNP are as corrupt as WM

    125. Kingu says:

      I’m out! It’s clear we are not getting Indy under the SNP. I really think the SNP need a shock, the commentary from Wishart has convinced me that they are not acting for us, only acting for themselves. Im happy to see the SNP loose power so that either they regroup or another party has time to be established. They need to know that they can’t count on our votes any longer and keep asking us for mandate after mandate which they never use. On these grounds I’m done, they will not have my vote in May and similarly in May 22 at local council elections. I truly believe we need to withdraw support. I know not all will agree but I’m fed up holding my nose and voting for them.

    126. Astonished says:

      O/t : Do you think internal SNP polling is showing them that voting intentions are changing ?

      Hope so. Hope Humza Yusuf gets booted out. Any others ?

    127. MaggieC says:

      Rev Stuart ,
      Nice to your crowdfunder going so well , now over £7,000.00 .

    128. shug says:

      So what are you going to do if the court, on appeal, say the Scottish parliament does not have the right, or if they say it has the right but Westminster immediately pass a law saying you do not have the right.

      I am afraid it seems a bit of a waste unless you can tell me why not

    129. Hatuey says:

      People don’t understand that Sturgeon’s definition of independence and the process of achieving it is based on the experiences of say Australia and Canada. She wants it agreed upon over drinks, with handshakes all round and toasts to our shared history and heritage. It’s the sort of independence that a pro-British nationalist might accept.

      When people here think about independence and how we get there, they’re more inclined to think in terms of Ireland with an ultimate goal of becoming a sort of Norway.

      The sort of independence you end up with depends on the way you achieve it. In turn, the way you achieve it, to a large extent, depends on what you are offered by the colonial power that you want independence from, and what you accept.

      The big problem for Sturgeon is that the British State (not Government) can’t see what’s in it for them and is offering nothing. It isn’t happening. Sure, we can wait them out, that’s the plan, hope that they change their minds, and as we wait we can show them how responsible and reasonable we are. It’s essentially a policy of appeasement.

      Here’s the thing and the point though. There’s really no meaningful or measurable difference between the Scottish Government we have now, following its policy of appeasement, and a puppet or neo-colonial government that runs the country on behalf of foreign imperial masters. It’s the same thing.

    130. velofello says:

      To declare the live, breathing issue of independence for a nation as – hypothetical, and academic – I read as a desire by Lady Carmichael not to make a decision.

      Premature? In what context can the issue of an ancient nation’s independence be deemed as “premature”?

      Historical declarations either have either meaning, or are nought. The Declaration of Arbroath? The Treaty of Union? articles, written and signed.
      And the UK unwritten constitution, in what way can unwritten contrived conventions hold sway over signed declatrations?

      Believe me, having a degree doesn’t make a person an expert in the subject, nor inclined to make fair, balanced, brave decisions. I’m a Chartered engineer, and in my experience, well…. best unsaid.

      Lady Carmichael, have a look in your mirror, what do you see?

    131. Effijy says:

      Being so lucky having Westminster Tories bugger us
      Guess which European nation has
      the Highest number of Covid Cases
      The Highest number of new cases
      The Highest Daily Covid Death rate
      The Highest Over All Covid Death rate.

      Yes Sir old Boris and chums are racing away from all the rest of Europe.

      Just count the jabs ignore the deaths and praise Bojo?

    132. Contrary says:

      Shug,

      If the case is high-profile enough – which it is – Westminster changing the act is highly unlikely, because politically it would be foolish (so, definitely not impossible) – and if the case is won, then Holyrood, the SNP, would be wise to act quickly on it.

      And who does it benefit to NOT know – how can you plan a strategy on a ‘maybe’? but as the SNP were telling us up until recently we definitely couldn’t act without a s.30 – untrue. It’s unknown.

      Prasad, at 4.06pm

      What an excellent letter from Mike Russell, I’ve never seen such a fine example of double-think and cognitive dissonance.

    133. Astonished says:

      Mia @2.05pm – I agree with every word.

      I would suggest second vote definitely ISP . And whether you vote SNP with your first vote depends on how woke your candidate is. ( Remember if the SNP don’t win the constituency vote the the genderwoowoo are top of the regional list vote ).

      A few openly genderwoowoo MSPs with their very shaky grip on reality will do untold damage to the independence movement.

    134. twathater says:

      @ Liz g as we have previously discussed Liz we both want the same thing , a Scottish Govt within slapping distance ,I have stated openly on more than one occasion that I would NOT vote SNP at the HR elections but your fine words the other night almost had me convinced to reconsider

      But TBQH the openly celebrating and sickening responses of our SUPPOSED indy reps to our Keatings outcome has entrenched my views that even at the expense of a unionist HR Sturgeon and her cabal of corrupt science denying sycophants have to be defeated , I cannot in good conscience align myself with these t r a I t o r s to destroy our womenfolk and country

    135. Sylvia says:

      Bob W says:at 4:18 pm

      “Anyone else getting error messages and slow access to Wings”

      Yes, I have had difficulty……..

    136. Robert Louis says:

      The more I see of the Scottish Government and the SNP under nicola Sturgeon’s leadership, the more I think independence is NOT their intention.

      Facts keep piling up, of their behaviour, suggesting that rather than woeking for indy, they are engaged in a process of perpetual spin, with just enough teasers to keep strining independence supporters along.

      If we think about the British state strategically, what better mechanism for preventing independence? Have a party that purports to fight for it, constantly standing for electoral mandates to pursue it, but then, quite by chance, finding that each and every time, it will just be too difficult.

      Seriously, why else would the Scottish government have taken the UK government’s side on this? Actually standing up in a Scottish court and arguing against the democratic rights of the people of Scotland to determine their future.

      I do not doubt the many, many member of the SNP want indy and many of their politicians want it, but the current leader and her abusive, offensive, women-bullying cabal at the top definitely look like they don’t. It’s just one excuse after another, followed by ‘talk about indyref2’ in the months before an election.

      That, among many other reasons, is why I believe Nicola Sturgeon and her husband, in terms of pushing for indy, are complete and utter frauds. Even aside the court case and the bullying of Joanna Cherry and other indy supporters, the fact that Nicola Sturgeon is supposedly pro-indy, is not supported by the fact that despite many electoral mandates, she has done NOTHING to progress independence.

    137. Lochside says:

      I always believed the Keatings case was doomed. Holyrood has no constitutional power that can’t be over-ruled by Westminster.
      All the posturing about the Scottish’Parliament’ being in abeyance up until 1999 is simply tosh. And I’m afraid A.S. reinforced this constitutional miasma by colluding with Cameron by reducing our Sovereign status as an equal partner in Westminster to a gamble.. a roll of the loaded dice of a ‘Referendum’ which was completely stacked in favour of Westminster’s agenda of ‘catching us fast’ just as in 1707…but this time a willing ‘majority’ was conned into a self reducing subordinate colonial status.

      That ‘once in a generation’ stich up has been used to jeer at our ongoing stupidity of not using the direct Constitutional route of the time honoured road map ( until A.S. decided otherwise) of using the UK Constitutional fabrication of a ‘Representative Parliament’ i.e. majority of seats, not votes to dissolve the Union at the source of its inauguration: Westminster. Indeed in 2015, not only was there a majority of seats but votes for Independence parties..SNP and Greens constituted a majority. And before the usual Unionist trolls that infest this site contradict this with the usual pish about the electoral policies of the time..I remind them that the raison d’etre of both parties is/was Independence by electoral means..yet that moment and the subsequent majorities of seats have meant in practice null points..nada…nowt…by the SNP prompting the question: what is the objective of sitting in a Unionist house of hostile English legislators forever without purpose other than pathetic petitioning?

      The Devolution squirrel has occupied and diverted our Constitutional will from Westminster as the objective of the dissolution of the disgraced and disgraceful union. Holyrood is Hollowrood…a half arsed monument to colonial diversion…a play pen for municipal mouthpieces and nonentities with delusions of grandeur. The fulfilment of this colonial con-trick is the corrupt and deluded puppet circus presided over by Sturgeon with the Britmasters working them from behind with their English civil servants and the compromised Copfs and tame Scotcops. The end result will be a shit storm of existential proportions with Sturgeon v Salmond up to their necks in a Brit manufactured implosion that will kill off our aspirations for Independence forever.

    138. Margaret Lindsay says:

      Thanks Skip_nc

    139. Robert Louis says:

      Incidentally, I’ve just had a look at the twitter of cosy pete, and I’m genuinely shocked at his petty comments regarding REV STU. Really, really childish stuff, whilst pete himself insists that it is others who are childish.

      The mind boggles.

    140. Hatuey says:

      The Inquiry is basically dead in the water.

      “ Alex Salmond inquiry ‘in crisis’ over censored evidence, says member Alex Cole-Hamilton”

      “”The SNP are in full slow walking mode,” said a source.“

      https://archive.is/Tahfc

      Corrupt to the core. Fabiani’s mask well and truly gone.

    141. Audrey Simpson says:

      Gutted, sad, angry and shed a tear.

    142. Joan Edington says:

      No coincidence that the SG brought out their 11 stage thingy the very day after the court hearing closed. If it had been announced a couple of days earlier, It would not have been a “hypothetical, academic and premature” matter.

    143. Tannadice Boy says:

      @Hatuey 6:30pm
      It would appear the Inquiry was always a straw man. Let them win in the short term. The long term damage has been written in already. However the ‘four’ shouldn’t sign off the findings. Some of us need to hold true to the truth. Alex Salmond and the rest of us put our trust into a corrupt process. The answer will come from the ballot box but unfortunately not this May. Think of the powerful forces behind this management of the public. The public will wake up eventually and the SNP will go the same way as Labour. The FM has brought the house down and spread salt on the fields.

    144. Liz g says:

      Twatthater @ 5.55
      Yes we’re definitely on the same page Twatthater and thank you for being open minded enough to read and consider what I said .
      The behaviour of those people is pretty disgusting and I don’t intend to support them either.
      But ( and here I go again 🙂 ) I’ll be dammed if those very people will cost me my Country.
      I know that the days of let’s all go forwards together and do this thing are long gone.
      But I’m doing this Independence thing and I’m going to do all that I can to make them do it too!
      I’m no giving them a choice.
      And I’m especially no giving them a choice to slide into some sort of independence that results in a Scotland where they get all their own way…

      If it’s any help to ye…..
      As I see it, the Gender stuff would have been done and dusted by now had the Scots not been paying particular attention to what the politicians were actually up to.
      We were paying attention because of Indy ref one and the Westminster duplicity and because we still read our main source of acurate information ( Wings Obviously , and a lot, a very lot of women know this too )
      We picked up on the GRA and responded … the result of this while no pleasant has ment there is still no GRA … so that tells me that despite all their power ( and it was all of Holyrood here ) they didn’t dare.
      So that’s why I feel ok about saying put them back in and put them in big ……but just as with independence make sure we are on them and make it impossible to to cross us.
      Especially if we can get a decent amount of ISP into Holyrood, who by that time will hopefully be in a position to say we’re no longer just a list party, with all the implications that would bring.
      And if the situation changes believe me I have nae problem changing my mind.
      It’s just how I see things right now
      You must obviously do as you feel is right ….either way , as I’m sure you’ll agree .. Independence is beyond dispute 🙂

    145. Mia says:

      “So what are you going to do if the court, on appeal, say the Scottish parliament does not have the right, or if they say it has the right but Westminster immediately pass a law saying you do not have the right”

      Well, then in my opinion it reverts to the status it was before this idea of the referendum as a “gold standard” was floated out: under parliamentary democracy, a majority of seats for a political party running on a plebiscite on independence, is all what we need.

      To me, actually would make things simpler and fairer. Why? Because a referendum where crown agents are sticking their fingers until their armpits and the franchise is specifically designed to skew the vote against independence, as it was in 2014, is no exercise in self-determination. It is a whitewash. Just like this parliamentary inquiry is nothing but a whitewash designed to stop scrutiny on Sturgeon, the UK civil servants, the crown agents and the plants behind the political conspiracy.

      During the 2014 referendum I knew of people who lived abroad but because they owned a flat in Scotland they were given the opportunity to vote. In the end they chose not to exercise that right, but if they had done so, they would have voted no because they believed what we were told that if they voted yes we would be kicked out of the EU.

    146. cynicalHighlander says:

      For those having difficulty on refreshing Wings either iPad/PC there is no problem here in NE Scotland must be your end.

    147. MaggieC says:

      Re Harassment and Complaints Committee , Update from the main page ,

      Next Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints Meeting Date: 7th Meeting, Monday 08 February 2021 Location : By video conference , The Committee will next meet on Monday 8 February at 9:00am when it will take evidence from Peter Murrell, Chief Executive, Scottish National Party. This meeting will be held virtually.

      Papers for this meeting ,
      .
      https://www.parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/Meeting%20Papers/20210208SGHHCPublicPapers(1).pdf
      .
      Set the alarm clocks and get the popcorn in .

    148. MaggieC says:

      Me @ 7.16 pm

      Re above post , here’s the link to the main page where you can get the link to the papers for the meeting as the above link is broken again .

      They seem to do this quite often as if they don’t want us to find the papers sometimes .

    149. MaggieC says:

      Me @ 7.22 pm

      Sorry folks, I forgot the link to main page ,

      https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/111052.aspx

    150. Lothianlad says:

      I utterly despise to the core of my being the so called leadership’s careerists and betrayer in the SNP SG.

      This is such a shameful betrayal that stu has exposed which will break the SNP and consign them to history like those who sold our freedom..

      People should now be I no doubt that the SNP under murrels leadership have thwarted the best opportunities for Scotland regaining its freedom..

      The anger of TRUE indy supporters should now come to the fore and name and shame all the silent MSPs MPs and elected politicians and staff’s who gave gave way to this betrayal.

      To be hoodwinked into believing that sturgeon was seeking independence whilst working for the other side is shameful beyond words.

      The patience of the indy movement cannot be sustained ed any longer.

      We now know WHO our enemies are. The real people who support independence need to come to the fore.

      Sturgeon has sealed her legacy. She is exposed.

    151. Lothianlad says:

      Its telling g that the brit press published this as the likely outcome last week. I dont have the link.

      Seems the establishment has a long reach.

    152. Lothianlad says:

      Mia at 7.07

      Correct!! The referendum was an illusion of democratic consent.

      I said at the time it was rigged. 30 years after independence’ no’ 100 years’ documents will prove this.

      It’s easier for the brit state to move a few ballot boxes around the counties than fir coulport to be transferred from the clyde.

    153. Jacqueline McMillan says:

      Don’t know if my link worked.

      Lesley Riddoch Estonia film

      Puts nicola sturgeon to shame

      She’s pathetic and dragging us down with her

      I for one am not going to drown in her cesspit of shite

      Too old and she can just feck off

    154. Hatuey says:

      Tannadice, I don’t think they’ll have findings to sign off on. The article suggests unresolvable differences between the corrupt SNP members of the committee and the rest.

      It’s noteworthy that everything they do depends on lying and cheating. Even the coronavirus briefings are a bunch of lies and spin, with the biggest lie of all being the idea that Scotland has its own coronavirus strategy (rather than the UK strategy forced on us), all managed by saintly Nicola. Okay, if she wants to pretend she owns it, well, she owns the thousands dead too…

      They’ve turned Scotland into Gaza and our appeasement government is basically the Palestinian Authority. Anyone that takes their occasional references to independence seriously is pure and simply thick. Even if you did, though, what sort of advert for independence is a bunch of lying, cheating, bastards?

      I’ll never vote for the SNP as long as even one of these scumbags is on the books. And I wouldn’t go near independence with a barge pole if there was any chance that they’d come out of it with more power to abuse. Fuck that.

    155. Eileen Carson says:

      I have a funny feeling the opposition MSPs are planning something, maybe a VONC.

      It’s certainly something I would consider in their position. Even if they don’t succeed, the SNP would go into the election period damaged.

    156. Lothianlad says:

      I echo so much of the above posts .. We will NOT let these people running Scotland deny us independence.

      Were here for however long it takes’ and we are many!

    157. Nosey says:

      You know! I now hope Doris shuts Holyrood now

    158. Tannadice Boy says:

      Hatuey 7:36pm
      I feel your frustration. Same for me. Things can only get better to parody Stus Friday night music theme. The game is on the telly. I have a few beers to crack open. Bad day at BlackRock for the Independence movement. But I remain optimistic in the long term.

    159. Jacqueline McMillan says:

      https://www.nowscotland.scot/about_us

      Just joined

      You should too

    160. Jacqueline McMillan says:

      VONC for nicla

      She’s the fecking stone you bump into

    161. cirsium says:

      @mia, 5.11
      Good comment especially
      If he had not brought the case forward, we wouldn’t know today that Sturgeon’s government has been colluding with the British state government to deny us our right to self determination and that her government is actively fighting against delivering our democratic mandate for indyref betraying their promises to get our votes.

      Martin Keatings did well in bringing this action. It has caused the bad actors to break cover. The sabotaged inquiry at Holyrood has also been very helpful in showing the chasm between the SNP’s/Scottish Government’s words and their actions.

    162. Jacqueline McMillan says:

      circumcision

      Yep I’d go for that

      Let down badly

      Now we know and we just have to get on with it

      Stone in the shoe

      Take it off, give it a shake and just walk on

      Period and put your sand shoe back on 😉

    163. Tinto Chiel says:

      “They’ve turned Scotland into Gaza and our appeasement government is basically the Palestinian Authority.”

      @Hatuey: I rarely agree with you but your comment reminded me of this…..

      http://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+hundred+years+war+on+palestine&crid=2FS68X6JVUW7V&sprefix=the+hundred+years+war%2Caps%2C197&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-doa-p_5_21

      Of course, other paradigms come to mind, e.g. Vichy France but it’s basically the same idea.

    164. Jacqueline McMillan says:

      https://www.nowscotland.scot/about_us

      GIVE THIS A TRY

    165. Stuart MacKay says:

      Mia @5:11pm

      Sturgeon’s government has been colluding with the British state government to deny us our right to self determination

      Of all the things that have happened this is probably the most damning. Think what a person with the calibre and acumen of Salmond could do with such statement. It’s a stick that could be used to beat the SNP all day, every day, from morning til night, without end.

      When it comes to handing the advantage to your political opponents, the SNP leadership is the gift that keeps on giving. All that is needed now is for someone to rise to the challenge.

      Overall I think it’s been a good week. Some hopes have been dashed but we know they were founded on sand anyways. Much better to know the truth path no matter how hard it appears to be.

    166. Jacqueline McMillan says:

      We all know by now what nicla’s been up too. Need to move forward and remove the cancer asap. If she stays on beyond May (I think she will) then we need to step up the game.

      She’s just one person (H****r) youth.

      There is no way she can stymy us.

      We are much more than she is and slippers can feck off as well. Many are seat warming arseholes. We have a vote in May, we also have our voice AND our vote. I’ve written to my reps and told them exactly the situ which they very well know. I never thought it would come to this, but if nic stays I’m spoiling my paper big time 🙁

    167. Saffron Robe says:

      Can’t say I’m all too surprised. If you ask someone with vested interests a question, their reply will always be in accordance with their vested interests, no matter how cleverly disguised.

      What would happen to the gaoler who made it known to the prisoner that the cell door was unlocked?

    168. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi MaggieC.

      The problem with the links that end with “.pdf” is that, in most cases, for some reason, the WOS blog doesn’t include the “.pdf” as part of the link – it is in black (plain text), whereas everything before the “.pdf” is in blue, showing an active link.

      If someone clicks on the link, the blue part will appear in their browser’s address bar but the PDF document will not be displayed. Probably see an “Error 404”.

      All they have to do is add
      .pdf
      to the end of the url in the address bar, then refresh the page or tab. The page (the PDF document) will then display correctly.

    169. Tinto Chiel says:

      @Saffron Robe: remember Plato’s cave, me old haricot. So many in Scotland stare stupidly at the wall and mistake it for some kind of life.

      Nicla rather likes that……

    170. twathater says:

      Lady C’s judgement was more or less to be expected , it is basically a get out and a non judgement it is a copout

      May I first say that I thank Martin for taking on this strenuous and worrisome task on our behalf, your efforts and courage have shown you are a true Scotsman whose intentions have been completely honourable and unselfish

      However as a contributor on three occasions to the crowdfunder may I appeal to Martin to delay and pause ANY further efforts to continue on to the appeal stage at this present time

      We are in a situation where a HR election is imminent and we have a queen of betrayals supported by a coven of sycophantic apologists insisting that the QoB will hold a indy ref irrespective of bozo’s refusal , if the SNP win a majority at the HR elections the QoB and her sycophants will either have to shit or get off the pot

      Currently we don’t have a indy party strong enough to challenge the roasters which Sturgeon is depending on which is exemplified by her contempt of Scots voters

    171. Saffron Robe says:

      Tinto Chiel,

      I was just thinking that. The Sturgeonites think she is leading them into Paradise; all the while she is dragging Scotland down into the inner circles of Hell.

    172. Tinto Chiel says:

      @Saffron Robe: yes, but our problems would be solved if we had a free press on the Scandinavian model and the Lord Advocate were removed from cabinet (I’m still not absolutely sure the LA was not allowed to sit there under Alex Salmond but I have heard that).

      At the moment, Scotland struggles to be a banana republic, and we can barely grow bananas under glass here in summer 🙂 .

      If I were younger, I’d just bugger off to a real country. I can never forgive the SG leadership for their cynical and self-serving capitulation.

    173. Mario Antionette says:

      I’m a bit puzzled, are you suggesting that a Scottish judge can only decide in favour of the controlling party, indeed had an obligation to do so? You’re better than this.

    174. Colin Alexander says:

      Purrin Betty aka Queen Elizabeth, is not Queen of Scots. She was crowned Queen of GB and NI etc.

      Her oath makes that clear:

      “Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?”

    175. Colin Alexander says:

      Actions speak louder than words.

      What actions have the SNP done to secure independence under Sturgeon? None.

      Instead, the SNP Scottish Government are in bed with the UK Government opposing independence campaigners who are trying to obtain a legal ruling that the Scottish Parliament can hold an indyref without permission from UK Parliament.

      Sturgeon’s SNP: Colonial administrator wolves in sheep’s claes ( sheep being an apt choice of word for those who still support Sturgeon’s SNP).

    176. Graham says:

      I’ve previously advocated that there’s nothing to gain by not voting SNP. I asked to be proven wrong. I honestly want to be proven wrong. We can’t vote for a non SNP Indy constituency candidate (right?) so please tell me; what strategy avoids electing the SNP but is still a vote for Indy?

    177. Saffron Robe says:

      Tinto Chiel, I don’t disagree, but I’m not sure that our current plight can be put down to anything other than Nicola Sturgeon’s mendacity. The prognosis may not be good, but right will always be right.

    178. Hatuey says:

      I see people on here asking about political parties and who to vote for if not SNP. I struggle to take any of it seriously.

      What are we talking about, sending people to sit in a fake parliament that has no power?

      Or are we talking about the big Parliament in London where SNP MPs go to get laughed at?

      If Sturgeon has helped with one thing, she has proven that there is no electoral route to independence available for Scotland. Nothing we do in any election will take us to independence.

      It’s time for the independence movement to get off the fake merry-go-round.

      We don’t need to reinvent the wheel though. We simply do what successful independence movements in other countries did – build a mass movement and demand change.

      The politics and political parties come later, after we have independence.

    179. Tinto Chiel says:

      @Saffron Robe: mendacity right enough.

      The word always makes me smile because a long-dead sports journalist, James Sanderson, would always wrong-foot rabid and stupid football fans during phone-ins on Radio Clyde by asking them, “Are you accusing me of mendacity?”

      Since they had no idea what he meant, the hot air quickly drained from their balloons 🙂 .

    180. Liz g says:

      Hatuey @ 10 . 46
      So … who do you suggest we vote for come the May election?
      Because there is going to be an election.
      Some Party is going to take charge of Holyrood.
      There’s no problem if you don’t mind the British running Holyrood.
      But if ye don’t then there’s a discussion to be had …Aye ?

    181. maxxmacc says:

      With 35 years in Scottish politics, as a member of various parties, (but always supporting independence) here is my take on things as they stand:

      The Scottish nation is in a stranglehold, and the current SNP leadership don’t seem particularly bothered about trying to escape from the position.

      We were given the vote in 2014 as Cameron mistakenly thought the vote would be an easy win for the Union. No Tory or indeed Labour PM will make the same mistake again, as the Scottish people might well stand up for themselves en-masse the next time.

      So what is to be done? To me now, there is only one person who can deliver independence, and it won’t be the FM, or the PM, but the President of the United States of America. Even if we organise our own referendum, it will be ignored in the same way that Catalonia’s was. The European Union won’t fight for Scotland due to France and Spain fearing the disintegration of their country.

      I genuinely think that the only way we can break free from the Westminster stranglehold is to apply to become the 51st State of the American Union. Offer them as many new American bases here as they want, in return from leaving the UK and joining them.

      Yes it is a wacky idea, but it is the only way I see ahead for breaking the Westminster death-lock. And let’s face it, nothing happens politically anywhere in the world without the Americans supporting it. So hell yeah, why not! It can’t be any worse than the terrible future we are faced with now.

    182. Hatuey says:

      Liz G, I have no problem with British Unionist parties dominating a fake Parliament that has no powers.

      As for who I’d suggest people vote for, I think more would be achieved by a mass abstention.

      It’s a funny situation we are in. People who understand that devolution and Holyrood were basically designed to prevent independence go around excitedly talking about who they will vote for (…because they want independence), etc.

      Correct me if I’m wrong but Westminster is telling you they aren’t giving you a referendum no matter how you vote, it’s written into the Scotland act that you can’t do a thing in that Parliament towards independence, the MSM, everybody, even the SNP itself, all telling you that nothing can be done. They have about 5 mandates as it is…

      I’m too dumb to function with contradictions like that in my head. But I believe it. There isn’t an electoral route to independence. That is to say, it doesn’t matter how you vote, you aren’t getting a referendum. I don’t know why anyone would refuse to believe them when they tell you that a thousand times.

    183. Liz g says:

      Hatuey @ 1.28
      I’m under no illusions about Westminster Hatuey,I don’t even believe a Yes vote in 2014 would have led to Westminster sitting down to negotiate in good faith.
      As the polls tightened the House of Lords were discussing whither or not Cameron really had the power to agree to diminish the Westminster Parliament.
      Make of that what ye will !

      What I do have an issue with is Boris Johnston using Mays vote to demonstrate he’s been right all along and the Scottish People didn’t vote for a referendum.
      We in fact returned MSPs who were committed to the Union and , the SNP couldn’t even inspire their own Base to turn out.
      Because Hautey say it he will, they all will…….if we don’t make it very clear that we will vote in the in large numbers for at least the promise of independence.
      On that the SNP are right and they have us very much over a barrel right now.

      It is our own fault for getting behind them in 2014 and not forming a political force to stand beside them.
      Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn’t it ?
      But we are where we are and ,as I said, to use this particular vote to punish them looks like rage and short term rage at that.
      Like it or not this election is the statement election on independence…. what flows from the vote may result ( although I agree it’s unlikely) in another Reffrendum or something different which opens up another avenue to ending the Union.
      Either way the statement must be made this coming May, we have to act where we can and not where we we’d like to.

      Not to do so would be foolish because it would create another rod for our own backs.
      At the very least we can realistically vote for a Holyrood that will be a place holder for independence and take it from there.
      To vote for or just stand down and let the British in and we only feed the Boris Johnston narrative.

      There’s also very much another consideration here, there is a core SNP base who will be ecstatic and empowered at a huge SNP victory…… they still believe in an upcoming referendum and will expect it from their party , and that’s fine be me. We can leave it to them to keep the pressure on their party to show us all they were right, all along.
      The SNP will be stuck in Holyrood and can’t ever tell their base they will be sticking with the Union, their facade has to hold. ( that’s a kind of revenge Hatuey , don’t ye think ? )
      So
      Those of us who can see that their needs to be another kind of leverage to end this accursed Union can get on with making that happen , but we need to buy ourselves that time to organise…. without advancing the Unionist position !
      So I say again return the SNP in the constituency and ISP on the list and do it in huge numbers.

    184. Hatuey says:

      Liz, I’m genuinely shocked at some of that.

      “Like it or not this election is the statement election on independence…”

      My God. They say that every time. You’re suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

      The idea that being loyal to selfish tyrants and cheats somehow puts pressure on them to deliver on the things you want is the foundation of abusive relationships all over the world.

      As for Boris saying reduced support for the SNP equates to reduced support for independence, that’s exactly what will happen, just as it happened in 2017. The solution to that is to get out of it and do something constructive and real.

      Sturgeon will never deliver independence. It’s impossible. She’s totally compromised.

    185. Graham says:

      @ Hatuey
      @ Liz G
      @maxxmacc

      Thanks for engaging. The alternatives proposed are:

      “…build a mass movement and demand change. Mass abstention. get out of it and do something constructive and real.”

      Care to elaborate on what that actually looks like? Building a mass movement, is what the SNP did! Mass abstention, get out of it… So separate the issue from politics, and instead do… Something constructive and real… such as? Insurrection? What mass movement that has no political representation is constructive and real? The issue IS a political one; our governance IS a matter of politics. What are you proposing as an alternative to a political movement?

      I genuinely want to know, because in the absence of an alternative, it’s a case of better the devil that ostensibly represents independence.

      Question remains, who you gonna vote for and what is the intended consequence? The least bad option this May is SNP and ISP.

    186. Graham says:

      @Liz g
      “I don’t even believe a Yes vote in 2014 would have led to Westminster sitting down to negotiate in good faith.“
      Spot on Liz. We know how much blood has been shed trying to prevent people escaping British tyranny, I never believed they’d let go of Scotland without the same. It’s their prize possession, more than Ireland, more than any colony. No reason to expect peace let alone a fair shake.

    187. Hatuey says:

      “ Care to elaborate on what that actually looks like? Building a mass movement, is what the SNP did! Mass abstention, get out of it… So separate the issue from politics, and instead do… Something constructive and real… such as? Insurrection? What mass movement that has no political representation is constructive and real? The issue IS a political one; our governance IS a matter of politics. What are you proposing….”

      Blah, blah, blah.

      You have a strange blind faith in politicians and what we call democracy. Most of what follows is completely uncontroversial and based on elementary truths that nobody could reasonably argue with.

      1) most, probably well over 90% of national liberation movements (NLMs) used mass social movements as their foundational underpinnings. The politicians were essentially reduced to sort of delegates acting under instruction of those movements. We seem to be trying to do things back to front or something.

      2) the reason mass social movements succeeded and were appropriate is worth considering; in most countries pro-independence political parties were banned. NLMs were and are banned too but they’re harder to undermine and control for obvious reasons. In Scotland pro-independence parties are as good as banned – they tell us every day that voting for them is futile and we all know the MSM and whole establishment is institutionally opposed to Scottish independence. It’s my assessment that independence is not going to be possible in Scotland using existing political structures and elections. And don’t forget that they have said it would be illegal for Scotland to go down certain political roads.

      3) a mass movement with say even 1 million members would have unbelievable clout if it confined itself to the single issue of independence. If those members contributed around £50 each per year, they’d also have financial clout and I can think of a million ways to throw that around in ways that would promote independence – they could also sponsor and fund politicians, just as the unions did in the early 20th century. If the politicians veer from the delegated role, the mass movement pulls the plug on them and replaces them (we have learned a lot about that sort of stuff since Ramsay McDonald).

      It goes without saying that such a mass movement type organisation could also invest in research, arts, and many other things that promote the cause. They could also orchestrate civil disobedience and things like national days of strike. Nothing the establishment or British State could do in terms of changing electoral rules or moving goalposts would be able to destroy a movement like that and stop it hovering in the background.

      The good news is it’s probably happening. Now Scotland has the makings of such a movement. If they achieve what I’ve described, independence becomes unstoppable in a matter of months. And there’s a justice in all this; they rigged politics and are essentially forcing us in this direction.

      So be it.

      3)

    188. Graham says:

      Hatuey, you seem to live in a dream world. A diminished representation of Indy parties in holyrood plus a marketing campaign and strikes = independence in a matter of months.

      If you want incontrovertible truths; electing Indy parties, holding a referendum/plebiscite, and declaring independence at a political level is how independence will be achieved in Scotland, where independence parties are legal, where apparently 60% of voters are ready to vote for it, and where any other shenanigans in lieu of the democratic voice of the people will rightly derided.

      Good luck with your ‘mass movement’ and it’s £50 million budget.

    189. Daisy Walker says:

      @ re
      maxxmacc says:
      Such lazy , lazy thinking from the US contingent.

      Can you please let your Teacher know. Its not so much as ‘could do better’, as so far, hasn’t even started.’

      Off you go petal, away ‘n play some computer games or some such.

    190. Paul O'Brien says:

      There is a reason the SG opposed a ruling at this stage and its called strategy. In poker, if you have a reasonable but not unbeatable hand, its all about the timing of when you choose to play it. Assuming the SNP win a clear mandate in May, they can request a section 30 and make it clear that a refusal will mean taking court action. That approach makes it harder for Boris to decline as he wont want to risk losing in court. If there was a court ruling before then and we lose, then Boris can say no without any jeopardy.

    191. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “There is a reason the SG opposed a ruling at this stage and its called strategy. In poker, if you have a reasonable but not unbeatable hand, its all about the timing of when you choose to play it. Assuming the SNP win a clear mandate in May, they can request a section 30 and make it clear that a refusal will mean taking court action. That approach makes it harder for Boris to decline as he wont want to risk losing in court. If there was a court ruling before then and we lose, then Boris can say no without any jeopardy.”

      Would you like to buy a bridge? One careful owner, very reasonable price.

    192. Gary says:

      It is being proclaimed as a victory for unionists but in fact the question has not yet been tested in law. They have simply stated he has no standing to bring the case as he cannot himself hold a referendum. By withdrawing from the case the Scottish Government has ensured it cannot be properly heard.

      This is either genius or stupidity. Having spent a few years in the Civil Service I know how unlikely it is to be genius.

      But it COULD be genius because the might of Westminster could be thrown at the case to ensure that Scots have no leverage to hold a referendum. Likewise by going for this outcome Westminster did not risk losing either.

      So that’s it, stalemate. Meanwhile the world kept turning and support for Indy building.

      What wins independence is the overwhelming obviousness of it. It happens when the tide can’t be held back and it becomes a political embarrassment. With instant communication they can’t do what they have done in India or Ireland or anywhere else where ‘troublemakers’ were shot or rounded up and imprisoned – knowing that it wouldn’t be heard about in the Home Counties.

      Boris simply doesn’t want to be the man to agree to it. But if it hasn’t happened by the end of his term it will happen right after it.



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




    ↑ Top