The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The fire sale

Posted on August 05, 2018 by

Scotland On Sunday has a very odd front-page splash today.

In a truly remarkable feat of sheer journalistic incompetence, the paper’s Tom Peterkin manages to cover three pages discussing the idea of an independent Scotland renting the Faslane naval base to the UK without once even mentioning the two very recent opinion polls conducted on that exact subject, on both sides of what would in those circumstances be the international border.

But that’s not the weirdest bit.

What’s weird is that retired “former SNP defence adviser” Lt-Col Stuart Crawford, who readers may recall, has apparently reached the entirely logical conclusion that such an arrangement would be the most pragmatic solution for all parties to the problem posed by the nuclear weapons system after independence, but has – seemingly unilaterally – decided to give the base away for peanuts.

We don’t know what sort of education Crawford had, but it clearly didn’t cover the fine art of negotiating. We already know from our first poll that the English public would be willing – by a margin of almost two to one – to pay at least FIVE billion pounds a year to rent Faslane, and most Scots are onboard with the idea at that price, but only a third would be happy to host the submarines on the cheap.

And given that the rUK’s negotiating position would be even weaker than the one it currently wields with the EU – there is nowhere else for Trident to possibly go – it’s extremely difficult to imagine why on Earth the Scottish Government would ever agree to such a poor bargain.

The only rational assessment is that Crawford’s “estimate” is the first attempt to set the parameters of a process which clearly terrifies the UK establishment. Were a more realistic settlement for such a deal to be factored into the economic debate around independence – on top of the radical redrawing that Brexit already represents – then a Yes vote would increasingly obviously become the smart financial move, as well as a compelling ideological principle.

That, we suspect, is why both Stuart Crawford and Tom Peterkin want to get a head start on trying to define this particular debate in a frame that minimises the possible benefits of independence, and why they’re so determinedly turning a blind eye to both established facts and blindingly obvious logic to do so.

It’s not the most obvious illustration of the absolute panic the Unionists are currently gripped by, but it’s perhaps one of the most revealing.

Print Friendly

    451 to “The fire sale”

    1. louis.b.argyll says:

      It’s as if independence will bring no change for the better.

      As if we’ll make the same mistakes as generations of UK ministers have made, knowing what we now know about our over-complicated yet fundamentally simple world.

    2. Lenny Hartley says:

      America to Block Scotland’s membership of Nato unless we let the use Faslane!
      Take it geography is not one of Crawford’s strong points!

    3. fionan says:

      It strikes me that way too many Scots are truly Thatcher’s children if they are happy to remain a nuclear target in return for £5billion. How do they think they will spend it when they are vapourised at best, or lying skinless, immobilised by radiation sickness and dying a horrible slow painful death at worst?

      We are not too wee, we are certainly not too poor, but sometimes I wonder if we are indeed too stupid! Genetically programmed?

    4. Calum McKay says:

      No if”s nor but”s, trident must go immediately upon independence.

      trident is not a bargaining tool, it”s an obscenity that must be removed from a free Scotland!

      Let England have trident for the cost it takes to dismantle it and remove it!

    5. Yerkitbreeks says:

      1 or 5 billion – no point in getting overexcited since as we can see from the potential Brexit horse trading the final figure is likely to be somewhere in between.

    6. Ken500 says:

      Cancelled on Brexit.

      Trident costs £10Billion a year. An addition £5Billion for lease. No chance. People are starving in the streets. Sanctioned and starved. Illegal wars are killing and maiming millions. £5Billion could eradicate poverty.

      Scottish EU contribution. £1Billion. £Billions of benefits. Including shared Defence. Grants and investment. CAP payments. £15Billion of trade. Nearest, biggest market. Good social Laws. Human rights etc. Stopped wars and starvation.

      Trident cost Scotland £1Billion. That could eradicate poverty.

    7. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “1 or 5 billion – no point in getting overexcited since as we can see from the potential Brexit horse trading the final figure is likely to be somewhere in between.”

      What are you talking about? What leverage does the UK have in the negotiation? Why would Scotland concede anything?

    8. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “It strikes me that way too many Scots are truly Thatcher’s children if they are happy to remain a nuclear target in return for £5billion. How do they think they will spend it when they are vapourised at best, or lying skinless, immobilised by radiation sickness and dying a horrible slow painful death at worst?”

      I have bad news for you: if there’s ever a nuclear war we’re all dead whether Trident is on the Clyde or not, and the people with the worst deaths will be the ones who were furthest away from the nuclear targets.

      But can we PLEASE not have this boring “moral” debate again? It’s been done, and it’s not what this article is about, so I’ll delete comments if I have to to keep the discussion on track.

    9. Richard Hunter says:

      Personally I’d start at £10 billion.

    10. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Trident costs £10Billion a year.”

      No it doesn’t. Not even the proposed replacement costs anything like that.

      “An addition £5Billion for lease. No chance. People are starving in the streets. Sanctioned and starved. Illegal wars are killing and maiming millions. £5Billion could eradicate poverty.”

      I’m confused. Do you want the £5bn or don’t you?

    11. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Personally I’d start at £10 billion.”

      Yeah, £5bn seems quite a moderate figure to me. If the rUK tried to play hardball in negotiations, we just hike the price. They’d sell the NHS to Burger King before they’d give up their big-boy toy.

    12. Soosider3 says:

      Seeing as we are playing hypothetical scenarios how about this one.
      An independent Scotland allows the use of Faslane for 10 years on condition that UK waives any liability an independent Scotland might have for a proportion of the UKs debt.

    13. Garry Sutherland says:

      Didn’t the Sustainable Growth report state we would pay rest of UK £5Billion per year as our share of historic debt? Rent Faslane to RUK at £5Billion for 20 years and our debt is paid without having cost Scots economy a penny.

    14. Vestas says:

      Given that the AWE at both Burghfield and Aldermaston are under threat of closure by the ONR because of the absymal state of them (more than 1000 safety defects, both in “special measures”) the English can keep their fucking nukes down south!

      If its that bad in Berkshire then what the hell is it like at Faslane?

      When (not if) an accident happens to nukes in transit is England going to pay to clean it up/compensate people? Like hell they are.

      Nukes out ASAP & fuck NATO too, the yanks can’t be trusted.

    15. Les Wilson says:

      Trident should go, until then Scotland is a first strike target, unfortunately not Westminster.

      If for money’s sake it has to stay a while, it should be at a very high costs from day one. Escalating every year to a max of three years.
      £5 billion first year, £10 billion second, and £15 billion in third year.

      That would encourage them to get it all away fast. We could probably get years one and two, it would all be done, somehow, to save the £15 billion last payment.

    16. ahundredthidiot says:

      25 year lease, starting at £5b a year rising by 5% per year. Penalty set for pulling out early at 75% of remaining contract. Additional 10 years option to extend current deal for an upfront £20B.

      non negotiable.

    17. Dubbyside says:

      How about minimum £10 ml per year, and all the rusting subs at Rosyth cleared in first year or no deal.

    18. Brian Powell says:

      The last time I heard Lt-Col Stuart Crawford say anything was on a call in programme in 2013 (I think it was 2013) and he didn’t real sound on the SNP’s side even then.

      I guess he joins Alex Bell and Jim (I hate the SNP but won’t leave it) Sillars.

      The sad old Sunday Herald seems to have shot itself in the foot, hopped around a bit then sat down on a spike. Being a Westminster establishment enabler is turning out to be a bad move for these papers.

    19. Andy-B says:

      Regardless of what these men say the Scottish government could name their own price on renting out Faslane. Personally if they can give the DUP a £1 billion plus bung, then £10 billion per annum (or more) to rent out Faslane for a limited period of time seems the right thing to do.

      Lets take back some of what weve lost in North sea revenue.

    20. Ian McCubbin says:

      Delusion again.
      If independent Scotland did a deal it would be short term for a high price plus realign Scotland’s North Sea border to pre 1997 position, no share of UK debt and money in lieu of oil revenue not spent in Scotland since McCrone report written.

    21. Willie John says:

      Scotland: Rent for Faslane £5bn + £5 for Coulport.
      WM: That’s too much. £1bn for both.
      Scotland: £11bn.
      WM. That’s ridiculous. £2bn.
      Scotland: £12bn.
      WM. That’s not how you negotiate! £3bn, final offer.
      Scotland: You’ve got six months to remove them.

    22. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “An independent Scotland allows the use of Faslane for 10 years on condition that UK waives any liability an independent Scotland might have for a proportion of the UKs debt.”

      Bad deal, as we have no liability for that anyway.

    23. Jim says:

      Les Wilson;

      Bang on the money with that yin! Trident goes, in a way that is practical and responsible, and the scottish people reap ever increasing compensation the longer it remains.

      Would require some reliable provision for environmental oversight though

    24. Graham says:

      Soosider3, an Independent Scotland would not be liable for any proportion of the UK’s debt.
      This is established fact.

    25. Greannach says:

      Is that a photo of Boris Johnson wearing specs for a laugh?

    26. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      Rev – Ken500 is a bot.

    27. jim says:

      Whether we are independent or not, nuclear weapons or not best guesses are that we will still be a target in a nuclear war, while bases on the Clyde and Forth exist.

    28. Capella says:

      Westminster could always cancel Trident and save themselves a pile of money and save us an appalling hassle. I believe Spain got the US to remove their nuclear weapons withn 2 years of the restoration of democracy.

    29. Bill Hume says:

      My personal hope is that we get rid of nuclear weapons from Scotland as soon as we can.
      Whilst I like the concept of clawing back some of the cash stolen from Scotland by the Westminster elite (note..not ‘the English’…..most working class English people saw precious little of the stolen money) I see a couple of problems with this approach.

      1. With England out of the EU and no longer subsidised by Scotland……..would they have the cash?

      2. Do we really want a financially broken neighbour next door?

      Bear in mind that WW2 grew out of the hardships imposed on Germany after WW1 by the victors. That is not a road I would wish to follow

    30. galamcennalath says:

      Willie John says:

      Scotland: Rent for Faslane £5bn + £5 for Coulport.
      WM: That’s too much. £1bn for both.

      I suspect the rUK opening position, full of the usual exceptionalism and entitlement, might be to simply keep the bases as sovereign territory as they did in Cyprus!

      Take the ongoing Brexit fiasco as an example of contemporary WM negotiating skills … demand an unacceptable and therefore completely improbable outcome. Then stick with it until it all collapses!

      I have very serious doubts about WM’s ability to coherently negotiate the dissolution of the UK. It would get bogged down internally with factions and vested interests deperately trying to completely avoid the inevitable. And even those who wanted to move forward would still want unattainable concessions.

      IMO independence talks will definitely not go smoothly.

    31. Neil Mackenzie says:

      I see they’re still subtly pushing the lie that you have to have nukes to be in NATO.

      NATO ? “nuclear defence alliance”

    32. Thepnr says:

      The whole point of articles of this type in the MSM is purely an attempt at reducing support for Independence among those who would be inclined to support it over what are often emotive issues. The £, the Queen, Trident

      Some would allow single issues to sway them away from giving their support in a referendum for an Independent Scotland. If getting rid of Trident is your main reason for voting Yes then to find that it wasn’t being got rid of immediately might make some ask “well what’s the point of voting Yes” and then either not vote or even vote No.

      Those that would change their mind like this are failing to appreciate that only an Independent Scotland could possibly ever give them the choice of getting rid of Trident. By remaining as part of the UK they are giving themselves no say whatsoever in the fate of Trident.

      I try to steer clear of “single issues” that are highly controversial and instead focus on the fact that it is only with Independence will your voice carry any weight on any subject that might be close to your heart.

    33. Glasgowruss79 says:

      As a pragmatic Yesser, it’s been there for ages and likely will be for sometime. I took the poll and went for the £5bn a year lease option. Would I rather it was removed and we (globally) didn’t have any nukes? Yes of course. But while it is there and the rUK has nowhere else to put it then they can pay for the privelege thanks very much. If they can afford for HSE to cost 3x as original estimate this is small change.

    34. Stravaiger says:


      God: “To me…”
      Barry Chuckle: “To you…”

      R.I.P. Barry.

    35. Legerwood says:

      Brian Powell says:
      5 August, 2018 at 11:22 am
      “”The sad old Sunday Herald seems to have shot itself in the foot, hopped around a bit then sat down on a spike. Being a Westminster establishment enabler is turning out to be a bad move for these papers.””
      This Trident story is in Scotland on Sunday

    36. Glamaig says:

      The vital point is that only a vote for independence will give Scotland any say in this at all.

    37. Donald anderson says:

      Peterkins ia an English spy. The words British and Intelligence are an oxymoron.

    38. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      My own position is that Trident on the Clyde serves no purpose whatsoever (apart from making central Scotland the number one target in a nuclear argument)as only psychopathic lunatic would start a nuclear conflict and such a person is oblivious to any deterrent.

      Govanhill,a fairly small part of a Glasgow Southside constituency bordering on the Queens Park and is a fairly pleasant and unremarkable place with some social problems. The SUN is continuing a vicious and completely unbalanced campaign against Govanhill and its very varied and generally very nice peoples – because it is aprt of Nicola Sturgeon’s and Alison Thewlis’s constituency. Govanhill should do a Liverpool on the SUN

    39. panda paws says:

      Willie John @11.28am

      I do like your negotiating style!

      My preference high and increasing storage charges for a limited period (max of 10 years) to allow them to build their own facilities. Then get tae.

    40. Catherine says:

      The price should be high enough that they have a real incentive to remove the damn thing. We should charge them by the month and hike the price every month. And they should be made to clean up after it too.

    41. In any post-independence scenario regarding Faslane, the problem won’t be with Westminster; it’ll be the Pentagon and the US State Department who regard Scotland’s northerly position as a natural, defensive bulwark against any Russian naval race-to-the-South. Let’s trade, if we must, with the organ-grinder, not his monkey.

    42. Alt Clut says:

      The argument about us all being killed in a nuclear war may well be true but misses the point entirely,

      If newly independent Scotland forces the earliest, safe removal of Trident from our soil that is possible it has the potential to set off a dynamic. Aldermaston and Burghfield are decrepit. Replacemrnt cost for them plus a new Trident base plus renewing Trident is out of reach for crippled, post Brexit, rUK.

      A signal to others that nukes can be removed and one set of dangerous hands off the nuclear trigger. Progress and a chance of preventing the war that will kill us all.

      If we don’t try this then nothing is more certain than that the nuclear war will come one day and Scottish independence will be so many deckchairs on the Titanic.

      Between independence and Trident removal squeeze them for money until the pips squeek – but not a day longer.

    43. Eddie3dugs says:

      It will takes years to dismantle the nuclear side of things
      Probs aboot 10 by the time Westminster decides where to place it in england, £50 billion!! No bad
      And hopefully invested wisely, Mibbees a replacement fur the oil fund we should have had

    44. Tam Fae somewhere says:

      Faslane is the item that gets the U.K. to the negotiating table and gets them to agree things relatively quickly.

      Get payments up front too so the new Scottish central bank has some currency in place quickly.

    45. Danny says:

      The figure of £10 Billion a year for the lease of Faslane would do for shutting up ignorant BritNats who bombard you with the Billions of pounds deficit they say an Independent Scotland would have.

      So in one way, the figure of £10 Billion does serve one purpose.

    46. Liz g says:

      While I understand the bargaining power of that base… and my position is NEVER, for the sake of the discussion…..
      Wouldn’t renting it out to the British MOD, mean that the Scottish Navy are left with a “second best”
      site for our Base?
      One that we would need to build from scratch?
      Wouldn’t we need to explore IF there’s really oil in the waters round the base and what kind of revenue/jobs would be forfeited to accommodate it first ?

      As for the article… we COULDNT realistically move it for decades ????
      Aye right…. yes we could, it’s no our problem where it goes!
      The warheads that endanger Scotland (from accidents)when they are taken on and of the missile at Coleport can be banned from Scotland pretty quickly.
      Once again they write as if we are stupid…( not you Rev the guy in the article )

    47. Thepnr says:

      Being Independent not only gives every Scot a say in the fate of Trident through whoever they choose to elect but it also gives them a choice in whether to pay for Trident’s replacement or not.

      The UK plan to spend between £100 and £200 billion over the lifetime of the replacement. Every Scot will be paying their share towards this folly through their taxes.

      Only Independence gives you a say on where your taxes should be spent, I’m pretty sure we have a much more acceptable list of priorities where our money should be spent in making Scotland better and that doesn’t include nuclear weapons.

      Independence gives Scots the Freedom to make their own choices!

    48. Proud Cybernat says:

      What Thepnr said @ 11:59am.

      It’s a distraction. We can have these discussions AFTER we’ve secured a YES victory and indy. Until that happens, all such discussions are moot.

    49. mogabee says:

      I’d start off at 10billion in the negotiations. Nice round sum and just imagine how much could be done with that to help set up an independent nation!

      Sort out the necessity for food banks asap would be high on my list.

      Col. Crawford leading the anti-charge it appears. Who will be next, anyone make an edumacated guess? 😀

    50. Fred says:

      Anent non-proliferation of Nukes, what is the legality of one country keeping its Nukes in another?

    51. Danny says:

      Putting the £10 Billion lease to one side for a moment, isn’t it ILLEGAL for a Non-Nuclear Power to store Nuclear Weapons?

      Therefore, Scotland would be breaking all sorts of International laws.

      Something our new Nation could do without.

    52. Mike says:

      A very very very bad idea. This will leave wide open a bid by an rUK Government to claim Faslane as Sovereign base territory. It would leave the door open to a annexation bid.
      Lets not leave that door open Christ we all know what they’re like when it comes to taking other peoples territory.

    53. Scott Cameron says:

      I remember Tom from a long time ago. Not the sharpest tool in the box. His dad was one of those Tory GP types, who looked down at you in a pull-yourself-together manner, who packed Tom off the private school. Turns out Tom is chip off the old block in the way that he hates oiks too

    54. Hamish100 says:

      If there is a nuclear war we are all dead. If there is a nuclear accident Scotland is dead.

      I am not prepared for my children or grandchildren or being selfish me to suffer. When you think about it the nuclear powered reactors are deliberately sunk leaving the Clyde and to move around our coasts preventing fishermen from carrying out their task without fear, the odd sub appearing on a beach now and again, oil and gas exploration banned and we are not even talking about the nuclear weapons contained therein with their radioactive cargo.

      Get rid of them. Conventional navy/coastguard ships built on the Clyde is the way.

    55. Maybe I read it wrong but is Stu., saying he will not allow certain blogs he does not agree with if so it is censorship just like the BBC all the money in the world is not worth one human life

    56. Muscleguy says:

      As a SCND member my position is that ScotGov should insist no new submarines should be based there and preferably that the hunter-killers should be returned to Porstmouth from whence they came.

      HMG can put the newer Trident subs in their newer hypothetical base. Hosting the new ones as well would send all the wrong signals. Making the new boats have to sit in storage wanting a base would concentrate rUK minds on finding a site for a base soonest.

    57. Muscleguy says:

      Oh and while I’m at it the rusting nuclear hulks rotting at their moorings in Rosyth be removed from Scottish waters at the earliest opportunity.

    58. alwi says:

      Let USA host them on their East Coast until rUK build a new facility. Sorted. rUK can pay for the Faslane clean up costs which will be substantial.

    59. yerkitbreeks says:

      ” What are you talking about? What leverage does the UK have in the negotiation? Why would Scotland concede anything? ”

      Mr Campbell – you’re in danger of sounding like a Brexiteer

    60. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      The Hong Kong Gambit, this time in reverse.

      Maybe we could pillage their current account rather than them ours.

    61. cearc says:

      I think the non-proliferation legal aspect can be dealt with by having the sites and removal process under the supervision of the UN nuclear and weapons bodies from day one to completion.

    62. Orri says:

      Thing is 1bn might be a realistic estimate of the most a post Brexit rUK could afford whilst building a replacement base.

      Also bear in mind why, allegedly, there’s no oil exploration in the Clyde. It’s due to Faslane being inshore. Sovereign territory as a polite term for a military occupation is kind of hard to pull of when you aren’t in a coastal location.

      Given the whole offshore ex regio bullshit for keeping oil revenue being attributed to Scotland another reason might be that it’d be harder to attempt that scam. Although Fraking will probably bring in a Crown Estate argument for anything dug up from the ground.

    63. Maybe I read it wrong but did Stu.,say he will not print any posts he does not think are to the point he raises well that’s censorship just like the BBC all the money in the world is not worth one human life get trident out of Scotland asap

    64. galamcennalath says:

      Hamish100 says:

      move around our coasts preventing fishermen from carrying out their task without fear, the odd sub appearing on a beach now and again, oil and gas exploration banned

      Indeed. It all goes beyond the two bases. Within iScottish territorial waters and beyond in our maritime economic zone, their subs will need to be restricted in where they can go what they can do. As a minimum, their locations when in iScottish waters must be known to our own maritime defence forces. They shouldn’t be hiding in our waters for tactical reasons and they shouldn’t be interfering with fishing and oil. It is no longer their back yard!

      Perhaps these restrictions will reduce effectiveness and add to the argument they should move south as soon a possible.

    65. Robert Peffers says:

      @Soosider3 says: 5 August, 2018 at 11:05 am:

      ” … An independent Scotland allows the use of Faslane for 10 years on condition that UK waives any liability an independent Scotland might have for a proportion of the UKs debt.”

      Oh! Aye! What liability would an independent Scotland have for the United Kingdom’s debts?

      They are the United Kingdom government’s debts and no one else’s as no one else has borrowing rights granted to them by …

      Wait for it! …

      Wait for it!

      The United Kingdom Government.

      However, the Westminster Government has far more problems than that, Soosider3.

      The largest of which is that the, UNITED KINGDOM, is exactly what it calls itself a kingdom united by a Treaty of Union in 1706/7 and as such it is a united KINGDOM and not a united country. It is a two partner kingdom of two, equally sovereign, kingdoms.

      Now get this – in order to agree to united the two kingdoms both signatory kingdoms must be freely sovereign in order to have the authority to agree to unite the two kingdoms together.

      However, that is just a minor point, as being a bipartite union, when any one of the two partner kingdoms decides the union is over then, because both are equally sovereign, the union is over and the other partner has no say in that decision because the two kingdoms are equally sovereign.

      But even that is a minor argument for the Westminster Parliament is the joint two partner government but it made the illegal decision to split up the two kingdoms as individual countries, but three of those countries form the Kingdom, of England and Westminster has not created a devolved Parliament of the country of England and the, United Kingdom, government has just been ended by the Kingdom of Scotland ending the United Kingdom.

      So who is liable for the debts run up by the now non-existent United Kingdom’s debts? So unless Westminster claims it is still a United Kingdom Government there is no government of a United Kingdom to sue for payment of the debts and no Government of the Kingdom of England to negotiate with for there hasn’t been a Parliament of England elected since 1 May 1707.

    66. Marcia says:

      A new nuclear warhead charge of £5,000,000 per day for any nuclear submarine in Scottish waters and £5,000,000 per day for the use of any Scottish naval base with a portion of the fees ring-fenced to attract industries to replace the nuclear base. Monies to be paid monthly in advance.

    67. Iain mhor says:

      As @alwi points out (and mentioned previously on the topic)
      Regardless of one’s views on Trident, the cleanup costs alone (not just at Faslane) will be substantial and take decades to complete (if ever) That is a cost which should be covered.
      Even if Trident or its successors remain in Scotland,a proactive approach to cleanups and general safety practices will still cost. As the MOD have such a lackadaisical approach to these matters, then it should be the Scottish Government’s place to initiate it and bill accordingly.
      The price should reflect the seriousness of the matter and no knock down price for a dozen rubber gloves and a bottle of Domestos should be entertained.

    68. Thepnr says:

      If Scotland voted for Independence then Westminster would face some hard choices over Trident. I very much doubt they could afford to pay rent for Faslane at a cost of Billions/year nor to build a new base costing Billions(and who would want it?)as well as the cost of the Trident replacement.

      The sensible decision would be to scrap the plans for a replacement and dismantle Trident at Faslane which could start immediately. The pressure to do this from the public or suffer mega cuts everywhere else and tax rises might leave them with very little choice other than to scrap it altogether.

      As an added bonus for Westminster this weakens the Scottish position in the divorce negotiations.

    69. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      @ Fred/Danny

      I think it might be illegal to store the weapons here while a newly-independent Scotland was not yet in the NATO racket, and was in the process of applying for membership. But the nuclear-sharing policy of NATO would mean that Scotland would be OK to store nukes when eventually a member; albeit an allowance which would be the first time anyone except the U.S has been the provider.

    70. Wull2 says:

      One thing at a time, Yes

    71. Golfnut says:

      America will block Scotland’s entry into NATO, no they won’t. Scotland in the EU has 27 allies, mutual defence.
      Scotland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark are the gate keepers for central Europe,( Scotland is the strategic asset for NATO not the UK). America will not block Scotland joining NATO, the real question for Scots is do we really want to join NATO.

      Crawford’s defence paper was crap, and the SNP made a serious tactical error by not addressing the defence question properly. Scotland, rightly or wrongly is proud of its military history and that should have been properly taken into account.

    72. Robert Peffers says:

      @Reluctant Nationalist says: 5 August, 2018 at 11:41 am:

      ” … Rev – Ken500 is a bot.”

      Rev Reluctalt Nationalist is a bot.

      Reluctant Nationalist – Robert Peffers is not a bot.


    73. call me dave says:

      Posted a different link earlier (forgot about the deleting the https.// 🙁

      Anyhoo! here is a different link. UK will be liable.

      This is worth a watch That’s England Bankers telt.
      (about a minute in)

      or even this.

    74. Arthur thomson says:

      I forced myself to read this piece of British propaganda. Whoever this guy claims to be, he is now an apologist for the British State. It is heart warming how concerned he apparently is for the difficulties rUK will have when Scotland returns to independence. The truth is that rUk does not need to have nuclear weapons, it is their choice. It has also been their choice to site them well away from their centres of population and their choice to pay for them by impoverishing their citizens.

      On day one of independence being shown to be the choice of the Scottish people, the Brits should be told to start the process of removing their obscenities. They should be advised of what will be the cost of their weapons being in Scotland in the period of transition, with draconian increases for each year that they drag their feet. I am happy to leave it to the Scottish Government to set the charges.

      The article is stock full of the old chestnuts and ludicrous inconsistencies. Apart from the crap about the fairytale numbers employed, the fact that neither the leadership nor the foot soldiers of the SNP would accept this guy’s analysis is somehow a problem for the SNP. It isn’t. We want to be rid of these weapons and until they are gone we want recompense.

      As for the USA blocking Scotland being part of NATO, that is a fantasy. Whatever words they will express in support of their partners in crime in London they will change their tune when independence is the reality.

    75. Effijy says:

      Congratulations to the Herald on taking yet another very large step toward oblivion.

      Can’t wait to see the padlock put on their door and the scum posing as journalists getting new jobs with an Independent Scotland’s Sewage Dept.

      Lots of experience shit stirring should stand them I good stead!

    76. remo says:

      @ Blair Paterson
      I think you did miss the Rev.’s point. My take on it is that posts will be removed to keep the topic on track. This is not censorship as the arguments about nuclear stuff in Scotland have been done to death on this site before.

    77. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      * ‘might be illegal’ can be easily exchanged with ‘might be legal’, btw. Possibly some legislation somewhere that allows for sharing over a transitional period.

    78. K1 says:

      Is Ken500 a bot?

      Serious question folks.

    79. K1 says:

      Answer to my question:

      No Ken500 is not a bot.

    80. Auld Rock says:

      Sure they have somewhere to park their subs, I’m sure Theresa’s great ally Arlene would love to have them parked in unionist loving Belfast, though I think a lot of my kin on both sides of the border would have different ideas. But, I go back to my favourite place to park them alongside Westminsters riverside terrace. As at least one incoming warhead would be assigned to eliminate Westminster it would have one great benefit, they would not need to spend £billions on saving it from falling down.

    81. affa nae weel says:

      I want us ( Scotland ) to be nuclear free, So am against allowing them to remain in Scotland ! The cost is too high.

    82. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      Peffers: ‘Reluctalt Nationalist is a bot’

      Har. Har. Nurse. My. Sides.

    83. Arbroath1320 says:

      Willie John says:
      5 August, 2018 at 11:28 am
      Scotland: Rent for Faslane £5bn + £5 for Coulport.
      WM: That’s too much. £1bn for both.
      Scotland: £11bn.
      WM. That’s ridiculous. £2bn.
      Scotland: £12bn.
      WM. That’s not how you negotiate! £3bn, final offer.
      Scotland: You’ve got six months to remove them.

      If you don’t mind WJ I think you have missed a trick here.

      Charging WM £5Bn rent for Faslane and £5Bn rent for Coulport is fine but you missed out Rosyth which at the going rate should also ensure WM is charged £5Bn for rent so long as the rusting hulks remain there. 😉

      panda paws says:
      5 August, 2018 at 12:23 pm
      Willie John @11.28am

      I do like your negotiating style!

      My preference high and increasing storage charges for a limited period (max of 10 years) to allow them to build their own facilities. Then get tae.

      I agree with you Panda great thinking by WJ.

      Like PJ however I think you too have missed a wee trick.

      Whilst agreeing with your suggestion I would not tell WM tae get tae after 10 years. I’d inform WM at the start that if their nukes and subs, including those at Rosyth, are not withdrawn then any that are left after the 10 year deadline are sold on the open market with starting prices of £5Bn per nuke warhead and £10Bn per submarine! 😀

    84. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      He’s a bloody algorithm.

    85. Petra says:

      What a cracker, eh! The Tories hand £1 billion plus to the despicable DUP in NIreland for propping them up (money that the Scots contribute to) and we’ve to receive the same amount for housing their weapons of mass (ive) destruction. Get real Mr Crawford.

      Next time some idiot comes out with a figure relating to Scotland’s, one of the richest countries in the world, so-called financial black hole just double the amount for rental of Faslane for subs only. They get three months to remove the missiles which they can park and pick up elsewhere.

      Does Lt-Col Stuart Crawford know Dame Marriot Leslie, the UK’s former (until 2014) permanent representative to NATO? Marriot Leslie, from Edinburgh, who supports Independence and stated that Scotland would be welcomed with open arms due to our location alone. Welcomed WITHOUT nuclear weapons just like the vast number of countries already members of NATO.

    86. Thepnr says:

      There’s every chance that a newly Independent Scotland would be negotiating divorce terms with a Labour government at Westminster. The Tories couldn’t survive the fallout from leaving the EU never mind adding in “breaking up the UK” on top.

      I’ll be honest I don’t think Trident will ever be replaced no matter who is in power at Westminster. Simply it is unaffordable.

    87. Artyhetty says:

      So £1.1 billion according to the article, and what an insult to Scotland. When Scotland votes for independence, as has been pointed out, is when Scotland actually has a say on Trident in any way.

      I don’t suppose Scotland was ever asked if they would mind having these WMD’s parked just a few miles from Glasgow. But then, when was Scotland ever given much of a choice on anything, like having their masses and masses of oil siphoned away with nothing to show for it at all.

      If England wants these weapons housed in Scotland, post independence, they have to pay whether they can afford it or not. They will find the money from somewhere, maybe down the back of Rees Mogg’s chaise longue.

      £5 billion would be a pittance, but a start.

    88. Confused says:

      I don’t know what it is with some of the posters – maybe they are too young – but the world-as-it-is is very complex and getting what you want usually involves negotiation, leverage, compromise, bluffing, games of poker, games of N dimensional chess … its usually pretty messy and your opponents rarely roll over and concede the moral and logical superiority of your own position – I DONT want to use the term “snowflake” but if the cap fits

      The nukes are leverage – the last leg of the chair on which the UK sits as permanent member of the UNSC. This is big for them, it makes them a major power, even if it is as convincing as the sausage down the spandex trousers of the aging rockstar. Being in NATO gets you nuked anyway. Being on the planet, after a mid-level exchange, probably gets you killed later on, via nuclear winter.

      If you really want to get rid of the nukes – and this is something that no fucking snowflake could ever think up … you (as FM negotiating post independence) tell the UK you want Scotland to have its own independent nuclear deterrent – one boat, 16 missiles, 48 warheads, and for a suitable price we will let the English use our facilities as well … we will do the security for them … its all safe with us – THEN you will find, with amazing rapidity, the military equivalent of the Pickfords vans appearing at Faslane out of nowhere. (This is world-class TROLLING – at the Trump-level – but the inglish don’t know that and cannot assume it.)

      The most jaw dropping aspect of the UK nuclear deterrent is that it is not, in any way, independent at all (France has its own system) – what Britain has is RENTED from the US at exorbitant cost. It wouldn’t surprise me if MAY does NOT even have the launch codes – probably the US ambassador keeps the PIN numbers in his safe. It’s just a highly expensive prop. The US deep state thinks the British are all communists and homosexuals anyway – why give them a loaded gun?

      What really worries me is much further down the road – what kind of MESS the MOD has left behind at these nuclear sites – the cleanup costs could dwarf anything so far envisaged. Here’s a tip for you – never buy a house on land that was once MOD – you dont know what they have done there, you can never find out what they did, and if you manage to get something on them, nothing will happen. Supposedly Willie MacRae had something damning about the safety of the nuclear industry – and that may have got him killed. A lot of the costs of having nukes gets hidden among the spending on nuclear power stations – no one knows how much it really all costs. And anyone pulling numbers out of the air, may as well pull them out their arse … the figure quoted in the article 1.1B has a spurious air of accuracy due to the .1 – what not call it 1.085B and make it look like you’ve done the calculation? All the nuke books are cooked/crooked.

      On the wider issue of negotiation, someone somewhere should be preparing a full on “reparations report” which is the BILL for 300 years of imperialism – don’t limit yourself to begging for what is already yours by right. Iceland did something along these lines with the Danes.

    89. cirsium says:

      Given the plan for an independent Scotland to use Faslane as its naval/coastguard base, given the plans to explore the Firth of Clyde for oil and to turn Hunterston into a port, I would support Arthur Thomson’s view (1.46pm)

      On day one of independence being shown to be the choice of the Scottish people, the Brits should be told to start the process of removing their obscenities. They should be advised of what will be the cost of their weapons being in Scotland in the period of transition, with draconian increases for each year that they drag their feet.

    90. Frank Waring says:

      Thank goodness some Scottish politics is happening at last — what a pleasure to see your admirably devious mind at work!

      Though — “…..They’d sell the NHS to Burger King ….”? Don’t want to put ideas into their heads, do we?

    91. Shinty says:

      Arthur thomson says: “As for the USA blocking Scotland being part of NATO, that is a fantasy. Whatever words they will express in support of their partners in crime in London they will change their tune when independence is the reality”

      Spot on.

      Makes me sick that folk don’t realise how important Scotland is and how we hold all the aces.

    92. Jack Docherty says:

      Stuart Crawford is a good conceptual thinker and produced a decent paper published by RUSI in 2012 on Defending an Independent Scotland. Though he quickly went into organisation and considered a fairly traditional model of future defence structures. He also considered the position from a separation of defence assets perspective.

      There was no real threat analysis in the paper and I might suggest that the threat has developed a bit since 2012. Independence offers the opportunity for Scotland to consider the position from a totally fresh, threat based standpoint and take a brand new view on roles, tasks, capabilities and organisation. I will read his updated autumn paper with interest.

      He also commented on GERS and made the observation that financial data was not explicit enough. No news there then. Below is the link to his 2012 paper – it’s worth a read:

      The headline is hailing him as an ‘expert’. As well as being a good thinker and well informed, I would suggest he is no more an expert than a lot of people with similar backgrounds that can deliver an informed opinion, especially on this subject. To be fair, he’s not describing himself as an expert.

      Creating a diplomatic problem with the US? Possibly, but only in the last couple of years we have seen statements that the US government would not object to the UK dismantling its nuclear arsenal if it then spent more on conventional defence. The UK keeps its nuclear arsenal for two reasons. Firstly, the perception that it guarantees its permanent seat on the UNSC and, secondly, because the French have one too.

      Would the US block Scotland’s accession to NATO if that is the alliance route that Scotland wanted to take? I think the simple answer to that is geography, linked to what might be a significant emerging threat – enough said? It’s worth mentioning that there are 30 members of the NATO alliance and only three of them have nuclear capabilities.

      We all understand that it will take time to dismantle the nuclear side of Faslane and for Defence to acquire new facilities for the deterrence force, whether these facilities are in England or whether an accommodation can be made with the US. Understanding that this work will take time, coupled with Westminster’s staunch desire to maintain the deterrent, should put Scotland in a strong negotiating position.

      I see the old trope that Trident ‘supports around 7,000 military and civilian jobs in Scotland’ is still alive and kicking.

    93. Thepnr says:

      They Tories scrapped Nimrod in 2011 after spending £4 billion on the new fleet. The reasoning was that they had inherited a £38 billion defence budget deficit from the previous Labour government.

      Scrapping Trident would “save” the the grand sum of £2 billion over 10 years. That’s wonky Tory thinking for you.

      Then they ordered two Aircraft Carriers to be built at a cost of £6.2 billion but couldn’t afford to buy any new planes for the carriers and the costs are already £9.1 billion for just 48 aircraft. These costs will be spread out between now and 2025.

      In total they “intend” to buy 138 aircraft and although each ship is designed to carry 36 fighters some think they might never carry more than 12.

      The navy is already faced with the humiliating prospect of having two large aircraft carriers with very few aircraft flying from them, ever. They are designed to carry 36 joint strike aircraft – F-35s, known as the Lightning II – but are unlikely to carry more than 12.

      The cost of the US stealth aircraft has soared mainly because of serious technical problems. The cost of 48 the MoD has contracted to buy for both the RAF and the navy will amount to £9.1bn by 2025, rising to an estimated £13bn by 2048.

      The MoD will not give an estimate of the cost of the rest of the 138 planes it wants to buy, but it is very unlikely to be able to afford them.

      A replacement for Trident is unaffordable and the project will be scrapped so too will Trident itself beginning with Scottish Independence.

    94. Tackety Beets says:

      As we are assuming iScotland the “Trident” issue will be in the mix of All other issues.

      Let’s be mindful of WM view …….they ain’t going to negotiate in a honourable way.

      There may be mileage in an International body acting as Ref?

      My view would be to get all “weapons” off the site immediately etc. Feck them! We are clear We Do NOT Want them ! We have other needs/plans for the sites. Despite our desire to recoup N Sea Oil money, that’s behind us. We need to set out our stall and proceed ASAP. The biggest worry is more to do with their efforts to clear up they’re mess, let’s face it they have hardly been exemplary in other issues eg Dalgetty Bay , Kinloss etc

      They are MAJOR $hit$ ! We will need every eye open!

      After Indy , Scotland holds an election , the lead party would be involved in negotiation. So our drive to have “decent” Politicians leading the way to set up iScotland would be imperative.

      We will need to be VERY assertive from the off.
      Points 1 to 10 ……
      Trident can GTF !

    95. Robert Peffers says:

      @Arthur thomson says: 5 August, 2018 at 1:46 pm:

      ” … I forced myself to read this piece of British propaganda. Whoever this guy claims to be, he is now an apologist for the British State. It is heart warming how concerned he apparently is for the difficulties rUK will have when Scotland returns to independence.”

      All good and well, Arthur, but you also have fallen for, perhaps, the biggest of all Westminster Establishment lie/ propaganda/false news/Brain washing, (or all of them together), ever propagated upon the people of Scotland. What’s more the one so few of the people of Scotland have cottoned onto.

      I refer to this hocus-pocus of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and the truth has been staring the Scots in the face since 1706/7 when the United Kingdom was created by ONLY two, equally sovereign and independent, Kingdoms.

      Not countries but kingdoms and thus the thing created BY BOTH

    96. Thepnr says:

      Scrapping Nimrod would save £2 billion over 10 years not Trident of course. Getting ahead of myself there 🙂

    97. Hamish100 says:

      a “bot” is a polite form of an “erse” in morningside patois or is it patter?

      Often heard in the wallie dug closes in Glasgow “c’mere ye wee erse so I can wipe yir bot—shite! huv ye got worms?”

      It’s alright as in Edinburger I’ve had my tea.

    98. Ken500 says:

      Hammond said it would take three years and £27Billion. Scotland should pay. The cheek of that. Then said he did not know. The cost is £10Billion a year.

      McMillian dumped it there. Wanted it at Fort William but Kennedy did not. Did not even want the UK to get Polaris. Brexit will see it gone.

      The US Defence Bill is $611Billion. 1/3 of the world total. Unaffordable. Then the redundant weapons are dumped around the world. Trump wants to cut back. The talks with Putin. NATO (US funded and controlled) has weapons poised at Russian borders. The US is going bankrupt with an unaffordable Defence Bill.

      Saudi has the highest bill (pro rata) $66Billion (ibcluding internal) 33Million pop.
      US $611Billion Pop 328Million
      UK $47Billion Pop 65Million

      China $228Billion. pop 1.3Billion
      Russia $66Billion pop 150Million.

      China and Russia are not the warmongers.

      Saudi, US and UK spend the most. Illegal wars.

      Financial fraud and tax evasion.

    99. Golfnut says:

      Total agreement with Arthur Thompson, our position starting now, should be that Trident is to be removed asap. Trident is an obstacle to the rapid development of Scotland’s prefered option of Faslane as SDF HQ.
      Trident is also an obstacle to the development of the Clyde basin, Clyde military and commercial ship and rig production. We also need to make it clear that they have to plans in place to clear up any pollution caused by nuclear leakage. That should be our starting point.

    100. yesindyref2 says:

      We don’t know what sort of education Crawford had

      Nor do I, but his background is that he’a army, not navy of air force. The latter shows up with his claim back in 2012 that 50 subsonic Hawk jets incapable of taking over the horizon missiles would be OK for iScotland to use to defend our airspace against supersonic jets, and in this case, that it would take 20 years whereas Francis Tusa who is part of RUSI said it could be done messily in 2 years.

      A sensible compromise would be 10 years which Hammond appeared to accept as well, when he was the UK defence secretary.

      As for rent, I think it’s more payment in kind, such as transitional training, logistics, detection, communications and control, while iScotland takes a fairly leisurely gander at our actual defence needs in our equivalent of an NSS /SDSR – National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review.

      Let’s just call it a DODS – Detailed Overview of Defence and Security.

    101. Ken500 says:

      So they supposedly cost £100Billion over 40 years. Aye right. £2.5Billion a year? Quadruple+ that. Then Westminster will pay supposedly pay £5Billion a year to store them. Another £200Billion?

      What about the 6+ subs dumped at Rosyth, The waste being flown around the world. The waste dumped in Scotland.

      HS2 started at £47Billion. Now reckoned to be £100Billion. Hinkley Point will top that. Last one built in Finland was over budget and seven years late. Decommissioning. What a waste.

    102. schrodingers cat says:

      re trident, apparently, an indy scotland is not without its own bargaining chips.

    103. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Rental agreement should be:

      £10 Billion Y1

      £20 Billion Y2

      £40 Billion Y3

      £80 Billion Y4

      £160 Billion Y5

      etc. etc. etc.

    104. Legerwood says:

      Effijy says:
      5 August, 2018 at 1:51 pm
      Congratulations to the Herald on taking yet another very large step toward oblivion.””

      What has the Herald done now to take it a step closer to oblivion? Do tell.

    105. John Walsh says:

      Just as well Holyrood isn’t sitting. Or Jackie Baillie would be asking for a “Save Trident Workes Fund”. (10,000) 2k actually (520) really ?
      Just cause Ken!
      And Kelly would want to know where the money would come from , would the £5bn cover it or would we have to use our Oil Fund.

      On a serious note they will enforce “Sovereign Territory “ it’s the British way.

    106. Golfnut says:

      @ yesindyref2, have to disagree regards payment in kind. Westminster have shown themselves to be at best corrupt and dishonest in their negotiations with the EU. It will predictably be their way or no way if we allow them any involvement in our defence after Independence. Once we vote for independence we should open negotiations with the EU and Norway on providing Scotland with arms and equipment, up to and including air and sea cover while Scotland prepares its defence structure and building program. By adopting that strategy Scotland is in a much stronger position regarding negotiations.

    107. call me dave says:

      Not a difficult decision about what should be done on Faslane, Coulport and Rosyth. All must be gone from their present function in the medium term and to have been properly decontaminated by WM.

      Until that is done to Scotland’s satisfaction hefty rental charges should acrue. Time not more than 5 years.


      Just heard J. Beattie on shortbread sports footie there advertising his show tomorrow at 09:00hrs GMS!

      Taking over from Kaye who has been absent for a couple of weeks now. Is he on the way up or on the way down at BBC PQ?

      Shall we hear the likes of her again? 🙂

    108. Vestas says:

      I’d just like to point out Nimrod isn’t anything to pin on any one govt.

      When I joined Racal years ago (1980s) the production manager at the site had just been sacked because he hadn’t stopped Nimrod subcontract work. How he was supposed to know when Marconi (prime contractor back then) hadn’t told him and were still paying the bills?

      UK defence procurement has been run by inbred arts graduates forever. They are fuckwits.

      Scotland couldn’t do worse if it employed the dogfood salesman as head of military procurement.

      /me has sat through SO many MoD/manufacturer meetings that I’d seriously consider quitting if I ever had to do it again – even once.

    109. McBoxheid says:

      As Faslane is a prime target, why not start at 10 billion and increase by the next highest prime number per year after that

      x2 x3 x5 x7 x11 x13 x17 x19 x23 x29 and so on
      20 bn 60 bn 300 bn etc.

      It kind of works as an incentive

    110. Jimmy The Pict says:

      I would demand payment in Euros or Dollars, not £.

    111. Lenny Hartley says:

      Thenpr it was the clunking fist that ordered hms white elephant 1 and 2 . He screwed up the contracts that bad that when he wanted to cancel one of them , it was cheaper to built it than cancel .
      And yet he is still rolled out every now and again to tell us that Indy is a bad idea.
      I think at times we are too stupid to be Independent.

    112. mike cassidy says:

      Good to see the cooperative side of the MSM with Evening Times political editor, Tom Gordon ‘writing’ pretty much the same article this afternoon.

      Still, I’m sure Gordon will be pleased his ‘effort’ was picked up by the UKDefence Journal (wouldn’t archive)

      one of whose commentators takes the opposite view of this thread

      and thinks an independent Scotland should pay for such protection!

    113. William Habib Steele says:

      Stuart you write, “But can we PLEASE not have this boring “moral” debate again? It’s been done, and it’s not what this article is about, so I’ll delete comments if I have to to keep the discussion on track.”

      Stuart, this disgusts me. Morality is at the basis of the debate. Have you taken The Queens Shilling? Have you sold out to Mammon? There is no way nuclear weapons can be a moral choice. I think if Scotland accepted Trident for money I’d renounce my Scottish citizenship and identity. I might as well become a Yoon!

      You’ll probably delete this post. At least you’ll have read it.


    114. Dorothy Devine says:

      I like the idea of doubling the figure year on year , I also like the idea of being paid in gold bullion!

    115. Maria F says:

      If that Lt-Col Stuart Crawford happens to be reading this site, could I possibly direct to this gentleman the following questions:

      1. 1.1 bn pounds is what you estimate you could hire the infrastructure of what should be Scotland’s military base to a foreign country to park their nuclear waste in our country. Now, what is the “rent” you estimate should England be charged for the privilege of using the people of Scotland in the cities close to that base as human shields for the people of England, for its England ruling elite and its warmonger politicians in the event the latter choose to get involved in a nuclear war?

      2. How much do you estimate should be added to those rent costs to account for the risk of making our own country a target if the warmongering and imperialistic tendencies of this foreign country lead it to engage in some war, potentially nuclear?

      3. How much you estimate should be added to the rent costs in terms of risk of nuclear catastrophe to our environment and cities in the event of a nuclear accident?

      4. How much do you estimate should be added to those “rent costs” to justify the threat of invasion having a foreign military base inside our own territory (enemy within?)

      4. How much do you estimate should be added on top of that “rent cost” with regards to the inability of Scotland to develop the area and exploit potential resources contained on it?

      Why on earth do we have to rent to a foreign country what could potentially be Scotland’s military base? So we are not even independent yet and some are already thinking in what they can “generously” give to England? Is this because it has not taken enough from Scotland in 300 years? When are we going to talk about what England is going to give back to Scotland?

      I think the idea of renting a prime location in our country to England to park its nuclear weapons is completely bonkers in so many levels that I find astonishing this man even suggested it.

    116. Thepnr says:

      Trident replacement is a vanity project that the UK cannot possibly afford. It seems that all other military assets are being run down due to 25% of the defence budget being spent on Nuclear programmes.

      The much heralded Royal Navy on which Britannia ruled the seas only has 19 destroyers and frigates. Rule the waves? They are a joke, 19 ships and another 2 aircraft carriers without planes. Total laughing stock.

      Here’s the take on affordability from a National Audit Office report a couple of months ago. No sniggering at the back!

      Designing, producing and maintaining the fleet of nuclear submarines which carry warheads is forecast to cost the MoD a total of £50.9bn over the next decade, the spending watchdog said.

      “Problems with the affordability of the enterprise could destabilise the department’s overall equipment plan given that around a quarter of its planned spend on equipment relates to nuclear programmes,” the NAO said.

      Despite this, the MoD has insisted the report shows the nuclear programme is “on track”.

      In this financial year alone, 14 per cent of the MoD’s total budget is expected to go on nuclear programmes, adding up to £5.2bn.

      In order to fund renewal plans which involve replacing the ageing Vanguard-class submarines with four new Dreadnought-class boats, at a cost of £31bn, the MoD has already had to find £3bn in efficiency savings over the next 10 years.

      Where then will the MOD find £5 billion/year to rent Faslane and another couple of billion to build a new facility on top of the Trident replacement costs?

      A magic money tree perhaps hahahahaha!

    117. remo says:

      Apologies if I have posted this twice.

      I too forced myself to read this bollocks. I am now proper angry. I believe this article to be full of suggestions and opinions intended to muddy the waters as usual
      Author of the statement is Stuart Crawford, described as former defence adviser to the SNP.
      Why is he “former”? Is this the same one who left the SNP and defected to the LibDems, and even stood as a candidate, some years ago, as he was no longer convinced about Scottish Independence?
      20 years to remove Trident – who says? I think another poster mentioned that Spain ousted the US from Spanish territory in a lot less time than this.

      Reference is made to the “SNP Government”. This is a favourite Britnat subliminal suggestion. I think that should read the Scottish Government.

      The figure of £1.1 billion given is designed to pull the wool over our eyes as usual, to make Scots believe that they do not have an asset which is very valuable to the Britnats on its soil.

      Who commissioned his paper?
      Who cares about his opinion that it will take 2 decades and £25 billion?

      The 7000 jobs trope has also been mentioned on this thread and I believe it has been debunked many times before.

      Crawford believes that insisting on getting rid of nuclear weapons would pose a diplomatic problem for an independent Scotland in that the US would object. Let the US object. So what?

      America could block Scotland’s accession to NATO. I don’t think so because of Scotland’s strategic defence position. Don’t they know any geography?
      The blueprint said Scotland would become a non-nuclear Nato member, despite the organisation being a nuclear defence alliance. Misdirection again. Most Nato countries have no nuclear weapons.

      The Growth Commission report gets it as well.
      The Growth Commission said an independent Scotland’s defence budget would be 1.6 per cent of GDP, a saving on the UK’s plans for Scotland. The author could not just leave this alone on a high note but has to get in another dollop of doubt by stating that the document did not deal specifically with the Trident issue. Scotland pays its share of the Defence budget and does not get it spent in Scotland.

      Then wheel out Douglas Ross to talk about realism in SNP’s defence policy -as if there was ever any realism in any Conservative Party policy – other than Britnattery and pocket lining. Please correct me if I am wrong but is this the Douglas Ross who went to Agricultural College? No offence intended to the education provided, but did they do a module on Nuclear stuff? If he is going to pontificate then he should know whereof he speaks.

      All in all this seems to be the usual carefully crafted crap to get heads dumfoonert and frame the argument. Thankfully the Rev. has vaccinated us against this tosh.

    118. velofello says:

      It is all very fine negotiating a deal, getting paid is another matter.Do you really believe that Westminster, having laid the cash snare to remain at Faslane will payout? “Your check is in the post”, and just what would Scotland be able to do over non-payment?

      No, independence and take control of our land and facilities.Trident and the rUK forces out of Scotland.

    119. Clootie says:

      …I’m with Thepnr

      They are trying to suck us in to a single topic issue that will cause division…as can be seen above.

      If we don’t achieve Independence then Trident will stay on the Clyde and London will decide this and every other critical issue for many, many more decades.

      We can only decide what to do AFTER we achieve the RIGHT to do so.

    120. Vronsky says:

      It would be journalistic incompetence if journalism was their aim, but you’re missing the point – the aim is not journalism, but propaganda excellence. The propaganda is first class, and clearly effective. Half of Scots would urinate on their own faces before they would vote for independence. Respect where it’s due, please.

    121. mike cassidy says:

      Its a Sunday.

      So take five minutes to sit down and watch this wonderful film from Fife.

      I know it contains a ‘first in Scotland, uk, the world’ claim.

      But by the end you’ll realise that’s not the point.

      Tissues at the ready for the magic roundabout!

    122. Bill Purves says:

      If we vote for independence we become independent immediately. Any negotiations will be done by the Scottish Government to the benefit of the Scottish people.

    123. Bill Purves says:

      If the Scottish people vote for independence we become independent immediately. Any agreements will be discussed with the Scottish Government elected by the people after independence.

    124. John Jones says:

      I’m in favour of paying our share of the nation debt! If you subtract it from the value of all the assets of the UK, namely Westminster, publicly owned royal residences, Parks etc.
      As for NATO, North American Terror Organisation, how many of the members have nuclear weapons? We could negotiate the future is Faslane & the rest after independence, let’s get the important things done first then start screwing everything we can out of the ones who have been doing it to us for all these years.
      I,m, personally not in favour of being a NATO member, after all who are the only ones to have used nuclear & chemical weapons in the past?
      As I keep saying keep concentrated on the important goal,

    125. galamcennalath says:

      Independence negotiations are likely to take place with a backdrop of an unfolding unacceptably hard Brexit.

      Conversely, if the UK decides (soon) to stay in the single market, a short term IndyRef2 is unlikely. The whole discussion about Trident becomes irrelevant.

      Assuming Brexit with associated betrayals and attacks on devolution does trigger IndyRef2 and Yes win, then there will be negotiations. Under those circumstances rUK is going to be concurrently negotiating it’s future relationship with the EU, probably deep in WTO talks, and attempting to acquire some trade deals to replace the many it has just lost. It will have a lot on its plate!

      WM is struggling with a relatively simple EU Withdrawal Treaty! What state are they going to be in for handling talks on the dissolution of the UK? It will be chaotic IMO!

    126. Breeks says:

      Slight fly in the lucrative ointment is that after Brexit, Westminster won’t be able to afford Trident or to pay £10 billion for Faslane.

      Westminster already cannot afford policemen, nevermind Minutemen.

      Depending how Brexit shakes out, South Britain could become quite an unstable kind of place, but I hope and pray we can watch it all happen from a safe distance in our own Independent Scotland.

      I despise nuclear weapons, but just suppose Westminster went full mental, and became Fascist style dangerous and aggressive, threatening to bomb us, threatening war with Europe, destabilising Ireland, threatening Spain over Gibraltar, threatening Russia just for kicks, threatening Syria, threatening Iran… I know, I know, that’s just not plausib… oh.

      Never say never. Uncomfortable to think about, but maybe having Trident locked down and lawfully interned at Faslane, hopefully dismantled there, might be the safest option for all of us, NATO members included.

    127. RoddyM says:

      I’d like them gone asap. In reality this could take a number of years but whatever sum is agreed, it really needs to be paid upfront as it’s not unreasonable to think that Ruk will be bankrupt without Scotland.

      On a side note, I’ve always been intrigued by the idea that Scotland will somehow be responsible for a share of debts. Surely if this is the case, we’ll be entitled to an equal share of the remaining assets? 300 years of contributing to the UK is going to be worth a tidy sum.

    128. HandandShrimp says:

      It could take take 20 years to complete the closure. The rUk if they bought a replacement would want to build facilities for it on their own territory but in the interim the V boats would operate from Faslane. The last 5 years of that 20 should be a decommissioning phase though as the V boats are retired.

      As we are not independent yet and that would take a couple of years, the actual time that we would have as an independent country with this system operational might only be 10 or 12 years.

    129. Petra says:

      Totally O/T

      BBC propaganda not just in the news.

      Last week I mentioned watching BBC’s Countryfile and their reports on how wonderful areas in England are, such as Devon. Then they headed to Nairn in Scotland to report on the rise of Lyme disease which can cause brain, nerve damage, etc, etc, and death. I wondered why they’d headed to Scotland to report on this, as when I checked it out Lyme disease is on the rise in, for example, yes you’ve guessed it ….. Devon.

      This week they seem to be playing the same wee game. England is great and Scotland is you know what.

      England: Bridlington is vibrant. Lots to do. In other words come visit Bridlington.

      Then they head to Scotland. Skye is overcrowded. Tourism is a big problem. Causing real problems. Many locals aren’t happy. Building of stone piles is on the increase. Using rocks is destabilising the environment.

      Back down to England. Yorkshire is mysterious and amazing. Spectacular. Perfect. Blissfully calm.

      Dorset now. Seas around Dorset fantastic. People are friendly and helpful. Fishing and diving great.

      Scotland next: Over-tourism is a real problem all over the UK and is being addressed, such as at Loch Lomond. Lots of anti-social behaviour problems previously. Fire and litter problems (footage of litter, cans, rotten clothes etc.) You need a permit to camp and alcohol is banned. The BBC’s English reporter, when talking to a Visit Scotland rep, actually had the gall to say, “Visit Scotland is part of the problem is it not, because you’re going around the world encouraging people to come to Scotland.”

      Back to England: Fertile plains of East Yorkshire great for growing crops. Place is full of beneficial insects. Interview with an amazing podcasting farmer. He’s great as is his wife and four weans all filmed running around in the yard. Happy families.

      Exploring the Wold. The glorious countryside of East Yorkshire. You can download an app for free. Highlights artists around EY and the magical views are absolutely stunning.

      Finishes at Bridlington with a boat trip around the bay. “What better way to inspire the next generation of visitors to the East Yorkshire coastline”, says John Craven.

      In an Independent Scotland we should think of giving that crowd the bum’s rush along with their WMD’s.

    130. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      @ Mike Cassidy, 7.23pm: “…wonderful film from Fife.”

      That was amazing. Thank you for posting it.

    131. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Remo at 6.07

      “Is this the same one who left the SNP and defected to the LibDems, and even stood as a candidate, some years ago, as he was no longer convinced about Scottish Independence?”


    132. Terence callachan says:

      I value the poll carried out by WOS but let’s remember that many many people in Scotland will set aside political party politics to come together on this subject and they are the people who are against trident continuing its existence in Scotland once Scotland is independent.
      There are some who will answer an email and a poll from their armchair who will say keep it in Scotland for a rent but those same people will definitely not come out of their homes to vote in favour of keeping it.
      The majority of people in Scotland will want trident removed from Scotland but I suspect that many of those polled by WOS were English people living in Scotland who are here temporarily and would obviously say that they want it to remain in Scotland and not see it coming home to England.
      There are 800,000 English people living in Scotland now nearly all of them temporarily and you can guarantee that once Scotland is independent many many of them will leave Scotland within a year or two and it will most certainly be three years or more before the new independent Scottish government can visit this subject properly with a view to deciding whether or not it should be removed or space rented to accommodate it.

    133. Fred says:

      @ Petra, they failed to mention that Scotland tourists can walk where they fancy unlike in those glorious sunlit uplands down south where they have to keep to the path!

    134. Petra says:

      What a great wee film Mike (7:23pm) and such a beautiful child. It just reminded me of why I love Scotland and the Scots so much. Made me forget about Westminster and the callous, uncompassionate Tories for a while. And yes I needed the tissues.

    135. Macart says:

      Yes. Yes it is. 🙂

      How and ever, Yes voters need only focus on one point regardless of their personal preferences though.

      No independence. No choice.

    136. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @mike cassidy (7.23) –

      That film is great.

      My missus works in that field, was at that place just last week but had never heard of the driving kit – very useful info for her and colleagues, she’ll be passing it on and asked me to convey thanks.


    137. Thepnr says:

      @mike cassidy

      See what you meant about the tissues!

    138. Arthur thomson says:

      Robert Prefers @ 3.17

      No Robert, I fully understand that there were only two Kingdoms that entered into the UK. I also understand that it is important not to contribute inadvertently to the spread of misinformation that obscures this truth. My use of the term rUK was a crude shorthand. I will avoid using it in future.

    139. stewartb says:

      The UK – a vassal state in terms of its nuclear arsenal – subordinate and dependent on the USA?

      See the extract below from the ‘The Trident Commission – An independent, cross-party inquiry to examine UK nuclear weapons policy. Concluding Report’, published in 2014 and whose authors include Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Sir Menzies Campbell


      “The independence of the UK arsenal

      If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years (the missiles in particular are part of a common pool of missiles shared with, and maintained by, the United States operating out of Kings Bay, Georgia). The United Kingdom’s independence lies in its immediate operational capacity (the ability to patrol and to launch the missiles) rather than in its procurement and maintenance. But it seems unlikely that the UK would contemplate or explicitly threaten their use in a crisis without the support of the United States.

      This opens up the question of what the purpose of an independent deterrent is. Professor Colin Gray stated in evidence to the Defence Committee in 2006: ‘I am not the least troubled by the American connection, but for anyone who wishes to question the true independence of the British nuclear deterrent I would concede that it is… a hostage to American goodwill… the dependency is critical and will continue.’ We would tend to agree with this sentiment.”

    140. Thepnr says:

      Tony Blair took the decision by himself that Trident was to be renewed at the end of it’s useless life.

      This was back in 2005 and the costs being bandied about then were £10 billion, I’ve no idea how much has been spent so far on design work and planning but it won’t be insubstantial.

      The thing is they had better get the finger oot if they’re actually going to start building anything as the original plan was to start decommissioning Trident from 2024.

      I suspect that no government actually want’s to award contracts for the replacement as they don’t have the money to pay for it.

      It’s probably obsolete technology now anyway as the only value to submarines was that they were difficult to track. In the day and age of underwater drones and GPS technology I doubt it would be that difficult to track them nowadays if someone was determined enough.

      Let’s not be sidetracked by controversial subjects and focus on the main goal. Winning our Independence and the power and freedom to make all our choices on every subject.

      Let’s get on with the day job.

    141. Bill Hume says:

      Mike Casssidy, thanks for the link to that film. I believe that the test of a great civilisation is not one which glorifies those who have succeeded, but how we care for those who have not.

    142. Ken500 says:

      9% of people in Scotland are from England 495,000+ Less as a % of the electorate.

      750,000+ people from Scotland in England.

    143. Ian Brotherhood says:

      So many hypotheticals flying around over this it’s hard to get a handle on any of it, but here’s a (cynical?) gut-reaction:

      WM will never ever pay us a solitary fuckin penny to ‘host’ Trident. They’ll never ever even agree that any such obligation exists – that’s the first rule of dealing with hostile claims, isn’t it? They’d sooner intern known nationalists (i.e. you and me) shut Holyrood, collude with freshly formed/armed loyalist militias to incite civil unrest, and have Scotland ruled from Governor Mundell’s new bomb-proof pad in Edinburgh.

      No-one predicted just how inept the UK govt would be in Brexit negotiations, but that process (or series of processes) had to be faced and dealt with. Look at the mess they’ve made of that, despite having clear obligations and responsibilities. But we’re supposed to consider the possibility that the same mandarins (and, very probably the same fekkin bunch of Tories) will agree to even consider giving us money they don’t have?

      No. No way. Sorry, but it’s just so barkingly fuckin bonkers I can’t even begin to imagine how anyone takes the idea seriously. We are not dealing with sober, mature, ‘normal’ human beings in WM – we’re dealing with a nexus of organisations and institutions operated by (and protecting/promoting) sociopathic child-men who were emotionally stunted via the ‘boarding school’ culture, reared on Arthurian/Imperial/White Man’s Burden bollocks, and view provincials (i.e. you and me, again) as expendable savages.

      ‘Pay the sweaty socks £5,000,000,000 a year? You’re ‘avin a giraffe mate, aintcha?!’

    144. remo says:

      @ Dave McEwan Hill

      I did check Stuart Crawford on the net. I think it probably is the same person. Get on the net and have a look at these two sites. Haven’t done the linking thing but easy to find.

      The first one is on youtube and a couple of minutes in, one Col. Stuart Crawford is introduced with a short biography which seems to match the description in the above article.

      google this – Royal Society of Edinburgh Independence Debate 2 Defence and International Relations

      The second one is from the Edinburgh News and describes one Stuart Crawford as an ex SNP adviser.

      google this – Ex-SNP man Stuart Crawford to stand for Lib Dems.

      Look them up and clock the guy’s coupon. Is it not the same bloke?

    145. Robert Louis says:

      Ian brotherhood at 930pm,

      Totally agree. When we talk about the current Westminster colonial junta, we must remember that they are not normal people. They are as you put it child men with a delusional sense of entitlement, coupled with zero morality or integrity.

      I also do believe they are on course to gradually diminish the status of the Scots parliament. They know it would be problematic to just shut it down in one go, so they are gradually doing it. Step by step, ignoring MSP’s, only talking to Tory Scottish MP’s, refusing to attend committees within the Scots parliament and so on. As soon as brexit kicks in, they will immediately neuter the powers of the parliament, under the pretext of ‘doing what is best for the UK during the transition’, and so on.

      Just watch over the next few months, as bit by bit they further and further undermine the Scottish parliament and Scottish government. It is being done right in front of our eyes.

    146. cynicalHighlander says:

      William Habib Steele are you Ross Greers PR guru?

    147. K1 says:

      The power grab is the ‘shutting down’ of the parliament. They take those 24 powers…what exactly will the SG be ‘in charge of’ in Scotland? Roadsigns?

      The lead up is all the other things you mention RobertL. If we don’t get out, we are in fact completely fucked as a nation.

    148. Juan says:

      The Kingdom of England won’t be able to afford the rental of Faslane and Coulport. Whatever they’re prepared to pay, we should multiply by TEN. The world will be a safer place, if an isolated and xenophobic Tory regime have no access to Nukes. We’d be doing the world a favour.
      We should be concentrating their minds on cleaning their Nuclear waste from our country, at THEIR EXPENSE.
      There’s so much to clear and it will be expensive. Also there’s no negotiating with this Tory regime, as “Brexit” clearly shows. This regime are free of logic and reason. Best to concentrate their minds by having the loudest clock on the table and another 2 digital clocks. One counting down 2 weeks, according to a Greenpeace report from 2014, that’s how long it would take to make these weapons “safe” and two years to safely remove them entirely. That’s what the second countdown clock is for. The loud clock is just to remind them of the sands of time slipping through their fingers.

      For anyone suggesting giving them use of our naval base, don’t. We’ll never be rid of them. I wouldn’t even share the base with them. It’s too valuable to Scotland as it’ll be our Navy’s HQ.

      There should be no sharing of debt. It’s the Kingdom of England’s debt, not ours. They’ve been asset stripping us for 311 years. This is from the WoS archive. Take a look at the chart of the STOLEN wealth taken from Scotland for “Imperial Services”!
      We’ve more than paid our way. Enough is enough.
      I agree with Ian Brotherhood and RL comments above.

    149. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      remo at 9.48

      Looks like it. News to me. Missed that somehow. Spoke at some SNP meetings I was at but wasn’t awfully impressive.

    150. remo says:

      @ Dave McEwan Hill

      Glad I am not losing my marbles. I will not trust a word that man says. Propaganda everywhere. I see the paper above has used the same (stock?) photie of the ex SNP adviser as the Edinburgh News did in 2014.

    151. liz g says:

      Ian Brotherhood @ 9.30
      Well said… I think yer right … No matter what the deal,No matter what the price paid/or unpaid…
      If we allow the Westminster Junta a foot hold on Faslane and Coleport they will never leave… Even if the neuks are gone..they will try to keep that base /territory.
      We always talk of the strategic position of Faslane and Coleport in terms of Global/Nato issues.
      IMO we don’t explore enough the strategic position of the Base to have the ability to destabilise central Scotland.
      Given what we know (up close an personal) of how Westminster works, to either rule it or wreck it,would be insane not to have Holyrood in control of that Base…..
      I always thought one of the smartest things Alex Salmond ever did was to mark that Base as the Scottish Navy HeadQuarters!

    152. So many useful takes on Trident. Ist strike aim at whom? return or second strike, Scotland no more,no roads,rail,no transport,fires ,floods,no hospitals,doctors or nurses,need I go on what lunacy. England does not have money or resources to pay us,over 2,trillion in debt.Next the 2 aircraft carriers over £7 billion for two, cost of planes was £160,million each.To go to sea will need protective convoy,against plane or submarine attacks, costly in fuel and lives,if sunk where is the insurance?.If Faslane attacked, could be cyber, no home port for submarines,hunted down and taken out.Does anyone think that the correct name of sender will be on the incoming missile. What planet do these idiots come from.” 2 planes carrying missiles and bombs collide over Spain,got rid of in 2 years.

    153. James Gardner says:

      The nuclear debate on both military and civilian use in regard to Scotland will form part of Scotland’s written constitution something that UK government don Not have! It should state that Scotland is a nuclear free zone, if it does the subs are out !

    154. Ghillie says:

      There is not enough money in the world to compensate for having nuclear weapons in Scotland.

      Or anywhere.

    155. manandboy says:

      In an Independent Scotland, the centuries of humiliation and exploitation must end on day one. Anyone in public office or with public responsibility for any dealings with the English, who thinks differently, should be dismissed immediately.

      And if anyone ever says ‘let bygones be bygones’, let him be given a taste of the treatment meted out to victims of The Clearances.

      Perfidious Albion will never change.

    156. Phronesis says:

      Good advice from Albuquerque which builds the neutron generators for the Trident D5 missile warheads leased from the US missile pool each carrying up to 8 100 kiloton warheads. If the US is incapable of de-escalation of nuclear capability then an indy Scotland must show the way.

      ‘Nuclear weapons are inherently heinous. Most states and experts agree that nuclear weapons cannot be exploded in war, or used to threaten other states under international law, the practice of nuclear deterrence. A dense framework of international treaty and customary law applies. Any use would violate US military standards. As a result a majority of the world’s states have negotiated a treaty to ban nuclear weapons, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, now in its first year’

      ‘For its part, US society is deeply divided, struggling, and demonstrably unstable. Symptoms include falling life expectancy, skyrocketing overdose deaths (now almost 200 per day), mass shootings (about five school shootings per month since 2012), failing infrastructure, and widespread economic precarity. Climate change is already hitting hard; large areas may become nearly uninhabitable within decades as water supplies fail.
      Yet US military spending is larger than the sum of all other accounts in the discretionary budget set by Congress each year’

      ‘The US has ten times the military budget of the Russian Federation, and has many other well-practiced ways to exert national power. The US maintains a global garrison of nearly 800 US military bases in more than 70 countries; a great many of which are in Eurasia near Russia. These forces have been and are being used to wage illegal, aggressive wars such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the 2014 destruction of Libya, and the present partial occupation of Syria. Additional wars of aggression and other assaults on sovereignty initiated by the US are very likely if the US is not restrained…
      To reverse the present nuclear arms race, and to prevent nuclear war and further proliferation, we must acknowledge the total threat faced by countries, not just the threat from nuclear weapons. Given its huge military superiority and its global reach, its by-far-superior power projection capability overall, and its leading or dominant role in most international institutions, the US must lead in reductions of both nuclear and conventional arms, and must be pressed by the international community to do so, for its own sake as well as for the security and survival of the world’

    157. Cherry says:

      Posted on last thread but thought it needs to be seen.
      Both these links are thanks to Carol Cadwalader (sp) and others who are trying to get the truth out there. New Wingers should read very informative. Sorry if folks have read before.

    158. Liz g says:

      Faslane & Coleport….
      When Westminster ask how much too rent it
      The answer .. the ONLY answer… should be!!
      Ye canny afford it..
      When the future BT campaign bring it up..
      Ye canny afford it… we’ve done a credit check… you don’t have a AAA rating….
      Ye canny afford the Base…. not now,,, not ever!!!
      Should be the response… let them demonstrate how they propose to make a credible offer..

      Ye could only afford yer Neuks when they were rent free..
      If they don’t agree… let them tell it to us like we are 5..
      Don’t even get me started on the Council Tax for the banding that Faslane is in!!!
      How “very” extra “ special “ could that Council have made that area, all these years?
      Thatcher gave them the power.. did she no???
      Aye Jackie Balie… missed that wan fur yer constituents… fur how many years???

    159. Petra says:

      @Ian at 9:30pm ……. Fabulous post. Spot on.


      @ Fred at 8:27pm ……”They failed to mention that in Scotland tourists can walk where they fancy ……”

      Yeah, Fred, the essence of the whole programme is to “do down” Scotland at every turn, “fail to mention” anything positive about Scotland, whilst promoting England. What’s new? They’ve been doing this for decades now.


      I’ve just been reading through the Bellacaledonia magazine, which was in the National yesterday. It covers some interesting articles, such as Mean City : Glasgow’s Housing Shame.’ The SERCO carry-on features of course and the more I read about it, the more I reckon that this has been orchestrated by Westminster and SERCO CEO Rupert Soames (Churchill’s grandson).

      The article, written by Joey Simons and Sean Baillie (Living Rent Campaign), outlines that they have 3000 contacts, already, who are resolute in stopping the evictions. They go on to say that, “on Tuesday 100 of these fighters helped us deliver a “people’s notice to quit” signed by ourselves and the Unity Centre. It stated our opposition to these evictions, offered a meeting to discus the situation to find a suitable alternative but also promised widespread community led civil disobedience should this abhorrent plan go ahead.”

      SERCO refused to accept the letter and threatened to call Police Scotland to have them removed. “As that group dispersed a few local residents attempted to disrupt and antagonise those there. Some went as far as saying “we would be taken out”. They go on to give out an email address for anyone willing and able to defend their neighbours.

      They, Simons and Baillie, also state that, “for years, Glasgow City Council, under all political parties, has seemingly been content for thousands of asylum seekers to be placed in the poorest of areas of the city, creating heightened tensions and perceived competition for housing and services among those who need it most. All while they have courted money, investment and contracts which have lined the pockets of developers and speculators.”

      A comment of concern, perhaps, when we take into account that GCC had been run by the Labour Party for decades, not the SNP, up until last year in fact.

      Six families have to be evicted next week followed by 10 families every week thereafter. In other words if this involves 300 families this is going to go on for nearly 8 months. And then what? Seemingly there’s 5000 asylum seekers living in Scotland. Is SERCO involved with housing them too?

      This is an absolute recipe for disaster, violence and mayhem, imo, with those living in iinsecure, mpoverished conditions at loggerheads with each other now, 2 asylum seekers on the street on a hunger strike and families wondering if they’re going to be amongst the next ten families to be made homeless. And then like it or not there are many Scots who think that they should be sent home anyway, especially as news reports focus on them as being failed asylum seekers. No mention of the fact that many are still awaiting the outcome of appeals.

      The real objective behind this of course has nothing to do with the Home Office withholding rent money from SERCO. They know that another Indyref is in the offing and are trying to deter Scots from supporting Independence.


      I’ve just checked the online news and see that SERCO is going to pause their lock change plans until an ongoing Court action clarifies their position.

    160. Robert Peffers says:

      I’m constantly amazed at how many supporters of Scottish independence are taken in by the Westminster propaganda and fake news. There are so many quite obvious facts that stare us in the face yet some just accept blindly the frankly ludicrous Westminster claptrap.

      This particular thread has quite a few showing that blind acceptance when even common sense dictates otherwise.

      We have the very obvious claim that the United KINGDOM is a united country but even the name itself shows the brainwashing. The United Kingdom was formed by the Treaty of Union in 1706/7 and it only has two KINGDOMS as signatories on the Treaty.

      However as The Principality of Wales was annexed as an integral part of the Kingdom of England by, “The Statute of Rhuddlan”, in 1284, so formally established Edward I’s rule over Wales. Followed by the imposition of English law in Wales. Remember that a Principality was/is a crown Prince’s royal domain.

      Then, in 1582, the English monarch, (who was previously appointer, “Lord of Ireland”, by the Holt Roman Se, forced the Parliament of Ireland to place the Crown of all Ireland upon the King of England’s head thus formally, under English Law, annexed Ireland as part of the Kingdom of England.

      Which is why neither Wales or Ireland were signatories to the Treaty of Union but became part of the two Kingdom United Kingdom as integral parts of The English Kingdom.

      So here’s the point of all that. In order to be legally empowered to sign the Treaty of Union both signatory kingdoms must have been equally independently sovereign or they couldn’t legally sign the treaty.

      So the point has to be put – why do supporters of Scottish Independence blindly accept the lies that, “Scotland is leaving the United Kingdom and the two partner United Kingdom will continue as a united kingdom? Turn the argument on its head. If England, (the kingdom), leaves the United Kingdom would Scotland continue as The United Kingdom?

      The truth is that as the United Kingdom is a bipartite union then if either, equally sovereign, partner decides to part legal company with the other partner they are ending the United Kingdom. The Status Quo Anti of a two partner agreement is a return to the status they were in before agreeing to unite.

      Scotland, The Kingdom, is not going to be leaving the United Kingdom – The Kingdom of Scotland is ending the Treaty of Union and ending the United Kingdom.

      Here’s another Westminster Establishment fostered myth – The Secretary of State For against Scotland let the cat out of the bag by quoting from a paper paid for with United Kingdom Government money. He said this, “The Treaty of Union extinguished the Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England as the United Kingdom.”

      The truth is the Treaty of Union has done no such thing and, furthermore neither has anyone or any parliament done so either. There simply is nothing in law anywhere that says such a thing.

      The legal truth being that on 30 April 1707 the last elected as such Parliament of the Kingdom of England last sat after putting itself into permanent recession. There has been no elected as such parliament of either a country or a kingdom of England parliament ever since that date.

      Yet the two partner United KINGDOM is today being run as if the country of England were the masters and their legal integral dominions of Wales & N.I. were their subservient property to do with as the wish – but so is their only partner kingdom in the United Kingdom – The Kingdom of Scotland.

      But here is the anomaly – in Scotland, in 1706/7 the Parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland was only prorogued and when Holyrood, (and it doesn’t rhyme with Hollywood), it was reconvened by Winnie Ewing and is thus a continuation of the old Scottish parliament prorogued in 1706/7.

      So there you go – the truth is that when a majority of the legally sovereign people of Scotland decide to end the Treaty of Union the United Kingdom ceases to exist and Westminster is not a legally elected parliament of either the kingdom or the country of England so has no legal right to rule anything and while Scotland has a legally elected and reconvened parliament England is left rudderless – but hang on!

      Her Majesty the Queen of England is legally sovereign and it is her Majesty, in her role as the Queen of England but legally only the Queen of Scots, who has appointed every prime minister of the United Kingdom since 1707 and her who orders her chosen one to form Her Majesty’s Government.

      Anyway, that’ll be something for the Kingdom of England to worry about after the union has ended – it will be none of the independent Kingdom of Scotland’s business. Except, of course to decide if Her Majesty Queen of Scots has, throughout her reign, fulfilled her duty to the sovereign people of Scotland as, “Protector of the People’s sovereignty”. I expect we will hold another referendum to decide if we sack or keep Her Majesty, Queen of Scots or appoint another in her place and whether we call upon another Royal or appoint a president.

    161. liz g says:

      Petra @ 12.22
      As I see it Petra its a … If ye don’t like it mitigate it thing…
      Well it is… But only for public consumption..
      Immigration is a reserved power,so Westminster hire a company to “” see to “these” people “” then stop payment to the company ..
      The Company is no elected, the Company is no longer being paid…. ( the Company,, no matter what ye think of them is no responsible for “these” people… Government is) therefore the Government must pick up the Bill…
      Question is…. Which Government?
      Scotland has Two…. So we are given to understand!!
      Once again Westminster play with people..
      Use all the Scottish Budget fixing the Westminster decisions..
      Or not …
      Fix this one and they will produce another..and on ..and on..
      Disgusting mind set… And then they wonder why we want out!!

    162. Robert Peffers says:

      @liz g says: 6 August, 2018 at 12:51 am:

      ” … Fix this one and they will produce another..and on ..and on..
      Disgusting mind set… And then they wonder why we want out!!”

      Well no, Liz g, they know why we want out … Err! I’ll re-phrase that. They know why some of us want out but I have grave doubts if they know if there is a majority of us wanting out and I suspect there was perhaps, “dirty work at the cross-roads”, during the last referendum.

      I know without doubt that they, the unionists, fought the last election on a false premise instead of on the real, and only, reason of all general elections – to elect your Westminster Member of Parliament and absolutely nothing else.

      Only one party in Scotland fought the last GE on that premise but the electorate have been kept misinformed for as long as I can remember and I have a very good, long and clear memory.

    163. Petra says:

      There’s no doubt Liz that Westminster wants Holyrood to “mitigate” for them at every turn, if for no other reason than to hope that eventually our economy collapses and / or that we ultimately have to refuse to help certain groups of people. That’s why Rennie, Davidson and Leonard are constantly making demands of Nicola Sturgeon. Not because they care so much about anyone at all. Just following their London based bosses orders.

      However, there can be more reasons than one for this debacle. I think it goes further than “mitigation.” More than likely another example of them using immigrants as scapegoats, imo. Probably hoping that trouble will ensue which the BBC / STV will be on hand to record and report. Report because not everyone thinks like you and I (and others on here). Many people in Scotland aren’t too happy about asylum seekers, especially in large numbers, coming here. Asylum seekers (immigrants in general), of course, linked by the media to terrorist activities.

      I was talking to someone through the week who said she’d been in the company of people who had seen the news showing large groups of foreigners congregating around the hunger strikers. They were alarmed to find out that 5000 AS now reside here. She was horrified to hear them all ranting on about, “just watch the numbers of r*pes and murders increasing now.” Plus nasty, ignorant comments being made about Nicola Sturgeon.

      Westminster are making a bollocks of Brexit but they’re notorious for being experts when it comes to knowing how to successfully divide and conquer / rule. As I said already I reckon the key objective here is attempting to dissipate support for the SNP / independence, especially as few people realise that immigration is reserved to Westminster, not Holyrood.

    164. mr thms says:

      #Robert Peffers @ 12.43 am

      Hi Robert,

      I am interested in treaties between nations.

      Harold Wilson’s Royal Commission on the Constitution of the United Kingdom on the 15th April 1969, started the ball rolling on devolution. Can it just be a coincidence the Commission started a month before the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty concerning the international law on treaties between states?

      Next year will be the 50th anniversary of those two events

      Suppose there is a dissolution of the UK, and a re-unification of Ireland, would a ‘revived’ England be able to renegotiate its old ‘Treaties’ with Spain concerning Gibraltar and Catalonia?

      I imagine Scotland’s Treaty of Union with England complicated matters for more than three hundred years, and that would no longer be the case.

    165. Liz g says:

      Robert Peffers @ 1.47
      Aw so true Robert…
      Ma late Father was very big on..
      Ye vote fur the man ( back in the day it wiz a man) who best represents yer area..
      While I know that some don’t like the way the SNP fought the last General Election… they were correct… and jeezze O … I wish more people would pick up on that…
      Did it cost seats… mibbi??
      But we’re no lookin tae ~ be ahead in the Westminster system ~ but rather tae !! Dae democracy!!
      Scottish/Holyrood style.
      We always have tae think of.. when the YES vote comes in.
      We cannot deviate now!!
      Turns oot ,,, that puts us ahead in the Westminster system Welll???? Truth wull oot!!
      Nevertheless… as frustrating as it is… right here.. right now, I’m sure you will agree,this is a winning formula and we must… stay the course!!!

      Hope you are well Robert.. thinking of ye…
      But that doesn’t mean we cannot “””””Robustly “” (lol) debate..

    166. Petra says:

      Funny I was just reading about Gibraltar mr thms. Comments from politicians etc, stating that, that issue will be harder to resolve than the Irish question and yet it never seems to get discussed between the UK / EU. Well over 90% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the EU. I wonder if they’re feeling pretty miffed right now?

    167. Liz g says:

      Petra @ 2.06
      Oh Petra.. it is so horrible to see all that you’ve described play out.
      But I have no doubt that it is indeed this kind of thing that they are up to.
      We have to.. absolutely have to … not play that game…

      While not an endorsement of the origin of the phrase…

      When they go low// we go high..

      We absolutely have to.. not just to win a YES vote…
      But to get a Decent Scotland… that’s the whole point..
      The Union is Shit… we know how to organise a better Country..
      And we must set to doing it, and,, right soon..

    168. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      Completely OT – I don’t know if anyone posted this already, but the folk at Dateline 2018 are trying to raise funds on indiegogo for a second season.

      I’m going to wait a while to see if they meet their total, and if they do it means I won’t have to give anything, which is great! But I wouldn’t advise that strategy for anyone else.

    169. Liz g says:

      mr thms @ 2.10
      While it it indeed facinating …. our modern world being shaped by all these old Treaties!!
      With all due respect… it tells us nothing about the Treaty arrangement before us now.
      We are concerned with only ONE proposition!!
      … Is it in Scotland’s interests that the 1707 Treaty of Union Stands….
      Nothing More.

    170. Breeks says:

      Sigh. It’s just after 6am on a Monday morning and ITV news is already putting the boot into migrants entering Spain. Yes Spain, not even the UK.

      I suppose that gives them double bonus right enough, bonus points for slagging of migrants, and bonus points for their “Europe’s a powder keg” narrative. Kerching!

      The UK is so utterly broken, and once you see it, you see it everywhere.

    171. Terry says:

      @ Robert peffers

      Thanks again for the Treaty info.

      I have never referred to the UK as a country. I so wish that our Snp politicians wouldn’t do that ever. I’ve noticed this on the odd occasion. So here’s a question – is it ever ok for the uk to be be referred to as a country?

    172. Nana says:

      Scot linked to Brexit “dark money” donation faces call to give evidence to Westminster committee

      The UK is the only country in Europe that locks up migrants without telling them when they will be released.
      Sign the petition and tell the Home Secretary this must stop now.

    173. Juteman says:

      BBC at it again.
      Calling on Nicola Sturgeon to invest in the NHS.

    174. Smallaxe says:

      Good morning, Nana.

      Sun is shining here in the deep south of North Britain.
      Kettle’s on!

    175. Nana says:

      Good morning Smallaxe, nice here too.

      Four missing links posted earlier, may show up later.

      In the meantime here’s a couple more

    176. Highland Wifie says:

      Thanks for links Nana.
      The report of an attack on a socialist bookshop in London shows just how far down the road we are towards a state that openly shows fascist tendencies. Destroying books is never a good sign.

    177. Hamish100 says:

      Breeks says:
      6 August, 2018 at 6:20 am
      Sigh. It’s just after 6am on a Monday morning and ITV news is already putting the boot into migrants entering Spain. Yes Spain, not even the UK.

      I suppose that gives them double bonus right enough, bonus points for slagging of migrants, and bonus points for their “Europe’s a powder keg” narrative. Kerching!

      The UK is so utterly broken, and once you see it, you see it everywhere.

      Yip of course this doesn’t apply to “ex-pats” anglo-saxon/normans living in espana looking for a better life from tory ruk

    178. yesindyref2 says:

      I’ve seen comments implying that Stuart Crawford never really was for Independence. I kind of doubt that very strongly, but in any case, what he and Richard Marsh did for Independence back in 2012 was very important with their paper “A’ the Blue Bonnets”, in that they provided a solid piece of work that showed that Indy Scotland COULD defend itself with a budget of just £1.6 billion.

      £1.6–£1.8 billion, which represents some 1.3 per cent of an independent Scotland’s estimated GDP. This compares to the £2.5 billion of the current SNP model and the £1.7–£2.1 billion estimate by Malcolm Chalmers,

      It meant, along with the SNP’s change in policy to supporting full NATO memberhsip, rather than Partners for Peace, that defence was never really an issue for Project Fear to attack Independence with.

      So the boy and his pal, done good, and we should thank them. Without that paper, perhaps support for Indy would not have got near 45%, as defence is something we all take for granted.

    179. Capella says:

      John Beattie taking the Call Kaye show this morning and inviting comment on the court ruling that support for Scottish Independence is a protected characteristic.

      If you have been discriminated against because of political beliefs, call John today.

    180. Ghillie says:

      Nana, thank you for the links as always =)

      I bet Scotland’s farmers are glad to hear that their Scottish Government so appreciate their vital work and are planning well ahead of the Brexit disaster to continue support of that vital work along similar lines to the EU. And that they are interested in farmers’ thoughts on their real needs!

      Many more articles to dive into!

      Has this already been covered and linked to? : The court case, brought by Councillor Chris McEleny against the MOD for being unfairly targeted for his support of independence for Scotland, deciding that belief in Scottish Independence qualifies as a philosophical belief.

      That seems huge to me.

      Many thanks Nana!

    181. Fireproofjim says:

      I note that there is a coordinated attack on the SNP by all the most rabid Unionist papers. Word for word they blame the SNPfor spending cuts on Scools and police. With never a word about the austerity cuts from Westminster
      The just print Labour and Tory press releases.

    182. Bill says:

      As an income revenue it’s almost limitless. There is Coulport too, the system can’t function without Coulport. One more base is BUTEC at Kyle. There’s no where else in the UK that can test and evaluate the sonar systems et al. And that came from one of the scientists working their.

      You really have WM over a barrel. Without Trident they’d lose their permanent seat at the Security Council.

      NATO requirements dictate that the delivery system shouldn’t be more than one hour by sea from the weapons storage/loading Bay. I.e, Coulport and Faslane.

      They can’t be relocated as I’ve always asserted even before the RUSI report, uncless disarmament of the system is completed.

      Independence meant disarmament. Get that into your heads before indyre2 as last time nobody was listening and still don’t believe me.

    183. Bill says:

      Yesindyref2, The UK has met it’s NATO GDP spend by including pensions, a recent change. A sneaky method to fool NATO but Trump isn’t buying it.

    184. Ghillie says:

      Just checked and you did link to it yesterday Nana @ 9.17 am!

      Yesindyref2 and Galamcenalath picked up on it earlier yesterday too =)

    185. Nana says:

      @ Ghillie

      “Has this already been covered and linked to? : The court case, brought by Councillor Chris McEleny against the MOD for being unfairly targeted for his support of independence for Scotland, deciding that belief in Scottish Independence qualifies as a philosophical belief”

      Here you go Ghillie, posted yesterday morning

      Tribunal judge: independence is a ‘philosophical’ belief similar to a religion

    186. Corrado Mella says:

      Have we forgotten that Trident is a NATO WMD deterrent whose launch codes are available to Trump?

      I don’t want Trident in Scottish, English, Welsh, Irish, North Sea, Atlantic, World waters.

      It has no purpose.

      On Independence, expel all British Army personnel, tear down the barbed wire nets and make the barracks social housing.

      Get the subs towed to the Clyde shipyards to be dismantled and send the bill to the US army.

    187. yesindyref2 says:

      Incidentally, re the “carriers without planes”, another 5 F35-Bs arrived in the UK yesterday, for a total of 9 already for the QE, which is scheduled to have its first landing of one in the autumn. Some UK pilots are trained, and others being trained in the US as we speak. Or type. By 2020 there will be limited capability for the QE in case of emergency, by 2023 there should be 2 squadrons. All this is in the plan, and normal for working up such a complex warship.

      We need to stick to the facts.

    188. Tinto Chiel says:

      “We are not dealing with sober, mature, ‘normal’ human beings in WM – we’re dealing with a nexus of organisations and institutions operated by (and protecting/promoting) sociopathic child-men who were emotionally stunted via the ‘boarding school’ culture, reared on Arthurian/Imperial/White Man’s Burden bollocks, and view provincials (i.e. you and me, again) as expendable savages.”

      An excellent summary, Ian Brotherhood, of these deeply damaged and dangerous types. I’m sure even Barnier has been surprised by the low “calibre” of WM negotiators, so used in the past to simply bullying colonials. Take away their gunboats and they have little else.

      But worry ye not, for lo! Prize Plank and former M.P. Tristram Hunt is all over Pravdasound4 now exploring what it means to be British. That will be a balm for our Brexit-shattered nerves, I’m sure.

      Tristram is now Director of the V & A. He was parachuted into Stoke as M.P. by the Blairites and the local Labour candidate stood against him. Despite writing a book on Engels, he crossed a picket line during a legal dispute. Tristram always strikes you as nice but dim, although he did get a First at Cambridge. He likes writing about the British Empire. He will have a life as Establishment plant on the BBC and get columns in The Guardian und so weiter which his pals arrange for him and everything will go swimmingly for Tristram, I’m sure.

      Not as feral and deranged as a Gove or a Johnson but another example of what we’re up against in the media wars.

      Meritocracy my bahooky.

    189. Brian Powell says:

      The ploy the Unionists use works quite well, it gets everybody discussing the pros and cons of something they have absolutely no power over instead of focusing on getting the power to decide.

    190. Ghillie says:

      Thank you Nana 🙂

    191. Fred says:

      @ Petra, anent a surfeit of tourists, the Lake District has had this problem for generations, local kids sadly can’t afford houses in villages with Mrs Tiggywinkle Tearooms & wall to wall Goretex emporiums!

      Faslane’s main threat to vulnerable targets like Jackie Baillie comes from accidents & terrorist attack. Post-independence Scotland will hopefully be under the umbrella of the EU & they have had plenty of practise pissing-off the Westminster crew!

    192. yesindyref2 says:

      Some say it also includes some international aid in that. No idea!

      What you say about other bases is very true, and include Cape Wrath for live fire, and Tain for bombing runs, though not sure if that’s still in the plan. But some would come under NATO,, some for just the UK use. I’d also see some sort of barter system for this “You can use Kyle, as long as you train our pilots / sailors”.

      But yes to the “over a barrel”, we can get training for pilots from SAAB say if it’s Gripens. To replace all the other facilities the MOD has in Scotland will be very expensive and time-consuming. Presumably the negotiators would have a full list soon after a YES vote.

      Brexit style negotiations will be very damaging to overall defence capabilities of rUK + iScotland, but being a “new” state, Scotland is in a far better position than the rUK which has commitments it needs to keep or lose its status. All we need to do is some sort of defence of our maritime and airspace, with some sort of army for civil emergencies.

    193. Ken500 says:

      It was Labour Glasgow council who took in the asylum seekers for money from the UK Gov. There were complaints about how they were housed in skyscraper flats. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work and have to rely on charity. Many come from war torn countries. Illegal wars started by the unionists Westminster Gov. They have killed, maimed and displaced so many people. Millions. They are liable for what they have done. The Tories used migration to fuel Brexit.

      In terms of pop in Scotland there are not many migrants They are needed in many professions. Healthcare etc, Scotland’s pop has only gone up 200,000 since 2000. 1million people has left. Many of the asylum seekers are good people. Educated. One of the girls from Glasgow is now a councillor.

      The fact that the Westminster Gov is chucking good people out of Scotland is a scandal. The Scottish courts should be dealing with it. Westminster are detaining people for years, unnecessarily. The Scottish population was in decline because of all the revenues being being taken illegally and secretly by Westminster and squandered. Illegal wars, financial fraud and tax evasion.

      Westminster has been bombing the Middle East to bits for years. Supporting apartheid states and absolute, despot monarchies, Denying the people the vote. Britain and France (US) carved up the Middle East. Behaved disgracefully. They still are behaving badly.

      The Spanish pop is 43Million and in decline. Germany’s pop in 2000 was 82Million. In 2011 it was 80million. It is now 82Million. Germany has one of the most successful economies. There are 4million displaced people in Syria. 400million pop in the EU. Population does fluculate.

    194. yesindyref2 says:

      @Ian Brotherhood “WM will never ever pay us a solitary fuckin penny to ‘host’ Trident.

      I think your point of view is neccessary, whether right or wrong. It’s an argument needs to be made.

    195. Les Wilson says:

      Some very good comments on here in ref to trident. It is a very big issue.
      However I would like to pass on another serious issue in regards to having them here.(was posted several times previously)

      Babcocks run the trident sites, they have to insure against an nuclear accident occurring. They made a representation to then Prime minister David Cameron that they where paying too much.

      The result was Cameron allowing to lower their risk of liability
      to an amazing £100k. So if we have a nuclear accident involving
      devastation in the West of Scotland all they would need to pay is that paltry sum. The Scottish government would be landed with the crippling bill for any clean up. Probably with a donation from Westminster just for show!

      It is astonishing that Cameron allowed this to happen. The article was originally in the Herald, but a search no longer brings it up. (maybe someone more internet savvy could find it?)

    196. Fred says:

      Liam Fox back in the limelight, is EK’s answer to Dorrian Gray still telling lies about his age. A buddy of mine was in his class & he was two years oot. Vanity, Vanity!

    197. Ken500 says:

      The Scottish Gov is committed to building or renovation 6,000 affordable houses a year over five years. There are 17,000 houses built a year by private firms, 17,000? come on the market. 40,000 houses a year over five years. 200,000 houses. Should be enough houses?

      The unionist councils are the problem. Spending and borrowing public funds on shops, offices and hotels. When there are already empty shops and offices and underoccupied hotels, instead of spending allocated funds on essential services. Trying to cut the allocated budgets. Using the statute of limitation in schools (30) as the norm. To keep class sizes too high. Instead of building schools and affordable houses. PPI wasteful projects.

      Hinkley Point and HS2 a total waste of money with no business case. £Billions wasted with cheaper better alternatives. The ConDems cut NHS/Education funding, Elected to protect NHS and Education. They cut both and welfare spending. Increasing poverty. Brexit will ruin the world economy.

    198. Robert Peffers says:

      @Terry says: 6 August, 2018 at 7:23 am:

      ” … So here’s a question – is it ever ok for the uk to be be referred to as a country?

      The short answer is no – because it is not a country – it plainly says so, “on the tin”.

      Right down there at the bottom in the very, very small print it clearly say – “UNITED KINGDOM”,

      – and that is what it is – a bipartite kingdom united by a treaty that both, equally sovereign, signatories to the Treaty Of Union signed up to.

      Having said that I noted very early this AM, Just before I fell asleep in the big chair instead of going to bed).

      The BBC text service had a few sporting news items. One headlined:-


      Then begins, “Britain’s Jamie Murray and Brazil’s Bruno Soares won the Washington Open Doubles title.

      Then I noted this one further on:-

      GB’s Cameron Norrie loses semi-final in Mexico

      Note – Cameron Norrie, (with a distinct Scottish name), is described in his Biography – “Born: 23 August 1995: (Now age 22 years), Johannesburg, South Africa.

      Then again I read that 31 year old Briton, Andy Murray had pulled out of the Washington open. Then I got to the golf reports and read this:-

      GOLF: ENGLAND’S Hall wins woman’s British Open.

      but further down that report I read, ” … The 22-year-old is only the third British winner since the event became a major championship in 2001.

      That one tells the tale for I had to assume that the other two winners were British but not English and I didn’t even need to
      bother checking if that was the case.

      So there you see the BBC’s insidious propaganda that has gone on since ever British History has been recorded and the kingdom of England was named by the immigrant Germanic Anglo-Saxons who were invited into South Britain as, “Angle Land”.

      What’s the odds you were taught in school that Britain was invaded by the Romans in 54 BC? Thing is only south Britain was Roman Britain but that fact is simply glossed over. Roman Britain was not the British Isles and by not highlighting the truth the impression is fixed in young minds that Britain & England are interchangeable terms for England. .

    199. alastairBute says:

      I would start at £50Bn for the first year then go to £60Bn for the second, £80Bn for the second and £110Bn for the third.
      after that they are out.
      we could do the same for the rental of our oil wells.

    200. yesindyref2 says:

      Just generally about defence, I ridicule Crawford’s idea of Hawks as suitable for air defence for iScotland. BUT Finalnd had / has a couple of hundred of them, and though neutral it’s fronline Russia. It also has F16s I think. But the Hawks are / were an integral part of its air defence when I looked. I think they’re good in dogfights!

      From that point of view, anyone attacking Scottish airspace would suffer losses with 50 Hawks, and arguably would suffer losses even if iScotland had just 12 of them, with 6 for training included. With Typhoons Scotland could afford just 12 to 16 at a push, Gripen C/D (the D is a 2 seater trainer), 32 of them. Less in numbers and hence less able to take losses. But more capable aircraft of course, supersonic and capable of up to 100km over the horizon missle carrying, firing and targetting. Not neccessarily in that order!

      With just 12 Hawks though, iScotland would have more than Ireland which has none. No air to air capability, well, a couple of mounted machine guns.. But Ireland does have modern surface to air with the army, this has limited vertical range. But it is still capable of shooting down “enemy” aircraft. As would Scotland with similar land-based surface to air.

      So my argument is about quality and ability, but if a far lower budget was used, Scotland could still mount some sort of airspace defence (and similar for maritime). And that in itself could be some sort of deterrent against attack in the first place.

    201. From the film ‘The Man Who Never Was’. 1956

      [The military needs a dead body for counterintelligence.]
      Lieutenant Commander Ewen Montagu: I can assure you that this is an opportunity for your son to do a great thing for England.
      The Father: My son, sir, was a Scotsman. Very proud of it.
      Lieutenant Commander Ewen Montagu: I beg your pardon?
      The Father: Never mind. We’re used to that. You English always talk about England when you mean Britain.

      You mean this isn’t new? ?

    202. Clootie says:

      When we talk of Defence can people please shed the “mini-UK” mindset.

      Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, etc etc All require a Defence Force. However the important word here is Defence. The U.K. Has a focus on Force Projection which is to interfere and give Influence. We cancelled/ scrapped long range patrol craft when we have a major maritime requirement ( it happens to be in the bit called Scotland). Fishing / Oil production etc are sacrificed to switch money to political tools.

      Scotland will not require Trident, Astute Class nuclear submarines, Aircraft Carriers etc We can have a far better regional, fit for purpose organisation for half the cost of our current allocated “share”

      …but why are we falling for the standard Whitehall trap of twisting the debate away from Independence and into a devisive polarisation.

      Why do we have these constant arguments on “How Green we should be” / “”How left should we be”” / “We should be a Republic” / “We should be secular” / and on and on

      Indepence is about ONE thing – the right for the people of Scotland to make such choices whenever they chose. We cannot impose our current values on future generation (be they good or bad). HOWEVER Westminster does and will continue to do so unless we get back to the only issue that matters right now – Independence.

    203. Lenny Hartley says:

      Yesindy2 ref think its still policy to join Nata and with our position on the Geopolitical map, it would be in our interests to be a member, notwithstanding Trumps demand for more financial input from non US members we could have a sopwith camel for air defence and it woukd be sufficient. Agree with Clootie there is only one thing that matters and that is Independence.

    204. Old Pete says:

      Adapted from an American civil war song;

      Oh, I’m a good old Scot’s man,
      Now that’s just what I am,
      And for this UK nation,
      I do not give a damn.
      I’m glad I fought a ganner,
      I only wish we won.
      I aint asked any pardon for anything I’ve done.

      2 hundred thousand knavehearts
      They defeated the YES vote.
      Instead they followed Labour
      Broon and his ("Tractor" - Ed) folk
      But they have lost their mantra
      To Tories you could boke
      I thought we’d be back to beat ‘um
      And next time win the vote.

      I can’t pick up my banner
      And fight ‘um down no more.
      But I aint gonna love ‘um
      Now that is certain sure
      And I don’t want no pardon
      For what I was and am
      I won’t be shouted down
      And I do not give a damn.

      The vow it has been broken,
      Well that is no surprise.
      The lying Labour party,
      Betrayed the working class,
      And now we have Ruth Davidson,
      A Tory through and through,
      Destroying the Scottish Nation,
      Is what she is tasked to do.

      Oh, I’m a good old Scot’s man,
      Now that’s just what I am,
      And for this UK nation,
      I do not give a damn.
      I’m glad I fought a ganner,
      I only wish we won.
      I aint asked any pardon for anything I’ve done.
      I aint asked any pardon for anything I’ve done.

    205. Hamish100 says:

      re the film “the man who never was”. He was actually Welsh but the same principle applies. We are fighting for old blighty!!

      John Beattie this morning . The Aberdonian taxi driver living in Glasgow -ex Army – ex Police. Seemed annoyed that one of his passengers decried the use of the term “Jocks” . After all we have taffies and paddies says he. No hint of irony.
      His daughter is in the army and is a jock too! Too many tories are “scared” to speak out. Poor we sowels. Behind the scenes it seems the practice of tories (blue and red) keeping independence supporters from promotion still takes place but then they do that quietly. Still applies in Scotland today even in local authorities– ex-army etc all get placed in jobs needing some security aspect. Civil contingencies (emergency planning) is just one example. Tally ho!

    206. Clootie says:

      EU membership
      Gap between Rich and Poor
      The Lords
      Media (BBC)
      Foreign Policy

      Have your view. Debate them for hours….but Westminster will decide it for you.
      Your opinion is worthless at the moment
      It will remain worthless until we unite on one primary aim.

    207. Footsoldier says:

      Instead of long monologues on Scottish history, why not refer Wingers to suitable reading material of which there is plenty.

      There are many different views on the Union of 1603 and 1707 which are intertwined and not just about the political side but also the part paid by religion which cannot be understated as it was one of the main causes of the 1603 Union of the Crowns. Some argue that if 1603 had not happened neither would have 1707.

      As with so many things in the world, religion plays a major part.

    208. Footsoldier says:

      @Clootie 11:05. Could not agree more.

    209. Robert Peffers says:

      @yesindyref2 says: 6 August, 2018 at 9:30 am:

      … Brexit style negotiations will be very damaging to overall defence capabilities of rUK + iScotland, but being a “new” state, Scotland is in a far better position than the rUK which has commitments it needs to keep or lose its status.

      Care to explain to everyone what is this rUK thing you keep referring to is, yesindyref2?

      The legal facts are that, “The United Kingdom”, is a bipartite political union of the, (two only), signatory KINGDOMS. of Scotland & England and the legal fact is that when you unite a kingdom with another kingdom the resultant whole is legally a United Kingdom of two equally sovereign partner kingdoms. They must obviously each be legally sovereign in order to have the legal powers to sign the treaty.

      So there is the first indisputable legal fact – The United Kingdom is legally a united kingdom of two equally sovereign kingdoms and the fact that there are four countries contained in the resultant united kingdom does not either make the United Kingdom a country nor does it make the ending of the union leave a remainder united kingdom it reverts to the Status Quo Anti and that is to two independent kingdoms.

      There will be no rUnited, Kingdom, (no matter what the, “r”, actually is supposed to refer to there will be two independent kingdoms respectively the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England.

      Which truth exposes the further truth that the Westminster parliament that began on 1st May 1707 was NOT legally the continuing parliament of either the three country Kingdom of England nor was it the continued parliament of the country of England – both of which were legally put in permanent recess and that is factually recorded in Hansard and is thus indisputable.

      No parliament of either the kingdom or the country of England has been elected since 1 May 1707 and, as the United Kingdom ends upon the Treaty of Union ending, There is no legally elected Parliament of England of any sort.

      However, under the English Rule of Law, Her Majesty the Queen of England, not either her English subjects or her Parliament, is legally sovereign. So Her Majesty, who has legally chosen every one of, “Her Majesty’s Prime Minister”, ever, and she has called upon her chosen, “Her Majesty’s Prime minister”, to form every government at Westminster since 1 May 1707 and can obviously do the same again and have Her Majesty’s Prime Minister of her Kingdom of England form a government – Oh! Wait up! There isn’t a single elected as such Member of the Parliament of either the Kingdom nor the country of England as those from the United Kingdom Parliament were elected as United Kingdom Members of Parliament and that means, pending a Kingdom of England or even a country of England election Her Majesty is the only legal authority to run the Country of England for both Wales and N.I. have elected Assemblies but the country of England has none.

      Can you quote any legal mistakes in the above assessment of the legal situation that will prevail in the Kingdom of England when the Treaty of Union ends?

      Your problem, (and theirs), is that the claim there will be an rUnited Kingdom simply has no place in either English kingdom, Scottish kingdom nor United Kingdom law.

      In a nutshell Westminster is not legally the parliament of England.

      It is legally the parliament of a two partner united kingdom and legally is thus as much that of the Kingdom of Scotland as it is that of the Kingdom of England and can not continue as a remainder United Kingdom because what remains are the two now independent partner Kingdoms. You cannot have a United Kingdom when there is only two independent kingdoms as existed on 30 April 1707. The Kingdom of England in April 1707 contained both Wales & Ireland and neither of those have signatures on the Treaty of Union. because they are parts of the Kingdom of England.

    210. gus1940 says:

      Watching last nights ‘Hidden Britain’with Tony Robinson I couldn’t help noticing that The London Transport Infrastructure Money Tree has been shaken for the nth time to provide £600 Million to upgrade Bank Tube Station.

    211. Macart says:

      @ Clootie 11.05

      Pretty much. Comes down to a very simple premise.

      No independence. No choice.

      If people want to make a difference? If they want their voice to be heard and their future votes to actually mean something?

      There is only one way to do it. Empower Scotland’s parliament fully. If people aren’t willing to do that? They really can’t complain when others make their choices for them.

    212. yesindyref2 says:

      @Clootie / @lenny Hartley
      Curiuously I was thinking about this, and went back one level. All papers assume that a priority for iScotland is maritime and airspace protection, and I went along with this.

      But it’s not so, a State’s first priority is the well-being of its citizens, and from that point of view it needs some sort of body that can rush to a natural disaster in its own country, like a hurricane, earthquake, flood or draught. So they need to be trained, able, and be able t o get the right equipment to the spot, as soon as possible, including medical supplies and medics.

      A bit silly to have a specialist group who sit around most of the year, most years. so you have it as an army capability, as most states do. It’s a reason just about all states have some sort of army. So yeah, first priority is a fully equipped and trained and motivated, army.

      @Robert Peffers “Care to explain to everyone what is this rUK thing you keep referring to is, yesindyref2?

      Sure Robert, rUK is a 3 letter abbreviation which everyone recognises, to be used in preference to a 10,000 word repetitive essay every time you want to refer to the “rUK”.

    213. Petra says:

      @ Breeks says at 6:20 am ….. Sigh. It’s just after 6am on a Monday morning and ITV news is already putting the boot into migrants entering Spain. Yes Spain, not even the UK. I suppose that gives them double bonus right enough, bonus points for slagging of migrants, and bonus points for their “Europe’s a powder keg” narrative. Kerching! The UK is so utterly broken, and once you see it, you see it everywhere.”

      And to add insult to injury Breeks as we all know it was the US and UK, that in the main, created this migrant situation. Now they want to pull up the drawbridge and leave European countries to clean up their mess.


      Thanks for the links Nana. I must have been missing something! Has anyone else heard of the BBC / STV reporting on earthquakes in Surrey?


      ‘Gordon Ross mentions fracking / earthquakes in Scotland.’

      ‘Indycar Gordon Ross 15 06 18 Fracking, Waste Dumping, Vodafone Scam.’

    214. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Off-Topic, but indulge me please

      gus1940’s mention of Bank Station reminded me of something. Back when the M25 was being built, in the 1970s, I was working on the Kent section – Westerham to Sevenoaks – while living in Yorkshire.

      I had a weekend off so finished on the Friday and got the train into London. I arrived at Bank Station at the height of the rush hour, the platforms were wall-to-wall with city workers. I noticed a guy wearing really dark glasses and carrying a white stick, clearly blind, being battered from pillar to post; then I heard him speak – he was Scottish.

      I got to him, asked him what train he was waiting for and it was the same one as me. So, when it came in, I locked his free arm through mine and told him to follow me.

      I then, using my full six foot two, 17-stone plus frame, and my training as a rugby prop, to barge our way through the crush and onto the train, where I got him a seat.

      “Did you knock many over there,” he asked. “Aye, one or two.”

      “Good, I get that every night,” he said.

      I would like to think we did our bit of standing up for Scotland that evening, and, I hope they do upgrade Bank Station, I think it still needs it.

    215. Clootie says:

      Post Independence we will have a period when the political parties will put forward their vision of the journey.
      The makeup of Holyrood will then reflect the views of the Scottish people. The Greens will not have 90 seats and nor will the Tories have zero.
      With a PR system it is likely we will have a great deal of compromise as to what and when certain things happen.
      I am OK with that! My fellow Scots will be getting what they voted for as a nation.

      It is highly likely that in 20 years we will have a very different combination in government.

      Those trying to dictate the direction before a YES vote would probably like to have their vision made permanent…I’m afraid it doesn’t work like that! Once the kids leave home they will make their own choices ( including mistakes to learn from). A vote for Independence can give no guarantee of political direction forever.

      However I’m confident future generations will build a far better nation long term in comparison to the current UK. The key point being the ability to change that direction at the ballot box instead of numerical domination by our narrow minded “partner” in the current set up.

      We need to keep pushing one message. We are not voting for our personal vision. We are voting for future generations to have the right to build theirs.

    216. galamcennalath says:

      gus1940 says:

      London Transport Infrastructure Money Tree

      There are so many things wrong with the UK system that it is totally beyond turning around IMO.

      It didn’t need to be that way and many of the UK’s problems could have been avoided. For me one issue has always been the way Scotland, Wales more recently, and N Ireland had budgets to cover large parts of public services. England, on the other hand, just seems to dip into the UK budget.

      When it comes to large infrastructure projects, most of them from the last 30-40 years appear to be focused on SE England.

      Central government spending should be prioritised by firstly being focused where it’s especially needed, then what’s left evenly.

      Focusing infrastructure spending on SE is unfair. And unfair to other English regions as much as anywhere.

    217. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Clootie (11.57) –

      ‘We need to keep pushing one message. We are not voting for our personal vision. We are voting for future generations to have the right to build theirs.’

      Hear hear!


    218. Thepnr says:


      “We need to keep pushing one message. We are not voting for our personal vision. We are voting for future generations to have the right to build theirs.”

      Seconded. We need to keep that one message uppermost in our minds.

    219. yesindyref2 says:

      The other thing about defence papers is they all work on some sort of budget. What they, or at least one, should do is present alternatives for different budgets.

      For instance an annual budget of £1 billion (0.7% of GDP), similar to Ireland. Army as I said for civil emergencies and limited defence against an aggressor, and largely the rest is for smuggling, piracy and fishery protection with the waters, and terrorism.

      £4 billion (2.5% of GDP), clearly quite a superior defence forces for a small nation.

      Somewhere in-between – what do we need, and what do we get?

    220. galamcennalath says:

      Clootie says:

      Post Independence we will have a period when the political parties will put forward their vision of the journey. The makeup of Holyrood will then reflect the views of the Scottish people. The Greens will not have 90 seats and nor will the Tories have zero.

      I agree. That is what we campaign for – a parliament representing Scots, voted in by Scots, and exercising legislative powers for the benefit of Scotland.

      However, I find it really really challenging imagining where the parties in our new multi party democracy are actually going to come from!

      SNP and Greens are obvious. They will stand in iScotlands first elections as they are.

      However, what about the BritNats if they continue to be near fanatical BritNats putting their BritNattery before all else?

      Of course there’s a role for other parties, especially on the right and left, but the present BritNat organisations have no obvious policies beyond opposing the SNP and maintaining their Union. What part could they possibly play in iScotland when their single raison d’etre has evaporated?

      Quite literally I have absolutely no idea where Scotland’s replacement party on the right especially could come from. A new party headed by Ruth Davidson playing its part in our nation building? Impossible!

    221. Nana says:

      A few lunchtime links

      Brexit looks at softening Irish backstop to avoid no deal

      Good thread here
      Adam, let me present you with some comparative economics, and then you tell me whether ANY Tory (and I was one) has your interests at heart. I’m going to compare the UK with our partners in Europe. Firstly, we WERE the fifth largest world economy. Remember that.

    222. Petra says:

      We HAVE to get control of our own country folks, prize Scotland out of Westminster’s hands. So if you voted NO last time round please have a rethink and vote YES in the forthcoming Indyref2.


      I watched a video that someone had posted on here last night that covered nuclear waste being dumped / piped into the sea, over a number of decades, and the nuclear industry experts / investigators trying to find out how many people in particular areas, such as around Sellafield, had died of leukemia and so on. The idea being to then establish if the illnesses / deaths were linked to the waste being washed up onto the shores. Seemingly Westminster, surprise, surprise, ”withholds” that data. The expert / investigator was then left with interviewing the locals and wandering around graveyards looking for signs of early deaths on headstones. It would be interesting to find out how many people have been impacted on in Scotland, say on beaches close to Faslane / Firth of Clyde.

      A ”must watch”, if you haven’t seen it before.

      ‘Scottish Independence – Secrets and Lies (Part 3) – NUKES.’


      ‘Significant’ radioactive waste problem at Trident submarine base – 2018.’

    223. Jeff says:

      Clootie; “Quite literally I have absolutely no idea where Scotland’s replacement party on the right especially could come from. A new party headed by Ruth Davidson playing its part in our nation building? Impossible!”

      I expect the red and blue Tories will unite and form a new party that campaigns for Scotland to rejoin the union?

    224. mike cassidy says:


      The Rev on twitter says there’s no political news today.

      So he’ll probably go shopping for a fridge.

      The fool!

    225. Thepnr says:

      The Tories boost of being able to win new free trade deals with countries all around the world after we leave the EU.

      I wonder if that includes the 50 countries where muslims are the majority of the population. If so maybe one of them should have a word in Boris Johnsons ear before he upsets their chances with more Islamophobic gaffs.

      The former foreign secretary compared Muslim women in burqas to bank robbers and rebellious teenagers, and said they “look like letter boxes” in an article he wrote for the Daily Telegraph on Monday.

      His comments sparked an angry response from other politicians. “Muslim women are having their burqas pulled off by thugs in our streets and Boris Johnson’s response is to mock them for ‘looking like letter boxes’,” tweeted Lammy. “Our pound-shop Donald Trump is fanning the flames of Islamophobia to propel his grubby electoral ambitions.”

    226. Golfnut says:

      @ yesindyref2.

      Protection of our air and sea space is of vital importance.
      Do you really want Westminster in control of patrolling our skies and seas, those seas which make Scotland one the richest countries in the world, those seas which have kept a corrupt Westminster afloat for 50 years. Those skies and seas which they have used to threaten us with. Do we really think its a good idea to rent Westminster territory, space which Westminster use to pour military personnel into if we don’t kowtow. Wow.

    227. Petra says:

      Thanks for the further links Nana. These charts say it ALL, imo.


      Nana 12:16pm – And great to see that the future is not so ”bright and orange” in Northern Ireland anymore.

      …”’Opinion polls tend to agree with Robinson though, with support for Irish unity just three points behind those in Northern Ireland wishing to remain British, according to a recent LucidTalk poll.

      Tellingly, a quarter said Brexit made them more likely to consider it. In this regard, Brexit, so ably assisted by the DUP, is likely to be their very undoing.”

      Ha, ha, ha! Good enough for them.

    228. Smallaxe says:

      Full text of Hiroshima Peace Declaration on 73rd A-bomb anniversary;

    229. jfngw says:

      Rumours of the BBC 1 schedule for the 29th March 2019

      18:00 News with John Humphrys
      18:30 Reporting Scotland with Mary Marquis
      19:00 Dads Army
      19:30 The Good Old Days
      20:20 Potters Wheel
      20:30 The Coronation – A Celebration
      22:00 News & Rep Scot
      22:30 1966 World Cup Final Replay

    230. galamcennalath says:

      Nana says:

      Brexit looks at softening Irish backstop to avoid no deal

      Alas, it just hits the FT paywall. I’d have liked to have read that.

      However, I noticed another couple of references to that over the weekend. Suggestions of compromise from both sides to get wording for the Irish backstop which will mean the Withdrawal Agreement can be sorted out.

      That doesn’t surprise me, however it is just another case of TMay kicking the can further down the road.

      Article 50 concerns leaving the EU. That is ALL that needs to be settled NOW.

      There is supposed to be some non binding statement on the future trade arrangements, and of course the Tories wanted this to be to their liking. IMO it won’t. It will be a woolly fudge to get the WA and the transition period settled.

      Perhaps it’s a swap? Backstop weakened to suit UK traded of against future statement weakened to suit EU?

      Article 218 governs serious trade talks and that can’t/won’t kick in until the UK has Brexited.

      The can goes wheeech, disappearing down the road. The Union/UK gets a reprieve as any short term trigger for IndyRef2 is diminished.

    231. yesindyref2 says:

      My posting was because we don’t know the future Government of iScotland, nor its policies, so a paper would need to cater for any of them, including a pacifist neutral non-armed stance, no matter how daft that is (think Belgium in the Second World War).

      Personally I’d like the £4 billion budget, but that’s really too much, so I’d settle for the £2.6 billion, which would likely be £2.8 billion by Independence Day 2021.

    232. yesindyref2 says:

      About Faslane, Scotland has to think not just about its relations with a next-door neighbour, but in terms of International Relations what the rest of the world might think. If iScotland gave the rUK just 48 hours to disarm and remove its nukes from Scotland, that would effectively mean the rUK having to unilaterally disarm. That wouldn’t go down well with much of the non-Russian or Chinese world.

      Salmond had the right idea, state it as 5 years in the White Paper, but also in the White Paper mention 10 years for those cute enough to pick up on it.

    233. Danny says:


      I am fairy new to Wings but yesindyref2 seems to push the English/Unionist view far more than anyone else on this site.

      Are you on the correct forum yesindyref2?

      The Daily Mail forum is a few doors down sir.

      Just highlighting what I have observed.

      yesindyref2, are you an Englishman who has still to decide if FULL Scottish Independence is a good thing?

      Don’t be ashamed of being English, just be ashamed if you think Scotland should not be an Independent Nation sir.

    234. Smallaxe says:

      galamcennalath, archived for you.

      Brussels looks at softening Irish backstop powers to avoid no deal;

    235. Hamish100 says:

      bbc news (UK)

      news from England, Spain , US of A– it’s hot again, Japan –cuddly brown bear story linking with Yorkshire, England. Finish off with England’s golf ladies champion. weather engerland, engerland

      No news from Scotland

    236. Marie Clark says:

      Clootie @ 10.22,11.05 and 11.57, my , my you’re on fire this morning. I agree with everything that you have said. Fist things first, we must gain our independence. What we do after that is up to us.

      Over the months,I too, have posed the question of the britnat parties after independence , but I’ve never had an answer. I mean since they are all for the union, what do they do when it’s not there? They re no use to us in a forward looking independent country. Nae mair Rooth the mooth party, the shop steward, wee Willie winkie, awe, my heart bleeds for them.NOT.

      Eyes on the prize, and don’t be deflected. Independence, without that we’re all well and truly Donald Ducked.

    237. Petra says:

      I’ve just being listening to the BBC Scotland propaganda news, making a meal of SNHS shortages of staff and closures in Scottish hospitals. The Scottish Tories are demanding, they say, that the SNP Gov do something about it.

      What they don’t say, aren’t telling the Scots, is that we’ve lost 14% of EU doctors (plus nurses) due to Brexit with more doom and gloom .. shortages … surely on the way. The report is also compounded by the fact that the Tories who want Nicola Sturgeon to do something about it are supporting Treeza May who, in the main, is creating the bl**dy problem. It’s high time that the BBC cleaned up it’s act.

      I phoned to complain about this. Not that it’ll make one whit of difference, but if everyone thinks of doing so they might get the message. Be p*ssed off.


      Dr Philippa Whitford: …”Since the UK Government took the decision to leave the EU there has been a 90% drop in nurses coming from the EU and 40 – 60% of EU Doctors are considering leaving. In Scotland, said Dr Whitford, 14% had already gone…”

      BBC phone number for complaints: 03700 100 222

    238. Liz g says:

      Yesindyref2 @ 1.18
      Yes,I understand that it’s mibbi no a good idea…. At the moment…. To actively disarm them.
      But we need to stop this 10,20 year pish and the leasing the Base…
      An honest and binding time frame needs to enter the conversation…. No one that’s in the interests of Westminster,they have known for year’s that Indy is on the cards…
      But we also need to reframe what we mean by leasing the Base !!!

      A Bespoke Deal one with opt-outs….London knows all about them!!
      We could get the terms and conditions from Job Centre Plus…ye know…. A making Neuks pay kind of arrangements.
      We could hire capita to keep writing to Westminster to “help” them to keep the missiles on the base legally!!
      We should learn from our time in the Union!!!

    239. Vestas says:

      Clearly the current nuclear facilities in Scotland are going to serve as a rUK base for some period after indy.

      Nobody sane is suggesting that rUK nukes are kicked out immediately, if only because they’d be parked in Cumbria. Much as I’d like to see how the Tory residents of D&G reacted to that I’m pretty sure it makes everyone more at risk.

      What needs to happen on day 1 is SEPA gets FULL access to assess risk and existing contamination. Liability for cleanup to be based on population of Scotland/rUK – ie rUK pays 90%+ of costs.

      The AWE bases in Berkshire sound like a serious accident waiting to happen & the UK govt doesn’t seem to be able to find £1.2bn to do anything about it. These places build/upgrade the warheads and have soviet-era equipment in some areas.

      If they can’t find £1.2bn to make their big boys toys factories safe when they’re in the “Home Counties” then imagine whats gone on at Faslane behind closed doors.

    240. Iain mhor says:

      Trident of course is a temporary imposition, the UK Government would not normally place a strategic nuclear deterrent in Scotland. However, defence being a devolved matter, neither would it normally consult the Scottish Parliament on Trident’s future. Nor would it normally decide on the Scottish Parliament’s devolved powers either.

      Which makes me wonder why May’s Government hasn’t managed an acceptable Brexit Withdrawal Bill – It’s a skoosh:
      “The UK Government will not normally place hard border checks in Northern Ireland”, “The UK Government will normally let EU citizens engage in freedom of movement” etcetera.
      Under normal circumstances any reasonable trading bloc would accept such a proposal. The EU is being abnormally obtuse and unreasonable about the entire matter. “Normelement” must be losing something in translation…

    241. galamcennalath says:

      Smallaxe says:

      galamcennalath, archived for you.

      Brussels looks at softening Irish backstop powers to avoid no deal;

      Thanks for that. It rather confirms what I suspected … fudging backstop and future relationship statement. It’s in the Torygraph though, so a degree of skepticism about EU movement to suit UK is needed!

      ” … the EU has also signalled it could “fudge” another contentious area — and agree a relatively vague blueprint on future ties with Britain … “

      …. aye, can kicking!

      At some point the UK has to accept something close to one of the off-the-shelf arrangements ie Canada or Norway and drop all this cherry picking wishful dreaming stuff. It just all delays that happening. And that delaying suits the Tories.

    242. yesindyref2 says:

      @Liz g
      It could be less than 10 years. I have a wee suspicion that when the SSNs (conventionally armed but nuclear powered) subs are moving to Faslane, the MOD will be able to get Devonport ready for moving in the SSBNs (nuclear ballistic) subs, and all the other stuff like floating dock and missile storage, with perhaps a ready store for a few warheads as well. Plus maybe getting Burghfield able to take the rest of the warheads. It’s not the same problem as before, there are less warheads, Burghfield is dismantling 3 a year, to get the UK down to 180.

      So maybe they’re already planning how to get them out by 2030, even 2026 in case of need – I would in their shoes as Independence isn’t “if”, it’s “when”.

      I doubt they really expected Indy Ref 1 to be so close,hence the bluster.

    243. Nana says:

      Sorry Gala, I forgot to archive.

      Anyway here it is

    244. Nana says:

      oops. I should have read further on. Cheers Smallaxe, good job you’re keeping an eye on things 🙂

    245. jfngw says:

      Looks like of buckaroos on this thread, I will only support independence if it’s on my terms.

      It’s simple, after independence there will be an election and you can vote for the exact policies you want. If the majority of the parties of government agree to keep or get rid of Trident then that’s what will happen.

      I’m not interested in the exact policies just now, what’s the point until any of them can actually be implemented.

    246. Macart says:


      EU intransigence they’re calling it.

      So not a clown shoed clusterfuck by the UK government then?

      The blame game is well and truly underway. A heads up for what it’s worth. UK gov is the ONLY source of the UK population’s current woes.

      The premise of Brexit as sold to the public was and is the most blatant of fabrications. There never was a cake and eat it Brexit. There never was a best of both worlds, easiest deal ever. Prior to, during and post referendum there was no Brexit plan at all. No white paper. No contingency proposals. No mutually agreed outcomes. Nothing. It was never intended to happen at all. A gamble to settle an ideological power dispute gone horribly wrong and a popular narrative of fear and intolerance out of control determined the economic fate of millions. It’s also made a few quid for market players, hedge fund managers and of course those who would determine both your human and civic rights for you. But, y’know, silver linings… for some.

      The rest of the populations of the UK, those who don’t live lives of privilege or entitlement, have the wherewithal to keep their savings in tax havens or generally get to make actual decisions on anything? They get to live with the consequences of having their votes and emotions manipulated.

      Also on the fibbed part? Pretty much ditto on Scotland’s 2014 indyref. There never was a devo to the max, near federal settlement. big shooders, pooling and sharing, ‘leading with’ kinda partnership. There never was a settlement or agreement which Westminster government (of any stripe) wouldn’t break in a heartbeat if it got in the way of what it considers a better deal, private/political self interest or simple political expediency.

      The EU, RoI/N.I. agreements, Scotland’s devolution settlement, indyref assurances? Brexit drove a big red bus through all of those ‘agreements’.

      At this point, a fairly simple question.

      You should trust the word of those who’ve thrown your lives under that same big red bus why precisely?

    247. Dan Huil says:

      After regaining independence Scotland will be in charge of its own sea around its coast – including the waters around Faslane bay and the Gare Loch.

      As well as charging England with rent for Faslane we could also charge a toll at the Clyde end of Gare Loch. If England refuses we then scupper a few old boats at the loch’s entrance.

      Just sort of sayin…

    248. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Clootie at 10.22

      Agree with every word.

    249. Charles S. says:

      Re: Unionist parties post yes.


      As they are constituted, they are GONE from office in Scotland. They could no more remain operating here as Scottish MP’s could remain operating at WM.

    250. auld highlander says:


      Today we were out for a wee cup o tea and when I parted company with my twenty at the till I got a nice new fiver along with the change.
      Now that wee fiver had been in the hands of a yesser somewhere cos written across the thing was Indyref2, yes.
      It certainly caught my eye. Well done who ever you are.

    251. Lenny Hartley says:

      Danny, yesindyref2 is a bona fide Yes supporter, and has been for a long time, im not sure about you.

    252. Glamaig says:

      galamcennalath says:
      6 August, 2018 at 2:18 pm

      Brussels looks at softening Irish backstop powers to avoid no deal;

      Somewhat different on RTE,

      “What the EU has proposed is that Northern Ireland remains in a common regulatory area for goods and customs with the rest of the EU.

      “We are ready to improve the text of our proposal with the UK.”

      The Telegraph are jumping on this like a starving dog on a bone and finding out its a plastic one.

    253. Golfnut says:


      By the end of the indyref process, any vestige of cordial relationships with westminster will have been shredded by Westminster. They can’t help themselves, they are already viewed internationally as untrustworthy and corrupt, the level of hate and bile, lies and threats which Westminster will direct at Scotland will have killed any sympathy England might have hoped for. Our negotiating position from the start has to be, Faslanes closed. Start packing.

    254. Petra says:

      Oh well one of my posts hasn’t appeared, so I’ve removed one of the links and replaced it with another. Just saying in case the other one appears eventually, lol.

      The Tories have made so many cuts to the point that they can no longer protect Faslane / Coulport. They instead want to pump £billions into renewing Trident; Trident that can’t possibly deal with THE key threats to the UK, such as terrorism, cyber crime and climate change. A young Scottish lassie in the Commons has mair ken than all of the Unionist politicians (around 600) put together. Well worth listening to, if you haven’t heard it before.

      ‘Mhairi Black MP Slams Trident Renewal.’


      ‘Military Assets At “Significant Risk” Amid Staff Cuts, Warns Defence Police Chief.’

      ….’The security of the UK’s key military assets are at “significant risk” because of staffing cuts in the Ministry of Defence Police, a leading officer will claim.

      Cuts to the Ministry of Defence Police – who guard military sites, assets including the Trident warheads, and personnel – has seen the workforce shrink by more than 30%….’


      And on a personal note … my husband was travelling into Paisley at the end of May this year. He was sitting at a roundabout waiting to join the traffic. When he got his chance he moved in behind a police car and then realised that a convoy of nukes was following on behind him. Now he could have been a terrorist, FGS. Time to get rid of them, folks. Vote YES for Independence to get shot of them altogether. Kick start their demise Worldwide. A newly independent Scotland doing the World a big, big favour, imo.

    255. Clootie says:


      I try to leave space for others especially new wingers. However (…as you can tell) I’m getting very tired of those conditional supporters of Independence. You either believe in the concept of self determination or you don’t!

      It is interesting that those who had to fight for it like America, India and several African countries did not know where it was going but were willing to die for it anyway.

      Perhaps the disadvantage of the civilised political route to Independence is the lack of focus on having to win the real battle first! Let me be clear I want a political solution and only a political solution but with a bit more alignment on the goal and a lot less on narrow self and party interest/policies.

      I will now shut up for the rest of today! 🙂

    256. Footsoldier says:

      On holiday in Norway a couple of years back, our guide told us that Sweden had one thing that Norway had not. The answer: nice neighbours.

    257. yesindyref2 says:

      Thanks, and yes, splitters plus maybe a try at stirring anti-English feelings. Noticed something a few days ago which raised the eyebrows. I’m over tomorrow by the way, but lucky to get any ferry at all, most were booked since Friday, so it’s earlier than normal and a quick run around with my new (3 year old) cracking wee van. We’ll get that coffee some day! I’m guessing last week of school holidays so a lot of trippers, and I feel a bit guilty about taking a ferry space, only a bit guilty mind 🙂

      That is a problem. For Indy Ref 1 we could reasonably assume that after the heat of the Indy Ref, normal relations would resume and negotiations would be fairly amicable. But with Brexit? It’s a bit of a worry, and I can appreciate the concern some people have. This must be the worst UK Government in history bar none, even Thatcher knew the rules – and which ones to break. I just hope it’s defence minded people do the actual negotiations rather than that lot.

    258. mike cassidy says:

      Some people neglecting their blood pressure on this thread.

      Just take five minutes to watch this wonderful film (containing another ‘Scotland beats the world’ moment)

      to which I drew attention yesterday evening.

    259. yesindyref2 says:

      I agree with you totally, Independence and never mind the rest. Doesn’t stop us discussing and arguing about it though – just so long as it’s always an X against YES to the simple question: “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”.

    260. Thepnr says:


      Great speech by Mhairi Black as always and one that I hadn’t seen before. She sums it up the futility of having nuclear weapons as a “deterrent” nicely.

      Did you know that according to a HoC Library report released this year called:

      “Replacing the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent: progress of the Dreadnought class”

      “The £2.2bn spent on maintaining the nuclear deterrent per year is roughly equivalent to £42m per week, or around £34 per person per year.

      Alternatively, £2.2 billion a year is roughly equivalent to what is spent on Income Support, Statutory Maternity Pay, Carer’s Allowance, or Winter Fuel Payments (each of which are around £2 – £2.8 billion per year).”

      I’m sure an Independent Scotland will find better ways of spending that money than the UK intend doing with it.

    261. liz g says:

      Yesindyref2 @ 2.19
      I find it hard to believe that they are not already planning to move them as well…
      But I still think that they would like to keep hold of that Base,for many reasons…
      I just have no patience with all the “it will take decades” rubbish.
      While I don’t know all the details…. South Africa got rid of theirs pretty fast,when it looked like Mandela would take power… Infact,if I’m remembering right,the story goes…
      His release wouldn’t go ahead till the the neuks were gone!!
      Where they went and who has them now, is I think, still a bit of a mystery…. But the point is when control of the Country changed,the weapons were dealt with …
      As you say it’s not like Westminster don’t know,and,have known for sometime Indy is coming….

    262. Cactus says:

      Live Free or Die Hard:

      Aussi, many thanks for your lovely words of recent Petra.
      Duly noted and same tae yersel. 😉

      With hunners and thousands Mrs…

      Aweright Danny.

    263. yesindyref2 says:

      Dear God, what outright lie will the TGories be saying next? From Rev’s retweets (our Morag):

      Fire crews across the UK are already stretched by the hot dry weather – the last thing they need is an increase in malicious fires. Thankfully, @ScotTories ended the SNP policy that saw our fire service pay VAT – the £10 million saved could pay for an extra 350 firefighters.

      PAB was right in there!

    264. call me dave says:

      Revs tweet says.

      Moridura site back.

      Seems it’s true. 🙂

    265. Clootie says:


      …I didn’t last long…trying hard to resist.

      I just want to be clear that I love the debates. That is key for the second step.

      What is raising my ire lately is as I said – conditional supporters
      I’m voting NO if we keep the Monarchy OR don’t keep the Monarchy.
      I’m voting NO if we don’t shutdown Oil Production and make bicycles compulsory.
      I’m voting NO if we join/don’t join NATO, The EU, If we don’t raise the top level of tax to 95 percent.

      Anyone who has read my posts knows my political views but I would vote YES even if I knew Ruth Davidson would be our first PM and that Fox and Gove were coming home…because it was what Scotland wanted AND it could be changed.

      Under Westminster rule we will always have Tory Rule (Blue or Red)

      If I could pick – I want an Independent Republic with a dominant left of centre coalition with a clear focus on a switch from Hydrocarbons to Renewables….No WMD and no nuclear energy…I could go on 🙂

    266. yesindyref2 says:

      @Liz g “I just have no patience with all the “it will take decades” rubbish.

      Me too, it’s nonsense, seriously nonsense. Here’s what Chalmers of RUSI had to say in August 2014, having had different thoughts back in 2012:

      Such a study is highly unlikely to suggest that relocation could be carried out safely by the 2020 target suggested by the Scottish government. An agreement to link relocation to the entry into service of a new generation of nuclear-armed submarines, currently anticipated to begin in 2028, could provide a more natural timeframe for relocation.

      That’s just 12 years after Independence in 2016, but the timescale for Successor (Dreadnought) has slipped a little:

      the 4 Dreadnought submarines will be introduced, on current plans from the 2030s onwards and have a lifespan of at least 30 years

      but that’s 9 years from 2021, date of Independence Day, with a little slippage to make it 10! Double rent for anything after 10 years, triple after 12 years, quadruple after 14 years …

    267. ScottieDog says:

      @mike cassidy
      Thanks for the wonderful YouTube link. That was very moving. I love Lochore Meadows and go up there with my son frequently. I had no idea they had that facility.

      It also made me think of the tories around us like Ross Thomson who support policies that will effectively euthanise folk like that beautiful wee girl. It just makes me despise them even more.

    268. Iain mhor says:

      I’m reading a lot about closing Faslane, ditching Trident and a lot of charging the KoE (is that better than rUK? Maybe it’ll catch on) However, a point to consider and touched on by @yesindyref2, is that it would be seen as military disaster for the KoE. Be in no doubt about that. Accordingly, any proposal to “bin it immediately” as a core tenet of Independence will be viewed as a miitary threat with all that implies – I mean of course everything from ’emergency powers’ to outright defence of the realm with full implied moral justification for any military and political action. Now this is not reactionary scaremongering, merely a self evident situation.

      Trident is not just Faslane, neither is it a purely Nuclear issue; there are Coulport, Beith, Loch Fyne, Loch Goil, Rona, Glen Douglas and Loch Long ad-infinitum – serving not just a nuclear deterrent but conventional weapons systems as well. Not only serving the MoD but visiting nations, lest we forget.
      The sheer real estate and infrastructure at the likes of Coulport and elsewhere is not something the KoE could knock up in a weekend. Coulport alone dwarfs Faslane and you are talking about finding a geologically stable 2sq mile landmass riddled with bunkers, road, rail and tunnels. Basically a massive infrastructure build 10-20bn easy and probably the best part of a decade to get up and running and costing more than that in the long run.

      It’s entirely reasonable to wish for nuclear disarmament, the difficult bit is the diplomacy. The Government & MoD are currently still pouring cash into facilities in Scotland. Its long term strategy is Scotland, they have no Plan B. There are suitable contenders in the South but they have been ruled out on Cost, Population, Local Politics, and… Scenery! It’s all just such a bother. The conclusion is: Trident like it or not, is staying for a decade or two or you don’t get any Independence. Referendums or elections results won’t alter that.

      How can we square this circle? A pragmatic approach is to allow it with a timescale of removal of the nuclear warheads until a suitable alternative is invested. Alternatively, lease the base with nuclear capabilities indefinitely (with all the ramifications of sovereign bases) However many other Independent countries do have such foreign bases, though ostensibly non-nuclear. We can only lever the potential lease to Scotland’s advantage.
      Is that selling our souls, those who wish disarmament? Yes, but many a hard road was taken by countries for their independence and I fear this is one we must tread. If we can accept what we have already lived with since the 50’s for a while longer to achieve Independence, there is less military argument to oppose it. That’s a big factor.

      My independence is not dependent on ‘non-nuclear’ I don’t like it, but I’m trying to be pragmatic enough to accept it’s here to stay for a while at least. Using “boot them all out immediately” is not going to win anything. The MoD is not even in agreement itself over the nuclear deterrent. In time, especially with turns of the Scottish screw and costs, they may yet pressure the government (UK or KoE) to give it up entirely – who knows – we can but hope and that’s what we’re about after all, ‘Hope not Fear’

    269. yesindyref2 says:

      I guess my main interest would be along Claim of Right lines, citizen empowerment, and enablement so that we could properly exercise that Right. Also a bit more humanity and flexibility in Governance generally, we shouldn’t be run by computers there should always be a human interface before people are penalised or driven to despair by some of these automatic processes. I like humans, I don’t like computers, except as tools much like a hammer! But it’s Indy first, the rest follows. Or not! But at least it’s our guddle.

    270. yesindyref2 says:

      @Iain Mhor
      Coulport doesn’t need to be as big as previously, not only a reduction in the warheads etc., but no need to allow for future expansion, or the likes of storage of air-dropped bombs like the WE-177/ From that report I linked earlier, Chalmers again who I respect:

      The Trident Works Programme therefore involved most of the tasks that would be associated with a move from Faslane to Devonport and developing a new munitions facility at Falmouth. In total, the cost of this programme came to approximately £1.9 billion in 1993/94 prices – which equates to around £2.8 billion at 2012/13 prices. It might be reasonable to assume that the cost of generating a two-site replacement to HMNB Clyde would cost around the same, perhaps between £2.5 and £3.5 billion at 2012/13 prices. Some allowance should be made for construction cost inflation (over and above general inflation), which could take the total cost up to £3–4 billion. Importantly, a significant sum would also have to be added to allow for the additional costs of acquiring and clearing the land for a new munitions-handling facility

      (+ cost of cleanup at Faslane and Coulport).

      So basically £10 billion tops, I reckon, at 2019 or 2021 prices.

      Which figure also affects the amount that could be charged for a lease – I suspect a figure of more like £2 billion a year but we’ll start at £10 billion a year of course 🙂

    271. Robert Peffers says:

      @yesindyref2 says: 6 August, 2018 at 11:53 am:

      ” … Sure Robert, rUK is a 3 letter abbreviation which everyone recognises, to be used in preference to a 10,000 word repetitive essay every time you want to refer to the “rUK”.”

      So I was absolutely correct in assuming you were actually ignorant of what the UK, actually was, is and won’t be after the people of Scotland decide that the United Kingdom actually is over.

      I expect I will also now have to correct your ignorance again by pointing out that ignorance doesn’t mean stupid.

      It simply means the person referred to just doesn’t know the facts. Thing is you are here admitting to knowing the facts.

      Also, quite clearly, “Everyone”, does NOT, “recognise”, the term rUK because no such organ can exist after a bipartite union ends. I know and many, if not most, indy supporters know that when the two partner United Kingdom ends there is no remainder United Kingdom.

      What remains is the same independent Kingdom of Scotland and the same independent Kingdom of England, (minus the Republic of Ireland), that signed the Treaty of Union.

      Mark you being ignorant doesn’t mean the ignorant person can not also be stupid. If you get my drift.

      So, perhaps if you used the term, “UK”, or even, the full term, “United Kingdom”, correctly in the first place you would not need to be corrected so many times, nor it such great lengths.

      Silly me I had, apparently wrongly, thought that you were making an innocent error and had just failed to understand the previous detailed explanations. I only made that error due to your repeated erroneous references to the term, “rUK”.

      This is a much used propaganda term fostered by the Unionists and their corrupt media. Are you now telling us you are doing so deliberately?

      The term United Kingdom is a legitimate term for the correct political union of two Kingdoms and until the present corrupt set-up is challenged and legally corrected or until the Scottish Kingdom ends the union it is a legitimate use – but the use of the term, “rUK”, is out and out propaganda and here you are defending it, or rather defending your usage of it.

      The propaganda usage is the unionists attempts to portray the Kingdom of England as being superior and the actual United Kingdom and that it will continue as the actual real United kingdom when the inferior pretendy Kingdom of Scotland leaves the real United Kingdom a.k.a. The Kingdom of England..

      So just why would you want to foster the notion that when the union ends by the Treaty of Union being rescinded that the Kingdom of England would continue as the remainder United Kingdom? What also would that make the Kingdom of Scotland?

      Do you really imagine that in the post independence negotiations it will be a entirely new Kingdom of Scotland, or a new country of Scotland on its knees begging the big continuing, “rUK”, for crumbs from its continuing table?

      The three country Kingdom of England signed the Treaty of Union with only the Kingdom of Scotland – Just what is this remainder that the Kingdom of England will be united with when the Treaty of Union ends?

    272. Socrates MacSporran says:

      I must admit, it is good to see so many comments on here about what we ought to do, post Independence. Haud oan a meenit – we have to GET THERE first.

      It’s like that Americanism: It is difficult to remember when you are up to your butt in alligators, that you are meant to be draining the swamp.

      Our first priority has to be, to drain the swamp of Westminster control, which will not be easy with the “alligators” of The Establishment, the BBC, the pro-Unionist media and the “fifth column” of “Proud Scots But” ranged against us.

      Of course, Brexit under this disfunctional Tory government looks like being the own goal to end all own goals, which we must use in our favour, but, even against such huge intellects as the Maybot, Grove, Fox and Co, in London; not forgetting Colonel Yadaftie, Murdo WATP, Carlaw, the bold Professor, Small Dick Leonard, Wee Willie Rennie and the other branch managers and staff up here – plus the ever-present threat that they will release Gordonzilla on us, we will need to take our A game to the table.

      If I have learned one thing in 50-years at the coal face of sports writing it is: when we play England, if they bring their A game out against us – they win. For us to win, we need all our top talent, playing really well, and them to have an off day. It also helps if they pick two or three duds against us – and, boy do they have some duds in the cabinet and the wider Unionist parties at the moment.

      As has been obvious throughout the Brexit clusterfuck, the Kingdom of England has a right guid conceit of itself. They still see God and an Englishman and themselves being the Master Race, this again is a characteristic we can use.

      Their need to have a nuclear deterrent, even a pretend one, reliant on American co-operation, means they will move mountains to keep it. This we can surely use to our advantage. For at least a ten-year lease of Faslane and Coulport, how much would they be willing to give us?

      What concessions can we wring out of them so they can pretend they still matter on the global stage? I am sure the SNP has a fair idea, and some of their best brains working on how we can use their super guid conceit o’ themselves against them when it comes to the post-Independence negotiations.

      However, that is for the future – first things first – call the referendum, then win the damned thing. That is the immediate priority.

    273. yesindyref2 says:

      Time I got on with stuff fulltime not just in-between, but you have to laughg at this:

      Future costs

      our latest estimate is that manufacturing the 4 Dreadnought submarines is likely to cost a total of £31 billion (including inflation over the lifetime of the programme); we have also set a contingency of £10 billion

      this is a prudent estimate based on past experience of large, complex projects, such as the 2012 Olympics, Crossrail or High Speed 2

    274. yesindyref2 says:

      @Robert Peffers “So I was absolutely correct in assuming you were actually ignorant of what the UK, actually was, is . . . blah blah

      Nope, you were wrong.

      It’s called rUK for short Robert, by virtually everyone, check it out. There are, of course, several variations of what the “r” stands for.

    275. yesindyref2 says:

      OH damn, I happened to catch a glimpse of a bit of the rest of your usual long-winded disrespectful posting referrring to “propaganda”, and here you are totally wrong.

      Unionist propagandists call it “cUK” NOT “rUK”. I guess you know what the “c” stands for? No? Do you want me to explain it to you?

    276. John Dickson says:

      My penny’s worth, after #Brexit #DissolveTheUnion the English won’t be able to afford the rent for Faslane.

    277. Robert Louis says:

      More absolute bullsh*t today from the lying toadies in the Westminster English Tory government. Apparently, the problems with brexit are all the fault of the EU. I suppose according to their twisted logic, that is because the EU is refusing to do whatsoever London wants.

      A hard lesson for England. Nobody in the world really gives a flying f*** about you anymore.

      Mind you, I did predict this over a year ago, that once reality bites and Brexit is seen as the most monumental self imposed economic damage any country has ever undertaken, that the tories and their Labour brexiteer cheerleaders would all just blame the EU (again).

      Honestly England will be twenty years outside the EU and their politicians in the red and blue tories will all still be blaming everything on the EU. It’s really rather pathetic.

      ‘It’s all the the EU’s fault’, Labour and Tory brexiteers cry. Oh, Boo f****ing hoo.

    278. Liz g says:

      Iain Mhor @ 4.44
      Thing is Iain…. All the issues around the Base has knock on effects to the important early years of our independence.
      We will be framing the kind of country we want to be.
      EG… The Government in Holyrood will be charged by the Constitution with our safety..
      So how can they strike a deal with a foreign power to allow them to connect and disconnect neuclear warheads on our soil?
      Are we going to permit Holyrood to agree that the vast area of land that you mentioned become Sovereign territory of the KoE ( like that term) for any leanth of time?
      Are we going to allow Holyrood to give permission for another country and it’s military to transport neuks through our country?
      Or are we to adjust our Constution to accommodate the KoE?
      Mibbi even wait 10 + years before we could write that we will not host WMDs in our own Constution, to suit the wants and needs of Westminster

      The MoD and Westminster have had plenty of warning that they will be loosing that Base
      If they want their Wepon they need to act …. not us.
      My support for independence is not conditional either….. but as I see it, the right to decide what happens on our territory and the right to frame our own Constitutional arrangement without reffrence to Westminster on any and all subjects is, in and of itself, the whole point.

    279. Clapper57 says:

      Call me an opportunist…but with everything mad and bad that is going on in the world just now….I definitely think there is gonna be a big market for scream rooms.

      Do not try this at home ….home is for the silent scream deep inside prompted by yoon und radge tweets and news brought to you via area “where you are” courtesy of Main Scream (inducing) Media aka MSM.

      ps. Please no one tell me that scream rooms actually do already exist….cause that will be yet another f****ng thing we are denied thanks to the Union !!

      pps. Please no smart arse comment that one could just scream in a forest hence a lack of necessity for needing a room to scream in….but think on…. unlike space….in a forest ‘someone’ perhaps could hear you scream….how alien would that be…if yir shy!

      ppps. when I get my straight jacket off I will consider putting my master plan into action and market it via WTO ( wacky tacky orders) rules.

    280. Thepnr says:

      @Robert Peffers

      “I expect I will also now have to correct your ignorance again by pointing out that ignorance doesn’t mean stupid.”

      “Mark you being ignorant doesn’t mean the ignorant person can not also be stupid. If you get my drift.”

      Make your mind up is he ignorant, stupid, both or neither?

      You’re a lost cause when it comes to replying to fellow Independence supporters comments without being insulting it seems.

    281. yesindyref2 says:

      I have just the Cure for you.

    282. Maria F says:

      I am delighted to have found that Peter Curran’s site has been reinstated. I was checking some of the videos in that site and found the obvious one of Mr Major being interviewed by Mr Marr on 22 July 2018.

      I think this interview should be preserved for our Yes campaign because it has right there, in beautiful words, the absolute, unequivocal and categoric justification from the perspective of a conservative party member for our second independence referendum. Mr Major of course is talking about the second EU referendum, but the circumstances and the events can easily be transposed into our own scenario. And if another EU referendum is “morally justified” on the basis of breach of promises, so is another Scottish independence referendum.

      * REv, I know nothing about copyrights and I apologise profusely if this breaches it. I had not seen this interview before and I could not believe my ears. I just thought it very valuable and a good example to be presented any time a unionist starts with the crap of the “once in a life time referendum” and ” we already voted” nonsense. I thought it should be transcribed just in case some “legal” from the BBC attempts to wipe off “the evidence” in that video alleging some copyright breach (please note that I took out some chunks where Mr Major was going a bit in detail regarding brexit itself and that I thought no relevant to our case. They are marked as […])


      Mr Major: A second referendum has democratic downsides, it has difficulties. But is it morally justified? I think it is. If you look back at the Leave Campaign, a great many of the promises they made were fantasy promises. We now know they are not going to be met. It is painfully obvious they are not. […] Many of the things they said were absolute pie in the sky. And if you look at any possible deal we are going to get and compared to what people were promised with Brexit, there will be a gaping gap. Now, that is a reason why people may want a second referendum. Let me give you an illustration: Would you buy a house without knowing the price? No you would not. Should we finally decide to leave Europe without knowing the cost of doing so, and by the cost I don’t mean just to the government, to the nation, I mean to the lives of individual people in every constituency in the land, now I think it is arguable that once the cost is known, if it is as damaging as I believe it to be […] Then you either face the question of letting the public endorse it or not, or five years down the road, when it is blazingly apparent how much has gone wrong, there will be a huge amount of disillusion, much greater disillusion that we have yet seen with the British political system. So referendum isn’t an easy option, but it is not one at this stage that I would rule out.

      Marr: Because you said in terms during the first referendum “this is it”, “there is only going to be one referendum”, “once in a life time chance”, “there will be no more referendums”. And now you have changed your mind. That is why some of your critics on the brexiteer side of the party are so angry with you.

      Mr Major: If circumstances change, you change your mind. I think that was said by a very wise man.

      Marr: Maynard Keynes.

      Mr Major: Absolutely, Keynes. And we now know that circumstances have changed. The promises made are not going to be met. And if the promises made are not going to be met, there is a justification for changing your mind on letting the public decide whether the Brexit they offered after the negotiations is going to be remotely like the Brexit that was promised by the leave campaign during the referendum. I do not believe it will be remotely like the promises that were made.

      So, we just need to change the word “Brexit” by “UK” and the “Leave Campaign” by “Better together campaign” and “vow” and voila! we are right there.

    283. Iain mhor says:

      Hi Liz @5:55
      Those are all valid concerns. The answer to them in the short term (undefined) is Yes.
      We are not independent, therefore have zero say in the matter. The Government/MoD have not got a backup, nor did they put in motion a relocation scheme and start building decades ago in case Scotland ever became independent.
      “Well hell mend them” might be the retort. But here we are.
      It’s going nowhere until Independence day. Then, possibly Scotland could say “get cairted”. First though, Scotland has to decide what Scotland wants. All those valid things you listed, they won’t spring into effect on day one. So that just leaves the obvious, that Trident etc. will be in Scotland after Independence day, but we’re only arguing for how long.

      Pragmatism and realism say long enough for Scotland to actually have a constitution and elections or referenda on the Trident issue. Don’t get me wrong, there’s no barrier to that happening in year one. Just stand on a ticket of “Nukes-oot immediately” then issue the demand if the party wins its majority. Even then, logistically that could take a while to remove just the warheads. Scotland could immediately ban Nuclear subs in its territorial waters, except how would we know of violations?
      Then comes the painstaking process of decommisioning.
      That’s an entirely ptactical and logistical concern and safety is at the forefront and that takes time.
      I”m just suggesting from a cold hard logic, that we won’t wake up on day one and they’re gone.

    284. Clapper57 says:

      yesindyref2 says:
      6 August, 2018 at 6:21 pm
      “@Clapper57 I have just the Cure for you”.


      Hey yesindyref2, that’s what I’m talking about….excellent ‘cure’ for suppressed screams needing outlet.

      However……..I DID SAY NO FORESTS !!!!!!! LOL.

      Hope you’re not dissing my scream rooms invention in favour of ‘A forest cure’. LOL.

      Have a good evening

    285. Juan says:

      Just to throw some petrol on the fire of the Faslane Nuke Debate here. Faslane is definitely Scotland’s. It’s a UK asset on our territory. Here’s the small tactical nuclear grenade tossed into this debate. The NUKES WOULD ALSO BE OURS. When the USSR dissolved, Russia had to negotiate with Ukraine and others, where the USSR had stationed nuclear weapons out with Russian borders.
      “If Ukraine decided to keep its nuclear arsenal after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, how would the current situation against Russia play out?”
      Taken from article here:
      The important part is, it was the Ukraine’s decision to keep, dismantle or remove them.

      With the breakup of the USSR 14 nuclear states were created. The US, Russia and others formulated a plan combined of carrots and stick to convince these new states to relinquish their Nuclear weapons.

      Or there’s always the BBC. (It must be true, I read it on the BBC):
      “”Mr Rizanenko’s logic is sound, writes USA Today’s James S Robbins.
      “The problem with Ukraine trading its most potent weapons for Russia’s promise of good behaviour is now evident,” he says.
      “Kiev gave up its means of deterring Russian aggression. Now, Ukraine is overmatched in conventional forces and would have difficulty fighting off a Russian incursion.””
      These WMD’s would be ours! Does that put us in a stronger or weaker negotiating position? We’d be THE nuclear power negotiating with a neofascist Tory regime.
      We have the vast majority of UK oil, gas assets and the Nukes. Doesn’t that put us in a stronger position? Would the boot definitely be on our Scots foot?
      I don’t want to be a nuclear power. I’d want them dismantled as soon and as safely as possible.

    286. Fred says:

      Ian Gray failed to mention, when outlining Slab’s alternative plan for education, just how much money Scotland shells out every year for Slab’s grossly incompetent PFI fiasco.

      Jenny Marra shooting her mouth off also over an employee pay-off which is denied by the Tayside board.

    287. Iain mhor says:

      @yesindyref2 5:05pm
      I take your point about solely nuclear warhead/ hardware logistics – downsizing is possible if it’s relocated.
      There’s much more ordinance than that though around Scotland. Mind you that could be spread around existing facilities down south, but I’d see them having to establish a bespoke site nontheless and I’m sure it would be a considerable chunk of real-estate if not quite ‘Coulport/Faslane sized’
      The point is moot IMO they have what they hold and won’t give it up lightly. They may give it up slowly though.
      As I replied to Liz, it’s only the timescale that’s the issue. Costs and payments will take care of themselves.

    288. Socrates MacSporran says:


      I might not have accumulated the years and experience of Mr Peffers, but, having got beyond my alotted three score years and ten, I reckon I have earned the right to be a cheeky, sometimes cantankerous auld so-and-so, like “Auld Boab.

      It doesn’t matter a jot that “everyone” calls what will be let of the United Kingdom after Scotland reclaims her Independence – rUK, cUK, La-Lan Land, whatever.

      Legally, with the dissolution of the United Kingdom, the two constituent parts, via the Act/Treaty of Union of 1707 will revert to be the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England.

      So, Kingdom of England it is for me. Just how they sort out their situation with Ireland and Wales, well, that’s their business and nowt to do with us – we will be too-busy, building a better nation up here.

      I just wonder though, by reverting to Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England, do we revert to the 1707 borders, in which case, I think Berwick and that part of Berwickshire currently in Northumberland, comes home.

    289. Xaracen says:

      If the Uk’s WMDs cannot be moved from Scottish territory, and they become ours, doesn’t that mean Scotland should inherit the UK’s seat on the UN Security Council?

      I’d love to see the look on their faces if that was put to them! Delicious!

    290. Albert Herring says:

      fUK is a much better abbreviation anyway.

    291. call me dave says:


      Indeed! I was ranting at the box as Gray was on.
      Saying PFI! PFI!.

      I was also worrying about sheep worrying story and actually beat the BBC shortbread by stating to my neighbour (who’s tv it was)

      “Agricultural crime is down in Scotland but rising in England”! and viola!…they put the figures up.

      He said in a startled voice “How did you know that”?
      I said “I read Wings over Scotland”

      I’m building a scream room too! We used to have a wee darkened room if I remember…. 🙁

      Good news from GHA supplying between 30 to 40 houses to mitigate the Glasgow refugee situation.

      Calmed down…note to self. Don’t drop in on neighbour during tv news time.

    292. Brian Powell says:

      It was Murdo Fraser who made the claim about Tayside payout, so Jenny Marra supporting the Tories.

    293. Brian Powell says:

      It was Murdo Fraser who made the spurious claim about Tayside payout so Jenny Marra backing the Tories.

    294. yesindyref2 says:

      @Clapper57 : “However……..I DID SAY NO FORESTS !!!!!!! LOL.

      Hahahaha (evil laugh)

      @Socrates MacSporran
      I’m no spring chicken myself, though taking my one a day JointCare active – with Chondroitin (muscle or bone fluid I forget) does mean I can walk up from Calmac cardecks without hogging both rails and one painful step at a time, left foort up, right foot onto same step, left foot up … as happened two or three years ago.

      As for the accuracy, it’s not actually as easy as Robert says. There are legally basically three ways Scotland can go our Independence, and that’s secession, separation and dissolution. In that respect Crawford & Boyle are correct, and from other constitutional / law readings, they’re also correct when they say dissolution – return to our pre-1707 states – is not desirable for Scotland – or the rUK. And without dissolution, the history is actually immaterial, it’s the reality of how we actually do go our different ways. Without agreement Scotland could try to insist on dissolution as the last resort, but they’re also right in that the international community might not actually accept that. Then perhaps protracted court cases and everyone’s in limbo, which is not good for either party.

      Secession effectively means we go with nothing, whereas separation means we split the proceeds and inherit treaties and all that. But the UK wants to be the Continuing UK so that it keeps all the treaties. Well, that’s not perhaps totally in Scotland’s interest, so perhaps some agreed mix of secession, separation and even dissolution might be the answer, though it wouldn’t be called that.

      One thing is for sure, Scotland doesn’t want to be the Continuing UK though we have an equal right to it as the rUK does, so that as well as Faslane, is a real negotiating card to play. We agree the rUK is the cUK in exchange for – well, whatever we want and is reasonable.

      As for the term “rUK”, it’s univeraslly recognisable, and neutral, which is important when we’re talking to interested undecideds and soft NOes – and even so-called hard NOes. At its heart, it’s about communication and “conversion”, not history – unless the history and even legal position is of some interest to those that don’t know it. Or of course if we get some unionist caliming the UK is all powerful and Scotland is weak as water. Think again, pal!

      In the words of Lord Forsyth, him of the Drum cleaning kit, “When Scotland leaves the UK, the UK ceases to exist”.

      Unless we can be persuaded otherwise, of course, and it’ll cost plenty.

    295. Dan Huil says:

      @Xaracen 7:16pm

      Nice one. Would almost be worth keeping WMD.

    296. Golfnut says:

      Thankfully most of the people who seem to think that Westminster should make the decisions regarding Trident remaining in Scotland won’t be at the negotiating table. If you walk into the room with your trousers round your ankles you’ll get#######.

      Scotland, Tridents toast.
      Westminster, You can’t, we’ve no where to put it
      Scotland, why not, you’ve known this was coming.
      Westminster, but it will take years.
      Scotland, how long.
      Westminster, at least 20 years.
      Scotland, f#ck off. Try again.
      Westminster. Well maybe 10 years.
      Scotland, your going the right direction, we need access,
      Check contamination.

      Hopefully you get the idea how negotiations work.

      Westminster, just started setting the scene with this article, and you guys just capitulated. In fact started to justify Westminsters position.

      Trident is just one of the problems facing Westminster, oil, gas, electricity, water and food. Balance of payments and collateral for borrowing.

      Scotland has a lot to bargain with, she’s not walking into that room naked.

    297. stewartb says:

      call me dave @7:26 pm

      You wrote: “Agricultural crime is down in Scotland but rising in England”

      Interesting how this is – or not – covered by the media. The insurance company NFU Mutual published a report on rural crime today. And yes the crime figures are rising in England. The NFU Mutual report publishes the marked contrast in Scotland where rural crime is falling: it points to leading practice in tackling this kind of crime in Scotland though effective farming, insurance company, police and justice collaboration.


      Tonight’s C4 News had a big piece on this report and the problems in England, but the programme quoted aggregated UK-wide statistics. No mention of the marked contrast in the stats across the UK and no mention of the plaudits in the crime report for collaborative actions in Scotland.

      Disappointing from C4 News but not for the first time in recent weeks – a polite e-mail to the newsroom sent asking for better editorial appreciation of how the UK is structured i.e. not a Tory ‘one nation’!

    298. Petra says:

      Following the Scottish Referendum in 2014 Ministry of Defence officials sounded out Gibraltar (Jan 2015), as an alternative to the naval base on the Clyde. They were given short shrift, in particular by Spain due to it’s close proximity to Gibraltar and the fact that Spain is a non-nuclear member of Nato.

      The link in Stu’s article has highlighted that there is no alternative location on English / NIrish / Welsh soil and it may very well be that following the Brexit debacle bankrupt England (at present) will be so short of funds that Westminster may have to consider dropping their costly nuclear programme altogether.

      However if Westminster wants to hang onto their ”arsenal” and an Independent Scotland wants rid of them that’s Westminster’s problem, not ours. If it comes right down to it, they could adopt a fallback position and send the whole kit and caboodle to King’s Bay Naval Base in Georgia, US.


      ‘How Washington owns the UK’s nukes.’


    299. Petra says:

      Apologies if this has been posted already.


    300. yesindyref2 says:

      Basically speaking, the UK could try to declare Faslane and Coulport as UK sovereign territory, but unfortunately for them the “Beam me up Scottie” transporter hasn’t been invented yet, so there’s no way in – and no way out.

    301. Clapper57 says:

      call me dave says @ 7.26pm

      “I’m building a scream room too” ! We used to have a wee darkened room if I remember…”


      Whoa Whoa Whoa call me dave…ahem copyright pal….darkened room is okay …you can use a gag….as in cover for mouth not as in joke….Ah I see where I have went wrong here pal…public forum…open big mouth or rather spill the beans on a contemporary for our times invention …cat out of the bag…bob’s yir uncle….plagiarism fest. is it……

      ps. I will only charge you half price for the use of one of my scream rooms….since like me you have a penchant for the notion of screaming in a can take in a telly and watch BBC Rep Scotchland 24/7 and scream until you cough up your vocal chords… can also have a laptop and only view usual yoon nutjob suspects tweets on twitter….though that may take you over the edge so I would probably need you to sign a disclaimer.

      pps. My legal representative said that as I mentioned it first, i.e. scream rooms , on this forum then the building , marketing and selling of scream rooms is mine…..please feel free to bring your anger and frustration to a scream room coming soon to an area where you are !!!!!!!

      ppps. These wittering are brought to you courtesy of a person who currently is exhausted and burnt out by too much news and non news presented as news, too much lies hiding the truth, too much pro Britnattery rammed down my throat, too much twats free to tweet on twitter, too much talk of Corbyn antisemitism on news speed dial , too much Brexit means…wtaf does it mean NOW ffs, too much not fit for purpose Unionists elected as Councillors,MP’s and MSP’s, too much toilet paper with words on disguised as newspapers, too much think tanks springing up who are funded by f**k knows who to represent views of those whose views are opposite of mine , too much ‘Free Tommy’ zombies on the loose, too much legitimising extreme right wing bigots on MSM via giving them an undeserved platform to spout their hatred etc et f****ng cetra… fact there is frankly too much of too much and it is proving too much for me….and I am sure for many of you too.

      Dr jim…hope you are well…you have my empathy…100% as Scott Arthur would say…in his own unique way of combining words and percentages kind of way….a way that he has adopted to reinforce his honesty Ha Ha Ha.

      Have a good evening everyone apologies for above crazy talk…it comes with the territory….long suffering Indy supporter.

    302. stu mac says:

      @call me dave says:
      6 August, 2018 at 7:26 pm

      Indeed! I was ranting at the box as Gray was on.
      Saying PFI! PFI!.

      Yes indeed, also it seems numbers of pupils has dropped by about the same percentage as money is supposed to have been reduced. Not that we should try to put in more money but in a time of serious cuts, keeping investment per pupil is a decent outcome.

    303. Lenny Hartley says:

      Yesindy2ref if they think they can have a sba (sovereign base area) they are going to have issues with the workers living in the Helenburgh area. Like the 3 SBA’s in Cyprus and Gibralter they are going to have a border with the EU, and there will need to be passport and customs checks ????

    304. Petra says:

      ‘The Future of the UK’s Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: the White

    305. schrodingers cat says:

      Maria F

      there isnt going to be an euref2 but there will be a peoples vote in a GE in a few weeks time.

      that is why there is a concerted effort by the labour party to get rid of corbyn on the spurious grounds of anti semitism.

      a new “no deal” tory pm will leave corbyn having to agree or reverse his no sm/cu stance

    306. yesindyref2 says:

      I’d much prefer an ice cream room. Yum yum!

    307. frogesque says:

      RUk, Kingdom of England, The Rump, oh what to call it?!

      Problem solved, go French. Instead of Grand Bretagne it should henceforth post Indy be referred to as Petite Bretagne

    308. Petra says:

      It just goes to show that it’s never too late to change your mind. It took Tom Harris 34 years to see the light. I wonder who’ll he support now?

      ‘Former Labour minister resigns from party: ‘It’s just not the place for me any more.’

    309. schrodingers cat says:

      from a starting point in negotiations we should lay claim to one of the trident subs and a few nukes into the bargain. after all, we paid for them too!. along with 10% of all the raf and army equipment.

      no nuke sub then no share of the uk debt either

    310. Golfnut says:

      @ yesindyref2

      Ha,ha,ha, wouldn’t surprise me that bojo and company believe Star treks true, maybe ‘retractor beams ‘ as well.

      I think Cameron and the MOD both ruled that out during Indy 1, but I think we’ll see that resurfacing at some point as a threat delivered by a retired General or politician.

      It would of course be an act of aggression against a sovereign state opposed to housing the Nuclear weapons of another state. International law has a bit to say about that.

    311. Petra says:

      @ Smallaxe / Clapper / Call me Dave (et al): Think again ….. have a laugh, as it won’t be too long now until these Unionists at Holyrood change their ways, serve the Scots, or get booted out on their er*e.

    312. Juan says:

      In this Trump era …

      Scotland has all the assets of oil, most gas, surplus electricity, surplus quality food and drink (and we even produce 70% of all UK Gin), trade surplus and even the most beautiful scenery and we’ll have the Nukes! What would Trump do?

      We should be dictating the terms not fire fighting against their overinflated opion of their position. They’re bluffing!
      England doesn’t have anything I want. Berwick upon Tweed is ours and as a sign of England’s good faith, they should renounce any claim on it on day one. If not, by day 2, we will be adding Carlyle, it used to be Scottish.

      Which Trumpesque negotiating technique should we employ? The one where we tell them there’s going to be a wall and they’re going to build it, as he tried with Mexico? Or the tactic used against North Korea? We’ve got bigger bombs than you and we’re going to use them.
      Obviously Nicola is way to classy to stoop to this level of negotiation.
      What we need is our own Orange man. No not one of them OO, orange men. I mean a sunbed tanned, table thumping, rabble rouser who’d enjoy slagging off and threatening the Oxbridge crew. I’m pretty sure Tommy S, could act the part. (He might negotiate life time free sunbeds at his local salon, for life as a fee).

      Tory’s will be using the same Trumpian tactics if BoJo has anything to do with the negotiations. He’s a pal of Trumps and Bannon.

      Point is, the Nukes are ours and so is the rest of the good stuff, but that burden of oil. Which will cease to be a burden once independent. We have not just a good hand, but a much better hand than theirs. We’ve a Royal Flush and all they’ve got, at best is a pair of 2’s.

      (After the “news” channel 4 have “Heateave Britain:Who needs Ibiza?” It’s all about England’s water shortage. 90% of all the UK’s fresh water is in Scotland. Just another wee Ace up our sleeve).

    313. yesindyref2 says:

      @Lenny Hartley, their problems would be endless. Akrotiri and Dhekelia both have direct sea access, and flight over the sea. Which compared to Faslane and Coulport is end of story. The UK would have to annex the whole of the Firth of Clyde to get sea access, and parts of Western Scotland to get land access. It would have to take the A82, M8 and M74 as well, plus I guess strips of land each side for security. That’s probably include Dumbarton, Erskine, Clydebank, Glasgow, Motherwell, Hamilton, East Kilbride, Strathaven … and of course Smallaxe in Gretna.

      Umm, I don’t think so. They might get the rest of it, but they’d NEVER get Smallaxe!

    314. Petra says:

      ‘A former Scotsman editor (Magnus Linklater) blames Nicola Sturgeon for Brexit uncertainty.’

    315. Petra says:

      Professor John Robertson: ”I suffer the brunt of Scott McNab’s educationally and statistically ignorant churnalism in the Herrod.”

    316. twathater says:

      I must admit hearing the brutish bullshitting crappers 1 o’clock news where they done a desperate rubbishing as usual of Scotlands Shite , a headline item of ex NHS Tayside boss receiving a mahoosive payout of 300k was fronted by a very annoyed and critical Jenny Marra , I was angered that the failure of the ex boss was being rewarded , but imagine my surprise when I came across this on Broadcast Scotlands twatter page

      Jeane Freeman
      ?Verified account @JeaneF1MSP
      2h2 hours ago

      Just because @JennyMarra tells @BBCScotlandNews she “understands” Ms McLay rec’d £300k pay off doesn’t make it true.What is true is @NHSTayside stating categorically she did not get a pay off. I’m shocked BBC has continued to headline on this claim online & on #ReportingScotland

      This is just MORE LIES spouted by this corrupt lying organisation to besmirch and demean Scotland’s government, how many people have been outraged and taken in by this FALSE FAKE NEWS . The Scottish Government must address this corruption

    317. yesindyref2 says:

      Ah, “twathater”, “twatter”, now I get it!

    318. Robert Peffers says:

      @yesindyref2 says: 6 August, 2018 at 5:34 pm:

      “…It’s called rUK for short Robert, by virtually everyone, check it out. There are, of course, several variations of what the “r” stands for.”

      My! My! Who would have thunk it?

      There are indeed many variations of what it stands for – and every damned one of them 100% wrong. What is more I made the point a long time ago on Wings just why the Westminster Establishment uses these initial letter short versions.

      In fact they use these shortened versions so that the people, through constant usage, begin to accept that the, “UK”, is whatever the Westminster Establishment cares to infer it is.

      In this case it is that the United Kingdom is not in fact a kingdom but is instead a country. The person who used this ploy to extremes was David Cameron. He would use the term UK and, “The country”, or variations of that term several times within one sentence and repeat that in several paragraphs.

      Through time the lister/reader begins to think of the United Kingdom as, “The Country”, and the brainwashing is complete.

      Once this becomes fixed in the mind it is damned hard to shake it off. I know this as I had to do just that. The Westminster Establishment, and their Civil Servants in particular have a great love of contractions and acronyms. They do not do so for fun.

      It becomes far more easy to change the public’s perception to an acronym than if the Organisation is written or spoken in full. Acronyms often are more than just initial letters making up a word – “Benelux”, for example. How many instantly make the mental connection of what Benelux actually is? Go on try it right now.

      It is a politico-economic union of three neighbouring states in western Europe – but how many make the connection of which ones without having to think about it.

      Anyway, the term rUK can only refer to what is actually the Kingdom of England after the two kingdoms of the United Kingdom have split up.

      Yet ask the average person in the street what it consists off and they will probably tell you the Westminster Parliament and think of that as The United Kingdom Parliament – but that parliament is the de facto parliament of the country of England.

      Yet there is no country of England parliament and Westminster thus runs England directly, funds England directly as the United Kingdom, Uses English Law to legislate and uses EVEL, (those initial letters again), to prevent their only actual partner kingdom and their two dominions(dominated regions), from having any say in how England is governed, Yet not a single person is elected to a parliament of the country of England.

      Now get this – This whole thread is a total joke. Indy supporters are on here and their whole concept of the situation is 100% Westminster brainwashed. The main impression given to the Westminster establishment must have them polling around the floor laughing their sick heads off.

      Most genuine Wingers are here on this thread looking at the little matter of the Nuclear Deterrent, (cough”), that is based here in Scotland as belonging totally to England and in a two partner united Kingdom those weapons of mass destruction are legally the property of both Kingdoms in the Union.

      We should not be looking at telling our partner kingdom in the United Kingdom to get, “Their Property out of our Kingdom/country”, but from the point of view of, “We do not want these abominations and we want them scrapped or at very least removed from our independent kingdom/country.

      So we are going to scrap our share of them, (and we do not accept your claims that we only have a population based share of them). We demand they be scrapped but if you cannot agree to scrap them then let us negotiate how much you are prepared to pay us for our (negotiable), share in them. Failing agreement we will impound them or sell them to the highest bidders.

    319. Smallaxe says:


      They’ll never get me, as you say, my friend.

      Whosoever diggeth a pit shall fall in it! Look who’s just dug a pit;

    320. Maria F says:

      @ schrodingers cat

      Thank you for the info. But to be frank, the shenanigans of labour don’t longer interest me. I lost completely my faith and interest in that party. I can only see them now as a “supply on demand” stock of “rebel MPs” that quickly run to help the tories to pass through the commons tory unsavoury policies. When you are convinced the tories are about to lose a vote in the commons, here come 1, 2, 3, 4 or even more “rebel” labour MPs to rescue the tory day plus a sizeable number of labour MPs happy to sit on their hands and abstain. Sp they can stick it where the sun does not shine. They mean nothing to me anymore.

      You talk about “the people’s vote”. Well, the “people’s vote” in Scotland was 62% to remain in the EU and 55% to remain in the UK. And guess what? Like Mr Major said in his interview with Mr Marr, “If circumstances change, you change your mind” and “if the promises made are not going to be met, there is a justification for changing your mind”.

      The UK of today is not even remotely similar to the paradise of riches, democracy, devolution, respect and fairness we were promised in 2014, therefore, there is a justification for the people of Scotland to change their minds. Exactly as Mr Major said. What is good for brexit, is good for Scotland’s independence.

    321. call me dave says:

      Ice cream room…Good idea you can chill out just fine there.

      Decided to watch one of my old dvds ‘Three days of the Condor’ to have a break for a while. LOL. So just catching up.


      3 Magpies today

      1. Magpie sitting on window sill this morning (big up close)

      2. Magpie in the x-word hmm!

      3. Shortbread Radio in PM wee chat about children’s tv ‘Magpie’

      Quite worrying coincidence. If I don’t post tomorrow you’ll ken.
      Feart to go to bed.

      Pound down all day against all the currencies…shares are up!


    322. ScottishPsyche says:

      We know how the UK government negotiates from the Brexit debacle. I expect lots of bluster upfront and ‘they need us more than we need them’ – from both sides – and then hopefully an agreement. I would like to think we could behave with dignity and have no doubt we could stand up for our selves.

      We also know the UK lot are pretty poor regarding the fine detail so the Scottish Government will have to do the hard work as usual. It seems like the Yoons may be coming round to the idea that Independence is a reality and putting out feelers on how much it will cost (them).

      Maybe Kevin Rage will be given an official role for HMG, putting a price on Independence although we know he will never be able to understand its value.

    323. schrodingers cat says:

      Maria F says:
      6 August, 2018 at 9:50 pm
      @ schrodingers cat

      Thank you for the info. But to be frank, the shenanigans of labour don’t longer interest me.

      me neither, just pointing out that there is a ge coming and that will be the peoples vote.

    324. schrodingers cat says:

      come to think of it, as part of scotlands settlement, perhaps we should keep all 4 trident subs, i dont trust wm with such toys

      lets face it, once scotland wales NI and cornwall offski, england will loose its access to the deep sea. why would they even need a navy?

    325. yesindyref2 says:

      Why’s he got a tea-cosy on his head? What did he do with his hat?

    326. yesindyref2 says:

      @call me dave “Ice cream room

      When you get bored you can just lick your way out.

      Yum yum!

    327. Smallaxe says:

      yesindyref2 says:

      “Why’s he got a tea-cosy on his head? What did he do with his hat?”

      You’d have to ask his nanny about that.

    328. Lenny Hartley says:

      Yesindy2ref, their Cypriot bases and I would imagine Gibralter relies on a lot of local labour.
      Troodos is landlocked being on top of a mountain 6,500ft above sea level. Although that base is mainly Radar tracking and doesnt utilize much local labour but they still need to get food and drink onsite as well as leccy and fuel to power emergency gennies.
      The Episkopi base which is part of the Akrotiri Sovereign base area has the main roads (A6 and B6) between Limassol and Paphos run through it. So if no deal done on Brexit there will need to be seven seperate Customs and Immigration points at entry and egress of Episkopi Cantonment.
      Buy shares in Cypriot road making companies , they are going to have to bypass Episkopi entirely. either that or they are going to have to hand back some of their SBA’s back to Cyprus.

    329. yesindyref2 says:

      @Robert Peffers
      I disagree with you about the usage of “rUK”, it was not a Westminster or UK propaganda ploy. And I also disagree about “country”, see this for instance:

      and there are other definitions.

      The following are all countries because they have governments:
      Northern Ireland

      and luckily for England and the English, they get it too because England has a geographical division, its own cultures like Morris Dancing, and other factors as well as competing in sports events as a country. As for instance in Collins, always my favourite and the most true to form colloquial translations in German when I was there:

      “country in British
      1. a territory distinguished by its people, culture, language, geography, etc”

      one’s native land or nation of citizenship”

      England takes part in sport on its own account, it is a nation, therefore it is a country.

      This is particularly important to people who genuinely feel the UK is their country, why needlessy upset them by saying it isn’t, specially if it’s wrong to do so, when it is of n real importance anyway? I know of one occasional poster who gets genuinely upset, as he sees the UK as his country and doesn’t want to see it split up.

      You might not win his heart and mind to vote YES, and as it happens he doesn’t have a vote anyway, but you could lose the votes of those who don;t care much either way, who don’t like seeing him – and others – being upset at the division of their “country”, if you can’t even accept his country as – a country.

      Anyway, enough of educating you, and without charge too!

    330. yesindyref2 says:

      @Lenny Hartley
      Ouch, The things you learn about how the EU affects something as apparently simple as the key strategic bases on Cyprus.

    331. crazycat says:

      @ Les Wilson at 9.43 am

      If you’re still around, this may be the article you referred to:

    332. Clapper57 says:

      @ call me dave says 6 August, 2018 at 9:54 pm

      “Ice cream room…Good idea you can chill out just fine there”.


      call me dave , Is this a SCOOP….you’re opening an ice cream room ? Am I to be FROZEN out of this venture….WE COULD GO INTO PARTNERSHIP ….the iced screamed team.


      @ smallaxe @ 8.59pm

      smallaxe…I bl**dy knew it … basically that guy used a time machine…read my post….then boom….scream room…his idea….yeh right….where’s my solicitor ?


      @ Petra @ 9.16pm

      So Petra….you think laughter is the answer….ha ha…nope doesn’t work….we all know why the Donkey can laugh cause he a) doesn’t use twitter b) is non political c) generally care’s not a jot and gives not a damn d) cause he’s a donkey like wot Ross Thomson aspires to be…and is succeeding by the by.

      Too late to wish you all a good evening so I’ll just say sleep well and may tomorrow be a good day for you all….see I am teetering on the edge of glass half FULL now .

    333. Moonlight says:

      O/T, but a necessary warning.
      This is the country that Fox, Gove, Johnson and May are relying on for a trade deal when they crash out of the EU.
      These are the honourable people who can be trusted not to abuse their power and who will stick to the agreements made.
      Make your own minds up, would you place any faith in a deal with the USA.

      Mmmmmmm, hard one.

    334. Thepnr says:

      The bookshop invasion by right wingers that Nana linked to this morning was actually videoed by themselves.

      They’re not really very bright this lot which included three UKIP members.

      The video they made is shown in full at the end of this article reporting the incident.

      “Shocking video footage shows a dozen people storming into Bookmarks, Britain’s largest socialist bookshop, chanting “We love Trump! We love Trump!” and accusing the two members of staff of being “paedophile lovers”.

    335. Danny says:


      Or should we just call you “The Oracle”.

      Why do you try to reply to nearly every single post on these pages.

      Your name seems to pop up on every second post.

      Gee yursel a rest wee man, come up for air and gee yursel a brek.

      Or more importantly gee everybody else a brek.

      I am quite sure we will survive the night without your worldly knowledge.

      You are over proving yourself, it maybe something to do with you being an Englander.

    336. Thepnr says:

      Having watched that video to the end and knowing that these people are not alone, in fact this type of sentiment is growing then England is in trouble and it’s the media to blame.

      Scotland must escape this, the UK is heading down a dark hole.

    337. Thepnr says:

      The three UKIP members have now been suspended by the party while they carry out investigations “including Elizabeth Jones, a member of the party’s National Executive Committee”

      That’ll be it sorted then, nothing to see here.

    338. Robert Peffers says:

      @Socrates MacSporran says: 6 August, 2018 at 7:06 pm

      ” … I might not have accumulated the years and experience of Mr Peffers, but, having got beyond my alotted three score years and ten, I reckon I have earned the right to be a cheeky, sometimes cantankerous auld so-and-so, like “Auld Boab.”

      Tell you what, Socrates, I’m just about as mild mannered an auld gadgie as you are ever likely to meet – but, There’s always a but though, isn’t there? I was born premature and weighed in at a little less than 3.5 Lbs. Not only tat but I lived on a farm that was still very much labour intensive. There were tractors, (no not that kind of tractors), but the old man wouldn’t have them on the farm. So the farm had pluckies Raws (Ploughman’s Rows). The Old man retired and moved the family into one of the rows and kept another row for renting out.

      So I was the smallest and youngest laddie in the wee hamlet. I was also the youngest cousin from the larger family members who lived in nearby villages.

      Like “The Boy Named Sue”, it wasn’t too long before, by sheer necessity, I knew how to stand up for myself. In any case in those days a 3.5 Lb kid had to be a fighter in order to just survive to a first birthday.

      So I’ve a lifetime of dealing with would be bullies.

      Then, there was the other fact, the Old Grandad may have retired but he had kept a financial interest in the farm as a, (more or less), silent partner and for farming folk in those days, soon as you could walk you were given jobs to do on the farm.

      By the time I went to the village school I had muscles where the rest had flab. I can assure you that no one got bullied in any school I attended.

      ” … Just how they sort out their situation with Ireland and Wales, well, that’s their business and nowt to do with us – we will be too-busy, building a better nation up here.

      I et the strange impression the SG has already begun that task.

      ” … I just wonder though, by reverting to Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England, do we revert to the 1707 borders, in which case, I think Berwick and that part of Berwickshire currently in Northumberland, comes home.

      Don’t know if you know this but at one point in our joint history the border was down on Teeside.

      However, I would speculate that one of the first negotiations would be the return on the 600 Sq Mls that changed hands not so long ago together with a return of Berwick to Scotland, but here’s the thing , if Berwick returns to Scotland, under International law, the starting point of the border will move south a bit anyway.

    339. Wull says:

      With regard to Trident, I have only two hopes.

      First, that the newly independent Scotland immediately tells (the equally newly independent) England-and-the-other-bits to remove forthwith, and without delay, all nuclear weapons of mass destruction from Scottish waters and Scottish territory.

      Second, that England-and-the-other-bits find that they don’t have enough money to keep these WMDs AND create a place to house them, whereupon they at last come to their senses and decide that the only viable and sensible option is to scrap them altogether.

      For me, that is a win-win scenario, and Scotland should even deliberately aim for it. These things are no good for anybody – not for us, not for our southern neighbours and not for the rest of the world either. They do no good whatsoever.

      I want Scotland to become independent so that it can make an impact on the world. If pursuing such a policy makes us poorer than we might have been, so much the better. Somebody has to start making a principled stance on these totally immoral weapons.

      Why shouldn’t it be us?

      More positively, it very much should be us. No point in waiting for other people to do it – we are in pole position to start the anti-nuclear weapons movement from at last gaining traction, and becoming a practical reality. It’s no good consoling ourselves with imagining that we have the right ideas, or principles, if we are not prepared to put them into practice – and even to sacrifice some material benefits, and indeed lose out financially, in order to achieve the desired objectives.

      I don’t want to see Scotland become independent just to make ourselves richer. Surely to goodness we have more ambition. There is a world out there to which we should be contributing something (many things) worthwhile and positive. Being part of the UK prevents us – utterly prevents us – from doing that, and that is why independence is so urgently needed.

      So, let’s aim at getting nuclear weapons removed altogether from Scotland. As far as I know that has been SNP policy for decades. So don’t chuck it overboard now: stick to it. And let’s aim at doing this in such a way that our southern neighbours will also grow up, and chuck the whole idea.

      The English establishment won’t like it one little bit, for sure. But once a newly independent Scotland takes the right stand, this will give an enormous boost to anti-nuclear sentiment in England as well. I can see a groundswell of opinion arising there with such overwhelming force that the English establishment will not be able to close it down, and will have to concede.

      That would be a tremendous advance for all concerned, and for the world at large. These things should be done away with everywhere. We can’t possibly use them as leverage for financial gain. Our aim is not to become (yet another) prostitute nation, which will do anything for money. It is to become independent in order to make a real difference in – and positive contribution to – to the world around us.

      Delivering our southern neighbours from their nuclear illusions, and their fantasy about being so important, would be a very good service to render them right from the start.

    340. Danny says:

      Wull 11.52pm


      Brilliant !!!


    341. yesindyref2 says:

      Oh, Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling
      From glen to glen, and down the mountain side.
      The summer’s gone, and all the roses falling,
      It’s you, it’s you must go and I must bide.

    342. Robert Peffers says:

      @Thepnr says: 6 August, 2018 at 6:20 pm:

      ” … Make your mind up is he ignorant, stupid, both or neither?”

      Why do you imagine I haven’t made up my mind?

      ” … You’re a lost cause when it comes to replying to fellow Independence supporters comments without being insulting it seems.”

      So you imagine it seems that way do you? Well ask yourself this question. I wrote a comment and the numptie decided to have a swipe at me – I didn’t pick a fight – he did.

      What’s more he was, and still is wrong, – and he knows it.

      The United Kingdom is a Kingdom and has never been a unified country – there is absolutely no legal evidence that it is.

      The United Kingdom is a bipartite union of kingdoms created by a legally binding Treaty of Union. The fact that it contains four distinct countries is proof enough it is not a united country. In fact the full title refers to one part of one of them by name.

      Furthermore, The Kingdom of England is composed of three distinct countries. Mind you if it claims it isn’t they are going to have one hell of a job holding onto Wales and N.I.

      In the case of Wales just how will England claim Wales is part of the United Kingdom. Wales is not even represented on the United Kingdom flag and Wales has not signed the Treaty of Union.

      Same goes for N.I. there is actually no Treaty of Union with N.I. Go read the full long title instead of the Westminster chosen short title. Read who were the actual signatories.

    343. K1 says:

      Robert’s spot on. We need to change the ‘narrative’ don’t we? We have to start that by referring to how things actually are instead of the acronyms that have had the drip drip effect that has caused so many to be so ignorant for so long. That’s how propaganda works.

      Many of us were not taught our own history and Robert’s observations have opened our eyes, helped us understand the ‘why’s and wherefore’s’ of how our current political structure came about.

      Is it not our job to disseminate that same knowledge and encourage others to self educate so that they too can open their eyes? Best place to start that, especially as we all love writing so much on here, is by using the correct terms as much as possible and not go along with the ‘narrative’ of our political opponents. This way we all help to spread the word and to educate our fellow Scots about the truth of the UK set up with all its implications and ramifications in our current debate.

      We’re in danger of undermining his knowledge and dare I say wisdom when we take anything he says back to us as a ‘personal’ insult. I’m of the very strong opinion that Robert is not being insulting at all, his manner may be a bit direct I suppose, but there’s no a harmful bone in that man’s body.

    344. still Positive says:

      I have spent the last 40+ years worrying about the nuclear weapons on my doorstep. If I was up late enough I could watch them crossing the Erskine Bridge from my back windows.

      I just want rid of them.

      That although is not my reason for independence: Scotland is a country therefore it should be independent.

    345. ben madigan says:

      totally agree K1. I have always appreciated Robert Peffers info on Scottish history and the origins and implications of the Act of Union.
      We need to know how we have been bamboozled and Robert does his utmost to explain it to us

      up to us to take it from here onwards!

    346. yesindyref2 says:

      Check out “Scotland’s Future”, and check out the phrase “rest of the UK”, see how many times it’s referred to in that document. That’s the Independence White Paper.

      Do you think Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP and the Scottish Government are all part of the UK propaganda machine? Or taken in by it? Or that they don’t know their own history?

      It’s a term in common use, as is the abbreviation “rUK”.

    347. yesindyref2 says:

      Here’s a link, I have a copy on my hard drive:

      If “rest of the UK” and its abbreviation “rUK” is good enough for the SNP, the ScotGov and the Independence movement bar one person, it’s good enough for me.

    348. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      Hamish100: “No news in Scotland”

      You should heed over to The Guardian, it’s worse.

    349. yesindyref2 says:

      And here’s another one:

      An aside – a UK government that is able to say that come what may, it will avoid hard borders with Ireland/NI after Brexit can never again tell Scotland that independence would mean a hard border between Scotland and rUK

      You know who said that?


    350. twathater says:

      @ Maria F 9.20 pm
      I wholeheartedly agree with you Maria , the liebour party in Scotland to me no longer exist , they have denigrated and destroyed the futures of many of our citizens over the lengthy time they have RULED over us .

      They have been involved in corruption and mismanagement of our finances to benefit their own greed
      Their incompetence and ( deliberate ) stupidity has led to PFI which shackles ANY future SG with exhorbitant payments to greedy carpetbaggers

      I could go on with examples of their betrayal of Scots and the working classes but I don’t have the stomach for digging up more of their escapades

    351. Petra says:

      Just reading about the dispute over the use of the term … rUK. An anagram of the initials of England, Wales and Northern Ireland = WINE. What about adding the word, hexed, hapless or if we want to be nice “hail” and we get WHINE. Seems appropriate as England at least will be whining when we leave.

    352. Breeks says:

      I couldn’t actually care what the rUK, South Britain, or whatever, decides to call itself. That’s their prerogative and won’t be anything to do with me. I am content that Scotland will be “Scotland”, an Independent European Nation. We’ll be recognised by our Maiden name again, and that seems a great and comfortable fit for us.

      I suppose it would be a concession of sorts, and certainly an inappropriate nod to Continuer status for England and Wales if they were to lay claim to the title United Kingdom, but for my part, I refer you to the previous paragraph. I couldn’t care less. It wouldn’t actually be Continuer status, it would just be a name. Poor Wales however would be left with UK meaning England first, and Welsh lineage only be acknowledged when losing Sporting events or murdering people.

      Don’t misunderstand me however, there is no mischief in it. I would respect whatever England and Wales does want to call itself, even if it is the ill fitting term “UK”. Keep the married name if they like. I’m just glad Scotland is escaping from the Union, but I honestly and sincerely hope both emancipated Kingdoms, Scotland and England, thrive and prosper side by side, and eventually compliment one another in ways which were never possible when constrained by the involuntary and asymmetric Union of Deception.

    353. yesindyref2 says:

      Some of the posters on the Herald called it EWNI. As Forsyth said in the HoL in 2012: “I do not know what a kingdom represented by England, Ireland and Wales would be called.

      If I had a pound for every time I posted what he said just before that, I’d be retired in luxury:

      If Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom would cease to exist.“,

      Unionists don’t like that, for some odd reason. It shuts them up!

    354. sandy says:

      Why not call it ‘Former UK’?

    355. sandy says:

      Why not call it ‘Former United Kingdom’.

    356. K1 says:

      Robert’s just hammering home that there will be no ‘remaining’ UK as UK denotes United Kingdom which is formed by the bi partite union of Scotland and England.

      It’s a factual point he’s making. Doesn’t really matter who or where it was stated or by whom in the past nor what England wants to call itself after we are independent.

      The point I was making was not to take his points as insults. And just suggesting that ‘we’ alter the narrative to drive home the true nature of the constitutional set up, as it does aid people in understanding the construct and drives home our true status as one of the founding nations that form the UK.

      We’re not ‘seperatists’, we’re the other half of a political union who is objecting to being treated like shit by our partner and getting pelters from so called Unionists for even noticing how shittily we’re treated?

      The Unionists fail to grasp the whole concept of how the Union was formed in the first place on this point alone. There is no United Kingdom when Scotland becomes independent again.

      For ‘political’ brevity yes rUK was used during the original debate to ‘designate’ Eng, Wales and NI after we regain our independence. But for ‘factual’ sake we should all promote the reality of the true state of affairs when discussing the subject.

      Even if it means ‘spelling it out’ rather than shorthanding. It rams it home that we are an ‘equal’ nation/kingdom in this constitutional arrangement.

      There’s never been a more salient time to get this nailed imv, if only to prevent the propaganda that still surrounds it’s deployment in the political debate? As if Scotland is somehow ‘separate’ from the rUK…as if we are a wee region annoying the rUK…this to my mind is why it is important that Robert relentlessly pushes this.

      Not so much for us lot on here…but for any new lurkers who maybe have a very limited understanding of the political set up.

      I’ve said it before…he utilises the btl comments to bounce off of as a means of constantly clarifying…not for me or any other long term posters but for those that are coming behind us.

      Ah just think no point in taking it personally. He’ll tell you himself, he’s over 80 years old and has supported Scotland’s independence long before I was even born…he’s no beef with any ‘individuals’ on this forum.

      He has one core aim, as far as I can see and that’s to impart to as many as are willing to ‘hear’ that Scotland is a nation, it is not a colony, it is not the plaything of the establishment, it is not a region of England. It has a rich thousand year old history and its people are amongst the most innovative, enlightened and courageous souls and proof of that lies littered throughout history itself.

      That he would wish that more Sovereign Scots would realise from whence and where they come from, to realise today that we are still those innovative, enlightened and courageous souls if only we would believe in ouselves and see ourselves equal to any other nation.

      And that imv is all that he is attempting to convey over and over again.

      You may not like his tone, you may find it’s ‘all semantics’ and pedantry. But ye can never doubt his boneifides and where his heart resides.

      Let’s just refer to the reality, when Scotland becomes independent again, England is free to call itself England again. We should refer, imv to that ‘real politik’ and forfeit bickering amongst ourselves on this matter.


    357. Dorothy Devine says:

      K1 , beautifully put and Mr Peffers has certainly clarified things for me .

    358. yesindyref2 says:

      Robert can repeat his postings as much as he wants, so much the better, but he can fuck off telling people what word to use, or not to use. Sturgeon uses “rUK”, and if it’s good enough for her, it’s good enough for me.

    359. Highland Wifie says:

      @K1 5.09
      Superb post.
      I am constantly amazed at how much energy and commitment Robert contributes to this forum and I was one of those new lurkers who has benefited from the education he provides.
      More power to his elbow I say and lang may his lum reek. Robert deserves to see our Independence Day.

    360. sassenach says:

      Not read all the thread, but seeing a winger tell another to f*** off is certainly not what I expect.

      Surely a bit of common sense be useful, when we have so many ‘new’ guests lately.

      We are doing the Britnats job for them – divide and conker (yes, I did mean to spell it that way, schoolboys).

    361. Cactus says:

      SO the prime minister of the uk visits Scotland, Edinburgh and the First Minister of Scotland, today… other than City Deal, one would imagine talk of BrUKExit very likely and probable.

      This could be their last meeting, before parliament returns.

      Give em Scotland’s terms Nicola. 😉

      Festival Scotland 2018!

    362. Petra says:

      @ thepnr on 6 August, 2018 at 4:05 pm says … ”Petra – Great speech by Mhairi Black as always and one that I hadn’t seen before. She sums it up the futility of having nuclear weapons as a “deterrent” nicely.”

      Yeah she puts that crowd of charlatans in the Commons to shame thepnr. Too bad too that the Scots are unaware of what’s going on in their own country to the point that I’ve come across people who have never even heard of Trident. Or if they have, don’t know the facts such as that very few countries actually ”house” nuclear weapons (with their Governments being happy to do so – ours in Scotland are not), where they are located in Scotland and related risks and accidents.

      Many people are unaware of the fact that missiles are being driven through Scotland and that nuclear waste is being transported on trains through our stations. Mhairi Black highlights this at the end of her speech by stating that nuclear waste (used nuclear rods) is being transported through her Paisley constituency throughout the day unbeknownst to many (all) of those standing on the platform and if an accident should happen it would be the equivalent of a dirty bomb going off.

      It’s high time that the Scots were made more aware of what’s actually going on and that nuclear weapons aren’t acting as a deterrent at all. Loads of expert opinion / data online to that effect or just listen to Mhairi Black. Better still just vote YES at the next Independence Referendum to get rid of them altogether.


      ‘Nuclear Convoy Penicuik 20 11 2017.’


      Excellent post at 5:09am K1.

    363. Nana says:

      Is There a Better Reason for Independence?

      Have just heard brilliant news that GHA – Glasgow Housing Association and Cube HA have announced they intend to convert all of their 40 and 34 homes leased to Serco for asylum seekers to Scottish secured tenancies, denying Serco the ability to evict. This is their letter .

    364. Bill says:

      yesindyref2 says:
      6 August, 2018 at 2:19 pm
      @Liz g
      It could be less than 10 years. I have a wee suspicion that when the SSNs (conventionally armed but nuclear powered) subs are moving to Faslane, the MOD will be able to get Devonport ready for moving in the SSBNs (nuclear ballistic) subs, and all the other stuff like floating dock and missile…

      Sorry guys but this idea of moving Trident system et al is poppycock.

    365. Bill says:

      I’m exhausted telling people Trident can’t be moved, I’ve tried since the Edinburgh agreement was signed. Can anyone advise how I get this message out and how to explain it? I’m rubbish at blogging.

    366. Petra says:

      On our roads, through our railway stations and in the air.

      ….’Highlands and Islands MSP John Finnie said: “Transporting nuclear waste is a risky business. By using two airports you are doubling the take-offs and landing in this country, which doubles the risk.

      “It is disturbing to discover we are now using an extra airbase in heavily populated areas for a stop-off to transport nuclear waste”….’

      ‘Top secret nuclear waste flights resume at Wick.’

    367. Smallaxe says:

      Good morning, Nana.

      Raining here today,
      Kettle’s on!

    368. Effijy says:

      Gray seems to have forgotten the hundreds of thousands spent paying of his Labour pal councillors in North Lanarkshire, and that money wasn’t part of their contract, that was the old Labour pals acts filling each others pockets.

      In South Lanarkshire a few years back, Labour controlled of course, their female head of finance made a complete and utter mess of austerity cut calculations, so she jumped on the sick until they gave her £320,000 to go away.

      Great reward for costing the council needles £millions.

      Red Tory self serving sycophants from Labour North Accounting unit.

    369. Petra says:

      Thanks for the links Nana. Great news for some of the asylum seekers.

      What I would like to know however is why SERCO and its CEO, Rupert Soames, are targeting Scotland. I’ve searched online and can’t find any incidences of SERCO evicting asylum seekers in England or Wales.

      There are currently around 50,000 asylum seekers in the UK and if the facts are correct 45,000 live in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

      Rupert Soames says that they are being evicted in Glasgow because Home Office support has ceased for them and complains that SERCO have been looking after the asylum seekers in Glasgow by paying their rent, rates, heating and light bills.

      So are we to believe that the Home Office is continuing to pay asylum seekers bills in England, but not Scotland? If that’s the case, WHY? As I’ve said before, I reckon that this is politically motivated, in the run up to Indyref2.

    370. Nana says:

      Good morning Smallaxe 🙂

      Missing links again this morning, perhaps they will appear later.

      I just checked to see if yesterday’s missing post had appeared and they hadn’t. Get ‘duplicate’ message each time yet they fail to show.

    371. Robert Louis says:


      Sorry, but RP is correct – although perhaps undiplomatically put. Manners on BOTH sides would be better.

      The UK consists of two components, if one leaves their is no remnant or remaining UK, hence no such thing as rUK.

      I do think former UK is appropriate, since it makes it clear it is something that no longer exists – as in ‘former yugoslavia’, or ‘former USSR’. But ‘remaining UK’ is just daft, although like many, I use it for shorthand, but I think it is time we all stopped using it – and that includes the SNP. It perpetuates a fiction that somehow without Scotland the UK carries on as successor state, and it simply isn’t true. A cursory glance at the the treaty of union and corresponding Scottish and English acts, shows that to be the case.

      Now, after independence, England and Wales (I expect Ireland to go as well, very soon, possibly before Scotland) could call themselves anything they wish. They could even call themselves the ‘NEW’ UK, or something equally as daft, but it certainly isn’t the ‘remaining UK’.

      By using rUK, we make the work of unionists easier, and that is not a smart move in my book. The SNP leadership should take note.

    372. Petra says:

      @ Bill says at 8:03 am ….. ”I’m exhausted telling people Trident can’t be moved, I’ve tried since the Edinburgh agreement was signed. Can anyone advise how I get this message out and how to explain it? I’m rubbish at blogging.”

      Bill, Stu points this out in his article, that is that ”there is no where else for Trident to possibly go.”

      No where in the UK, however I reckon they should be sent back to the Naval Submarine Base at Kings Bay, Georgia, US.

      It’ll not go down well with Westminster or Treeza May’s pal, Grump, but TOO BAD.

    373. Shinty says:

      K1 @ 5.09am

      Well said.

    374. Xaracen says:


      In my head I have been referring to the rest of the former UK as KEngland, pronounced King-gland, since it is the entirety of the Kingdom of England, however its composition might change over time. It is easier to say and can be contracted to KoE or better, KE (the o is silent, as in USA).

    375. Fred says:

      @ Petra, thanks for the RN site info on Trident, that article is honest enough to admit that alternative sites in rUK are quite unacceptable as there are English folk living nearby! So much for the good people of the lower Clyde!

      Treachery over Prestwick,

      Hope this works!

    376. Bill says:

      Petra, it was my original assertion here on Wings back in 2014. Nobody agreed including Stu, nearly got banned for being persistent and fellow Wingers even called me a Yoon stooge. How things have changed.

      As an ex submariner please don’t explain Trident etc to me.

    377. galamcennalath says:

      Nana says:

      BuzzFeed News has spoken to Tory activists and seen private messages and correspondence that suggest the Chequers plan has cost Theresa May the support of her party’s base.

      I have no doubt the aged fascists who make up Tory grassroots are all for the hardest of Brexits.

      I’m surprised though, that BuzzFeed has fallen into the same trap as the rest of the MSM and obsessed about Chequers.

      The daft Chequers plan was (past tense because it has been rejected by the EU) an attempt to contribute to the non binding vague document about future trade NOT the Withdrawal Agreement.

      TMay can settle the WA anytime by accepting the Irish border backstop. However, since she depends on DUP votes, that does give her a problem.

    378. Elmac says:

      ‘re Robert Louis @ 8.46

      How about New United Kingdom of England – or NUKE for short. Sums them up.

    379. Bill Hume says:

      What the vestiges of the UK call themselves after Scotland leaves is of no concern to me.

      I do however, rather fancy the term England and Northern Unionist Ireland, thus producing…wait for it.

    380. Ian Foulds says:

      Robert Louis at 8.46am

      Robert (and no doubt I should also address this to Mr. Peffers), if no longer UK, does this mean we are (the Kingdom of) Scotland and ‘rUK’ is the Kingdom of England (Wales and Northern Ireland)?

      Just asking on behalf of all Royal lovers, so we can reassure them they can fawn at the feet of the Saxe Coburg Gothas until the people of Scotland vote otherwise?

    381. Les Wilson says:

      crazycat says:

      Yes thanks, that was the article I was looking for, I am amazed that the 3 times I have posted it previous and months between that there is hardly any response. People should really take notice.

      I do think it is a very important issue that could have disastrous consequences for Scotland if a serious accident occurs, but the lack of concern over it worries me too. My house is insured for more than that!

      Another ” Union” dividend, they screw it up, we have to deal with the consequences, and they could be huge indeed.

    382. jfngw says:

      If what is left of the current UK after Scotland leaves still wants to call itself the UK then it is up to them, we would have no say in it. Seems to be some people getting worked up about what another country would call itself, I’m personally not interested what it calls itself.

      Certainly some pedants on these threads that pick up on every bit of generalisation to ‘correct’ others thought processes.

    383. Golfnut says:

      @ Bill.

      Fair enough Bill, there is no other place suitable in England, Wales and NI to house and operate Trident or its successor.
      The point that we are making is that its not staying here.

    384. Footsoldier says:

      Fascinating reading in The Times (London) Scottish edition yesterday and what they must think their Scottish readers want.

      First off was an article on tourism and how awful Scottish hotels are, I am not questioning that many may be but it was the tone of the article although to be fair they may have been accurately quoting tour operators. ” A tourism company warned that stereotypical Scottish tightfistedness might result in overpriced and substandard accommodation”. “One operator used to hand out letters of apology blaming Scottish frugality for the poor quality of venues….”. Another did the same “blaming the famous Scottish trait of tightfistedness….”.

      If these tour operators are thinking along these lines, what on earth are their guides telling the tourists?

      Moving on, Kelly MacDonald is quoted as saying “Tilda Swinton is too posh to be Scottish”. She is further quoted as saying”….Scottish posh people are are really English. I am not posh”.

      Can you imagine anyone from Yes or SNP making these comments and not being torn apart, metaphorically.

    385. Robert Peffers says:

      To those who appreciate what I have been attempting to get across can I attempt to explain how I see things go after we return to the Status Quo Anti of being two independent kingdoms.

      Probably very high on the agenda will be the matter of the royals for that is the big difference between the two kingdoms that formed the United Kingdom.

      Many would be republicans I have spoken with through the years have a rather woolly grasp of just why they are republicans. They mostly just do not like living in a system that is inherently, “Them and Us”, and have never gone more deeply into the subject.

      The real facts are, while not complex, very confused. They are the basis of the differing rule of law in both kingdoms and the two differing rules of Law have always been behind the way Westminster has assumed itself to be sovereign over the entire British Isles and, in the past, over the now defunct British Empire. It still applies to the current Commonwealth though.

      The Queen of England is legally, under the English rule of law, a sovereign monarch but is the servant of the people under Scottish law.

      It highlights that difference in the Treaty of Union but Westminster, from 1st May 1707, simply assumed illegally that it was the continued Kingdom of England that had formally declared itself permanently in recess in April 1707. Its only concession being to allow Scots MPs, who in those days were still restricted to being the same landed,(and probably titled), members of the Scottish parliament who had signed the Treaty of Union while the common people were rioting on the streets against the formation of the Union. These Scots MPs were treated as little more than visiting observers.

      Little has changed in the 311 years until now. We have a Scottish parliament that Westminster claims it has full sovereignty over but which, by a quirk of fate, (or a great bit of foresight by Winnie Ewing), was reconvened as the old Scottish Parliament when it opened on 12 May 1999.

      So here is the first problem that will have to be faced by both kingdoms , (and the World at large), on day one of independence:-
      What is the legal relationship between the two former United Kingdom partners?

      The Scottish Government, legally elected as the Government of the legally sovereign people of Scotland, enters the negotiations as a properly democratically elected, government. It is the government of the Kingdom of Scotland.

      However, the other party at the negotiating table is not the democratically elected government of the Kingdom of England – it was elected as the Government of, “Her Majesty the Queen of England’s Government”, but as she is only the Queen of Scots Westminster was elected as the Government of the two partner United Kingdom and there is no legally elected Government of the Kingdom of England or even the Country of England.

      The Scots face a big choice – do they concede that the United Kingdom Government is the legitimate, unelected as such, government of the Kingdom of England?

      Or do they walk out claiming there is no democratically elected Kingdom of England Government to negotiate with and demand they return only after there has been a properly elected Kingdom of England Government to negotiate with?

      Now comes the big crunch for the Westminster Establishment.

      They cannot hold an election as a new United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland because Scotland is part of Great Britain.

      If they attempt to form a new, “United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland”, then they concede that Wales & Northern Ireland become partners along with England in their new United Kingdom. At present the two came into the United Kingdom as integral parts of the Kingdom of England and neither has a signature on the present Treaty of Union of 1707.

      This gives N.I. and Wales the chance to hold Westminster’s feet to the fire and negotiate their respective places within the Kingdom of England.

      In short the Kingdom, (or the country), of England that has had no elected as such government since 1707 is stuck between a rock and a very hard place.

      Meanwhile the rest of the World, and in particular the former Commonwealth, (and that’s another story), looks on and rolls about laughing their collective socks off.

      So there you go – all this claptrap about the nuclear subs in Scotland is the smokescreen being presented by the Westminster Establishment to side-track everyone from their real constitutional nightmare.

    386. Les Wilson says:

      Who cares what they would call themselves,no consequence to us,
      we know exactly what we will be called and that is what really matters.

    387. sassenach says:

      jfngw @ 9.55am

      I think that the arguments on here are about what WE should be calling the other ‘lot’- just now!!

      Whatever they call themselves after Indy is up to them, but, at the moment calling them rUK does, to me, send out a wrong signal.

      I’m with Mr Peffers on this.

    388. Footsoldier says:

      @Robert Peffers 10.11am.

      There is no Queen of England or Queen of Scots.

      Her official title is: “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”.

      For more see here:

      Let’s not go into ERII again, we know the story. Anyway I would prefer a republic whether Scotland or UK.

    389. mike cassidy says:

      Petra 8.44

      Not only Scotland.

      It might just be that Serco’s intention in Glasgow just ‘annoyed’ the wrong people and received a lot of negative publicity.

      Though my tinfoil hat wonders whether Serco deliberately went down this road to pass the buck to the Home Office regarding the costs of accommodating failed asylum seekers.

    390. call me dave says:

      Peeling the layers off the Uonion certainly brings tears to the eyes.

      Brilliant Mr Peffers.

    391. Luigi says:

      RE: The Great rUK debate:

      One point: If the English government wants to call itself rUK after the union ends, then Wales and Ireland have to be given equal partner status (in a new union) – otherwise it’s not a union. WM will try this on – as Sebia did until they lost their last Yugoslavia “partner” Macedonia.

      Welsh and Northern Ireland could really help out here (right now) by highlighting that: following Scottish independence, a new, real union between their countries and England will have to be negotiated.

      So, c’mon Wales, N. Ireland – start shouting about it. 🙂

      Mind you, it won’t be a UK cos without Scotland it aint a united “kingdom”. Oh Dear. Ha ha ha ha ha.

    392. TD says:

      I’m mainly a lurker these days but this debate about “rUK” has stirred me to comment. It strikes me that there is a lot of certainty on both sides of this debate about what is a muddled and confused situation. When people are certain about complex issues, my experience is that they are often wrong. And when people resort to insulting those who disagree with them, that usually indicates that they have run out of anything intelligent to say.

      My own thoughts on this? The term “rUK” is widely used and everyone knows what it means. RP suggests that it is a logical contradiction in that if one partner leaves the UK, then the UK ceases to exist so we cannot have “rUK”. But we are in the UK now (unfortunately) and within the UK we have Scotland and the rest of the UK. We could say that there is Wales and the rest of the UK, but our focus is usually on Scotland. So it is a convenient shorthand to differentiate between Scotland and that part of the UK apart from Scotland. “rUK” is more succinct.

      Even if we project forward to post-Scottish independence, we still need to make the distinction between Scotland and whatever the entity is that used to be the non-Scottish part of the UK – (England Wales and Northern Ireland). But however we choose to define it, it is still convenient to have a shorthand term to indicate what we mean. Otherwise, we will disappear in a mountain of excessive words. Better to have a short label that most people understand.

      One thing that I am sure of – we don’t do the independence cause any good when we indulge in pedantry over issues that most people simply don’t care about.

    393. call me dave says:

      I just found ‘Wings Over Scotland’ as the answer to one’s of my X-Word clues.


    394. galamcennalath says:

      Who needs Google when we have Nana! 😉

      Nana says:

      ” The Prime Minister promised a detailed statement on the future relationship with the EU alongside the withdrawal agreement, so parliament and the people would know where the UK is going. That promise must be kept. “

      My interpretation of Nicola’s statement is she want’s to know whether IndyRef2 needs calling.

      The problem, as I said above in another comment, is that TMay can get the Withdrawal Agreement with transition period by accepting the backstop. The future relationship statement can be fudged bollocks and the can will be kicked down the road!

      I fear TMay will do exactly that, despite Nicola nagging her.

      The newly formulated phrase Blind Brexit describes the situation well. TMay looks like heading that way. Fudged words agreed on Irish Border, Withdrawal Agreement signed, transition achieved, vague statement on future …. and no idea what Brexit means beyond leaving the EU …. a long dark tunnel instead of a cliff jump.

      Where does that leave Scotland and IndyRef2?

    395. Nana says:

      Posting this without archiving in case Wingers wish to comment.

      Also the poll re baby boxes could do with a boost.

    396. Capella says:

      OT – Apple, Youtube, Spotify and Facebook have removed the Infowars account from their platforms. OK, Alex Jones is a wild conspiracy theorist, but his paranoia seems more justified now.

      Interesting that these test cases are going on in the US as well as here. But they have a constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and the press.

      RT is on the case for obvious reasons.

      The US Constitution explicitly forbids government censorship. So Silicon Valley big-tech companies made themselves the gatekeepers of ‘goodthink,’ de-platforming anyone who runs afoul of their arbitrary ‘community standards.’

    397. Liz g says:

      Foot soldier @ 10.26
      I think that’s partly the point Roberts making…
      There’s going to be one hell of a Constutional mess because of the misrepresentation of the situation by Westminster since 1707 till, well, today….
      Auld Lizzie picked that title as is her right but on our independence AKA the Treaty is no longer valid…… That title is no longer available to her….
      But it was to the English Crown and the English Church say made her oath to and she did it on the English throne….. They fudged it, they have always fudged it and that’s because the truth doesn’t suit the Westminster agenda.So it would be for them to tell her she cannot use that Title anymore.
      We’re clear on what her Tiltle is here, Queen of the Scots, it is a least an honest one..
      I don’t think that they will move away from the UK title while she’s alive, they will just spin something for Auld Charlie when it’s his turn….
      They will, I think, cling to the UK title when we’ve left. Even if it’s no accurate!!
      As long as I doesn’t entitle Westminster to assets and resources that we should have I’d struggle tae care whit they called themselves….. Looking forward tae asking all the time WHO exactly are ye United with these days? Every time I hear it. LOL .
      One thing we do need to watch out for though is the Union of the Crowns myth taking hold…

    398. Jim says:

      I see the bay box scheme is ruffling some yoon feathers again.

      They are the same yoons that moan about immigration but don’t want Scotland’s population to grow because they may have to pay a few pence in tax towards something that will help some parents to save some money they would have had to spend towards essentials for their newborn.

      For all those fuckwits, here is a news-flash:

      Those babies may go on to become the Scottish taxpayers of the future and therefore will be the ones paying for, (if it still exists), your pension pot, elderly care, medical bills, etc.

      Just remember that and oh, did I say, Go Fuck yourselves!

    399. jfngw says:


      Well that is obviously the rest (remaining, rump, take your pick) of the UK as we are still part of it. It’s a description like Brexit, it is a concept not a literal description for brevity, but I admit brevity and a Mr Pffers post don’t gel to well.

    400. Iain mhor says:

      @bill 8:03am

      The reason you are having difficulty getting your message across is the message. “Trident can’t be moved” is a palpably false statement and that is why people reject it.

      But “Moving Trident elsewhere, if an independent Scotland rejects it, is not as ideal as keeping it in Scotland and the costs, infrastructure and political ramifications will be difficult to surmount” is too big to get on a badge.

      It’s a matter of Geography. If, currently, the geography of G.B & N.I proferred a better location it would be in it. If it had no suitable location at all it wouldn’t be in it. If it had a less than ideal location which could be made suitable for it, it would be made suitable for it – if the will was behind it.

      The KoE (whatever) after possible Scottish Independence is merely in a potential geographic situation. It no longer has that geographical area.
      One of my posts (and many others) have covered these issues.
      There are options for Trident. Pick one.
      I feel you have picked one really which is “Trident should stay in Scotland” That’s fine. Perhaps even the Scottish people will agree – It’s a question of how do you manage to make that happen? – Then the “ideal wish” is in a whole cost-benefit-anyalysis scenario and should be weighed against the alternatives.

      To reiterate, no study has shown Trident cannot be moved. Not the MoD, not the RN, not RUSI, not the government. What they have all said is it would not be ideal and it would be difficult therefore we don’t want to.

      Russia have always wanted a warm water port. They don’t have one so have had to suck it – Geography see?
      If Scotland becomes independent and rejects Trident then the KoE will just have to suck it also – because Geography.

    401. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      @ Petra, 8.44am

      Soames didn’t say that the evictions in Glasgow were happening because Home Office support had stopped; although that’s usually what happens when asylum is refused and the seekers are asked to leave their taxpayer-funded accomodation, and then expected to leave the country (and presumably, if that has no effect, will be deported).
      He said that Serco has been making Scotland a special case up until now, where Serco themselves pay extra costs that they are under no obligation to provide. Whether this is because Serco is good-hearted, or that the Rent (Scotland) Act of 1984 ties their hands on the issue, I wouldn’t know. But the recent massive increase in asylum seekers versus the static available housing in Glasgow has forced Serco’s hand, allegedly.

    402. Petra says:

      @ Fred says at 9:28 am …… ”Treachery over Prestwick.”

      The link’s not working Fred.


      @ Bill says at 9:30 am …. ”Petra, it was my original assertion here on Wings back in 2014. Nobody agreed including Stu, nearly got banned for being persistent and fellow Wingers even called me a Yoon stooge. How things have changed. As an ex submariner please don’t explain Trident etc to me.”

      I’ve consistently said the same Fred, as Trident is my number one bugbear and led to me carrying out a great deal of research on it pre-2014. With the way things are going it looks as though the Kingdom of England won’t be able to afford to renew Trident anyway (bankrupt already – loss of Scotland’s resources – Brexit botchup). And then there’s the wee issue of Scottish Military personnel. How many of them will they lose post Indyref2?


      @ Nana says at 9:58 am …….

      It’s an absolute disgrace that BBC Scotland are continuing to lie to the Scots, practically on a daily basis. It’s also way beyond the pale that they can manage to interview Nicola Sturgeon, no matter where she is, but can’t weed out Ruth Davidson for some reason or another. When are they going to ask her about, as examples, Brexit and Tory dark money? NEVER?

      Take a look at Professor John Robertson’s list of BBC lies.


      @ Footsoldier says at 10:06 am …. ”Fascinating reading in The Times (London) Scottish edition yesterday and what they must think their Scottish readers want. First off was an article on tourism and how awful Scottish hotels are … ”

      It looks as though the rise in tourism to Scotland is really getting up their nose. I’ve pointed out that even the programme ‘Countryfile’ is involved in trying to drive visitors away from Scotland now. In saying that they no doubt realise that they don’t have a lot going for them down south between one thing and another. Not a lot to export, the rising crime rate and threat of terrorism is driving tourists away from England, imo. Add to that the right wing media and Westminster’s despicable attitude towards ”furriners.” Who can blame the latter for giving England a body-swerve and heading instead for Scotland?

    403. Breeks says:

      Bill says:
      7 August, 2018 at 9:30 am
      Petra, it was my original assertion here on Wings back in 2014. Nobody agreed including Stu, nearly got banned for being persistent and fellow Wingers even called me a Yoon stooge. How things have changed.

      As an ex submariner please don’t explain Trident etc to me

      I said earlier, but the biggest threat to Trident could potentially be internment at Faslane and decommissioning on site prompted by Nuclear non-proliferation Treaties which prevent new Nuclear bases being created.

      Being positive and constructive Bill, maybe you can enlighten me. I have a niaive question to ask. Just suppose that the MOD played a war game which assumed that Faslane was occupied by enemy forces or blown up altogether, or in some other way put beyond use, I refuse to believe Westminster would run up the white flag and declare all is lost without Faslane. They must have a plan B don’t you think?

      It might very well be their “Doomsday Scenario”, but it seems inconceivable, not to say bloody irresponsible, that the UK would have such a one dimensional defence strategy which relies so heavily on Faslane as an operational necessity. All an enemy would have to do is mine the Clyde or even just scuttle ships in the shipping lane and that’s the UK’s strategic nuclear defence out-strategised and essentially taken out of the game.

      I believe an Independent Scotland could by peaceful strategy alone require Westminster to revisit it’s doomsday contingencies for Trident, because “losing” Faslane to enemy occupation, and “losing” Faslane though altered state of sovereignty makes little effective difference in strategic military terms. The facility would suddenly be beyond their reach. Westminster would be required to implement its Plan B. no matter what the cost or implication.

      Westminster might not like their options, they could be fraught with difficulties and eye watering costs, they could be operationally Top Secet, but you can guarantee they will have such options, even as a Doomsday fallback. Bit of a glass jaw scenario if they don’t.

    404. Liz g says:

      Capella @ 11.07
      That’s very worrying…. never thought I’d have to be defending Alex Jones….
      It’s interesting to note that YouTube didn’t use the copyright thing… they could have easily.
      Jones has become more extreme and more bold since Trump took power…. but he is just playing to his audience…. they have now given him victim status and that I think is a huge mistake..
      His lot are paranoid enough.
      Looks very much like western governments are indeed trying to get the same kind of control over the net that they have over broadcasting, and they are doing it the same way they got the press!!
      Put it all into private rich men’s hands… the kind of men ( and it’s mostly men) that share the government world view….
      We should watch and learn from this because IMHO we risk doing the same thing with our own OO nutters if we were to bann their marches and organisations. To give them a “cause “ to rally behind and recruit from and confirm that they are at risk from “something, would be a mistake. They too are paranoid enough.

    405. Xaracen says:

      “England-and-the-other-bits” How about UK-Lite? 😀

    406. Footsoldier says:

      @Robert Peffers 10.11am.

      There is no longer Queen of England or Queen of Scots.

      Her official title is: “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”.

      For more see here:

      Let’s not go into ERII again, we know the story, it is a wrong title. Anyway I would prefer a republic whether Scotland or UK.

    407. Petra says:

      Great post Robert (10:11am). And by God we (I) learn something new on here every day, between one thing and another. Thanks for that.


      @ mike cassidy says at 10:33 am …. ”Petra – Not only Scotland.”

      It might just be that Serco’s intention in Glasgow just ‘annoyed’ the wrong people and received a lot of negative publicity. Though my tinfoil hat wonders whether Serco deliberately went down this road to pass the buck to the Home Office regarding the costs of accommodating failed asylum seekers.”

      Thanks for the link, Mike.

      That’s a damning report on the plight of asylum seekers in Northern Ireland. Hellish in fact.

      However, I would have thought that with over 40,000 asylum seekers living in England there would be some data relating to SERCO’s evictions down south. Better still something in the news now and again. Or are they more adept down there in just knocking on your door and huckling you out of the country during the night? No news? Nothing to report?

      I can’t understand either how the Home Office stop paying asylum seeker’s bills when they are awaiting the outcome of appeals.

    408. Bill says:

      Breeks, thanks for asking. It’s a good question.

      Firstly, the base exists to keep one Trident boat at sea. CASD. By having that one vessel armed and hidden is the deterrent. That means the base is expendable at that point. After all once the missiles are launched it’s pretty much game over. It’s how MAD works.

      The boat would launch all of its missiles, in succession. (We we’re always under the impression that when Polaris was in service a multiple launch would break the back of the vessel, it’s not as if we’d be coming home to loved ones.). Launching one would declare the vessels location and end up on the receiving end of Russian bombers. And so it is with the base, it’d have no purpose if a MAD event took place.

      If the base was put beyond use, say a freak accident then our deterrent would be out of action. Similarly if overrun by enemy forces but again it is well defended actually. In fairness to those servicemen that defend the base they are formidable.

      Any nuclear powered submarine requires a z-berth, a berth that meets stringent criteria such as independent backup systems for shore supply among other things. So the vesells could berth Portsmouth and Plymouth if there was room.

      If the incident included Coulport then the on-patrol boat wouldn’t be able to unload her missiles, it’d have to go to USA.

      Most debates on temporary locations for Trident boats always come round to Kings Bay USA and I guess you’ve manoeuvred me into admitting that possibly. But that’d be very temporary and probably linked to the fact there had been an incident at Faslane, Coulport or Scotland for that matter.

      Operating the deterrent out of USA would require considerable diplomacy and a Treaty. Moving all of th crew and their families to USA is so ridiculous. Someone once countered that by citing the Army regularly is stationed abroad. But comparing the Navy with the Army doesn’t stack up when you consider how they differ in manning requirements, drafting and so on.

      Independence meant nuclear disarmament and losing the permanent seat at the security council.

      Scotland and #indyref1 threatened the British Establishment with that prospect, everything else debated was small change.

      Kind Regards.

    409. Petra says:

      @ Reluctant Nationalist says at 11:23 am …. ”Petra …. Soames didn’t say that the evictions in Glasgow were happening because Home Office support had stopped …. ”

      I heard him saying it on the news RN and his statement has also been reported in a number of newspapers.

      …”Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland’s Good Morning Scotland programme, he (Rupert Soames) said: “That is the total number of people we are paying for whom Home Office support has ceased….”

    410. ahundredthidiot says:

      The UK once Scotland leaves will be called the UK.

      The United Kingdom. Without Scotland. A new constitution will be written and nobody will care enough to look at the detail that RP rightly points out and who I fully agree with.

      The reality is, it will be called the UK. English arrogance will assure it.

      History will be re-written to protect the victors – nothing new.

      Besides……who cares, we will have enough to be getting on with.

    411. Luigi says:

      Capella says:
      7 August, 2018 at 10:52 am
      OT – Apple, Youtube, Spotify and Facebook have removed the Infowars account from their platforms. OK, Alex Jones is a wild conspiracy theorist, but his paranoia seems more justified now.
      Interesting that these test cases are going on in the US as well as here. But they have a constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and the press.

      Just the beginning, folks. This coordinated attack is of course not unrelated to the recent BBC-YouTube attack on WoS. The dark forces that control the big I-platforms are stepping up a gear. They want rid of all dissent and want you only to see and hear their own fake news. Freedom of speech as long as they filter it first. This is it – 1984 folks.

      There is a fight back in the USA, to list internet platforms as public untilities thereby denying them the ability to pick and choose who publishes online. The battle is just beginning however – and we are already caught up in it all.

    412. Lenny Hartley says:

      ahundredthidiot There is no written UK Constitution and there wont be even if they style themselves the UK after we dissolve it. Basically they can call themselves what they like, International Law will determine the detail. As for folk getting upset by the use of rUK , your delusional if you think how it’s described in Wings will determine the legal outcome post split.

    413. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      @ Petra

      The HO stop paying while the seekers appeal? Really? I thought payment ceased once a final decision had been made, after appeals. Can you show a source that confirms the payments ceased before a final decision had been made?

    414. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Seems to me that on a very simplistic level – which maybe has the widest and most effective impact anyway – the question of “renting Trident space” completely neutralises the “GERS black hole” scare that the BritNats will assuredly try to re-deploy come IR2.

      And probably pay the cost of setting up our own currency as well…

    415. Capella says:

      @ Liz g – I agree. Shutting down opposition sites, even the wackier end of the spectrum like Alex Jones, is bad for democracy.

      What I think is needed is a “peoples” net, using open source software and hosted in a democratic country, or distributed host sites, that guarantees freedom of expression.

      We can’t rely on western governments or corporations to provide equal access to the means of expression.

    416. Golfnut says:

      @ ahundrethidiot.

      Which is a real shame, since they have spent so much time and effort in getting the rest of the world to refer to the UK as England.

    417. ronnie anderson says:

      Chist scrollin through two days of posts.

      Royals — Its a Fek aff fae me .

      Uk England or whatever they at Westminster want to call themselves after we have our Independence — anither Fek aff fae me .

      Trident Faslane Coulport Rosyth no surprises other than its ah bigger Fek aff fae me .

      Westminster have proven themselves incapable of dealing with Scotland in a open and fair manner , that will only get worse on Independence , learn from history gals n guys .

    418. Confused says:

      On the naming of the thing we are all talking about, I suggest –

      Former United Kingdom ex-Union, now England
      FUKU England

      I think we all know what we are talking about – pedantry is just annoying. What next – arguments about “Rangers”/SEVCO/NewCO – legalistic talmudic bullshittery involving company law … give it a break.

      If you want to use language to shape the debate, there are many ways to deligitimise “Super-inglund” – give it new names

      inglund (the i is not capitalised)

      – be creative. The other side do it all the time – for the BBC a “bad country with a bad government” becomes automatically a “regime”. Jackie Bird has a beautifully questioning intonation she applies subtly to any person or concept that is “wrong” – it subconsciously adds a question and an exclamation mark to everything.

      SNP … SNP?! … Nicola Sturgeon … Nicola! Sturgeon?

      (be afraid, be very afraid)

    419. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      @ Petra, 12.02pm

      Yes, and the quote you’ve provided doesn’t say, ‘We are evicting them because the HO has ceased payments.’ Which would be perfectly OK anyway, as that’s the official process. They’ve got to go.

      In Soames’ official statement he makes it clear that they HAVEN’T been evicting seekers after a final ‘no’ decision where funds have stopped from the HO, when in fact they should have evicted them, and goes on to say that they can no longer do this because of the doubling in numbers of seekers with no expansion of suitable housing.

      Serco actually come out of this looking good. Serco ffs! Yeuuuuch.

    420. Les Wilson says:

      After looking at John Robertson’s list of BBC lies and misdirection’s, it begs the question of why we let them just get away with it? Should we not bring them to court over it, there is plenty enough evidence.

      A court case would further open peoples eyes to what the UK government and their proxies really get up to in Scotland.

    421. Capella says:

      An example, this Immortal Technique video regularly disappears from Youtube then somone loads it up again – so look now or it will disappear.

      The song is a powerful condemnation of the 4th Branch of the government, the MSM, and the lies that delude us when corporations run the news. It attacks American war policy in the Middle East. We can assume that is why it keeps being taken down.

      I believe that Immortal Technique has not complained on copyright grounds. Other versions, with less powerful graphics, are left alone.

    422. mike cassidy says:

      Petra and others.

      Here’s a direct link to Serco’s statements on re the situation in Glasgow. (wouldn’t archive)

      Much to ponder.

      And let’s be blunt.

      If you contract out this area of work to a private sector company, the establishment can hardly complain if the private sector company doesn’t want to spend some of its profit on pro bono deeds.

    423. mike cassidy says:

      Note that Serco were making the pro bono claim re over stayers back in 2016.

    424. Jack Murphy says:

      Thanks Poster Nana for your links before and after 8am.
      This one about Tory Brexit/May infighting is not surprising:

      BuzzFeed News has spoken to Tory activists and seen private messages and correspondence that suggest the Chequers plan has cost Theresa May the support of her party’s base.

      “…….To the [Tory] activists, May is so tarnished she can’t recover. As they see it, they gave her their loyalty two years ago, even though she was a remainer, and stayed loyal when she blew the party’s majority last year because they believed she would deliver Brexit on the terms they wanted.

      Having trusted her, they believe she’s capitulated to Brussels and crushed their dreams of taking back control.
      “The betrayal is just off the scale,” one said.

      Another added: “She has lied to us and taken us for fools.”
      Listen to the activists talk about their leader now and the contempt is startling. She’s weak, they say. Incompetent.

      Hopeless. “Worse than Gordon Brown.” ……..” [!!]


      Save us from Tories wherever they are. HELP! 🙁

    425. yesindyref2 says:

      @Robert Louis “Sorry, but RP is correct

      Robert, nobody has said he’s wrong in his history (or right for that matter), it’s about the term rUK being “uniionist propaganda” which is complete nonsense, few unionists have a clue about Scottish and UK history, instaed of which it’s commonly used and only indeed a pedant could be arsed whether it should be something else.

      Everyone knows what “rUK” is, it’s the bit of the UK that isn’t Scotland, and it’s the bot of the UK left over after Scotland becomes Independent. It takes a split second to say it, rather than using one of Peffers long-winded and repetitive stories every time someone wants to refer to “rUK”.

      Point 2 is that in this thread called “the fire sale”, where people including myself were taking about the article, Faslane, Coulport, Trident, subs, boats, leases, relocation, sovereign bases and the impossibility of Faslane being an rUK one, Peffers managed to completely disrupt the debate, the conversation, the talk about the actual subject of the thread, the thread itself, by saying someone was wrong whatever they said, being insulting to attract attention, becoming the focus of attention, and talking about his own pet subject, and himself, instead.

      And I fell for it, having fended off the obvious troll, I got trolled and distracted from the existing debate – as did nearly everyone else. That’ll be the last time that happens, if there’s a next time he gets up to his tricks, I’ll just tell him to troll off.

    426. ahundredthidiot says:

      must be a full moon

    427. Gary says:

      How much DO foreign powers pay host countries to site their bases on their land?? Is there a going rate? Do they even PAY rent at all?

      An interesting question to which I do not know the answer.

      But the UK has been VERY good at building bases on other people’s property then ousting them. Often with little to no compensation.

      Personally I’d be happy just for it to close, let them have it free, for one year, then leave taking all the subs and nuclear waste with them.

    428. Bill McLean says:

      I lived in Cyprus for nearly 4 years and heard that the British had not paid rental for the 2 British bases since 1974 when the Turks invaded and occupied the northern part of the island. Brits claimed that they couldn’t pay rent to either the Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot part! Seems ludicrous and unlikely but then we are discussing the Britnats. Maybe Lenny Hartley, who seems to have a lot of knowledge about the island could clarify.

    429. Petra says:

      @ Reluctant Nationalist says ……… ”The HO stop paying while the seekers appeal? Really? I thought payment ceased once a final decision had been made, after appeals. Can you show a source that confirms the payments ceased before a final decision had been made?”

      RN you can do that for yourself. All you have to do is google ‘asylum seekers awaiting appeal to be evicted.’ A number of newspapers cover the story.

      ” …. Many of those who face eviction are in the process of appealing their asylum cases, but that will become almost impossible without access to proper accommodation….”


      @ Reluctant Nationalist says ….. ”Yes, and the quote you’ve provided doesn’t say, ‘We are evicting them because the HO has ceased payments.’ Which would be perfectly OK anyway, as that’s the official process. They’ve got to go. In Soames’ official statement he makes it clear that they HAVEN’T been evicting seekers after a final ‘no’ decision where funds have stopped from the HO, when in fact they should have evicted them, and goes on to say that they can no longer do this because of the doubling in numbers of seekers with no expansion of suitable housing. Serco actually come out of this looking good. Serco ffs! Yeuuuuch.


      SERCO comes out looking good? Really? Throwing people out of their homes before the whole appeal process has been completed and additionally go on and check out the state of some of the houses he’s been letting out.

      Data online (even in his own letter that Mike provided) covers a couple of your points:

      ”In either case, the Home Office stops supporting them and paying for their accommodation once it has made a determination, and they should leave the housing Serco have been providing for them whilst their asylum case is being decided.”

    430. Petra says:

      @ mike cassidy says at 1:47 pm …. ”Petra and others. Here’s a direct link to Serco’s statements on re the situation in Glasgow. (wouldn’t archive)

      Much to ponder. And let’s be blunt. If you contract out this area of work to a private sector company, the establishment can hardly complain if the private sector company doesn’t want to spend some of its profit on pro bono deeds.”


      Much to ponder right enough Mike. Immigration is reserved to Westminster so it’s they who decide who’ll they’ll let into the country other than illegal immigrants who they seemingly, like everything else, can’t control / don’t deal with properly; have no idea how many are here now.

      The whole Home Office / SERCO situation stinks to high heaven from the numbers we have in Scotland compared to elsewhere to our inability to make decisions, for example if these people can work or not … pay their own way.

      The ‘itsy – bitsy’ powers Holyrood controls whether it be over our economy or immigration is creating massive problems. And to my mind when it comes to asylum seekers England, only, should be dealing with this issue until we have full power over immigration, better still our Independence.

      They are sending people here but we have no say over their vetting / appeal process, holding in detention camps for months, or years in some cases, gaining access to such camps etc, etc which is not good enough, imo.

      My personal view is that all failed asylum seekers (fairy and justly screened) should be deported, because we can’t go on like this. However my reason for raising this subject initially related to asylum seekers being thrown out of their homes before the AS process had been resolved and asking why we hadn’t heard of a similar situation taking place in England. It could very well be that individuals are removed ‘quietly’, one by one, down south and are deported. I don’t know however, whatever the case, it’s making for good ”Unionist news” night after night in Scotland and from all accounts could go on for months.

    431. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      I’m sorry – what couple of points does it cover? It’s not like I particularly care if Serco are evicting them because the HO payments have stopped, but in this case that is not what happened, as I have previously outlined.

      Have you maybe misunderstood the last sentence in your quote from Serco that actually means – the seekers should leave the housing that Serco had been providing for the seekers AFTER they exhausted the entire process and HO funding stops? It’s easy to do, as the wrong tense is used: it should be, ‘whilst their asylum case WAS being decided.’ I can certainly see how that could be taken in the wrong way, especially when you leave out the first part of the paragraph you quoted which makes it clearer, and would show the latter part as a contradiction with the erroneous tense in place.

      Or is it that you’re focusing on the use of ‘should’, as in ‘should leave the housing’ once a determination has been made. As has been made very clear in this case, there is an obvious gulf between theory, and practice.

      ‘Many of those who face eviction are in the process of appealing…’

      Excuse my scepticism, but how many? Who are they? Were they served the eviction by mistake? What kind of appeal process are they going through – is it a Judicial Review after a final rejection? It could also be the press doing their usual loose and fast, as in: ‘Many of those who are in the process of appealing face eviction (if rejected). [statement of fact] They will find the appeal process almost impossible without accomodation.’

      If it is true, however, and systematic, then Serco are surely f****d.

    432. Petra says:

      Reluctant National I haven’t ‘misunderstood’ anything at all. The Home Office often rush through a ‘failed’ notice and then the appeal process begins. As soon as that initial decision ‘failed’ has been made the Home Office stop paying SERCO. There are any number of sites out there that you can check that support their / this ”process”.

      Petra: ‘Many of those who face eviction are in the process of appealing…’

      RN: Excuse my scepticism, but how many? Who are they? Were they served the eviction by mistake? What kind of appeal process are they going through – is it a Judicial Review after a final rejection? It could also be the press doing their usual loose and fast, as in: ‘Many of those who are in the process of appealing face eviction (if rejected). [statement of fact] They will find the appeal process almost impossible without accomodation.’ If it is true, however, and systematic, then Serco are surely f****d.

      Maybe the link that Nana has posted today will answer your multiple questions. As to be expected Scotland is kept in the dark. Have to accept our ”quota” of AS and then … END OF. Further comments in the media outline that a number of asylum seekers expecting to be evicted are still in the process of appealing. I reckon that data is coming from their legal reps.

      “Until then there are other changes the Home Office can make and we also discussed the need for protocols for sharing data on those seeking asylum and where they are in the process. There is currently little clarity about the actual status of the 330 people affected, therefore it is essential that Glasgow City Council has the time and opportunity to carry out individual assessments for all of them and ensure that everyone gets the right support and outcome for their circumstances.”

      Council Leader Meets UK Immigration Minister

    433. Petra says:

      Sorry … it should read Reluctant Nationalist. Not National.

    434. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      Petra, please direct me to categorical proof that the HO stop paying Serco (or, rather, stop paying asylum support, as that covers accomodation) as a matter of policy after the initial failed notice, thereby leaving seekers without any home during appeal (presuming that the seeker has filed the appeal within the time frame). Because I can’t find any. You’re either being very kind to me by allowing me to leisurely find an obvious prime source that I seem to be missing, thereby sparing me a checkmate with linked evidence, or you know you’re at very best referring to anomalies and at worst being downright dishonest.

      What I did find was this weak snippet from a BBC report on asylum seekers working illegally:

      “But the Home Office said the rules, which mean asylum seekers are not allowed to work in the UK, were to protect the resident labour market and asylum seekers could get support until their appeal was determined.”

      And this rather stronger one from LSA (Legal Services Agency) in reference to the Glasgow evictions, under the heading ‘Appeals and Fresh Claims and Right to Occupy’:

      “Eligible asylum seekers should not lose their right to asylum support while their asylum claims are ongoing, including if they have an outstanding appeal.

      For those whose appeal rights are exhausted, a fresh claim can sometimes be made. If this has been made, an eligible asylum seeker should regain a right to asylum support, including accomodation.”

      I’m sure they would have raised the issue of these rights being systematically ignored, and mentioned it.

      Reading further on, that LSA report shows up what I suspected may be the case in my first reply to you. In regards to s23 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984, s23A excludes asylum seekers from the usual protection against eviction that residents are covered by. But…s22 of the Act can seemingly be used to criminalise unlawful eviction specifically in the case where accomodation is provided as part of asylum support. I think we can guess what the lawyers have catchingly called that section.

      The rejected asylum seekers’ lawyers are using this as a loophole.

    435. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      But yes, I agree that Scotland can no longer be kept in the dark, and we have to get autonomy over this.

      And call me anything you like. ; )

    436. Reluctant Nationalistt says:

      Anybody’d think that the contract for £half a billion to be in charge of this shitshow was up for tender.

    437. Alba 46 says:

      Re Jenny Marra

      She lied. She received information that she was to lazy to check.

      She should be reported to the presiding Officer for misleading the public and reprimanded / suspended. She should also be removed from her position as chair of a Holyrood committee.

      As for the westminster funded BBC’s role in this, job done. No need to check the information, it came from a British unionist therefore it will be correct

    438. Petra says:

      @ RN at 6:50 ………”at worst being downright dishonest”.

      FGS, being downright dishonest! Why would I want to be dishonest? The newspapers are full of stories about the AS’s being evicted due to the Home Office no longer supporting them, followed by comments to the effect that a number of them are still involved in the appeal process.

      As ONE example:

      ”.. Supporters insist that many of those Serco intends to evict are still pursuing asylum cases, and could have their rejections overturned at a later date.”

    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