The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The hot potato

Posted on May 28, 2020 by

Our ongoing quest to discover just who is actually willing to take responsibility for the actions of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) with regard to the trial of Alex Salmond and its aftermath took another diversion yesterday when we received a reply from HM Inspectorate of Prosecutions in Scotland.

It had sounded like a promising lead. After all, HMIPS’ apparent purpose is to “inspect the operation” of COPFS, “improve the way COPFS serves the public” and “make COPFS more accountable”, all of which are exactly what we were after.

Sadly we had another disappointment in store.

“Dear Mr Campbell

Thank you for your email of 21 May 2020 in which you raise concerns regarding the conduct of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in relation to the case of HMA v Alexander Salmond.

As HM Chief Inspector of Prosecution in Scotland, my role is to secure the inspection of the operation of COPFS, as set out in the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007. Inspecting the operation of the service takes the form of assessing strategic, thematic or recurring issues, and findings are reported to the Lord Advocate and to the public generally. My role does not include the investigation of the service’s handling of individual cases. In particular, decisions in relation to criminal prosecutions, including whether proceedings should be initiated, are taken by the Lord Advocate acting independently of any other person, in accordance with section 48(5) of the Scotland Act 1998.

As a result of our inspections, I make any necessary recommendations with a view to supporting improvement in the delivery of the service. However, I am not able to ‘instruct’ the service as you request – I am not a regulator, and have no power to enforce compliance.

Where there are concerns about the handling by COPFS of individual cases, these are more appropriately dealt with by the complaints handling function of COPFS in the first instance. The COPFS website describes various means by which a complaint can be made.

If you are unhappy with the manner in which your complaint has been dealt with, including in relation to any delays in handling your complaint, you should contact the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

Information on how to do so is included on the same page noted above, and you may also wish to visit

Further information about my role and the types of inspection activity undertaken is available online.

I hope this information will be of assistance.

Yours sincerely

Laura Paton
HM Chief Inspector
Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland”

So let’s recap the timeline.


5 APRIL: We send our initial report about the apparent witness identification in six Scottish newspapers. It’s sent to Police Scotland and to the Complaints address at COPFS (because it’s not at all clear from the options on the COPFS website what the appropriate address would be).

RESPONSE: A generic “we are actively considering” reply, no name attached.

4 MAY: Concerned by the lack of action, we telephone COPFS for an update, and are told to email their Media Relations team.

RESPONSE: Two days later we get a sniffy reply saying we’ve contacted the wrong department and another generic cut-and-paste job. It suggests that we contact the Complaints address we’d written to in the first place a month earlier.

7 MAY: We send another reply asking that if Mr Shields is not responsible – contrary to what COPFS itself had told us – he forward the letter to whoever is. We also resend the letter to the Complaints address ourselves.

RESPONSE: None as yet, from either Mr Shields or anyone else at COPFS.

19 MAY: With no response forthcoming, and considering the matter urgent, we send the letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and to the address given on the Scottish Government website for the Lord Advocate, James Wolffe.

RESPONSE: The next day we receive a letter telling us that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is not responsible for justice and that we should instead write to the Lord Advocate (which we’ve already done), to the Complaints address of COPFS (which we’ve already done twice), to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and to HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland.

One of the several problems with this response, though, is that the Lord Advocate actually recused himself of responsibility for the Salmond case due to his conflict of interest, and it was prosecuted by Advocate Depute Alex Prentice. But we don’t yet know if the Lord Advocate also recused himself from related matters like the charges against Craig Murray and Mark Hirst, and potentially the people named in our report.

We also don’t know if Alex Prentice recused himself too, because there would seem to be a clear and apparent conflict of interest there, since he could be viewed as having a vested interest in claiming some sort of scalp from among Salmond’s supporters to save face after the failed prosecution of Salmond himself.

Nevertheless, HMIPS sounds like the most relevant body of the other two mentioned in the letter, so we decide to give them a go.

21 MAY: We write to HMIPS, and get the response above, telling us it’s nothing to do with them and to contact the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. The SPSO is basically a consumer watchdog with no actual powers to do anything, and therefore cannot compel COPFS to answer our questions.

We’ll send them the email too, but it seems a waste of time.


So that leaves us with this situation:


 -The Lord Advocate

 -The Cabinet Secretary For Justice

 -The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

 -HM Inspectorate of Prosecutions in Scotland

 -The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman


 – Um…

 – Er…

 – Taggart?

 – Chief Commissioner Miekelson?

  – Supercop?

 – Det. Sgt. Bruce Robertson?

 – PC Murdoch?

 – Hamish Macbeth (and wee Towser)?

 – Or maybe we should talk to DI John Rebus. Might he know anything?

To be honest we’re running out of ideas, readers. We’ll keep you posted.

Print Friendly

    2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 28 05 20 14:56

      The hot potato | speymouth

    2. 01 06 20 20:05

      Justice for some –

    269 to “The hot potato”

    1. Blackhack says:

      It would apper that they are all using that famous Glasgow alibi…”It wizny me”

    2. Blackhack says:

      * Appear even…(Fat Fingers)

    3. Muscleguy says:

      Either ask for a judicial review of the AG’s refusal to act or as I’ve suggested before due to the lack of action by the establishment make a formal legal request for a private prosecution of Garavelli and Tortoise media for eg. This would make the MSM and embarrass Scotgoy. In denying you permission (almost certainly) and then not doing anything themselves (your allegations will be pled and so public).

      The role of the courts is to hold the executive to account for their inaction as well as their action. Consult your lawyers iow.

    4. David says:

      I look forward to episode 3782 of Yes, Minister.

    5. Dorothy Devine says:

      Brilliant article – you did forget the lovely Bobby Carlyle and his wee dug!

    6. Bob Mack says:

      They might as well have written that Justice, or the flouting of it ,was nothing to do with them.

      They may have a point!!

    7. And Spouse says:

      I cannae tell a lie, it wisnae me an a wisnae the only wan!

    8. Fiona McRae says:

      I think you need a flow chart now…… ?

    9. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Brilliant article – you did forget the lovely Bobby Carlyle and his wee dug!”


    10. dramfineday says:

      2020, A Legal Odyssey.

      “My God, It’s Full of Stars”

      Or, if you prefer, a selection of verses and lines from the poem of the same name by Tracy K. Smith. Quite apt given the situation.

    11. Ron Maclean says:

      The plot thickens, and a plot it seems to be.

    12. Muscleguy says:

      if nothing else good lawyers should be able to advise what other avenues you have to attempt before legal action would be credible.

    13. Dogbiscuit says:

      So basically the message from the Crown Office is fuck off.That will no doubt loom large in the annals of Scottish legal jurisprudence no doubt taxing the minds of generations of young solicitors. The whole case stinks of political corruption.

    14. Muscleguy says:

      @Fiona McRae
      Agreed, a flowchart come crime board would be the way to go and keep track of it. When writing Physiology exam essays back in the day I would always start with a flowchart both to help me keep track and to demonstrate my understanding of the integration of systems especially if I might run out of time.

    15. Bob Mack says:


      Hamish Macbeth.

    16. Ron Maclean says:

      ‘It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.’ Thomas Paine

    17. Scozzie says:

      So it appears what that letter is saying is the COPFS is essentially a self-regulating power and does not appear to be answerable to anyone and neither does the Lord Advocate appear to be answerable to anyone….hhmmm!

      Call me cynical, but what’s to stop a self-regulating institution to target certain individuals whether through corruption, political dissent, personal grievance or other nefarious reasons.

      I accept and agree that it is right the judicial system should be independent from the political system. But as Kenny McCaskill MP points out, there is an intertwining (my words) of the Lord Advocate’s role and Scottish Government that I think the Salmond / Murray case has brought to light and that needs changed.

      Keep on keeping on Stu, you started unpicking the stinking bowels of the corrupt Scottish media years ago and it seems some unpicking of the judicial system is worthy of scrutiny too.

      Message to COPFS if you’re going to haul Craig Murray in front of a judge you should also haul a number of MSM journalists especially Dani Garavelli.

    18. X_Sticks says:

      There is a stench from the Scottish justice system. I first noticed it in 2001 when there was an obvious travesty of justice in the PamAm 103 trial.

      Since then it has been ever more noticeable that “Scottish” justice is in fact british justice and kowtows to the british establishment.

      It doesn’t really surprise me as the pinnacle of “Scottish” law is to get a royal bauble or even a seat in the HoL after you’ve done a stint on the so-called Supreme Court.

      The Scottish legal system is firmly entrenched in the british establishment.

    19. prj says:

      I wonder if this obstruction/lack of action is due to external interference. If this is the case then there actions can make sense. The media will jump on any action by SG or judiciary that seem to favour Alex Salmond. The British establishment is desperate to undermine the SG this may be that bait. As AS has said the truth will be outed, maybe we need to bide our time.

    20. Grouse Beater says:

      An honourable and important quest. Keep at it and off the Prozac.

    21. Willie says:

      The legal establishment in Scotland is a rotten burgh and your are most certainly exposing it Rev Stu.

      There is no rule of law. The unaccountable state chooses who it makes war with who it doesn’t.

      Remember Diplock Courts just across the water. More of the same. And extra judicial killing.

      All part of the Brig General Kitson playbook about how to keep control of a colony.

      Democratic means of change. Well I’m open to suggestions

    22. ahundredthidiot says:

      Fuck it – I’m going fifty quid on Supercop!

    23. Vivian O'Blivion says:

      Is there a rogue MSP that’s slipped through the selection process? A few names spring to mind but they’re currently wasting their time (some by their own admission) generating Short Money (and precious little else) at Westminster.
      If all other means of redress are denied, time to go political at Holyrood.

    24. Famous15 says:

      Write to Alex Cole-Hamilton.

      He can to everything.

    25. Tartan Bolshie says:

      The named prosecutor in the Craig Murray is HM Advocate (James Wolfe). The person in that role was excluded from Scottish Government cabinet meetings by…. Alex Salmond in order to ‘depoliticise’ the role! So he’s not really ‘answerable’ to the Scottish Government any more. If he doesn’t answer you, you need to speak to his boss, Lizzie Windsor. After that you’ll need to get in touch with God!

    26. Effijy says:

      So there we have it.

      You can have millions of pounds of resources investigating your
      Actions as someone seen some bad accusations against you on
      A toilet wall somewhere.

      If nothing is found they will try to create it and spend heavily again taking it to court.

      If they discover you are participating in actions they don’t like and their friends
      Are doing exactly the same thing, they bear the right to single you out.

      The system without a complaints procedure supports bias and unjust prosecutions.
      They can commit murder but you can’t repeat what you read in the Unionist Media?

      Is anyone aware of where their windows are in relation to a pile of rocks.

    27. Kenny says:

      The answer really is quite simple.

      Lots of people have time on their hands right now. Cast around for a similar sized country with low corruption. Probably one of our Scandinavian friends.

      Take their constitutional (and legal) model, adapt it for Scotland (possibly with tweaking from a few other countries) and write your own Wings White Paper for a future indy Scotland. Publish as a PDF on your site for your future Wings Party (because the SNP is not going to campaign for independence, ever). Write the basics on one page in another WBB.

      Also, learn about “lustration”.

      There is nothing that says we have to keep using the same model after indy. In fact, it would be utter madness to do so.

    28. mountain shadow says:

      Do you know any MSPs who might be willing to bring up this question in Parliament with the Justice Minister?

    29. Sweep says:

      I believe the person in charge goes by the name of Noah Murny…

    30. Breeks says:

      Telling ya.

      Even caught red handed, with emphatic evidence in your hand, you’ll still never land a glove on them, and even when they won’t give you a single straight answer, years from now, (because they will drag it out for years), when they sense you’re drained and exhausted by it all, the SNP Minister in charge, or some other convenient patsy, will send you a patronising piece of shit letter about some “exhaustive investigation” which never actually took place, which concluded their rotten, lying, evasive and dishonest conduct was actually “exemplary”.

      That’s “justice” in Scotland, and it’s why every local authority and quango which wants a clean bill of health would need dipped in Domestos bleach to purge the systemic corruption, institutional dishonesty, and impenetrable sophistry which now resides there with absolute and collective impunity.

      The “system” isn’t there to hear your grievance and affect corrective measures to make the system better. You, having a grievance, become a threat to the system, and they will address you and your grievance like antibodies attacking an infection.

      An independent Scotland will need, as a matter of highest priority, and anti corruption organisation set up to rid Scotland of these parasites and re-establish diligence and honesty as defining principles of our society, rather than casual indifference to corruption and “I’m alright Jack” philosophy.

      You will not find any enthusiasm anywhere for setting up an anti corruption organisation. Do the arithmetic why that might be so.

    31. Mist001 says:

      I suspect that as in the case of health, which we subsequently discovered, was devolved to Scotland in name only, not in practice, the same will be the case with COPFS.

      Despite what we’ve been led to believe, it’ll turn out that they only have very limited powers and when it comes to the decisions that matter, and the real decision making has remained with Westminster.

      That’s why you’re getting the runaround with these jumped up diddies.

    32. Scott says:

      Not sure if it is the same for all users but whenever I see a WoS post on Facebook there appears to be a relatively small number of comments and when I click to see them they are always all ‘filtered out’. Funny that.

    33. Andrew says:

      I wrote to the trial judge in the case in February. I have not had any response at all, to date.
      I wanted to know, based on the transcript why the court hadn’t considered perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by the accuser group? I suspect I will not get a reply.

    34. Bob Costello says:

      What I cannot understand is if no one is responsible for following up your list of journalists who identified the accusers, then who authorised the actions against Craig Murry and Mark Hirst? It can only, therefore, have come directly from the police., Perhaps a direct approach to them might be more fruitful after all they seem to have a team, all ready and waiting to go, “The Alex Salmond team”

    35. Corrado Mella says:

      What is interesting is that all these folks refer to an act of the Westminster Parliament (the Scotland Act 1998) to frame their competence in the matter.

      It’s now clear that all of this apparatus is nothing else than the BritNazi Establishment interfering with a legal system that is – on paper – autonomous and separate but in fact subjugated to the gang of inbred cretins and assorted misery that pretend to be humans squatting in Downing Street, Westminster and Whitehall.

      We need a swift cut and let the parasitic cancer loose.

    36. Paul Snowdon says:

      I would imagine the the only viable route to an investigation is for you to make an official complaint to Police Scotland regarding the DG article.

    37. Ian Brotherhood says:

      A nice set of arguments about indyref2 was brewing on the previous thread when this one appeared.

      As and when we hit, say, 60 or so comments here, we’ll resume that discussion.

      I’ve tweeted an invitation to anyone interested in discussing indyref2 to come here and take part, advising that the discussion will last well into the weekend.

      This place is ours every bit as much as it is Rev’s and we need to help look after it. That means getting it back to the original purpose of discussing indy. Plenty of discussion to have and work to do.

      If you know of anyone who hasn’t been here for a while, please ask them to consider having a peek in later or over the next few days.


    38. Doug McGregor says:

      The potato gets hotter every time it’s passed too , they are going to regret not throwing Kezia on the fire as it’s now their sinecures they are fighting for. Beginning to look like value for money to sort out the uniquely exotic Scottish legal system.

    39. callmedave says:

      Too many gate keepers… playing pass the parcel. 🙁

      @Ian Brotherhood:

      Was reading the comments and will look in later on. 🙂

    40. Andy McColl says:

      Excellent use of Rebus there Stu. Chapeau (on that alone) ?

    41. Brian says:

      Other than Taggart being deid and Rebus being retired the rest might be your only hope.
      Scottish Justice seems to be as corrupt as fuck right now.

    42. Andrew Morton says:

      I’m peeking.

    43. Flower of Scotland says:

      Ask Monica Lennon. She has always done everything before anyone else!

      I’ve always thought that the Scottish Judicial system was infiltrated by Unionists. The Police Service too.

      After the Conspirators loss of the Alex Salmond case you could read the bitterness in the media and probably a lot more than anyone could imagine in the SNP weren’t happy either.

      Keep up the good work…but who to go to next!

    44. Lulu Bells says:

      @Ian Brotherhood

      Really keen to get involved in an indyref2 discussion but I find it all really hard to follow using comments. I will try to keep up, and also understand what seems to be many years worth of previous chat and understanding between the rest of you.

    45. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Lulu Bells –


      It’ll be worth following, I’m sure. A few ‘old’ faces have already come over the hill so it could get a bit heated at times, but that’s what we want!

    46. MaggieC says:

      The whole thing stinks to high heavens as folk would say and no one person willing to take any responsibility and for now just playing “ pass the parcel “ between departments without any of them giving an answer to your questions .

      The sooner Alex’s book is published the better to hopefully shed some light on the whole situation .

      Stuart , Take care and look after yourself first and foremost and thanks for all you’re doing to get to the bottom of this .

    47. Ken says:

      I’m glad it’s not only England which is a banana republic.

    48. Merkin Scot says:

      This place is ours every bit as much as it is Rev’s and we need to help look after it. That means getting it back to the original purpose of discussing indy. Plenty of discussion to have and work to do.
      This article is about the continuing efforts of Der Leaderene and her Ladies to silence dissent.
      You want a blog with her agenda of hiding under Boris and the refusal then do so.
      You may have an existing common purpose, I don’t.

    49. Jason Smoothpiece says:

      The legal profession does not really like complaints I had the inconvenience of trying to complain about a solicitor, long story, the short story is they investigate themselves, or their pals do. Frequently finding that their learned friends have done nothing wrong.

      The Crown Office and PF Service wield so much power over us proles they simply must have an efficient and transparent complaints process.

      The current situation is unprofessional and leads to all sorts of allegations true and false.

      The whole legal profession needs close inspection.

      I trust you will continue to slap it right into them.

    50. bipod says:

      I see our dear leader has graciously allowed us to sit in parks and meet a person from another household, but only 1 and you have to be 2 metres apart! I can’t be the only one who thinks this announcement is a bit pointless as people have already been doing those things, in large numbers, for weeks now. Its incredible that they are only now catching up to the situation on the ground.

      She has no way of actually knowing what the mystical R number is given the absence of community testing and the inaccesibility of what is already there. She has no evidence that there will be a second peak of the first wave or a second wave or whatever the new scare is today. Experience from other countries that have released faster and opened up schools and shops have shown the exact opposite of what she expects to be true, there is no second wave.

      This painfully slow release from lockdown looks more like a face saving exercise. Nicola Sturgeon and Boris Johnson can’t admit that they overreacted and trashed the economy for no gain, so instead we all need to put up with this lockdown down for months more and ridiculous social distancing and authoritarian contract tracing and isolation measures for god knows how long.

    51. deerhill says:

      That Buck must be hoachin wi’ coronvirus after all the hands it’s been through.

      In a normal country you could go to the press, but this isn’t a normal country.

      I notice that other Legal Lottery winner has a two page spread in the DR. Grinning like a loon as usual.
      On the bright side, the DR will soon go down the gurgler, while this site will continue to provide factual information to the Scottish people.

    52. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Merkin Scot (4.27) –

      I don’t understand your comment.

      I’m asking for a discussion on indyref2. There’s no hidden ‘agenda’, about hiding NS or anything else.

      If you can suggest a better place to have the discussion, I’m all ears.

    53. IrnBruzer says:

      Given this is all about anti-corruption, surely we need DS Steve Arnott (despite the accent).
      I believe his friend Martin may be sympathetic to the cause.

    54. Sarah says:

      @ Dorothy Devine 1.05 and Rev 1.22: the penultimate picture in the post is Bobby Carlyle and dug from the Hamish Macbeth series.

    55. MWS says:

      It’s a veritable soap opera. I love to tune in to my daily updates of ‘Pass the Parcel’. This will go on longer than Corrie I suspect.

    56. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Might as well fire in then, before we start having arguments about whether or not we can discuss something like ‘indyref2’ on Scotland’s biggest politics blog.

      Here’s a comment by SC, from the previous thread. Anyone want to have a go at tackling this, just to kick us off?


      schrodingers cat says:
      28 May, 2020 at 2:22 pm
      Ian Brotherhood says:
      Does that mean many of us don’t want NS to sling her hook asap? No it doesn’t. And you already know that too.

      aye, i do know that

      but for the indy list party tactic to succeed, we need to set out what it must be to avoid it failing in the same way other such pro indy list parties have in the past.

      eg, i believe that when list party msps resign, that party can choose replacements from their own lists? could we abuse this ruling? eg, you are elected as a list msp, but resign and we nominate alex salmond to replace you then vote him as leader. alex could then lead the questioning at fmq, then he resigns and is replaced by you. we could do this every week and have anyone we want to question the fm. ? i dont think theres a law against this?

      2. promise to never vote against an snp bill, motion etc. with 54% support, the snp will probably win an outright majority on the list so any indy list party msp’s (ILP) votes will be irrellevant and not needed anyway, even if the snp do fall a little short of an overall majority, the ILP msp’s abstaining would ensure that the snp will have a majority.
      that doesnt mean ILP msps cant disagree with snp policies, or introduce there own bills, but they are asking snp voters to lend them their votes. they must create this trust among the snp voters’.

    57. msean says:

      Like any real bureaucracy,nobody knows. 🙂

    58. The Mighty S says:

      Now that NS knows there will be new list parties and new individual indy candidates (not attached to a party) who WILL be focused on regaining an iScotland, will she use HR2021 as a single issue vote for independence? I read somewhere she would need to get this through HR..? Is this right? Because wouldn’t WM just move to block that using some sort of legal shit-feckery?

    59. PhilM says:

      Private criminal prosecutions are almost impossible in Scotland. There was one in the early 80s and the Glasgow Bin Lorry families tried but failed. In Scotland you draw up a Bill for Criminal Letters and it has to be given high-heid yins’ approval to go ahead (High Court). In England a private prosecution can be raised in a magistrate’s court.
      Plus, who would have the standing to bring a private criminal prosecution against DG? It would probably have to be one of the alphabet women for some form of reckless conduct (I think).
      I think yon Lallands Peat Worrier wrote something on this subject.

      Wholeheartedly agree about the Anti-Corruption drive after independence. Scotland’s elites are spectacularly corrupt…

    60. Sarah says:

      @ Ian Brotherhood: this is a very welcome initiative i.e. discussing how to regain Scotland’s independence on an indy blog!

      1. The Yes movement has hitherto been in a supporting role leaving the SNP to decide the ways and means. The AUOB marches weren’t “militant” in any way.

      But perhaps our marches should be Blue Blanket ones [credit Tinto Chiel for the info on BB] i.e. a Scottish Spring where we 200,000 or so march on Holyrood and demand that Holyrood informs Westminster that we withdraw from the Treaty of Union. Or at least that the Convention be activated and given 3 months max to vote on the matter.

      2. The ISP: apart from the unfortunate name [ISP = internet service provider] I can see the virtue of an almost single issue party on the list. Look at the success of the Brexit Party, and UKIP too. A single issue party is giving a clear, straightforward message to the voters and all the voters have to know is whether they agree with it or not. It might even bring to the polls the voters who don’t usually come.

    61. twathater says:

      Stuart I commend your indefatigability sir , hiv a got that right , seriously yer a STAR

    62. liz says:

      There are currently 862 known active Covid 19 cases in the whole of Scotland.

      A country with a 5 mil+ population is in lockdown over less than 900 active cases.
      NS is a control freak and is relishing dishing out orders to adults, perfectly capable of making our own safe decisions.

      As we all know the biggest number of deaths was in care homes, doesn’t matter who’s fault it was at the current time but those poor people were isolated for months and account for 46% of all deaths,
      That is a scandal, you are less likely to catch it outdoors in the sunshine than cooped up

    63. Tartanpigsy says:

      One thing is for sure, 100%, dead cert now. If we actually want independence as a thing, not just a discussion topic for years, there is going to have to be a concerted, large scale, disruptive campaign of civil disobedience at the heart of any campaign. A rerun of softly softly, convert one No voter to win has gone, bolted into the distance. The UK state has us where it wants us. All necessary institutions and critical positions compromised. Doesn’t matter if Indy support stays at or above 50% if there’s no proactive campaign

    64. Elmac says:

      NS has morphed into Napoleon from animal farm. It is illegal to call a pig Napoleon in France but fortunately no such restriction applies here ….. yet. Gross acts of bias and vindictiveness by various arms of the establishment are par for the course now and any hope that our separate legal system will protect us from corruption in the application of the law in Scotland is long gone. The attack on Craig Murray and the denial of justice to Stu Campbell are a step too far. We WILL be independent soon and this corrupt establishment WI?LL be swept away. As there was in Nazi Germany after WWII there WILL be a day of reckoning and the scum who pretend to uphold the law in our country WILL pay a price for what they have done.

      Hold on to that thought and let’s make it happen for the good of our country and our children’s children.

    65. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      All three series of ‘Hamish Macbeth’ are currently available at the STV Player.

      I binge-watched all episodes in April. Bra’! But some of them are a tad ‘dark’…

    66. crisiscult says:

      Surely this is something opposition parties could raise in Parliament. Why have they not done so? Something to attack the SNP with.

    67. Liz g says:

      Lulu Bells @ 4.42
      I know what you mean and sometimes there’s 3 or 4 different angles between posters…..but honestly Lulu if something catches you eye and your not up to speed with the history of it….
      just ask….most will be happy to explain what they mean! 🙂
      And pay nae attention to those who would insult and belittle ye for askin,they are the one’s with an agenda….

    68. Effijy says:

      Better the Bojo/Cummings you know?

      News tonight in the Evening Standard
      The UK now has the highest coronavirus death rate in the world.
      Britain has recorded 59,537 more deaths than normal since week ending March 20th.
      This was from an analysis of the 19 worst hit countries by the Financial Times!

    69. Pete says:

      Liz 6.11
      You are just so correct.
      We are committing millions to unemployment and poverty for a virus that kills folks in care homes and some over 70.
      No one under 15has died and very very few under45.
      We’re now at the stage where lockdown is going to kill more than the virus.

    70. Republicofscotland says:

      That’s an absolutely disgraceful position from all the departments involved you’re constantly being fobbed off by them all. No one wants to hold their hands up and say our department is responsible, and here I was thinking that in Scotland justice would be seen to be done, well no longer do I see it that way.

      It’s sounds as though they’ve no intentions of taking your complaint seriously, which is foolish as thousands upon thousands of folk read your blog and now must apparently think something’s not right here, which it isn’t.

      The lack of clarity from the departments just adds weight to the case that it’s a witch hunt against Craig Murray and Mark Hirst. Whilst unionists hacks can get away with revealing sensitive info that Murray and Hirst did not expose.


      Craig Murray.

      Alex Salmond.

      Mark Hirst.

      A definite pattern has emerged.

    71. Athanasius says:

      Have you considered taking a private prosecution? I’d bet the population of Scotland would be queuing up to John O’Groats to crowdfund that one.

    72. Dorothy Devine says:

      Sarah , thanks -how I missed him I do not know, except that my wifi keeps gremlinning !

    73. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Maybe we should get Martin Compston on the case – once he and the Line of Duty team have finally brought H to justice.

    74. Colin Alexander says:

      First hurdle to indy: Sturgeon has dug her pit: S30 permission from WM. Knowing there is zero chance of a s30 being given for as long as there is strong support for indy.

      I genuinely believe Sturgeon is against independence, or is under the coercion of an MI5 handler, and has settled for colonial administrator.

      Sturgeon is the SNP’s political leader, married to the other boss of the SNP.

      Even if something useful comes out of the Forward As One case, which unfortunately I doubt, the leadership of the SNP has to be dealt with or bypassed.

      How do we do that quickly?

    75. Ron Maclean says:

      In my view Nicola Sturgeon has been ‘captured’ and an early priority before an independence campaign should be her removal from the SNP leadership. So far that doesn’t seem to have been attempted and can only be done from within the party using SNP designed procedures.

      The arguments against her leadership have been made many times. They include, five years of inaction on the independence front, s30, Brexit, GRA, Salmond trial etc. The case for her defence seems to rest on a few tired clichés such as ‘never interfere …’ and a long running hope that she might have a secret plan.

      Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be an obvious successor with the desire to reclaim our sovereignty and clean up our political and legal systems. That would require a level of courage, unbending determination, competence and confidence which we have yet to see.

      I live in hope.

    76. Effijy says:

      People of every age from months old to centenarians have died
      Due to the virus.

      Yes the older the more vulnerable but I’m not for letting it kill anyone
      who can be saved.

      Do I want to think it might be good for the economy if
      My wife and Mum are on the vulnerable list?

      Then Peter’s Tory pals can decide that if you stop working, I’ll or retired
      You can be given a wee injection and help out their economy.

      Beware the thin end of the wedge!

    77. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Who was the last person to insist that Scotland will never become independent?

      Seriously – has anyone dared go that far lately?

      And *if* even the staunchest unionists privately admit that it’s inevitable, why on earth do they continue to resist it? Wouldn’t plain old self-interest persuade them to get on ‘the right side’ sooner rather than later for entirely pragmatic reasons?

      Their behaviour only makes sense if they’re being rewarded handsomely in the short-term, are being blackmailed, or intend to leave Scotland as and when indy comes. The number who truly believe, even in their quiet solitary moments, that this union can persist much longer must be vanishingly small.

    78. Willie says:

      Just read that the government in England ( and no doubt in Scotland ) will be retaining all of the data captured by a persons trace and track app for twenty years.

      Yes that’s right, twenty years details of your name, date of birth, address, mobile phone number, IP address, that will match up with every other individual with home you have come close, when it was, how long for, exactly where it was.

      Quite why the government need to keep this detail for twenty years is concerning. With more detail than a current criminal tracking bracelet the government say they will not delete this information even if requested.

      Well you know what, I won’t be participating this in any mass surveillance. They’ll have to forcibly chip me before I’d concede to that.

    79. Bob Mack says:

      Removing Nicola Sturgeon aS leader would do nothing unless you can clear the various committees which have been set up since membership of” wokists” and careerists..That would take time.

      Top tier clear out reqd including Mr Mundell.

    80. schrodingers cat says:

      soz im late.

      This discussion thread is about what the best form of a new Indy List Party ILP should take, but I should like to lay out a few basic parameters before hand

      1. this isnt an snp bad thread. In no case do or would anyone ever propose voting anything else other than snp in the constituency vote. Anywhere. Indeed, no ILP candidates stand in any constituency

      2. in the south scotland region, the snp list elected 3 snp list msps. Unless we can see individual full scale polls in the 3 tory held south constituencies, indicating a large swing to the snp, the new ILP will not stand list candidates in the south

      3. the electoral arithmetic is a given. In7/8 regions in scotland, 850k snp list votes elected 1 list msp, maree tod. In fife and mid scotland, 6/7 list msps elected were unionists 1 was green. Had everyone in this region who voted green on the list voted snp, all 7 list msps in this region would be unionists. Fact. This ist a thread about the arithmetic, which is self evident. It is about the nature of the new ILP.

      4. The snp cannot support this new ILP, they would run foul of the electoral commission. nor can any high profile snp member be seen to support it. Best they can do is to drop the vote snp 1 and 2 mantra and make no comment about the new ILP. The unionists are able to work out where and how to vote tactically. So can indy supporters

    81. schrodingers cat says:

      The 1st point I would raise is why the snp voters did not back the other indy supporting parties (green, rise, solidarity) in 2016 in any large way? bear in mind, the electoral arithmetic was the same then as it is today?

      I would propose that the indy supporters did not trust these parties enough. Only the greens had any real traction. However, I believe that any trust the greens had in 2016 has now evaporated. This is a problem since it was only the 6 green msps which staved off the grand unionist coalition. This threat still exists which I believe is why a new ILP is necessary.

      So how do we gain this trust? I think that the voters looked at the other indy supporting parties and didnt like the fact that they appeared to use the electoral arithmetic and the issue of independence to shoe horn their own issues into prominence. Eg, green, women, trans, eu, republicanism etc. if the very people you are asking to lend you their vote, dont trust you. They wont vote for you.

    82. Ron Maclean says:

      @Bob Mack 7:56pm

      A new SNP leader with the toughness required to take us to independence shouldn’t take long to clear out any subversives.

      Mr Mundell?

    83. Julia Gibb says:

      I thought an organisational chart might exist. A reporting line. A straightforward list of departmental responsibilities….apparently not!

      “A big boy did it and ran away”. That does’nt work in court but appears to be how the procurator runs his office.

    84. schrodingers cat says:

      This doesnt mean the new ILP msps cant disagree with the snp, they can. This is how I think the new ILP can gain this trust.

      1. promise never to vote against the snp. If the snp gain an over all majority, the polls make this look likely, it wont matter. however, if the snp need 1 or 2 votes from the new ILP, this promise will ensure that the snp majority is assured. abstaining would also ensure an snp majority. this doesnt mean ILP msps cant argue against the snp, they can, but they cand defeat the snp

    85. Bob Mack says:

      @Ron McLean,

      Murell. Predicatext has taken to sabotage.

    86. tarisgal says:

      @Colin Alexander – 7:37

      First hurdle to indy: Sturgeon has dug her pit: S30 permission from WM. Knowing there is zero chance of a s30 being given for as long as there is strong support for indy

      Well Colin, I think she’s going to have to change her mind. Martin Keatings has that in hand, having started the case to determine if Scotgov can legally go ahead & hold a Ref WITHOUT bozo’s consent. His legal team seem to think it’s likely they will win this… It has been approved to be heard, and now in an 8 week period where both parties gather & put before the Court their various cases… After that, it’s court action & judgement time.

      Martin seems to think about 4 months will see the case heard & adjudicated. If he wins… it’s game ON. It’s only fair to say that Scotgov is attached to this case, too though and ON MARTIN’S SIDE. But for legal reasons they’ve had to be put down as being on ‘the other side’. I can’t remember the reasoning behind that, sorry…

      In which case, there will be NOTHING holding NS back. If she doesn’t instigate an IndyRef having gotten Court’s admission it is within HRs competence to hold it WITHOUT bozo’s consent, I think she’ll find over half the country’s anger will be directed squarely at her door if she doesn’t go for it.

    87. schrodingers cat says:

      2. we could potentially win 20 list msps. if we dont need the numbers, then elected list msps could stay at home, donating their salaries to the yes movement.

    88. Bob Mack says:


      What if they make that pact and then the SNP try to push through a modified GRA ? I don’t think they could abstain in that event. Supposition I know. Probably negotiations reqd.

    89. schrodingers cat says:

      3. elected list msps can resign and are replaced by other members of the same party. why cant we play this system to our advantage? eg, a msp resigns, and is replaced by eg, stu campbell for a couple of weeks, then if stu wants to go home he could resign and be replaced by eg, craig murray ???

    90. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @schrodingers cat –

      ‘I think that the voters looked at the other indy supporting parties and didn’t like the fact that they appeared to use the electoral arithmetic and the issue of independence to shoe horn their own issues into prominence.’

      This is true.

      The new party has to have independence front and centre, and the discipline to hoof anyone who tries to hijack it for their own pet concerns.

      That means traditional ‘socialists’ must be prepared to campaign alongside indy supporting Tories. The latter are indeed rare beasts but they have every right to form their own party in a Free Scotland and no democrat worth the name would refuse to support the new party on the basis that it embraces the entire political spectrum. The pay off is that we end up with a political battering ram useful for only so long as it takes to get indy – then everyone can go their separate ways, job done.

      That has to be an no-negotiable point of principle right from the outset so that everyone knows where they stand – if you don’t like it, don’t join.

    91. Glesgachib says:

      This is has some of the same stink as the Dom Cum Durham Ding Dong. Establishment functionaries who are totally unaccountable for their actions and always manage to squirm out of the rules. Maybe email a few SNP MSPs and ask them to raise this? James Dornan?

    92. schrodingers cat says:

      the tactical voting is designed to remove unionist list msps and ensure an indy majority. but it could also be a source of funding to the yes movement. who gets to be on the list and who gets to stay and or turn up could be controlled, for the benefit of the greater yes movement

      trust guarenteed 🙂

    93. Robert Louis says:

      Ian Brotherhood, and some others discussing indyref2,

      One of the things which concerns me, is the apparent lack of conviction that many in the SNP leadership have regarding independence. What I mean by that is the fact that at the start of her term in office as Fm, unionists said all NS talked about was independence. Instead of stating loudly and clearly ‘of course I talk about independence, because Scotland desperately needs it in order to prosper etc..etc.. etc’, she did the exact opposite.

      Instead of asserting the need for independence, she has spent almost her entire FM career, denying that she is talking about it. The question I would ask, is why? If independence is so important to NS and the SNP, they should be talking about it with almost every breath. Alex Salmond did.

      It would be like me, stating that I thought chocolate cake was vital to our success, but when questioned about it, denied that I had even mentioned chocolate cake. It is absurd, as it seems. You spport indy, but when questioned, deny ever talking about it. What kind of political agenda is that??

      Polls will never shift massively regarding indy within Scotland if our supposedly pro indy government will not even stand up for the idea. The Scottish Government should be taking the fight to the unionists on each and every occasion, asserting Scotland’s aboslute right to independence, but again, they don’t.

      Unionists have set the indy debate on their terms – that it is entirely up to London to decide – instead of NS asserting Scotland’s rights, and that the treaty of union is a bilateral treaty which may be ended by either party, she meekly agrees with the unionist narrative.

      Do the SNP understand political strategy? Do they have any notion as to how to shape public perceptions? All the evidence I see suggests they do not. They have allowed the unionist narrative, that it is England who will decide on indy for Scotland, to persist and grow. Indeed, they have so indulged the nonsense, that it is now widely accepted as FACT, that Scotland can never become independent, unless England says so. And that, as we all should know, is just not true. It is A grade baloney.

      As regards timing of indyref, it needs to be BEFORE the end of the year and brexit is finalised. Waiting until that has happened, will be too, too late.

    94. Liz g says:

      Ian Brotherhood @ 7.46
      I think it’s to shore up and rally the 30% hard code Unionists.
      London is the big money make’er and an independent Scotland is direct competition for London,so they will do what they can to firstly keep control of Scotland…but failing that they will try to cause much internal strife as possible.
      Westminster never leave anywhere in friendship an cooperation…if they can’t rule it they wreck it and they do it by native pleb!

      They do stuff like this all the time in England,they infer that the Queen and her family are on the side of the people,there is always one pretendy rogue journalist around who ” speaks ” for the people and gives the politicians a hard time on telly ( Robin Day,Andrew Neil,Paxman, Dumbilby and now man of the people Piers Morgan)…

      The people here loyal to the union and the crown will be given the impression that the UK establishment care deeply about them being outside the family and they will agitate from that.
      The Westminster lackeys here will be well rewarded for not permitting Scotland a clear run at success.
      That’s why they don’t speak about independence coming down the track!

    95. Joe says:

      @liz and Pete

      This for perspective. Japan ends its Coronavirus emergency. Never had a lockdown. 16628 cases. Less than 900 deaths

      This simply cannot be reconciled with what we are being told in the UK.

    96. Ron Maclean says:

      @Bob Mack 8:09pm

      Thanks – should have thought of that. He has to go too.

    97. Dan says:

      Re. Pro-Indy Party standing on Regional Lists.

      Anybody with an ounce o’ savvy in their napper kens that as soon as you add more and more people and options into the mix it quickly becomes extremely difficult to reach herd community agreement and achieve an objective.
      Conventional hierarchically structured groups with the inevitable personality clashes and egos trying to collate multiple policies is a perfect recipe for achieving fuck all to the power of ten.
      If you want to engineer something that is practical and functional and able to be understood and agreed upon by a wide range of people and the voting electorate, then embrace KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).

      There are currently two main supposedly Pro-Indy Parties in Scotland, but both seem rather too focused on policies that many of the Scots electorate do not find palatable, especially when there are rather more important and far reaching matters needing addressed.
      The SNP and Greens have created the void by either design or incompetence for another Party to fill because they are pissing around with policies outwith their Party’s main objectives.
      That being the case a new Pro-Indy Regional List Party might want to consider simply adopting the counter positions to the policies that drove them to come into existence in the first place.
      This gives the many people that are now critical of the policies both the SNP and Greens are pushing a legitimate option to cast their votes for.

      I’ve mulled over this situation we find ourselves in and think it is not beyond the pale that as George Folkes would say, “The SNP are doing this deliberately”, because all these feisty energised activists for a new List Party will still be telling the electorate to vote for the SNP with their Constituency votes. Plus the reasons for the genesis of a new Party puts clear daylight between them and the SNP so it can’t be accused of it being a front for a shadow SNP Party.

    98. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Robert Louis (8.20) –

      You’ll understand what I mean when I say that your comment could’ve appeared here three, even four years ago. The very same problems of credibility and trust account for this nightmarish state of stasis/deja-vu.

      ‘Don’t frighten the horses!’ How often did we hear that from 2011 – Sept 2014?!

      Most of dem cuddies are lang deid noo, and the one’s that aren’t couldn’t care less.

    99. Colin Alexander says:


      Nothing to stop Holyrood? Only if the imperial law remained the same.

      Two words: Continuity Bill.

      Genuine question, not point scoring: do you think WM wouldn’t do the same again and change the law to make an indyref ultra vires or outside the legal powers of the Holyrood colonial parliament?

    100. Liz g says:

      Shrodingers Cat
      Well there’s a couple of problems right there.
      The new party will do everything it can go stop the GRA,no ifs no and no buts.
      So they cannot commit to never voting against the SNP.
      Which would be a foolish thing to do anyway…suppose the SNP wanted to agree to a super majority referendum?
      And I can’t see the electoral commission letting that go either.
      The second thing is….They will have to have a complete manifesto otherwise it will be open season on them by the media.

    101. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @schrodingers cat –

      ‘3. elected list msps can resign and are replaced by other members of the same party. why cant we play this system to our advantage? eg, a msp resigns, and is replaced by eg, stu campbell for a couple of weeks, then if stu wants to go home he could resign and be replaced by eg, craig murray ???’

      That is just fuckin brilliant, haven’t heard it before.

      Imagine the fun we could have with that?


      (PS I’m available for the final fortnight of October.)


    102. schrodingers cat says:

      Bob Mack says:
      28 May, 2020 at 8:13 pm

      What if they make that pact and then the SNP try to push through a modified GRA ? I don’t think they could abstain in that event.

      thats exactly my point, regardless of what issues you favour, or even want to argue against, you cannot ask snp voters to lend you their vote on the list then use that favour to defeat the snp !!

      no trust, the ILP wont fly

    103. schrodingers cat says:

      (PS I’m available for the final fortnight of October.)


    104. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi schrodingers cat says: 28 May, 2020 at 8:46 pm.

      “thats exactly my point, regardless of what issues you favour, or even want to argue against, you cannot ask snp voters to lend you their vote on the list then use that favour to defeat the snp !!”

      I concur. The bigger picture is what’s important, ie, independence.

    105. schrodingers cat says:

      Liz g says:
      28 May, 2020 at 8:35 pm
      Shrodingers Cat
      Well there’s a couple of problems right there.
      The new party will do everything it can go stop the GRA,no ifs no and no buts.
      So they cannot commit to never voting against the SNP.

      if me, ronnie anderson and ian brotherhood set up a ILP, we can do what ever we fukcin want?? you dont like? dont vote for it.
      this policy is designed to attract the majority of the snp voters list vote. whether i care for the gra, eu, republic is irrelevant

    106. Colin Alexander says:

      My feelings now: any politician that will swear their allegiance to the British Empress, won’t be getting my vote.

      I want an independence revolution, not another Holyrood resolution.

    107. Bob Mack says:


      I’m not therefore convinced the Rev would be your ideal candidate.

      Surely an Indy supporting party can prioritise Indy but also negotiate with the SNP for support as the Greens already do on other issues.

      That would be normal.

    108. mogabee says:

      Keep on keeping on Stu. I hate pass the parcel and expect you to stop their little game forthwith!

      Delighted to see lots of the old ‘faces’ commenting again.

    109. schrodingers cat says:

      That being the case a new Pro-Indy Regional List Party might want to consider simply adopting the counter positions to the policies that drove them to come into existence in the first place.

      what is driving the creation of a new ILP is the electroral arithmetic EA. 850k snp list votes in 7/8 region elected 1 snp list msp.

      end of

      the new ILP must be only a indy booster party, this doesnt mean we couldnt ask the rev to join for a couple of weeks to put forward his case against the gra at fmq?

      but if this party is to win loads of seats, it must gain trust from the very people it is asking to lend them their vote?

    110. callmedave says:

      Too many folk just wanting to eat the bit of the curate’s egg they might like, sometimes you have to swallow an unsavoury mouthful.

      Anyhoo! Lose the Holyrood SNP election majority at any time soon and you can kiss Independence ta-ta plus all the good things that have been achieved, which in itself is worth voting for SNP first vote.

      List party with Independence on the ticket in selected regional list seats where about 6%-7% of the polling can be got will lock it in and keep the Unionists weaker and policy can be voted through OR argued against if thought necessary at Holyrood.
      Westminster does not get a foothold North of the wall and we all have a breathing space to consider.

      Once that is secured for the next 4 – 5 years sort out the midden and push for the Indi-ref2.

    111. schrodingers cat says:

      Bob Mack says:
      28 May, 2020 at 8:57 pm

      I’m not therefore convinced the Rev would be your ideal candidate.

      Surely an Indy supporting party can prioritise Indy but also negotiate with the SNP for support as the Greens already do on other issues.

      That would be normal.

      1. what im proposing means stu doesnt need to be a candidate, if you follow what i am saying he could still join the party after the election and be brought into holyrood to ask the fm questions for a couple of weeks, is this too difficult to understand ian b?

      2. if we only need 3 ILP msps to turn up to vote, the rest would stay at home and their wages would go into a yes fund to help bankroll the yes campaign. elected ILP msps arent there for a fukcin photo op, they are elected to reduce unionist list msps and ensure an indy majority. if we got 20msps, we would be the official opposition asking the fm the questions every week. speakers put forward by the ILP can ask any question they want, that should be enough for anyone here

    112. Dan says:

      schrodingers cat says: at 9:08 pm

      but if this party is to win loads of seats, it must gain trust from the very people it is asking to lend them their vote?

      Don’t presume everyone that votes SNP is actually happy to cast their votes for them. They may have been holding their noses and voting to give them that ever increasing pile of unused mandates, or voting for the least shit option, or even to keep their EU Citizenship…
      Some may appreciate having an alternative option that better represents their views after what they have witnessed since 2014.

    113. Liz g says:

      Shrodingers Cat @ 8.54
      I think you’ve misunderstood what I’m talking about.
      I’m talking about the new ISP party that have been registered as a new party….and the one that the Rev has said absent a more credible alternative the one he would endorse…

    114. Liz g says:

      Shrodingers Cat
      And even if your speaking of a completely different set up…
      It would still need a full manifesto otherwise half the media will tie candidates in knots over their positions in every issue barr our constitution and the other half will paint them as a wanna be “UKIP wi a Kilt”

    115. Neil B says:

      Ken at 4.13 says
      I’m glad it’s not only England which is a banana republic.

      I wouldn’t mind quite so much if we were a banana republic, it’s being a banana monarchy that is the ultimate insult.

    116. schrodingers cat says:

      Liz g

      i was pointing out that success of any indy list party (the subject of my initial post) is designed to explain that trust is the crucial element.

      the initial 4 points are how we go about winning it.

      why do we need a manifesto? the tories didnt have one, i would simply put a yes sticker on a leaflet. more important is the constitution of this party, that is what we are discussing right now

    117. schrodingers cat says:

      Liz g says:
      It would still need a full manifesto otherwise half the media will tie candidates in knots over their positions in every issue barr our constitution and the other half will paint them as a wanna be “UKIP wi a Kilt”

      no manifesto required. the unionist msm will monster them regardless, i would ignore the bbc and the msm, i would just insure that the yes supporters on social media got out the message out to the voters. it is the snp list voters who decide this

    118. Morgatron says:

      Ian Brotherhood @ 3.06
      Great idea Ian and look forward to what’s on people’s minds .

    119. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @SC (9.18) =

      ‘1. what im proposing means stu doesnt need to be a candidate, if you follow what i am saying he could still join the party after the election and be brought into holyrood to ask the fm questions for a couple of weeks, is this too difficult to understand ian b?’

      Wee clarification required SC – the comment you were responding to there was from Bob Mack, not me.


    120. Ron Maclean says:

      @callmedave 9:17pm

      Another 4 – 5 years of inaction. Then what?

    121. Col.Blimp IV says:

      England about to loose penalty shoot out on ITV4

    122. schrodingers cat says:

      another point, the ability to change out the elected list msps would enable us to give a platform to those being persecuted by the scottish judiciary

      correct me if im wrong but stu went after dugdale cos of what she wrote in the daily record, not because of what she said in holyrood??

      it would give CM/ stu and alex a platform to release info into the public domain, a platform denied to them by

      as i said, if we do this right, we can gain the trust of the snp voters

    123. schrodingers cat says:

      i worded it wrong ib, i was asking for a friend to tell me if the point i was making was too complicated? not explained well enough? etc

      your comment about being free on sat 36th of sept indicated you had understood

    124. Liz g says:

      Shrodingers Cat
      Well leaving aside the open goal no manifesto other than Indy would leave….
      There’s also the missed opportunities that having one creates.
      Just one example of the top of my head…

      The enormous huge totally scary deficit that’s going to be waggled about again…have a manifesto that’s clearly says and shows ( the Revs already done this ) that the Rent for Faslane and Coleport will be just that exact size.
      It’s an answer that makes the British Media not want to ask the question…one sentence,clear and credible…
      But to do it there has to be a position on follows the other…
      There’s also the fact that this is a Holyrood election and we need a position on all the day to day issues…. Farage and his lot didn’t that’s true….but they didn’t get in the parliament either!

    125. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @SC –

      Aha! Soz…


    126. Asklair says:

      Enjoying this saga, please keep digging.

    127. schrodingers cat says:

      Dan says:
      Don’t presume everyone that votes SNP is actually happy to cast their votes for them.

      i dont, but i believe if they dont have an option they can trust, they will carry on as before.

      your attitude is why rise is now extinct and the greens will follow shortly

    128. call me dave says:

      @Ron Maclean

      Sorry I had to do something important.

      There is no reason to suppose that inaction will happen.

      In fact there is always action going on through ‘usually’ good governance to improve the lot of Scots, little by little but it has never stopped.
      Think about all that mitigation of cruel WM policy examples, new planned child care was about to come on stream, even built a bridge, tuition fees not…etc

      There was even a TV political advert “What has the SNP ever done for me”. Aye!

      I also said the breathing space after an SNP + List party win would allow the midden to be sorted. The AS trial and who did it needs to be resolved ….. but who cares if the Willie Rennie & Jackson Carlaw partnership in in power FGS! Think about that!

      After that, which wont be long, upwards and onwards without using any more time or words here!

    129. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Copied across from previous thread:

      Ruglonian says:
      28 May, 2020 at 10:05 pm
      LizG @4.09am – yip, that’s precisely what I was meaning! I know that the SNP has a substantial support here, and when the majority of us retained good faith in them when Sturgeon took over then there might have been less open dissent, but it was always most definitely here!

      IanB @12.05pm – agree with your post completely, esp your reflections on why this place descended after the FM’s big announcement of nothingness on 31/1.

      I didn’t believe her IndyRef2020 proclamation at the time – pure electioneering for the GE19, pulling out the “I” word for the first time in years cos she was feart that the indy movement would have no reason to vote for her party, simply – and I think there will be a concerted effort to focus on HR21 when we ‘get back to normal’ cos that’s the SNP election winning machine’s comfortable territory.

      My thoughts remain the same on a pro-indy list party: they need to be a credible outfit that has endorsements from trusted ‘names’, they need to have a fully policy platform to differentiate from any other party and to be appealing to the average voter, they need to have a super sleek strategy and clear message on their reason for existing.
      All these factors combined would give me confidence that they would stand a decent chance of winning seats, and then I would back them with every once of my energy.
      There is no party currently that fulfils these criteria for me.

    130. Ron Maclean says:

      @call me dave 10:11pm

      If everything is going so well why have we a midden to sort?

    131. Col.Blimp IV says:

      The biggest problems facing a new pro-independence party are the same two that has been dogging the SNP for years.

      1. Policies – If you have any – it is inevitable that some independence supporters will loath them.

      2. The inability of ego driven know-alls to shut the fuck up and concentrate on the what should be the only objective.

      A new party will need a very restrictive constitution regarding what an MSP is permitted to say or do in the name of the party and an executive council that has very limited MSP representation and the power to hire and fire the MSP’s, if they stray from the golden path.

    132. call me dave says:

      Question Time from Milngavie Scotland I just heard on radio 5.

      Programme to be broadcast later. 🙂

    133. Colin Alexander says:

      The “sovereignty” of the British state is based on the sovereignty of the Queen of England in parliament.

      Also, it was James VI and then Queen Anne that were driving forces for Union.

      It was purrin Betty who breached the UK constitution of political neutrality of the monarch ( which was always a pretence: how can the Queen of the United Kingdom be anything other than in favour of a United Kingdom created by her forbears?).

      It’s a nonsense arguing the people of Scotland are sovereign but our politicians bending the knee to our colonial Empress and swearing allegiance to the Windsors of England. Our politicians should swear their allegiance to the common sovereignty of the people of Scotland.

      So, it’s not that an indy Scotland has to be all my favourite political flavours: it’s that Scotland will never gain independence by bending the knee to the Queen of England and our current British imperial masters.

      A re-run of indyref1 will result in a re-run of the result: Salmond failed. Scotland lost.

    134. Dan says:

      schrodingers cat says: at 10:10 pm

      your attitude is why rise is now extinct and the greens will follow shortly

      LOL, well that is a good constructive start to the discussions…
      All I said was basically to keep it simple so it can be relatively easily to organise and the electorate can understand it, and you’re talking about trust whilst floating the complex idea of rotating different people into a single MSP List Seat outwith the control of the electorate.
      Aye, that’s gonna be a piece of piss to explain that on the doorsteps…

    135. Theunicorn says:

      The Scottish Judiciary are in merely an administrative function of the “Crown” in Scotland. The question is who controls the Crowns functions within the UK ? The “Crown” is a “corporation” which controls/owns the functions of the devolved administrations. It is therefore likely that those who control these functions which is akin to a foreign colonial power, are those pursuing CM and MH.

    136. CameronB Brodie says:

      I don’t want to get in the way of the discussion, but I thought we might get that investigation of Scotland’s judicial system underway, as well. 😉


      Chapter Three: The Development of Final Appellate Jurisdiction
      3.1 The Terms of the Union Settlement

      The nation states of England and Scotland came together on the 5th May 1707 to form a single Union state, to be known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain.1 The legislation creating the new state, which was passed in both parliaments, contained provisions relating to the institutions of the new state, including those related to the administration of justice in Scotland.

      The Union legislation specifically provided for the continuing existence and authority of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary.2 However, in addition to protecting those courts, the legislation also stated:

      ‘…that no causes in Scotland be cognoscible by the courts of chancery, queen’s bench, common-pleas, or any other court in Westminster Hall [3]; and that the said courts, or any other of the like nature after the union, shall have no power to judge, review or alter the acts or sentences of the judicatures within Scotland, or stop the execution of the same.’4

    137. Bob Mack says:


      Ok let’s cut to the chase. We want therefore SNP loylists rather than Independent thinkers, because they could prove awkward. They may ask awkward questions in Holyrood,but ultimately vote with the SNP on all issues of abstain..

      Right so far?

      All this even though the SNP are haemorrhaging membership currently ,though keeping votes. I’m not so sure numbers of the former membership would be inclined to go along with this, but I can be convinced. They are leaving because of issues with their ability to support the SNP as members.

    138. call me dave says:

      @Ron Maclean

      Midden, confusion, word on the street stuff mixed messages, whispers and things that are not clear a gift to the Unionists and those those Triffids (plants) that blind you first before they kill lots on here on ocassions.

      Needs cleared up and it will be.

      I have met and spoken to AS and NS over a while during campaigns on a friendly chit chat level. Liked them both fine and coughed up twice for AS fund raiser. Like many lurkers I’m not pissing in the tent.

      Just did a donation for James Kelly by the way you might ‘pop’ in for his crowd funder.

      Better mention wings too, monthly contribution.

      So this conversation needs to be had. I hope a List Party emerges & SNP + List + a few Greens on the same plate is a good thing. I wait to see what happens.

    139. CameronB Brodie says:

      This one should give folk a better understanding of Scotland’s relationship with the common law, and why Brexit is incompatible with the principle of equality in law.

      Brexit destroys the legal justification for yoonyawn.


    140. schrodingers cat says:

      Liz g says:
      28 May, 2020 at 9:58 pm
      Shrodingers Cat
      Well leaving aside the open goal no manifesto other than Indy would leave….

      i dont see how? even your example of getting rid of trident, my plan would give a platform each week for a variety of issues, including cnd.

      but the issue is trust,

      this plan i believe would win this trust,

      it in no way limits the topics that can be raised by the yes movement, indeed, with the unionists gone, the staged manage unionist attacks would disappear

    141. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Theunicorn @10.37

      That makes sense, I recall being arrested and charged following a politically motivated stunt … We arrived at court to be presented with letters informing us that The Crown Office had decided not to proceed with the case.

      There wasn’t much chance of them failing to get a guilty verdict, therefore their actions were not consistent with the remit of upholding the law but definitely in line with pursuing a political agenda.

    142. Sinky says:

      Ian Murray again breaks Scottish Government to stay at home on BBC Qt

    143. CameronB Brodie says:

      If you disregard Treaty law you might as well forget about democracy. So it is my contention that the Scottish legal profession is generally not competent, or willing to defend Scotland from authoritarian English nationalism.

      The scope of judicial law-making in the common law tradition

      Max Planck Institute of Comparative and International Private Law Hamburg, Germany
      Lord Hodge, Justice of The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
      28 October 2019

    144. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Dan (10.34) –

      Please indulge me a minute…

      What’s to stop a ‘manifesto’ consisting of a boilerplate pledge to the effect that the (insert party name here) exists *only* to act in the furtherance of independence and will do so on individual issues as and when they come to the attention of the parliament?

      That justifies the flexibility SC was talking about i.e. according to the legislative programme, the ‘Freedom Party’ (or whatever it’s called) makes sure that people with relevant expertise are in-place for debates/votes.

      What’s not to like?

      Turns the conventional system on its head – instead of promising everything to everyone prior to a plebiscite (when abody knows that’s impossible), just promise to do your best depending on how the chips fall post-election. Any ‘Freedom Party’ rep who is uncomfortable with topic A can simply take time out and allow a colleague to do what’s required -so long as any arrangement is clearly in pursuit of independence then no manifesto pledge has been broken.

    145. crazycat says:

      @ schrodinger’s cat at 9.18

      1. what im proposing means stu doesnt need to be a candidate, if you follow what i am saying he could still join the party after the election and be brought into holyrood to ask the fm questions for a couple of weeks, is this too difficult to understand ian b?

      That’s not how it works.

      When a list MSP leaves, he or she is replaced by the next person who was on the list at the time of the election, until that list is exhausted. If a party runs out of candidates, the seat remains vacant.

      That is what happened with Margo, who was a list of one, and I think it will happen if any of the South of Scotland Tories leaves before the 2021 election – when John Lamont was replaced by Rachel Hamilton as a constituency MSP, she in turn was replaced on the list by Michelle Ballantyne, who is, I believe, their last candidate.

    146. schrodingers cat says:

      Ok let’s cut to the chase. We want therefore SNP loylists rather than Independent thinkers,

      initially i would put up unknowns as candidates who by definition, they couldnt be snp members

      i would then switch them out for others eg, i mentioned stu craig murray etc, all Independent thinkers

      presently, the unionists opposition ask rubbish questions but ultimately their votes count for nothing

      the promise not to vote against the snp is to gain the trust of the snp voters, and it may not be an issue when the final count is made

      i merely point out that the other indy parties fail because the ask the snp voters to trust them then foil things like the OBAF act etc,

      this i believe is a plan which would work, you dont like it? dont vote for it, go start up an anti chicks with dicks who support indy and stand on the list yourself.

      this isnt an anti snp thread, its a discussion as to the best policy or tact for a new indy list party to take!

      point one. vote snp on the constituency vote.

      the only problem with your idea is it has been done before by others and failed

    147. CameronB Brodie says:

      @Criminal Justice Division
      I hope you’re still monitoring comments on WOS. 😉

      CHAPTER 5

      The Basic Freedoms
      ….In Scotland the general remedy against arbitrary or unjustifiable detention is not, as in England, by invoking habeas corpus. Apart from cases where an accused has been committed for trial (where safeguards against undue delay in trial are provided by statute), the appropriate procedure to secure release is by presenting a petition for liberation to the High Court of Justiciary, exercising the nobile officium or special equitable jurisdiction.4

      Rights to free expression of opinion and also of public meeting rest upon the ordinary law, and are recognised so long as they do not infringe other interests protected by law. As we have already seen, Scots law is particularly strict in forbidding publication of matter which might affect fair and impartial trial of suspected persons. The expression of opinion by obstruction is not, of course, lawful – a proposition amply vouched for by proceedings taken against
      demonstrators, mainly from England, at the American
      Polaris submarine base in the Holy Loch.

    148. schrodingers cat says:


      there is no limit to the length of the list,

      their is no mechanism to force a party or a person to take up a place, regardless of their position on the list

      what you refer to is merely the convention.

      margo was an independent and didnt produce a list.

      the same is true for attendence, eg, if we won 20 ILP msps and the snp won an over all majority, they could be sworn in but then all but 3 could go home and offer up their salary for the use of the yes movement

      winning trust is the key

    149. Sarah says:

      @ schrodingers cat at 11.05: did you write this before seeing crazycats info at 10.58 re the list being those on the list at the date of the election – so you can’t sub with new people.

    150. schrodingers cat says:

      in crossing sarah

    151. Mark Young says:

      looks like yer just getting dingied from pillar to post Stu

    152. Col.Blimp IV says:

      IB& SC

      I am not sure this notion that a list party can chop and change who is and is not MSP at the drop of a hat in order to bring a relevant “expert” into play is entirely practical.

      Back when the first Holyrood selection process was going on.

      I objected to the HQ proposed method, of CA delegates “horse trading” votes with their neighbors to create the regional pecking orders – suggesting that the relevant number of best losers, was who should become list MSP’s.

      The HQ rep informed us that the electoral regs required a list with named persons on it, presented before close of nominations.

      I had no reason to suspect she was lying.

      Was I being naive?

    153. Sinky says:

      Fiona Bruce has interrupted John Swinney every time he speaks while Ian Murray allowed free reign unchallenged

    154. schrodingers cat says:

      Col.Blimp IV says:
      IB& SC

      I am not sure this notion that a list party can chop and change who is and is not MSP at the drop of a hat in order to bring a relevant “expert” into play is entirely practical.


      there is nothing in the rules that say you cant. as to the party process, that would be in the party rules that party members would sign up to

    155. schrodingers cat says:

      Col.Blimp IV says:

      The HQ rep informed us that the electoral regs required a list with named persons on it, presented before close of nominations.

      fine, a list can be produced for each region, whats the problem?

    156. schrodingers cat says:

      Sarah says:
      so you can’t sub with new people.

      yes you can, it has been done by all parties already

    157. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Col.Blimp IV –

      I can’t pretend to have the faintest idea, but I do believe that the Holyrood parliament system was designed so as to ensure that a majority for any party simply wouldn’t be possible and that that’s why the SNP 2011 victory was so remarkable.

      If it’s true that the original system, as sanctioned by ‘Parish-Council’ Blair was, in itself, a trick of sorts, why shouldn’t we exploit every possible trick in return? Much has been made of Alex Salmond’s knowledge of detail and arcane procedure. It helped him highlight our cause, did it not? So why shouldn’t we ‘game’ the gamers, just as he did, but with entirely New Tricks?


    158. terence callachan says:

      You can be certain that the people who got the ten to testify against AS were controlled instructed and paid by Westminster .

      The top Scottish judiciary are in the back pocket of Westminster too.

      Anyone in the media a lot who supports and campaigns for Scottish independence will have been threatened by police already in one or another its how england stops big names in Scotland showing support for independence, the message Westminster puts out is we will end your career if you do.

      It works

      Keeping Craig Murray’s court case behind closed doors will allow them to reveal how and why they are ignoring the law but we won’t get to hear it, Craig will , but will he be silenced with threats ?

      It’s terrible what they’ve done to AS and terrible what they are doing to CM

      I looked forward to the AS case just to see what they had and as we now know they had everything except evidence and proof

      I suspect the same will happen with CM but the big difference is they are doing it behind closed doors without a jury so it will be CM v the insiders

    159. Ruglonian says:

      Loving the discussion – only just caught up – here’s my positions on what’s already been spoken about.

      SC @8.08pm – I personally don’t agree with your “promise never to vote against the SNP” point, as I’m not a fan of a lot of what the SNP do and don’t want a party that’ll let them away with stuff.
      I think that the promise should be more like “always work constructively with other pro-indy parties on the advancement of the constitutional question”

      IanB @8.15pm – I think the element of being broadly appealing across the political spectrum is a key point.
      There’s way more pro-indy folk than there is political nerds who have their ‘isms’ at the forefront of their every thought!

      Robert @8.20pm – I agree with your point re the constant framing of indy.
      The excuse cited is always that she’s the FM of everyone, but she’s still getting pelters from her opponents whilst she tries to be inclusive so imo she’d be far better off being hung for a sheep as lamb!
      Would anyone have expected Corbyn to park his core beliefs if he was walking into no10? (Yes, a bit of light entertainment!!)

      Dan @8.26pm – Hiya 🙂
      Like the KISS thing, I’m putting that one up my sleeve 😀
      Agree about the benefit of adopting the counter position, as it lends vital credibility to the purpose of existing.

      Dan @9.08pm – bet me to it!!
      I’m not an “SNP voter” – they’ve been lucky to get a loan of my vote in the past, and I was absolutely loathed to vote Alyn Smith back in as MEP (only doing it cos I was ‘voting’ on behalf of a pal who couldn’t).
      I’m not happy at all about having to give them my constituency vote at HR – my MSP has been the Invisible woman since 2016 – but I will provided I have my proportional vote going to a party that actually represents me politically, otherwise I will seriously consider spoiling my ballot!! I’d prefer that choice as an option rather than being taken for granted by a party that doesn’t give a monkeys about my only reason for voting for them.

      LizG @9.26pm – credibility is key.

      Crazycat @10,58pm – that’s my understanding too (I assume to prevent this revolving door setup which would demean the position).

    160. McDuff says:

      Good on you Rev for not letting this go, I know you don’t need the stress.
      This whole business is disturbing and it feels like a new world order has replaced democracy.
      Its also awful that there is no one in the MSM who would pursue this on behalf of the public good as they are all unionist controlled. If the National were a truly independence newspaper they would be covering this.
      But they are not.

    161. Effijy says:

      On QT you find that Fiona Bruce, Murray and Whatley the English Based
      Tory all broke the Government stay at home lockdown rule.

    162. Millennium says:

      John Swinney is a stuttering, uninspiring, incompetent prick.

      He sums up what the whole SNP rebuttal tactics are all about.

      That wee Fanny Ian Murray is wiping the floor with Swinney.

      Open your fuckin mouth Swinney,,, he’s sitting there as if he’s never been out the fuckin house in his fuckin life.

      And to think he is Sturgeon’s number two,,,and worse still, he was leader of the Independence Movenent a few years ago.

      Who vets these fuckin arseholes

      A clear out is required at the very top of the SNP

    163. schrodingers cat says:

      Ian Brotherhood says:

      Please indulge me a minute…

      spot on,

      in reality, the snp (54% at the mo) will very likely get a majority even if they fall short, it will only be by 1 or 2

      a ILP that points out that it isnt a vehicule for professional media consultants like kat boyde, angela haggerty, ross greer would be welcomed.

      in truth, if the new ILP succeeded spectacularly, at best it would only need 2 or 3 ILP msps attending holyrood at any one time. a promise by candidates to donate all their salary to the party for use in the yes campaign. the party could pay msps on a daily rate.

      20 msps
      3-5 who attend every day

      15 x 70k is £1,050,000

      not to be sniffed at

      as i said, the idea is to get rid of useless unionist msp and ensure an indy majority. not a cat walk for budding politicos

    164. CameronB Brodie says:

      Here a bit more on Scots law. I’ve not looked at this stuff for a very long time and only had a brief scoot around t’internet, but I’m pretty sure there are ample law with which to defend Scotland with. 😉

      Scots and English Law: The Case of Contract

      The J. A. C. Thomas Lecture delivered at University College London on 15 March 2001. A discussion of the relationship of Scots law with English law with specific reference to the example of contract law, arguing that it well illustrates the way in which a mixed legal system can develop, both avoiding the destruction of its Civilian characteristics and absorbing Common Law ones on a basis of critical and rational choice between alternatives.

      The paper concludes by looking at two recent examples of the process in connection with the law of specific implement and also spousal guarantees of husband’s business debts.

      Scots law. English law. Mixed legal systems. Legal history. Comparative law. Contract law.

    165. Millennium says:

      And this stuttering incompetence isn’t reserved for Swinney alone.

      The whole fuckin lot of the SNP reps are the worst crowd ever to sit in front of a camera and try and fight Scotland’s corner.

    166. James says:

      Hmmm…Is Sir Humphrey McAppleby employed in the Lord Advocate’s office by any chance?…..”Well briefly, sir, I am the Permanent Under Secretary of State, known as the Permanent Secretary. Woolley here is your Principal Private Secretary. I too have a Principal Private Secretary and he is the Principal Private Secretary to the Permanent Secretary. Directly responsible to me are ten Deputy Secretaries, 87 Under Secretaries and 219 Assistant Secretaries. Directly responsible to the Principal Private Secretaries are plain Private Secretaries, and the Prime Minister will be appointing two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries and you will be appointing your own Parliamentary Private Secretary”.

    167. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Ruglonian et al –

      If this thread is nothing else, it’s proof that civil, open discussion about indyref2 and independence generally is possible.

      We don’t have to wait for anyone to do it via msm – we can do it right here.

      This place has been a major catalyst for indy-related discussion for the fat-end of a decade. They may deny it, and do, but everyone who’s anyone in Scottish politics has been keeping a close eye on WOS for a long time and they’ll be taking note of what’s happening here right now.

      And what’s happening is no less than the actual planning, the coordination of relevant voices and bodies for the final push for independence.

      Politicians in a properly functioning ‘democracy’ can only ever act according to what the people they represent actually think, want, and do – this place is an open reflection of what folk are thinking right now and that’s why they *must* take note of what we’re saying.

      It’s vital that we keep saying whatever it is we happen to feel at any given point – that’s what makes democracy a ‘process’. No matter how clumsy, flawed and fractious our discussions may be, they must be respected.


    168. CameronB Brodie says:

      Sorry for not joining in the conversation, but I know the square root of nothing about how to get a list party going, so I’m concentrating on what I know best.

      Brexit and the Common Law Constitution

      This article considers the implications that Brexit holds for the UK’s “common law constitution” – the body of principles and norms that the courts have developed in case law on EU membership, fundamental rights, and devolution. Focusing on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller, it argues that Brexit may have paradoxical effects within the case law.

      These start with the fact that the Supreme Court rationalised EU withdrawal in terms of Parliamentary sovereignty, but in a mannerthat perhaps also casts doubt on the utility of distinctions between “internal” and “external” law. However, this reliance on Parliamentary sovereignty as UK law’s “rule of recognition” is seen as more problematic in the context of rights and devolution, where the article notes a number of tensions in the law.

      In relation to rights, these are a result of an apparent retreat from a line of case law that had previously indicated that the courts might impose substantive limits on the powers of the Westminster Parliament. The tensions around devolution are a result of the subordinate role that the rule of recognition accords to devolved institutions and its inability to accommodate any conception of “divided sovereignty”.

      Key words
      Brexit; Supreme Court; common law constitution; Parliamentary sovereignty; rights; devolution.

    169. schrodingers cat says:

      Ruglonian says:

      SC @8.08pm – I personally don’t agree with your “promise never to vote against the SNP” point, as I’m not a fan of a lot of what the SNP do and don’t want a party that’ll let them away with stuff.

      difficult asking snp voters to lend you their list vote

      the point here is based on the electoral arithmetic, we can get rid of a heap of unionist list msp and ensure an indy majority.
      the discussion is how best to do this.

      i argue it is by gaining the trust of the snp voters.

      you want a party with different policies plus indy, fine, go start one, but i would point out that others, rise/solidarity and the greens have tried this already and failed.

      as an after thought, it is possible that promising to turn up for swearing in, guarentees each msp elected 70k for the next 5 years. which they could promise to donate the entirety to the new ILP for use by the greater yes movement, and then never turn up at holyrood again.

      their absence could very well ensure an snp majority.

      no controversy, annie wells doon the road, an snp majority and a whole hoop of smackeroonies into the campaign fund for yes. imagine how many wbbs we could buy? we could pay to get one delivered to every house in scotland !!!

    170. Liz g says:

      Ian Brotherhood @ 12.08
      It has been refreshing to be getting back to some sort of proposals for a framework of a way forward 🙂
      And only one or two despoilers….
      Let’s see what pops up overnight to try to lower the tone…that should be informative….

    171. schrodingers cat says:

      Ian Brotherhood

      hear hear, well said Ian Brotherhood

      ps, its also like herding cats 🙂

    172. schrodingers cat says:

      Liz g says:

      Let’s see what pops up overnight to try to lower the tone…that should be informative….

      hud ma pint liz, thats ma joab 🙂

    173. Dan says:

      Ian Brotherhood says: at 10:54 pm

      Please indulge me a minute…

      What’s to stop a ‘manifesto’ consisting of a boilerplate pledge to the effect that the (insert party name here) exists *only* to act in the furtherance of independence and will do so on individual issues as and when they come to the attention of the parliament?

      Nae problem, in fact if we hadn’t been in lockdown I was gonna fire up the motorbike and be rockin up at your garden with a couple of bottles of Paul Mason so we could have a drink and I could answer a question you asked a few days back. I cannae do it on here… 😉

      In principle a boilerplate manifesto sounds ok, but will this next Holyrood Election (if it happens) be for another 5 years of devolved administration or for a straightforward mandate to begin the machinations of ending the Union.
      If it’s the former then it is appropriate to exert some pressure to counter some of the less liked policies that the SNP and Greens are pushing before we go too far down the path they’re taking us… without a mandate!
      And if it’s the latter, then as LizG previously stated we really need some astute operators in the mix and for scrutiny rather than the Coagulation of Unionist Numpties & Twats currently in the building through List Seat allocations.

      With regard to the other theoretical matter of switching personnel, it needs to be considered that these “switchers” will be real people who will have made a pretty big commitment to stand as candidates and may not appreciate being “pulled” by a manager and thus denying them the opportunity to put forward their points and views.

      I’ve spoken with a couple of reputable folk about the possibility of them being Regional List Party Candidates and they were unfortunately not particularly receptive. They eluded to having reservations about some of the other potential candidates that might be in a List Party. I asked if they had any reservations about some of the folk in the SNP with regard to their behaviour and antics… I’ll keep at them as it’s a work in progress.
      I also asked that they take a really good look at the numbers as per Gavin Barrie’s work which iirc included taking into account regional vote share variations to make the projections more accurate.
      Be interested if Gavin has tweaked that work in light of more recent polling stats.

      Good morning!

    174. schrodingers cat says:

      Ruglonian says:

      Crazycat @10,58pm – that’s my understanding too (I assume to prevent this revolving door setup which would demean the position).

      most of the rules are really just conventions, nothing to actually enforce them. demean positions and institutions is what unionists do all the time, eg sarah smiths mum, wife of late labour leader john smith, Elizabeth Smith, Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill, turns up at the hol everyday to collect her £300. has yet to make a maiden speech

      we should have no qualms about being as ruthless and hard nosed as the unionists

    175. Jessie says:

      Isn’t DI John Rebus one of the problems?

      The Scottish Parliament is responsible for the Scottish legal system. Get onto the Justice Committee Chair.

    176. schrodingers cat says:

      seemed like a fairly sensible discussion, no one threatening to kill themselves, or greetin doon the phone, same again the morrow?

    177. Clapper57 says:

      Unfortunately, like many others, I have to concede that I am no political strategist…wow you don’t say I hear you all cry…..however as an ordinary peep I can see when the status quo is being applied…and not just by Unionist parties…

      I see Independence becoming perceived as a distraction rather than an ultimate goal for a certain high profile Indy party…

      If ordinary people living in Scotland are to be motivated , convinced and then converted to the benefits and success of Scotland as an independent nation we need a far more assertive political party who are more pro active as opposed to reactive.

      One of the things a lot of people highlight about Unionist parties is that they are the ones who mention independence more than the SNP…and people say this as a criticism towards the Unionist parties where as their target should be the SNP….for NOT highlighting it more.

      If ordinary people who are yet to be persuaded see some reticence in the promoting of independence by a political party whose sole raison d’etre is supposedly to gain independence then that instils doubt and indeed mistrust that independence is a viable and achievable goal….and indeed may make some question why there has been so little promotion of it especially since the Brexit vote.

      Irrespective of whatever the ultimate strategy is that is adopted…to gain independence… it is very clear the current complacency and inaction since 2016 up to 2020 by the SNP has mystified those of us who saw not only the Tory party but the Labour party also, under Corbyn , in total disarray, we also saw the Scottish vote disregarded in the ‘UK’ Brexit vote (a vote BTW instigated by one part of the UK) and in the HOC a total lack of respect for the SNP politicians elected by the voters in Scotland.

      The arguments and evidence were there to begin a new campaign for independence but for some strange reason the will for “striking when the Iron was hot” seemed to have been abandoned or rather ignored….

      As others have said the SNP already HAVE a mandate…..many times over.

      So like some others above have mentioned, perhaps “Now is the time” to change things at Holyrood ….the continuance of a flawed system that sees Unionist seat warmers come and go dependent on their ambition for ‘greater’ things ( MSP to MP) actually devalues the significance of our parliament and the Tories in Scotland definitely seem to see it as a stepping stone to get closer to their HQ at WM…..careerists.

      I will watch , listen and make an informed decision next year but, unless I am mistaken, the sentiment seems to be NOT to give the second vote to SNP at Holyrood elections but instead give to an alternate (new) Indy party…yeh I know I am a tad slow and dim…should get with the programme…this has already been highlighted on a former thread via Wings party..Duh…Lol

      Then no doubt, if the outcome is SNP do well as do another Indy party,well then the ball will be in their, the SNP’s, court…in respect to progressing the independence campaign and working with other Indy parties ( and YES movement)….so hopefully they will pick it up, the ball, and run with it…if they drop it…well……fool me once etc etc

      And we ALL lived happily ever after….The End…Lol

    178. tarisgal says:

      Colin Alexander says:
      28 May, 2020 at 8:32 pm

      Nothing to stop Holyrood? Only if the imperial law remained the same.

      Two words: Continuity Bill.

      Genuine question, not point scoring: do you think WM wouldn’t do the same again and change the law to make an indyref ultra vires or outside the legal powers of the Holyrood colonial parliament?

      1) My point was that there is a Court case going through the judicial system at the moment to determine whether Scotgov has competence to hold one. And that if we win, Nicola Sturgeon will be out of reasons not to hold a Ref. And if she chose not to act on it, we would pretty much know that Independence is no longer her priority. Which means we will have to look at changing our voting pattern, was really what I meant.

      2) As to the Continuity Bill, I believe it won’t be as simple as just changing the CB. If the Courts deem Scotgov has the competence to have a Ref, their decision becomes a matter of law, whereby any way of interfering with Scotgov decision to have one, could be seen as ultra vires.

      But leaving that legal aspect aside, to actually restructure the Continuity Bill to take that power away from Scotgov, would take several – 3 to 4 – weeks. It would have to go before Parliament etc. IF Scotgov get their own legislation through in anticipation of a positive result, they could have it done before any changes to the Continuity Bill could be made. They’ve been guzzumped before. Let’s hope they’ve learned their lesson & they’ve got everything in order this time.

      Did you hear the interview with John Drummond of TNT talking to Martin Keatings about the case? If not, it really is worth a listen. It’s on YouTube if you would like to hear it. John has done a very good interview with Elliot Bulmer, a Constitutional expert. That too is a good listen.

    179. CameronB Brodie says:

      It is also my contention that the Scottish judicial system is part of the British constitutional legal order, so is simply not interested in defending the legal difference between Scotland and England. The Brexitanian interpretation of human rights lacks coherence and compatible with international law, so Brexitanian justice will not serve Scotland’s interests.

      Inquiry: 20 years of the Human Rights Act 1998
      Written evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights
      Scottish Human Rights Commission
      September 2018

      Executive summary
      1. The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) has had a significant positive impact on Scots law and the substantive protection of rights.

      2. In particular, the HRA has afforded greater protection than that offered by the common law in Scotland pre-HRA. For example, in relation to ensuring the right to a fair trial and developing and expanding the already existing common law protections (see more below).

      3. A consequence of the legal duty on public authorities has been the incremental development of a human rights based approach across Scotland.

      4. Human rights and the HRA protections are embedded in the Scotland Act 1998 and central to the Scottish devolution settlement.

      5. In Scotland, the Commission wants to preserve the HRA and build on it through further legislation to incorporate international human rights standards into Scots law, in particular economic, social and cultural rights.

    180. twathater says:

      @ SC and others who asked what can NS do I posted this on previous post but no responses to the question

      28 May, 2020 at 5:44 pm

      NOT SURE WHAT NICOLA CAN DO , she can do EXACTLY what Breeks has been saying for years , TELL bozo due to the vote taken in SCOTLAND in 2016 where 62% of SCOTS DECIDED that we will REMAIN within the EU she has NO option but to take the WM govt to the ICJ to ratify that WM’s beligerence and refusal to accept an equal partners decision has caused a dissolution of the treaty and articles of union . She has numerous examples of exclusion and non co-operation as proof

      That is if she REALLY wanted our country to be independent and WM would have to produce their reasons and proof why they are superior , and before the old nugget is produced that the uk is the member state Von der Leyen has already stated she would like SCOTLAND as part of the EU so I am sure a way could be found

      SC can you point me to your proof that NS is going to use the 2021 election as a plebiscite or is it STILL wishful thinking same as 2017 and 2019 when we ALL thought that was going to be the case but AGAIN were disapointed

    181. schrodingers cat says:

      I see Independence becoming perceived as a distraction rather than an ultimate goal for a certain high profile Indy party…

      yes it is, rightly so, bojo and trump are seen to be offski on holiday playing golf etc and their public approval has fallen through the floor. Ns has been up infront of the cameras everyday, talking about the virus every day for months, result. 87% approval from the scots public.

      the virus wont last for ever, across the world, the lockdown is easing, by xmas we might return to a semblance of normality.

      with support at +50% for both indy and the snp, at the moment we actually leave the eu, ?? i think she has played a great hand.

      it isnt just your future planning i would doubt, but also your short term memory, the reason indy was parked was cos we got humped in 2017, we got 38% of the vote,

      it only takes 2 to start a revolution, but it needs the support of the people dont you think?

    182. twathater says:

      @ Ron Maclean 7.42pm I commented this on Stu’s Is It Safe Yet post as a means to FORCE the SNP into action

      twathater says:
      24 May, 2020 at 5:54 pm

      @ Crazycat 4.05pm Thanks for that information , the reason I was asking for the numbers is that Peter Bell keeps posting that the yes organisation needs to be included when decisions are being made re Scotland’s independence . We all know or assume that the indy movement is a broad church and all indy supporters don’t necessarily support the SNP’S policies but will vote for the SNP to GET independence , but the current direction of travel has OUTRAGED many , many voters so much so that people are openly saying that they will not vote SNP because of their policies so therefore indy is Donald ducked

      My idea is that if the YES HUBS and or AUOB had something like 200,000 members and printed off forms to be signed by members stating something like ( I –name-appended- will NOT be voting for the SNP in ANY forthcoming election unless and until the GRA amendment and HATE CRIME BILL are REMOVED from proposed policies and a SIGNED WRITTEN GUARANTEE that independence will be sought within 2 years by referendum AND legal challenge )

      As NS and the SNP are currently ignoring the outcry and outrage against these reviled and hated policies this would ENABLE a vast assortment of independence supporters to show NS that their votes cannot and will not be guaranteed and to ignore them she is courting her and the parties downfall

    183. Ayeright says:

      she is courting her and the parties downfall

      Are you sure? Or have you not been paying attention to the polls and that is just your wishful thinking LOL

    184. CameronB Brodie says:

      See if I had taken to practicing law, I probably won’t be able to appreciate how much of a derelict prostitute it is.

      Full text.

      Scots Law and Scottish Identity: A Legendary Tale

      The Treaty of Union 1707 between Scotland and England and the respective implementing legislation in each Kingdom contained provisions which today we might describe as ‘opt-outs’. These opt-outs from incorporating Union preserved aspects of the Scottish legal system which, along with the Presbyterian religion and the system of education, helped to ensure that Scottish identity was supported by some of the most powerful aspects of the state.

      This essay will examine some of the provisions of the Treaty, analyse aspects of the legal system and law that persisted after the Union, comment on the extent to which 310 years of the Union with England influenced that law, reflect on membership of the EU and the harmonization which it brought to the legal system and consider the impact of the Scottish Parliament on that law and legal system.

    185. schrodingers cat says:


      aye legal recourse is an option, not sure what the result would be. what is right, just, morally imperative and legal, isnt founnd in law books, it is decided by judges, go ask stu or craig murray how that works.

      “SC can you point me to your proof that NS is going to use the 2021 election as a plebiscite or is it STILL wishful thinking same as 2017 and 2019 when we ALL thought that was going to be the case but AGAIN were disapointed”

      nope, i dont have her ear. i merely point out that the election in 2021 will be a defacto plebicite on indy regardless of what she decides, but also she has never had such favourable polls so chosing this option has never been open to her

      it is now

      personally, if i were nicola, i would continue to focus on the c19 and continue to say indyref2, s30 when asked until jan the 1st, only then would i announce he 2021 as a indy plebicite.
      she promised we would get a vote on the eu withdrawl, and we will

    186. Sarah says:

      @ Clapper 57 at 01.04: a good thoughtful comment. Thank you.

      @ schrodingers cat: trouble is, getting the people’s opinion shown clearly. We only needed 200,000 more Yes votes in 2014. As soon as the Brexit vote was won surely the 200,000 Yes votes would come from EU people in Scotland plus all those No voters who wished immediately after they had put a cross in the No box in 2014 that they hadn’t?

      I thought at the time that Scot gov should have held a referendum in 2016 – advisory, just like the Brexit one. If Yes had won, the No side couldn’t argue against us putting it into practice because they were doing the same with the Brexit one. If we’d lost, well it didn’t matter, it was just testing the water.

      But as it is six miserable years of Westminster becoming less and less democratic and the government policies more and more destructive and incompetent have passed without effective challenge. Other than Joanna Cherry masterminding two successful court cases. For which she has received very few plaudits from “senior SNP sources”.

      I am not a fan of relying on a referendum nor waiting for the Holyrood election to see if there is an indy majority.
      200,000 marchers in Edinburgh last October were a good indication of public opinion. I think the Yes movement must take the initiative and agitate for immediate action to reclaim Scotland’s independence. We could start with a petition to Holyrood. We mustn’t be the SNP lapdogs – we must be midges to make them respond. [I speak as an SNP supporter focussed on independence.]

      Scot gov ministers are busy but there are all the other MSPs and MPs plus the various Yes groupings who could pull together a Convention to announce the intention of taking back control of Scotland from the ruthless thieves at Westminster.

      What bliss that would be.

    187. Helen Yates says:

      Colin Alexander says.So, it’s not that an indy Scotland has to be all my favourite political flavours: it’s that Scotland will never gain independence by bending the knee to the Queen of England and our current British imperial masters.

      A re-run of indyref1 will result in a re-run of the result: Salmond failed. Scotland lost.

      My feelings exactly.

    188. twathater says:

      Ayeright or is it scotsrenewables

      she is courting her and the parties downfall

      Are you sure? Or have you not been paying attention to the polls and that is just your wishful thinking LOL

      Polls can tell you lots of things but the election is in 2021 , so many things can happen between now and then ,voters are unpredictable as has been evidenced many times , bozo and the tories were elected by a landslide in 2019 and now their poll ratings are through the floor , BT were well in the lead at the start of the indyref and then yes took the lead 3/4 of the way through which panicked WM then the vow defeated us

      So I wouldn’t be crowing about NS great lead when her opposition is a clownshoe backed by an assortment of freeks

    189. twathater says:

      @ SC 1.52am
      “SC can you point me to your proof that NS is going to use the 2021 election as a plebiscite or is it STILL wishful thinking same as 2017 and 2019 when we ALL thought that was going to be the case but AGAIN were disapointed”

      nope, i dont have her ear. i merely point out that the election in 2021 will be a defacto plebicite on indy regardless of what she decides, but also she has never had such favourable polls so chosing this option has never been open to her

      it is now

      In the spirit of co-operation I will only say that we ALL wish for that plebiscite here’s hoping

    190. CameronB Brodie says:

      Of course, I’d need a law degree to practice law, but here’s a peek at the extent to which English/British nationalism will impinge on Scottish justice. Or lack of. Yet Scotland will gain no benefit from Brexit, only marginalisation and harm to the fabric of Scotland’s civic society. ;(

      The Future Impact and Effect of Brexit
      The Law Society of Scotland
      on Scots law and the Scottish legal system

    191. susan says:

      The idea of a list party that won’t vote against the SNP seems pointless (almost) to me. Yes, we will get unionist seats BUT we would be tying ourselves to the science-denying drivel the SNP are determined to force through parliament. I could not vote for a party like that. Agreement on constitutional issues is all that need be conceded.

    192. Breeks says:

      schrodingers cat says:
      29 May, 2020 at 1:40 am

      ….with support at +50% for both indy and the snp, at the moment we actually leave the eu, ?? i think she has played a great hand.

      I disagree.

      In fact, Sturgeon’s capacity to deflect, and sugar coat betrayal as she dismantles Scotland’s National Constitution is the most damaging threat imaginable to Scotland’s future, and absolute godsend for the preservation of the Union.

      Brexit could have, and should have broken the back of the Union and ended it, yet Sturgeon has managed to bypass Brexit’s constitutional ramifications completely, weaken Scotland’s status and integrity immeasurably, made the Union more intractable and strengthened Westminster’s grip over Scotland. Yet in spite of these gross humiliations and Constitutional sell-outs, support for Independence has barely crawled over 50%, no thanks to the SNP who’ve done nothing to encourage it, but that’s still more than enough for the SNP mouthpieces to trumpet Scotland’s sovereign deconstruction on the SNP’s watch as some kind of bizarre interpretation of what success is. They’ve stolen Scotland’s bread, given it all away, and hand us crumbs as if it’s our prize.

      In the years and decades to come, people are going to realise precisely what the SNP under Sturgeon has done to damage Scotland’s constitutional strength, and they will be utterly reviled for doing it. Sturgeon has been a disaster for Scotland, weak beyond measure or redemption, and her political demise cannot happen soon enough for the good of Scotland.

    193. Joe says:

      This Breeks. He gets it.

      This is an intelligent way of saying what I say in swear words.

      SNP voters are low information voters.

    194. Joe says:

      I once recently claimed i could hold indy support at 55%+ myself if scotlands leader. I wanted to be challenged on it. I wanted to explain how I could be that arrogant. My genius plan would involve simply getting into a supporting role for the Yes movement, verbally killing Union MP’s on TV and being a facilitator for the people while constantly highlighting and demonstrating Scotlands opportunities

    195. Joe says:

      It wouldnt be that hard if you think about it. Its not like party politics. There is an army of Scottish patriots ready to work collectively and efficiently without pay. They are informed veterans at this. They dont need a good leader. They just need a leader that will help at the political level and not hinder and bullshit them.

    196. Joe says:

      Whats important to understand is that a true peoples political movement rising like that is not in the interests of the UK establishment obviously, but is also not in the interests of the cabal of globalist financiers who own them.

    197. With regard to independence, it seems to me that the SNP leadership have decided to make the omelette without breaking any eggs. Furthermore, they’re not actively investigating how to achieve such a feat, but are simply waiting for a solution to appear out of nowhere.

      I think we can all agree it would be really nice if we could make omelettes without breaking any eggs, but a lot of us just doubt that isn’t possible.

    198. McDuff says:

      Exactly so.
      Sturgeon will eventually walk away before being pushed having had a wee taste of power. I see now that she hasn’t the brains or desire to achieve Indy.
      I am also disappointed at the total inaction by the rest of SNP MSP/MP’S.

    199. The Mighty S says:

      I favour the Blue Blanket idea that Sarah mentioned, about 300 posts back.
      NS can ignore our pleas to progress to independence while the polls keep her in the positive. We need to start protesting outside HR for the SNP leadership to get the finger out. We can wait years doing things politically. Months doing things legally. Or we can shrug off our fear of authority and start demonstrating/protesting about the SG’s inaction. I know which one will get noticed first.

    200. frogesque says:

      Ye gods!

      What a depressing bunch? You want Independence then make it happen. Sitting around dancing on the head of a pin is futile.

      Power, real power, is taken not given so get off your collective arses and start campaigning. Doesn’t have to be major but does have to be visible.

      Easing of lockdown would permit small bridge demos, nothing stopping anyone flying YES flags in gardens or Windows.

      Whatever, stop moaning and start doing, no one, not Nicola, not a Wings List will give us Indy. They are important but unless we do it, it ain’t going to happen!

    201. Bill McLean says:

      What a refreshing change to read Wings since mid-afternoon 28th. I had promised myself,after all these years, to give up on it due to the vitriol that was spilling all over the place, the lack of tolerance of opposing opinion, the innuendo, rumour-mongering and the clear trolling – you know who you are! A wee bird suggested I take another look and after all these years reading Wings thought I would. Well done Ian Brotherhood at 0306!

    202. Robert says:

      The Lord Advocate is responsible for prosecutions, but not answerable to anyone.

      We need to be careful in wishing for him to be answerable. A Lord Advocate who is answerable to the Scottish government is just what we don’t want. A Lord Advocate who was susceptable to media or mob pressure might be even worse.

      It’s like democracy – it’s not a good system of government, just the least worst.

      If you think he should be answerable, then to whom?

    203. Liz g says:

      Bill McLean @ 8.29
      I’ve always said everyone was still around and hadn’t gone that far away 🙂
      Some may have thought they could trash the place but it seems they were very much mistaken. 🙂

    204. CameronB Brodie says:

      Given that Scots law has yet to codify legal protection for the economic, social and cultural rights of individuals, it is imperative we make use of the protective FORCE of international law. It is the 21st century and far past the necessity for Scots to connect directly with the international rule-of-law.

      The Meaning of Equality and the Interpretive Turn

    205. CameronB Brodie says:

      We still have the right-wing btl, seeking to appear reasonable. I see you.

    206. Liz g says:

      Robert @ 8.30
      I’ll be wanting a Lord Advocacy answerable and Sworn to the Scottish Constitution. In which will be the terms and conditions of the role.
      And one not drawn from those depending on the patronage of the British and benefiting from the British Class system..
      That’ll do for starters!

    207. robbo says:


      Bill McLean & Lizg

      Don’t fret the crazies will be back. See a couple have already appeared.

      Until this conundrum gets answered ,who knows where it will end!

    208. Famous15 says:

      Time was only every ten posts were anti indy kid on supporters but now it is 99%.

      I am beginning to think our “dear leader” is more shrewd and supportive of independence than she is given credit for!

      Independence is coming yet for a that,

    209. Liz g says:

      Robbo @ 9.08
      Nae doot but we can swamp em any time we like we always could
      Although I thought it would be the start of the Indy ref two campaign that would show it….never thought fur a minute it would be those who manipulate Twitter who would spark it 🙂 nevertheless….to mis quite an old movie
      ” nobody puts Wings of the Radar “

    210. Ron Maclean says:

      @twathater 1:43am

      You’re right. We have to move things forward. Sitting back waiting for the SNP leadership to burst into inaction is getting us nowhere.

    211. Effijy says:

      BBC News doing a story on English lady with painful tooth abscess for
      The last 2 months. Emergency treatments available for extraction only?

      As it’s a front tooth that can be saved and a desire not to have false teeth she
      Continues to suffer.

      Boris announces Dentists back to work in 2 weeks?
      Unfortunately he didn’t consult with Dentists to tell them?

      They cannot operate as normal using drills as the fine particles in the air
      From a Covid patient could kill them.

      There is PPE at the highest level that can totally seal off their face but none
      Of it is available. The government gave him a list of high end PPE providers
      All of which he had already contacted and all of which don’t have it to sell.

      The government gave that stock answer that drives me insane-
      We have provide millions of bits of PPE kit and aren’t we wonderful.

      No is the answer. You are pathetic. For a full 3 months you have not been
      Able to supply the right kit in the numbers required.

      You are killing front line workers with incompetence on a daily basis.

      It’s like a Mother boasting that with inadequate food she has provided meals
      For 3 of her children and forgetting to say another 2 died of starvation!

      Neither opposition nor media are holding these apostles of the Grim Reaper to account!

    212. Bill McLean says:

      Cameron B Brodie at 0850 – why don’t you say who you consider “right-wing”? Innuendo?

    213. This is a fight that`s worth a watch,

      Trump: “I’m signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people. Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they are a neutral platform, which they are not.”

      got to be honest there are odd things that Trump does and says that if it wasn`t Trump i would say `i agree`,

      conversely there are a lot of things Trump says and does that i would say `i strongly disagree`.

      don`t hate me.

    214. Ian Brotherhood says:

      All of a sudden, this morning, RTE radio stations are unavailable via smart speakers.

      ‘This station is not available in your country.’


    215. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’ll be up to speed by the next indy vote, so the agents of yoonyawn better know their stuff. Hopefully I’ll not be the only WOS reader armed with a practical understanding of the law. 😉

      Comparative legal cultural analyses of international economic law: a new methodological approach

      The effective development and operation of the law faces many obstacles. Among the more intractable yet hidden barriers to the law are legal cultural disconnects and discontinuities. These occur when opposing legal cultural characteristics from different legal cultures are forced to interact as part of the implementation of the law across two different legal cultures. This conflictual interaction can impede or block the success of that law.

      While present in domestic legal systems, these conflicts are more likely, and may be deeper, between the many different legal cultures involved in the international legal order. Identification of such legal cultural disconnects and discontinuities is the first step towards developing strategies to ameliorate potential conflicts between opposing legal cultural characteristics. This identification requires the examination of the relevant legal systems with legal culture in mind – a legal cultural analysis. However, this methodology is rarely employed.

      To the extent that we do see legal cultural analyses, they are applied almost exclusively in the domestic arena. When it is applied across legal systems, it becomes a part of comparative law methodology. This merger of comparative law and legal cultural approaches is unusual, indeed almost unheard of in the international legal arena. This article explores this methodology and argues that it is possible and valuable.

    216. Bob Mack says:

      Thinking about this proposal all last evening. Whilst it remains true I am very disillusioned by the SNP, it also remains certain I will be voting for them for obvious reasons.

      I suppose I have to accept that my preference vote does not necessarily mean an SNP list seat in any event.

      A new party would fare much better at acquiring seats especially if we all unite behind it and promote it .

      Given my priority is the Independence of our country, I must put other considerations aside for now. Ultimately the cause of freedom is the altar on which many Scots have made higher sacrifices. Mine would be miniscule in comparison.

      Use their own devices against them to suit ourselves.

    217. CameronB Brodie says:

      Bill McLean
      Not you. There are only a handful of individuals who were adamant that Scotland should let covid rip through the community. These are the same individuals who resent my ethical position and political outlook. So I’ll reiterate, not you. At least I don’t think so. 😉

    218. susan says:

      I will not put biological reality aside in the drive for independence. Would we accept a fascist govt if it promised independence? After all we could vote them out. No, not acceptable, nor is genderwoowoo.

    219. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Ian Brotherhood at 10:00 am

      You typed,
      “All of a sudden, this morning, RTE radio stations are unavailable via smart speakers.

      ‘This station is not available in your country.’”

      RTE stations are available here:-

      I just checked the RTE stations on my Mac: don’t know anything about smart speakers.

    220. CameronB Brodie says:

      Brexit denies the Scottish rejection of Tory hostility towards the precautionary principle, the EU, and each other. This is no way to run a democracy and is completely incompatible with liberal constitutionalism. Scotland will never enjoy the benefits of democracy if it allows this to continue, or allows Scots law to deny biology.

      Postmodernism, Neuroscience and the Brain

    221. lothianlad says:

      Breeks @05.48


      Until Stus excellent post .. The Betrayer.. I thought NS must be doing something right eg Playing the long game etc.

      But frustrated at the lack of fight, waste of mandates and just absorbing all the unionist hits without response, even when there was an open goal to score, I realised that NS was supressing rather than perusing Independence!

      Then I did a bit of digging into the rise of NS in the SNP and also from my own observations. This, along with the evidence of her so called ‘strategy’ convinced me that she was operating in a far more sinister way.

      This combined with her dreadful (possible) involvement in the way ALex was treated finally opened the eyes of the blindly loyal (me included) SNP faithful.

      This was in no small part to the brave and courageous way Stu, Craig Murray and Mark Hirst helped to expose the cabal at the heart of the SNP SG.

      NS is suddenly the darling of the unionist media because they know she WONT push for Independence! That with SNP and Independence support at 50+ % means she is the unions safest bet at present.

      She is being manipulated or worse, working for.. the brit secret service. There more than just a smoking gun to back that up, look at her record.

      This may seem hard to some blindly loyal SNP voters and supporters, but, too many people have exposed serious flaws in her strategy not to see this.

      So how come SNP are at 50+% in the polls? Its not because she has managed to get unionists to vote SNP domestically because they like the policies but don’t want indy, Its because of the hard work of pro Independence campaigners and supporters who put the party where they are!

      Too many careerists and opportunists have taken hold of it now. Its time to clear them out.

      Also The part ALex Salmond and so many like played in getting Independence support to rise cannot be overstated.
      Not forgetting the great work of Craig Murray and Stu… Too Many !!

    222. Bob Mack says:


      I appreciate everything you say. I am married to an unbelievable girl who gave me unbelievable daughters. I love them dearly above all else. I will fight this GRA nonsense tooth and claw to have it binned.

      The greatest journey though must begin with the smallest step.

      It is evident that policy within the SNP itself is being hijacked by small pressure groups in important positions who hold the majority to ransom. That will continue.

      Self service of your own interests is never a good look in politics..They provide the opportunity for Unionists to gain a foothold eventually.

      The longer game in this case is Independence which would give us a further choice to shape our country and its values which are closer to the common will.

      Independence is not the SNP. It is us.You and me.

      We must fight to ri ourselves of those who our personal interest above all else, and by that I mean those who utilise the levers of power to their own ends.

      Instead of the SNP using us, we must now use them in assisting us to make them obsolete. We must use everything in our armoury if we can build a better road for the future.

      People like Joanna Cherry give me that confidence..She’s a fighter and she won’t give up.A leader in the making.

    223. Colin Alexander says:

      Colonial administrators are still colonial administrators, even when they’re called a government. A colonial assembly is still a colonial assembly unless it can exercise sovereign power on behalf of the sovereign people.

      The Scot Govt and Scot Parl are colonial administrators. Within the UK system, only UK Parliament
      (Crown in Parliament) is sovereign.

      But, I’m no trying to burst anyone’s bubble. It’s a positive step to see people discussing Scottish politics without insults and abuse. If people want to discuss how to maximise the number of so-called “pro-indy” colonial administrators and cut the number of “pro-Union” administrators at Holyrood, that’s nice. But, don’t expect it to bring indy one step closer.

    224. Dan says:

      @susan at 10:23 am

      If we are obliged to set aside biological reality then why not chemical reality too.
      Simply get the noxious exhaust emissions from planes, container ships, and vehicles to ID as less harmful gases and particulates and voila, many environmental issues will be sorted.
      Maybe* this woowoo shiz has got some worth.

      *That’ll be “maybe” as defined in the woowoo dictionary rather than in the more conventional reality in which we exist.
      Right, I’m off to fire up the car to de pollute the world through the wonder of the internal combustion engine now being a filter for 2.0litres of air for every 2 revolutions of the crankshaft (4 stroke engine) whilst shopping for vulnerable neighbours.

    225. Ottomanboi says:

      As far as I am aware no democratic vote was taken on whether there ought to be ‘lockdown’ anywhere on the planet. It was effectively initiated by government decree based on data and models that now appear to have had significant flaws. A major one being how to restore a measure of normality after putting entire populations into plague panic mode.
      Lockdown will turn out to have been for the majority an economic disaster. That lockdown should get in the way of our nation’s right to independence would be similarly disastrous.
      Questioning and distrusting the whole alarmist, anti-choice, suppression thing, nothing comparable has occurred even in a major war situation, right from the start I trust human reason will prevail and that the sinister culture of masks and physical distancing is binned before the isolationist habit becomes a horrific, zombie social trend.
      Governments are exploiting the power of fear. Some citizens are enjoying the ‘thrill’.
      Indeed, very worrying.

    226. Capella says:

      HMIPS is saying that the Lord Advocate is the only person in charge of the prosecution service in Scotland and that nobody has any leverage over him. That requires a bit of explanation. Who appoints the Lord Advocate?

    227. Clapper57 says:

      @ schrodingers cat @ 1.40am

      Hi Sc , in your response you quote part of my comment from 1.04am.

      So Sc…. we cannot both be right.

      So that said…to make it fair…cause it is always better to be fair….let’s just say….that…I am right….and leave it there……Lol

      Laughter they say is the best medicine….better than fighting for sure…..

      Have a nice day anyway.

    228. Capella says:

      Oh. The Queen appoints the Lord Advocate on the recommendation of the First Minister agreed by Parliament.
      Perhaps you will have have to write to the Queen and ask what on earth she’s playing at?

    229. Clapper57 says:

      @ Sarah @ 2.25am

      Thanks Sarah….

      Have a nice day…enjoy the sun ( if you have it in your area today…it’s roasting in Edinburgh)….Take Care

    230. Colin Alexander says:

      We currently have a majority of “pro-indy” MSPs and a huge majority of “pro-indy” MPs, has it brought us any closer to independence? No.

      Next time, next time, next time. No it won’t. Scotland is in a demographics noose that is tightening day by day. In another five years, the number of Scottish people in Scotland will have further significantly decreased and will be replaced by approximately another 200,000 English incomers, who are, overwhelmingly opposed to Scottish independence.

      As the birth rate is so low in Scotland, population is being stabilised by inward migration of English pensioners and foreigners who have little or no interest in Scotland or independence. They only see Britain / England.

      But, I don’t blame the English. If I were a comfortably off English pensioner coming here, I doubt I would be interested in Scottish independence either: If life is good, don’t change it.

      If you want to blame anyone: blame yourselves, the independence movement, “the sovereign people” and most of all blame your “leaders”, the SNP.

    231. Colin Alexander says:

      And in case anyone thinks I am anti-English or racist, let me put this on record: The fact is the vast majority of the English and foreign incomers are better people than many of the bampot Scots that drag Scotland down and whose lives are based around: drink, drugs, Celtic, Rangers, violence and other anti-social behaviour.

      Scotland is in the state it’s in because of Scots, no the English or foreigners.

    232. Capella says:

      Re list party – I don’t see why a list party, dedicated to securing Scottish independence, requires a manifesto. If asked all the tedious questions the media are bound to ask, surely the correct answer is, “That is for Scottish people to decide in their first free parliament.

      They could draw up a set of principles and values which the Scottish people have cherished for two thousand years. Liberty Equality and Community spring to mind.

      They could defend democracy and the right of the Scottish people to decide how they wish to be governed.

      They could advocate for a constitutional convention to gather views on a new constitution for the free state which will be formed.

      They should certainly be well versed in the benefits of having your own central bank and currency; your own diplomatic ties with other countries; your own place in the United Nations and the EU; your own freedom of movement and power over your borders, coastal waters, ports and airspace.

      Other than that, it would be the job of future political parties to seek election to enact a programme of government chosen by the people. That’s what other countries do.

    233. Allium says:

      Derek Mackay was the popular choice to succeed Nicola Sturgeon amongst the SNP committee-level tastemakers. Which says it all. Nicola Sturgeon’s cautious style (I’m trying to be polite) isn’t just a character quirk, its the preferred way forward for the SNP. The Salmond approach is dead. I hope Joanna Cherry or similar can break the careerist stranglehold at the top, but it could already be too late. They are the elite now, and won’t go without fighting tooth and nail. This is one of the reasons GRA reform isn’t dead, although they would like you to think it was. Yeah, some of them believe in gender crap (bird brained SAS, probably), but the smarter ones see it as an existential war. If they lose it, they see their own power and influence on the wane, as the GRA has become a proxy war for the soul of the SNP.

    234. ahundredthidiot says:

      OT – not caught up today, so apologies if already posted

      Currently trying to find root of the source to confirm, but a wee birdy tells me that Dominic Cummings sister is the newly appointed Director (April 2020) at Glaxo Smith Kline in Bernard Castle – the same GSK that was awarded the vaccine contract 2 days after DC ‘ended up’ in the area.

    235. Polly says:

      I agree with Susan and Sarah above, I see no use in a list party which promises to vote with the SNP on everything since we need to be midges not faithful dogs trotting at their heels.

      Forgive me for this comparison but Farage succeeded by being a threat to the Tory party not by supporting everything they did. As others have said they succeeded even when not having many in parliament. Granted they were helped greatly by having wealth behind them and because they got so much free promotion from the BBC, but they would not have made such headway had they sworn never to vote against the Conservatives. They exploited (some say manufactured) unhappiness with an issue into a threat to most political parties focusing on the one most closely aligned and in the end taking it over, but also dividing labour.

      Yes, we want to increase independence support but do we wish to increase more MPs or MSPs who end up, like some already there who either don’t work towards independence or who because of GRA or behaviour on similar issues means Indy minded folk feel sick while voting for them. It’s the SNP which has moved away from being welcoming to everyone of an Indy disposition. As the supposedly premier Independence Party they should have continued being the broad church they once were.

      We need to be midges and a constant threat to their complacence.

    236. Ian Brotherhood says:

      No-one should fear acknowledging the Woke brigade as part of any new ‘party’ for the simple fact that they are umbilically attached to the SNP hierarchy and cannot exist without them.

      They could be aligned to any ‘Freedom Party’ in name for the sake of maintaining a united front, but these are people who cannot decide on anyone to represent them and have great difficulty responding to any form of questioning – the idea that they would be able to find anyone to attend hustings, for example, is just farcical. They cannot survive any form of scrutiny so there’s nothing to fear from paying them lip service.

    237. Colin Alexander says:

      If Sturgeon or any of her cronies is SNP leader there is zero chance of Holyrood or any election being a plebiscite election.

      A plebiscite election requires one policy only: independence.

      The SNP have not had the plebiscite policy since Salmond took over, over 20 years ago.

      In other words a whole generation of SNP administrators have gained and held colonial power by NOT standing for indy.

      So, hands up who thinks the SNP will be a one policy party in 2021?

      And be nice, no sniggering from the rest of youse, if anyone says: ” I do”.

    238. Clapper57 says:

      So I see Ian Murray (undercover Tory) was on BBC QT last night…he managed to get Nike conference and Scotland worst for deaths in Care Homes, not just in the UK, but in the WHOLE WORLD according to Ian…Ian reinforcing once again how sh**e he thinks Scotland is…so just Scotland identified as BAD in the UK by Ian….all this while Helen Whately the UK (English) Minister of state for Health and SOCIAL CARE was sitting across from him….did she thank Ian for taking the heat of her.. his fellow(ess) Tory ?

      Blatantly obvious Ian’s main role is to deflect attention away from Tories i.e. BT Unionist pals….raises the question why do the Tories currently have two Secretary of States for Scotland…

      Ian thinks voters too thick to identify party politics being played…Ian failed to mention Cheltenham, Liverpool game and indeed airports (reserved matter) being open with NO testing for those arriving into UK also Wales which has a Labour party devolved administration were they mentioned by Ian ‘Labour party’ Murray…perhaps as a shining example of dealing with virus in a better way than other parts of UK ?…if not …why not.

      70 People at Nike conference according to Ian AND that was THE catalyst for Scotland being affected badly re Corona Virus…sure Ian… that your objective and unbiased and non partisan opinion Ian….meanwhile viewers who live in real world can see clearly just how subjective , biased and partisan you really are in your desperate attempts to deflect all attention TOWARDS Scotland and AWAY from *England*…..#FailMurray…as per…Lol

      *England*….currently governed by Ian’s favoured party The Tories….probably because it was the Tories who tactically voted him in…so Ian cannot upset HIS voters….hence Ian’s soft spot for the Tory party….Ian like to state at Scottish questions to Alistair Jack ” Does the minister agree with me …..”…answer Ian is YES…cause you are in the SAME party ya F**ny….Duh

    239. Bob Mack says:

      Certainly there are real issues with real outcomes for many who vote SNP these days. That is undisputable. Especially women.

      So what could the future hold?.If we continue to support the SNP, they will no doubt see it as an endorsement of the controversial policies none of us desire or want.

      If we don’t support them, Independence is dead and buried for the foreseeable future,especially if Unionist party’s gain control.

      Both of these scenarios are unpalatable.

      How therefore do we reconcile these things?

      I honestly have no problem with a party fighting for strongly held beliefs, but supporting Independence. Otherwise we could put cardboard cut out in Holyrood seats.

      What really matters is that they back Indy, first and foremost. They might easily find they are able to support the SNP on a majority of issues whilst fighting their corner on others. Would I be unhappy if they joined other party’s to vote down GRA? Frankly no.

      I would be unhappy if they challenged other issues though, but that’s the risks you take.

    240. stuart mctavish says:

      Interrogating whoever replaced Gordon Jackson at CI5 might provide the answers but the danger remains that even if they differ from those received so far they’ll still be of a type that no one wants to hear.

      Alternatively, fixing a date for indyref2 would be an excellent way to wash it all under the bridge and get folks back into the habit of painting attractive visions of the future (eg visions in which the entire population was not tracked traced or held under house arrest pending better cures for the flu than those already invented, etc).

      Given Boris’ current need for a perfect distraction, the iron may even be hot enough to resolve the art50 dilemma..

    241. Quinie frae Angus says:

      Good morning peeps

      I heard a wee rumour that various former BTL Wingers of various stripes were making their way back to these parts, to try and get a good discussion going, as to how we make that last push to Independence.

      So I thought I’d take a wee wander over here and reacquaint myself. For various reasons it’s been a while since I was last here, so it’ll take me a bit of time to read the threads and suss out who’s who and what’s what.

      But it would be fantastic indeed if we could get this site’s BTL threads back to what they always were in their heyday: a rich arena of intelligent discussion, fervently argued opinion, cracking ideas for strategy, professional advice, and a few laughs and mutually supportive comments just to pepper it here and there.

      I look forward to saying “Hello again” to old chums, and meeting the many new people who have joined since I was last a frequenter.

      I am snowed under at the moment so won’t be spending ages writing comments for a wee while yet, but I’ll be here, reading and lurking and popping up every now and again.

    242. ahundredthidiot says:

      me at 11:50 – pretty sure the sister claim isn’t true, I will go stand in a corner.

    243. Robert says:

      Capella at 11:22 today. Yes, its the Queen who does the appointing. But I don’t think even she can sack or otherwise influence him. As I’ve stateded before, I see no better way of having a politically independent prosecution service.

      What should be (and maybe is?) a crime is influencing or attempting to influence the prosecution service.

    244. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Quinie fae Angus –


      It feels like The Seven Samurai or suchlike!


    245. Sensibledave says:

      I’ve been lurking over the last few days as I don’t have anything to say about the legal cases being discussed (I know, you are gutted!).

      I am interested though in the discussions about new parties being formed and the potential outcomes thereof. Clearly, no one can “know” how things will pan out but I wuld urge caution in believing a new indy party is automatically the solution.

      Starting from where we are right now, we can probably all agree (can we?) that there is no realistic possibilty of indyref2 happening before the end of this year at which point the UK wiil have left the EU on whatever arrangments are by then in place.

      Come the start of 2021, we don’t know where we will be in the Covid 19 Cycle or how the UK will be doing, post EU. The Scottish and UK economy will be in tatters with enormous work and time needing to be done and to pass to get back to where we were just a few short months ago. Unemployment may be rife and who knows where oil prices will be but, we know borrowing will be through the roof.

      Given that background, and assumptions about the nature of the issues that would be raised in Project Fear 2, I just cannot see any way that the majority of Scottish voters would vote to leave the UK, with all of those events and uncertainties, during 2021.

      2022 may still be to early but any plans being considered now are, in my view, doomed to failure, if they include holding and then winning indyref2 before the end of 2021 (and probably 2022).

    246. Joe says:

      @Liz G and CameronB Brodie

      Fear not. Like Gandalf the wizard I show up when some guidance (with swearing) is required.

      Now that there is sufficient suspicion of the SNP and the conversation is back to a realistic outlook for Scottish independence (for which most here are better at commenting on) I have little to add.

      There is a growing understanding that there is more underlying the wokists than simply misguided hyper altruism.

      You have also been introduced to social media sites outside of the grip of big tech and free speech is available should you simply opt for it.

      Once Covid-1984 is back, you are all locked down and being propagandized to death and unsure of whats going on i’ll be back also.

      In the meantime look towards the slowly unfolding FISA scandal (Obamagate) in the U.S and how this will impact the heads of UK intelligence and prominent UK politicians in their use of military assets and FISA warrants to illegally spy on citizens (sound familiar?).

      I must go. Evil never rests, and neither can I. Fare thee well. Until next time!

    247. Lochside says:

      Capella…a belated thanks for your link, on the previous thread, to the Holyrood Rural economy and connectivity committee meeting in regard to the Ferguson’s shipyard fiasco.

      It reminded me as to why I no longer comment on here or any other (remaining)pro-indy site. The erudite and informative performances of Prof of Maritime Business,Alf Baird, ( someone I have long respected for his progressive economically sound ideas for an Indy Scotland) and consultant Roy Pederson in presenting their expertise and insights before this committee,were overshadowed by the abysmally low level of intellectual engagement displayed by the SNP contingent in particular.

      Maureen Watt and the absurd Stewart Stevenson ( remember him?) displayed hostility and ignorance towards both experts, but Alf in particular, because he had the temerity to question the total shambles that exists in the whole ferry farago procurement process: overpriced, over designed, and well over delivery dates. Scotland delivers 10% of Norways’s fleet annually i.e. 1/2 a ferry a year compared to 5 x in Norway.

      Stevenson is a disgrace: a narcissistic poppinjay with a miserable track record as a minister, sat there pontificating, not really asking any questions,wearing a set of garish snp yellow galluses holding up his stretch waisted breeks. Maureen Watt, another bulldog wasp chewer; Emma Harper, unprepared and incoherent in her questioning;Richard Lyle, a self regarding bore who had the audacity to actually ask the two experts if they had seen ‘ships being built on Youtube’!!. Cringeworthy hardly covers it.

      Mainly old, stupid, inarticulate and going over the same old ground that they’ve had 13 years of power to do something about for the island communities, but still sit and smugly pontificate and preen for the camera, whilst said communities are ignored and wondering when they will ever receive the ferries. What’s worse, the Unionist reps asked clear concise questions..they would though wouldn’t they?.. Yet premier division intellects like Baird are ignored and insulted, although they support Independence? It fair makes me grue to see the intellectually deficient and unprincipled political pygmies that we elect and vainly hope to lead us out of this disaster of a Union disporting themselves at our great expense and to no avail.

      BTW o/t but in my opinion AS was compromised at the time of the Referendum. His performance with Alistair Darling on currency was a Sonny Liston/ Cassius Clay prat fall moment. So in view of the ongoing Unionist Britstate campaign to shut down all dissent: the Rev; Craig Murray; Michael Hirst; even btl comments allied with a two years of emergency powers which will ensure all public gatherings , particularly political ones e.g. AUOB, can be banned on health grounds, then with a totally compromised and supine SNP Leadership, we are finished as a movement for the mid to long term.

      There are no hidden plans to pull us out of the fire of Brexit finality; there are no constitutional plans to challenge the ongoing violation of Scotland’s sovereignty; there is no leadership which is coherent or organised enough to take on the Brit State hegemony of the Westminster puppet show and its shadowy backers.

      I would suggest others on here watch the link that Cappela supplied in order to confirm the conclusion that our country’s future is in the hands of of timeservers, infiltrators and plain numpties.

    248. BabsP says:

      The Lord Advocate is not accountable to anyone. It’s about separation of powers. If the government could dictate to the courts this would be very dangerous. So the judiciary must be independent of the state. The Lord Advocate is the head of the judiciary so he is responsible for its actions. You can’t complain to anyone in charge of him because no one is in that position. You need to pursue him for acting improperly in the courts. Another crowdfunded anyone?

    249. robertknight says:

      I’ve heard it said that the only means of gaining satisfaction where the Scottish legal system is concerned involves brown envelopes stuffed with portraits of Lord Ilay, (Another bloody Unionist!).

    250. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Lochside (12.59) –

      That’s a grim picture you paint but understandable.

      Do you reckon AS’s book could be the game-changer many of us want to see?

    251. Capella says:

      @ Robert – yes it is right and proper that the Lord Advocate is not open to political pressure. However, there must be a mechanism for investigating a failure of the prosecution service and evidence of political bias. What is it?

      @ Lochside, I totally agree with your assessment of the SNP representatives on the Rural affairs committee. Fortunately, Stewart Stevenson and Richard Lyle are not standing again in 2021. I thought Alf Baird and Roy Pedersen dealt very calmly with the silly responses aimed at them. The Unionists were, naturally, hoping to dig up plenty dirt to use later.

      I do think that it is the civil servants in charge of these processes who lack the knowledge or desire to oversee procurement. But why on earth the SNP Minister can’t get advice from people with the knowledge and expertise of Alf and Roy is a mystery.

      Here’s the link again for anyone who missed it. It is a case study in why the Scottish Government makes stupid and horribly expensive mistakes. As Roy says – is it incompetence, vested interest or corruption?

    252. CameronB Brodie says:

      That you still decrying common sense and global health law? How is that perspective helpful to anyone but the right wing?

    253. CameronB Brodie says:

      I see Joe is still desperate to deny reality though, so all is right with the world. 😉

    254. CameronB Brodie says:

      If the SNP membership doesn’t want their party to be a political opponent to global health law, then they’d better find a way to institutionalise a legal respect for the human genome in the party constitution.

      By Reason of Their Sex: Feminist Theory
      Postmodernism and Justice

    255. schrodingers cat says:

      Liz g says:
      Let’s see what pops up overnight to try to lower the tone…that should be informative….

      and here you have them liz 🙂

      twathater says:
      @ SC and others who asked what can NS do I posted this on previous post but no responses to the question
      NOT SURE WHAT NICOLA CAN DO , she can do EXACTLY what Breeks has been saying for years

      Brexit could have, and should have broken the back of the Union and ended it, yet Sturgeon has managed to bypass Brexit’s constitutional ramifications completely, weaken Scotland’s status and integrity immeasurably, made the Union more intractable and strengthened Westminster’s grip over Scotland.

      that would be them pesky voters who only 38% backed nicola in 2017. basturts

      i dunno why folk rate breeks on this site, its morons like him who are responsable for wings demise

    256. Bob Mack says:


      People rate Greeks because he does not follow the crowd. He won’t now down to the common opinion, and for that he is to be admired.

      You have to accept he is entitled to his thought whether that makes him a “moron” in your view.

      Displays your own frjstration

    257. Bill McLean says:

      Cameron Brodie at 1017. Sorry about delay in replying! Rest assured i’m in no way “right-wing”. Glad to see more comment re how to win our freedom rather than bitching at each other!
      Always enjoyed trying to understand your links. Don’t allow anyone to shut you up. Let’s take care of our dream, ignore those who treat others with contemps and particularly ignore the trolls. Our dream is greater than their mission!

    258. twathater says:

      @ Sc @ 3.18pm Yeh OK SC I did try to be respectful in a later response to you but I see your enormous ego can’t stop you getting your snide comments in , you who likes to frame the argument from your perspective but jumps on anyone who has differing views from you , just like you did with Ruglonian and Dan who disagreed with your rules that you insist a new list party must adopt ( If ye don’t like it form yer ain fuckin list party )

      Sorry Ruglonian and Liz G I know you would like WOS to be a nicer place to frequent but it seems the same old SNP and NS sycophants just want it back to before Stu’s betrayer post

      SC insists that to be worthy of SNP voters list vote the new party must PROMISE not to vote against the SNP or to vote against their shite policies WTAF , meanwhile NS and her woke brigade can carry on wilfully ignoring biology and anyone who dares speak out will be subject to the NEW Hate Bill but the new list party will be okay because they promised

      Like others on here I will vote for a new list party but I don’t know if I can hold my nose long enough to maybe LEND my vote to the fake SNP independence party

    259. Dan says:

      Maybe it’s time Stu should ask the Attorney General for England and Wales to see what they think on the matter, they’re bound to have good judgement… Oh! Scrub that.

    260. CameronB Brodie says:

      Bill McLean
      It’s pretty obvious to me you are of good intention, and I wouldn’t stress about having difficulty understanding these links. This is what post-modern critical social theory looks like. You need to have study a few ologies, and the law, and stuff, before you can just take to this stuff. 😉

      Complexity Theory and Law
      1 Encountering Law’s Complexity

    261. crazycat says:

      Earlier today I wrote a fairly long post, full of quotations (but only 1 link), about the number of candidates a party can have on the list.

      Stupidly, I did not save my draft. I submitted it, but it has not appeared*. I currently can’t be bothered to recreate it, but it quoted Electoral Commission guidance for candidates.

      From that, it is clear that the maximum number of candidates on a list is 12. That isn’t stated as a legal requirement, but one of the grounds for formally objecting to a list is that it contains more than 12 names.

      That might be enough for the resignation/replacement stratagem described yesterday, but I suspect that could not be done without attracting criticism. (And no, that is not a reason for not doing it!!)

      *I did try to find it by returning to an earlier screen, but it seems to have genuinely gone. Too bad.

    262. CameronB Brodie says:

      Why not contact the Rev. and ask him to fish it out of moderation?

    263. Ruglonian says:

      Apologies for another late night catchup – I promise to get more disciplined again asap and take part properly.

      SC @12.14am – I understand the point, thanks, and I see that your position is to appeal to gaining the confidence of ‘SNP voters’.
      My issue is that there are way more ‘Yessers’ than SNP members and if even 50% were voting for the SNP because they liked them rather than cos they’re the only credible option then the membership numbers would be astronomical.

      I think that a new party would do itself a disservice to purely focus on these actually SNP voters only as it would be setting out right from the start to box itself into a niche, imo.

      TH @ 1.43am – I understand the motivation behind your point, to mobilise the active grassroots into an effective pressure group. My problem is that I don’t see many groups getting on board as it would totally compromise their autonomy and most importantly their non-party status.
      It’s a issue, but if a solution’s to be found then I have the confidence it’ll happen here 🙂

      Bill @8.29am – it’s been an absolute joy to see the turnaround that a little effort makes. IanB is a star!

      LizG @8.48am – you know it!!

      LothianLad @10.54am – “Its because of the hard work of pro Independence campaigners and supporters who put the party where they are!”
      Spot on man – we’re the ones who’ve been knocking our pan in since 2014 – the SNP haven’t even bothered to change their slogan from one election to the next!!

      Polly @12.02pm – succinctly put (and the midges line – love it!)

      IanB @12.04pm – nice point well made bud!!

      Hello Quinie 😀

      TH @6.07pm – I hear you loud and clear!! I’m not overly fussed about niceness but I would like the place to go back to the respectfulness of before when (yeah, I wasn’t going to mention it but, I get told to form my own party for not bowing to some twat on the internet’s rules?) we could give each other the space to agree to disagree!!

    264. Robert says:

      Do we need to crowdfund a private criminal prosecution? Would the person who raise the prosecution have to live in Scotland?

    265. Polly says:

      Ruglonian 🙂 The midges line wasn’t mine, but Sarah’s and I love it too.

    266. Graham says:

      May I suggest that their membership of any and all organizations and networks (clubs, etc) is a pertinent thing that prospective members of the judiciary, police, ombudsman, MSPs, councillors etc etc be OBLIGED to disclose.

      Affairs like this long farrago of obfuscation suggest to me strongly that there are covert wilful private interests being served contrary to the clear public interest.

      As with prior crimes (such as police renewing Dunblane murderer Thomas Hamilton’s gun licence despite prior complaints against him re alleged sinister aspects of his involvement in organised activities ‘for’ children), I suspect Freemasonry as a dark web involved in this.

      Do citizens have a right to demand to know whether officers, officials, civil servants, judges, lawyers etc are Freemasons?
      If such persons were later found to have lied, would there be recourse in law? (ha ha ha)

      Is there not scope for the relevant professions’ honest members instituting among themselves some pledge of non-allegiance to such covert networks?

      Who guards the guards themselves?

    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