The Interests Of The Many
As we told you last week, we’ve now had counsel draft our application for a group proceedings action on behalf of donors to the “ringfenced” independence referendum campaign funds which were stolen and spent by the SNP on party business.
The draft can be read below. We’ve already gathered dozens of people who are unhappy about having their donations misappropriated by the party, and we invite any others who’d like refunds and compensation to join the group by getting in touch via the Wings contact form.
(There will be no cost to you from becoming involved in the claim.)
——————————————————————————-
FORM 13.2-AA Rule 13.2(1A)
IN THE COURT OF SESSION
(Group Proceedings Action) (Chapter 26A)
SUMMONS
IN THE CAUSE
JOHN TAMSON, residing at [address]
REPRESENTATIVE PARTY
against
THE SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY, an unincorporated association having its principal office at Gordon Lamb House, 3 Jackson’s Entry, Edinburgh, EH8 8PJ; and JOHN RAMSAY SWINNEY, Party Leader, PETER GRANT, Treasurer, and IAN MCCANN, Nominating Officer, all having a place of business at Gordon Lamb House aforesaid, as Officers of the Scottish National Party representing same and as individuals
DEFENDER
Charles III, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories, King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to THE SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY, JOHN RAMSAY SWINNEY, PETER GRANT, and IAN MCCANN.
By this summons, the court having authorised JOHN TAMSON to be a representative party in group proceedings and having granted permission to JOHN TAMSON to bring the proceedings, the representative party for the pursuers craves the Lords of our Council and Session to pronounce a decree against you in terms of the conclusions appended to this summons. If you have any good reason why such decree should not be pronounced, you must enter appearance at the Office of Court, Court of Session, 2 Parliament Square, Edinburgh EH1 1RQ, within three days after the date of the calling of the summons in court. The summons shall not call in court earlier than 21 days after the date of service on you of this summons.
Given under our Signet at Edinburgh
Solicitor for the Representative Party
Conclusions
-
For declarator that the Defender held the sums donated by each group member to the Defender’s ring-fenced independence referendum fund in trust for the purpose of funding a future independence referendum campaign, and for no other purpose.
-
For declarator that the Defender’s knowing application of the said ring-fenced funds to purposes other than a future independence referendum campaign constituted a fraudulent breach of trust.
-
For payment by the Defender to the Representative Party of the appropriate sum by way of damages which represents a reasonable assessment of the losses suffered by each individual Group Member, being (i) repayment of the sums donated by each group member to the Defender’s ring-fenced independence referendum fund, together with (ii) such further sum as represents reasonable compensation for the fraudulent breach of trust hereinafter condescended upon, in order that the sum assessed for each group member may be transferred to the group member named in the Group Register, together with interest thereon at the rate of eight percent per annum from the date of each Group Member’s donation(s) to date, or at such other rate and from such other date as the court thinks fit, until payment.
- For the expenses of the group proceedings.
Articles of Condescendence
The Parties’ Designations
-
The Representative Party is John Tamson. He resides at [address]. His date of birth is [date]. He is [occupation]. The Representative Party donated sums to the Defender’s ring-fenced independence referendum fund, as hereinafter condescended upon, and has a claim against the Defender arising from the Defender’s fraudulent breach of trust. The individual group members are designed in the Group Register, which is produced herewith (hereinafter “the Group Members”). Each of the Group Members donated money to the Defender’s ring-fenced independence referendum fund and has not received a refund of those sums.
-
The Defender is the SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY, an unincorporated association and registered political party, having its principal office at Gordon Lamb House, 3 Jackson’s Entry, Edinburgh, EH8 8PJ. The Defender is registered with the Electoral Commission. JOHN RAMSAY SWINNEY, Party Leader, PETER GRANT, Treasurer, and IAN MCCANN, Nominating Officer, are convened as the Officers thereof, as representing the Scottish National Party and as individuals.
Jurisdiction
-
This Court has jurisdiction to hear this claim against the Defender. The Defender has its principal office in Edinburgh, within the jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, the subject matter of the present action concerns wrongs committed in Scotland. There are no other proceedings pending before any other Court between the parties hereto in respect of the subject matter of this cause of action. There are no proceedings elsewhere in respect of any of the Group Members named in the Group Register in respect of the subject matter of this action. No agreement exists between the parties prorogating jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present cause to any other Court.
Subject Matter of the Group Proceedings
-
These group proceedings arise out of the Defender’s solicitation from the public, including the Group Members, of donations expressly and repeatedly represented as being ring-fenced for the exclusive purpose of funding a future independence referendum campaign; the creation thereby of a trust in respect of those funds; and the subsequent deliberate and dishonest application of those funds to purposes other than the stated purpose, without the knowledge or consent of the Group Members, constituting fraudulent breach of trust.
The Defender’s Fundraising Representations
-
In or around March 2017, the Defender launched a fundraising campaign soliciting donations from the public. This was done by way of a website with the domain name www.ref.scot to collect donations “as part of a fundraising campaign for the proposed second referendum”. The website included a video message from the then First Minister and Party Leader of the Defender, Nicola Sturgeon, in which she urged supporters to sign a pledge “to support Scotland’s referendum” and to make a donation to the SNP’s “independence fighting fund”. Potential donors were asked, and many agreed, to set up direct debits by which monthly donations to the Defender would be made for the purposes of funding campaigning for an anticipated future Independence referendum.
-
On 29 March 2017, by email from the Defender’s then party fundraiser, Jim Henderson, those that had by that date executed direct debits to make donations to the Defender for the purposes of funding a future referendum were told inter alia as follows:
“Thank you for your recent donation which will be ring fenced for a future independence referendum. Your decision, with many other members and supporters, to make a monthly contribution will mean that we are able to build up a sizeable war chest to fight the campaign when the time comes.”
The email went on to set out various reasons why a referendum was necessary, with a heavy focus on the then-possibility of the UK exiting the European Union, and concluded:
“We are starting to build the resources that will ensure we are not outspent in the referendum campaign. Your generosity and support will be vital to making that happen.”
-
In June 2017, after concerns were raised that money donated as aforesaid might instead be used for general election campaigning, Scottish Labour MSP James Kelly asked the Electoral Commission to investigate. The Defender’s response at that point, made publicly and widely reported including in an article in the National newspaper published in hard copy and online on 13 June 2017, was to deny misuse. The Defender’s spokesman told the National newspaper, in comments quoted in said article, as follows:
-
In or around May 2019, the Defender launched a further fundraising campaign soliciting donations from the public on materially identical terms. The Defender represented that donations had “been put into a ring-fenced fund to build up a war chest to fight a future Independence Referendum.” Those representations were again made to donors by email from the Defender’s party fundraiser.
-
In March 2020, a donor requested repayment of moneys donated by him to the ring-fenced fund. The fourth named defender, Ian McCann, replied in writing: “your other donations are in a ring-fenced fund to fight the next referendum, whenever we are in a position to call that… We are not in a position to refund those monies.”
-
In the summer of 2020, the Defender launched a further fundraising campaign soliciting donations from the public, again on materially identical terms. In the campaign documentation, donors were given an option to “add my personal donation to the ring-fenced Independence Referendum Campaign fund”.
-
Later in 2020, the Defender’s then Treasurer emailed Members of the Defender, saying inter alia:
-
At the Defender’s party conference in November 2020, its then Treasurer issued the following statement:
-
In 2021, the Defender’s then Treasurer issued the following further statement in the Financial Review section of the party’s annual accounts for 2020:
-
The said representations were not qualified or limited in any way. There was no suggestion that the donated funds could be used by the Defender for any purpose other than a referendum campaign. The acknowledgement emails sent to donors were clear and unambiguous: the money was to be held for and applied exclusively to a future independence referendum campaign.
-
It is understood that the total sums raised by the Defender through the said ring-fenced fundraisers exceeded £600,000. The precise total donated by Group Members falls to be ascertained upon recovery of documents in these proceedings.
The Trust Thereby Created
-
Where persons subscribe money to effect a particular object, and place the money in the hands of certain persons to carry out that object, a trust (or quasi-trust) is thereby created. The trust so created is for the purpose of either carrying out the object of the subscription, or, if that cannot be done, of paying back the money. The persons holding the trust funds are not entitled to outlay the moneys for purposes other than the object for which they were pledged.
-
In the circumstances, the Defender held the sums donated by the Group Members in trust for the exclusive purpose of funding a future independence referendum campaign. Alternatively, if no referendum campaign materialised, the Defender was bound to return the donated sums to the donors. The Defender, through its office-bearers and those responsible for the custody and management of its funds, occupied a position of trust in relation to the Group Members as donors. The Defender was not at liberty to treat the moneys thereby donated as its own.
The Fiduciary Relationship
-
By virtue of the terms upon which the donations were solicited and accepted, and the trust thereby created, the Defender and its responsible office-bearers stood in a fiduciary relationship with the Group Members. They were subject to a duty of loyalty, requiring them to act in the interests of the donors by applying the ring-fenced funds only for the stated purpose.
The Diversion of Funds
-
Despite the said representations, the “ring-fenced funds” were not in fact “ring-fenced” (viz, held separately) or applied for the stated purpose. Instead, the funds were absorbed into the Defender’s general finances and applied to the Defender’s ongoing party activities, unrelated to any independence referendum campaign. No independence referendum campaign has taken place since the donations were solicited. The funds were not returned to the donors. They have been spent for other purposes.
-
On or about 3 June 2026, the second named defender, John Swinney, in his capacity as leader of the Defender, publicly confirmed that the ring-fenced referendum funds had been applied to “the ongoing activities of the Scottish National Party.” This admission constitutes a public acknowledgment that the funds were diverted from their stated purpose.
-
This diversion was without the knowledge or consent of the Group Members. No communication was sent to donors informing them that the ring-fencing had been breached or that their donations were being applied to purposes other than those represented. The donors were not asked to, and did not, consent to such diversion of funds.
Fraudulent Breach of Trust
-
Those responsible for the custody and management of the Defender’s funds occupied a position of trust in relation to the Group Members. The deliberate and dishonest decision to apply trust funds to an unauthorised purpose constituted a fraudulent breach of trust which (a) amounted in criminal law to embezzlement; and (b) in civil law gives rise to a right of reparation in the Group Members.
-
The Defender’s office-bearers breached their fiduciary duties to the Group Members by (a) applying the ring-fenced funds to purposes other than those for which they were donated, in breach of the duty of loyalty; (b) failing to maintain the funds separately or to account for them; (c) concealing the diversion from the Group Members; and (d) making false representations as to the continued existence and application of the ring-fenced fund. These acts and omissions contributed to said fraudulent breach of trust.
Loss and Damage
-
As a result of the Defender’s fraudulent breach of trust, each of the Group Members has suffered loss and damage, being at minimum the sum donated by them to the ring-fenced independence referendum fund and not refunded. The Group Members have further suffered distress and inconvenience at the revelation of breach of trust, which distress and inconvenience gives rise to claims in reparation given the intentional nature of the wrongdoing.
Prescription
-
The donations in question were all, or at least mainly, paid to the Defender more than five years ago. However, the obligations in respect of which enforcement is sought herein have not suffered prescription, since obligations arising from fraudulent breach of trust are imprescriptible in terms of s.7(2) of and Schedule 3 to the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973.
Necessity
-
The Representative Party has called upon the Defender to repay the sums donated by the Group Members to the ring-fenced independence referendum fund, and to compensate the Group Members for the Defender’s fraudulent breach of trust. The Defender refuses or at least delays in doing so. This action is accordingly necessary.
PLEAS-IN-LAW FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE PARTY
-
The Defender having solicited and received donations from the Group Members upon the express representation that those donations would be ring-fenced for a future independence referendum campaign, the Court should declare that a trust was thereby created in respect of those funds, and that the Defender was bound to apply those funds exclusively for that purpose, as first concluded for.
-
The Defender having diverted said trust funds to other purposes without the knowledge or consent of the Group Members, and having done so deliberately and dishonestly, declarator should be granted as second concluded for.
-
The Representative Party and the Group Members having sustained loss and damage as a consequence of the Defender’s fraudulent breach of trust, the Defender is liable to make reparation therefor and decree should be granted as third concluded for.
IN RESPECT WHEREOF
Halliday Campbell
Solicitor for the Representative Party
——————————————————————————-
The SNP have made it clear that while they expect to be recompensed for the money Peter Murrell embezzled from them, they do NOT intend to repay the donors that the party embezzled the “Referendum Appeal Fund” (current balance: £0) from.
Well, let’s see about that, shall we?
I didn’t donate because I’d already left the SNP in 2017. It was clear for me at the time that I couldn’t trust Sturgeon or any of the SNP top brass to do anything or fight for Scotland.
In the meantime the disgusting parasites are being exposed and with a bit of luck soon to be jailed as criminals.
As for the perjurer “H” and the hounding of Alex Salmond, that looks like it might be starting to gain traction.
Let 2026 be the year that the fightback starts.
I doff my hat to the Rev…. chapeau 🙂
If they can recover the ring fenced funds and properly ring fence it for Indy Ref 2
would that help their case?
I wonder if this hasn’t even crossed their mind as they don’t want an Indy Ref 2?
No. Returning the money doesn’t get you out of embezzlement. The crime is committed when you spend it.
Yes – but if there is no criminal prosecution they can buy off the Civil Case, which is why I assume you have something else hidden up your sleeve. I also note the allegation that they also committed the crime of embezzlement, although in a Civil Case the judge will usually not bother to decide whether the civil wrong is also a breach of trust.
Very nice. I hope we get to read the Defence once it is filed by the SNP. You’ll need a good chunk of people to join as pursuers so that there is a big overall sum at stake, or the SNP will presumably just be able pay the claim off with the money they get back from Murrell and avoid a trial shedding light on this – just like the newspapers largely managed to do over the hacking scandal.
If I ever get a rottweiler, I’m going to name it Stuart
Brilliant idea!
I contributed to the first fundraiser, but I checked my emails yesterday, and I’ve obviously deleted the acknowledgement. Not to worry – I don’t think it was a lot. Good luck to everyone else!
Me too.
Surely it’s your bank record of payment that’s the important thing?
If the Yes Scotland thing goes anywhere, I have bank statements ready to produce.
John Tamson – as in all Jock Tamson’s bairns? Very good. 🙂
Do you know what that phrase is actually referring to?
(Clue: “Jock Tamson” translates to “John Thomas” in English.)
@ Morag: I didn’t until very recently! But the other, more commonly understood, meaning is what I think the Rev intended. Or not!!!
Now its clear the SNP and its leader will have to answer the awkward questions the press has been unable to get the answers to.
Unknowingly we replaced the goal of Independence with Sturgeon, the SNP was no longer a party about Independence it was a party about Sturgeon, and this fact isn’t hard to make.
John and all those that defend her are now going to have to face reality, while John believe she’s worth saving, Sturgeon while living in London hasn’t given John or his position a second thought, some friend eh!!!
“Let justice be done, though the heavens fall”
The cause of Indy has been in a moribund state for a decade because of these charlatans and I’ll be only too happy to see the SNP fall.
Indy for Scotland!
SNP Out!
Is there an easy search term for the bank to see if i donated? Who will it say it was paid to, the snp?
Yes, the SNP.
Great stuff
Get out of this swinney and crew
I know you are probably not a believer, but God bless you Stuart, for doing this. I honestly believe that after a titanic struggle you and this just cause will be successful. Keep believing, keep fighting.
Well done. Any need for funding let us know.
the more fronts that they’re fighting on, the better
karma
go stu
The death of the SNP doesn’t stop Independence it allows us to get behind a party who’s only goal is Independence ISP.
Oh I love that comment, how very appropriate, I hope the big man Alex Salmond can see KARMA taking place
The SNP made the party about Nicola and gave up on Indyref2. Humza could have come in stated I’m calling an early election and made it a plebiscite but he didn’t.
John Swinney took over the party and sacrificed 38 MP’s in order to win favor with the labour party and to protect Sturgeon the man couldn’t even bring himself to say sorry to the women who where bullied or to the people who gave money that wasn’t a member of the SNP.
It doesn’t take a genius to realize where the SNP’s problem lay and who is to blame, John is well over his IQ he isn’t a nice guy and he will never be thank for his loyalty to her she already moved on.
If the SNP had actively been perusing Independence signed up to Salvo things might have been different. But the leadership has never put Scotland or party before self Interest and for this Scotland will pay a heavy price but at leased we’ll know who to blame.
link to theguardian.com
“The Paris court decided that Le Pen, 57, had played a central role in orchestrating a fake-jobs scam of unprecedented size and duration to embezzle European parliament funds and funnel the money to paying her party in Paris between 2004 and 2016.”
But surely every euro her party collects is used for her party’s goals, so what the French court called embezzlement must be okay? Could Marine not get ex MEP Alyn Smith and Honest John to put a word in for her?
After all the lies, I honestly can’t wait to see their defense.
Jesus. No wonder I didn’t get into law school. I can tell they nicked the lolly though.
Mo Dhia, I bloody love Stuart Campbell.
This is great, and R.E.S.P.E.C.T. for your work.
However, I wonder how many people you’ll get to join. One problem is that many donors are liable to be so cult-obsessed they will be happy for the SNP to have stolen their donations. Another issue is that many will have lost track of receipts, bank records etc. Another issue is that cosy mainstream media are unlikely to advertise your class action for you. And, people might respond better to a personal invitation to join the lawsuit.
I wonder if it is possible to get a court order forcing the SNP to give your lawyers a list of donors, contact details, so that your lawyers can contact them to make them aware of the lawsuit and to invite participation. There is a case to be made that you want all donors to be given the opportunity to get redress for the embezzlement of their donations.
Even if there was a technical route for a court order, the court would do everything in its power to kick it into the long grass to the point of irrelevance.
This is as much an attack on the Crown Office as it is on the SNP, or at least it will be seen that way by them.
Nigel Farage resigns as MP forcing by-election in his own seat.
Love how the link for ref.scot in the first paragraph under “The Defender’s Fundraising Representations” takes you to an online gambling website:
“Gamble Online At Home”!!
I have a terrible feeling they’ll get out of it by saying that SNP=Indy and therefore the money actually WAS spent more or less as described “to build up a future warchest” to fight for indy one day.
So nobody bothered to spend a few quid a year maintaining the domain? How stupid is that? Perhaps more pertinently the SNP saw no need for a website devoted to raising funds for a referendum campaign.
Hanging, drawing and quartering would be too good for this shower (obviously).
When the greedy fear the loss of there own money, that’s when the rats start turning on each other its better than fight night.
So that makes:
1.Indyref fund alleged fraud
2.Paul McManus’ civil case
3.The alleged perjurer investigation
4.Yes Scotland missing money
all currently in train with the cops/courts… are there any others I have forgotten? I have a feeling there is one more I can’t recall.
Prior INTENT will require to be proved: that the SNP top brass and NEC members knew that the money raised would be spent on other party matters, and that there was never any intention of using the donations for a future indyref.
To be absolutely honest, I would not have wanted to call an indyref at any point after 2014 because: a) it became very obvious very quickly by early 2015 that large numbers of the hard left had deserted Labour to join the SNP and their agenda was very different; b) we simply did not have the numbers to take a second referendum; and, c) even now, we would very likely lose one if we called it tomorrow.
There is no way, barring a plebiscitary election, a win in that, a UDI immediately thereafter and a demand to open negotiations with rUK or England via the UN, that we can win independence any time soon. In the meantime, we need to persuade at least a quarter of Unionists to join us to set the result of a plebiscitary election in concrete.
A big question remains: if the SNP – and, of course, they did – use the donations either to repay loans (a legal contract) or to finance an election, they must have pondered at that point why the funds were so low when they had so many members, even given that so many had left the party. This is exactly the point at which the Murrell embezzlement and the ring-fenced funds intersected. There were those who were ringing the alarm bell that the funds were so low and that something did not add up at all.
Sturgeon had such a grip on the party that no one dared to challenge her assertion that party finances were fine, and, to an extent, I can understand why she would not have wanted to give the Unionists a stick with which to beat the SNP. I’m not accusing her of anything, but some of those people should have gone to the MSM at that point and to hell with party loyalty or personal loyalty to the leader. Something was very wrong.
I wouldn’t even claim that she or anyone else actually knew that Murrell was removing monies for his own use, or even that money intended for another referendum seemed to have taken feet and walked, but when you look at a river and it is dangerously low, you know that abstraction is taking place somewhere. If you are the person/s signing off on the abstraction, you know that the monies have been used for other things, but do you know that you, personally, will benefit? Did any of them know that the monies were being used for other things and that he or she would benefit personally as a result?
At the very least, that is negligence, and both lots of missing monies might well have been seen to be missing at that point, but there appears to be no direct link established between the missing monies (donations) and personal benefits to any of the people involved, unlike the Murrell case, unless, of course, the election of the newest bunch of MSPs is to be counted as a benefit.
The INTENT arises as soon as they dipped into the pot reserved for the referendum campaign. That is what the summons emphasises. The DEFENDER had no right to divert the funds from their stated purpose yet did so knowingly and intentionally.
Can anyone give me a heads up on when the donations were paid (month, year) and to whom so I can check back for the details! Thankyou
I had to look at my emails but I did it by checking emails from Jim Henderson and it brought some information up, hope this helps.
The 2017 round about 14/03/2017.
The 2019 appeal started on 15th March that year.
Was it payable to the SNP?
All this SNP information was on “SAGE” for the Police investigating a doddle to interrogate those who donated and those refunded ! No doubt MI5 welcomed the supply of names and addresses of INDEPENDENTISTAs……!
Big trouble in Cranhill district of Glasgow ,massive police presence locals protesting about local alledged rapist .
I assume we will all be watching to see who pays the DEFENDER’s legal costs. I trust it will not be you and I as taxpayers.
Put your hand up who would like to see a SNP MSP give up their seat, to allow Joanna cherry to re-join the SNP and become leader. She’s only one who I believe can can bring Independence. Swinney needs to be replaced, to put it simply John Swinney opens doors for others, he doesn’t close doors their closed on him, that’s why Alex thought of him as a crying whinger than a leader.
“She’s only one who I believe can can bring Independence”
A hae ma douts.
Unfortunately, like most of the SNP elected group, Ms Cherry: a) is not a nationalist and; b) does not know what independence means.
Independence means decolonisation, which all former colonies now UN member states have demonstrated but the SNP still refuse to acknowledge in the case of Scotland. And in a colony the native must ‘become a nationalist’ in order to free his/her people (Memmi).
The SNP won’t get anywhere until they understand: a) what independence means, and; b) what nationalists are required to do to end ‘the scourge of colonialism’ (UN).
Simple question Alf.
Who forms an honest, competent Government in a newly Independent Scotland? Names please.
Of course, Alf, excepting yourself and a few disciples who “know what Independence means”, damn few Scots know either.
Which will be a fundamental stopper if Independence actually is what you claim.
Luckily, it’s not.
I agree with Alf regarding Joanna Cherry she sat for years in silence and her vociferous opposition to the GRA was always from the standpoint of its impact on lesbains
Same with those punting Kate Forbes as the future leader of the snp 1/ Forbes eagerly and willingly signed up Scotland to the FREEPORTS THEFT, and when the GRA vote was called in HR she was on maternity leave and didn’t vote , but some FEMALE from another party who was also on maternity leave stood up for FEMALES and used her proxy vote to oppose the GRA , Forbes had the same opportunity to register a proxy vote against the GRA but she shat it , maybe she was tooooooo FEART of Nicky , or maybe she SUPPORTED it
I guess once you’ve ruled everybody else out, Twat H, that’ll just leave you.
You can count on my vote if that helps.
If national independence is not decolonisation, Hatey, then pray tell us and all those former colonies that are now UN members states what it is?
Alf I totally agree and support the work Salvo and yourself is doing but de-colonization isn’t going to work alone.
We are going to need someone and please tell me who in the SNP is able to put Scotland before themselves, there isn’t anyone other than JC.
The problem we have at the moment and its genuine, England amendment Scotland isn’t leaving, not now not ever and they’ll do what ever it takes to make that happen.
I don’t believe anyone in Holyrood would give up their seat for Joanna in the first place she might not even want to come back to the SNP I know I wouldn’t.
In the coming months we are finally going to see if the SNP is going to defy or comply with the new PM.
The big question is are the SNP going to sell out Sinn Féin, Plaid Cymru to win favor with the new PM I believe Swinney will.
alf,
Here’s what I found was decolonisation online.
Beyond political independence, decolonisation also involves undoing the cultural, social, and psychological impacts of colonisation. It seeks to dismantle colonial systems, ideologies, and structures that privileged Western perspectives and suppressed indigenous knowledge, identity, and heritage. This includes reforming education, governance, and cultural representation to ensure marginalized communities regain control over their narratives and opportunities.
Is that what you are suggesting. I wonder what examples you might point out that show what the aims of decolonisation might be in Scotland please.
@ Dick Wall says: 8 July, 2026 at 9:52 pm
“I wonder what examples you might point out that show what the aims of decolonisation might be in Scotland please”
Professor Baird used to frequently state that in an Independent Scotland, only those who are fluent and literate in Scots, a minority language even in Scotland, would be allowed employment.
He has never made it clear if he means just the public sector, or all jobs. Not that it matters much, as the public sector is Scotland’s biggest employer.
As for Gaelic speakers, these boys aren’t real Scots anyway, according to Professor Baird.
To be fair to Professor Baird, he doesn’t make this assertion so much these days. Whether because he wants to backtrack, or because he wants to spring it on us unaware Scots post-Indy, only he can say.
Perhaps we could judge his seriousness by finding out if he intends to bar all non-Scots speakers from standing for election to public office too. That would only be consistent, after all.
You know that this will go precisely nowhere? The COPFS is profoundly corrupt and will cruise on. I hope you have a Plan B.
link to malcolmrichardclark.substack.com
Carol, I don’t need to read the book to know.
Take a look at the picture of Swinney and then take a look at the picture of Sturgeon she hasn’t a care in the world, where as Swinney looks as if he’s got the world on his shoulders and this is what a user does.
I met Salmond just a couple of months before he died I wished I had ask if he felt he had been played or used by her.
Sturgeon played us all, some of us woken up to her a long time ago and other just can’t see the monster who walks amongst us.
I thought it was worth mentioning the Daily record Tuesday 7th July.
Humza Yousef warned Scotland can no longer pretend to be immune from racism or hatred.
Except his to white people.
“I doff my hat to the Rev…. chapeau ?“
=======
Any bareheaded readers should don a hat so they can do the same!
Thanks Rev for posting on X…
link to archive.is
TBH I’m surprised Nicla’s fanzine had the guts to publish such heresy.
I supported Count Binface in the Makerfield by-election. Although he didn’t win against the Establishment candidate, he came a mere 65 votes behind the LibDem. Had he taken my advice and come out for Scottish Indy, he might well have done better.
I hope the Count will heed me now and test the “subsidy junkie” lie in the upcoming poll in Clacton. He missed a great opportunity on Radio 4 at 8:55 this morning to call for a judge-led public inquiry into SNP financial crimes.
Even so, Count Binface already has a great chance, because his only declared opponent so far is a joke candidate named Nigel Farage.
Count Binface is really Jon Harvey, a Corpus Christie, Cambridge graduate.
Anyone know what Count Binface’s stance on the Union is?
Looking through his election materials I can find nothing, but as a committed democrat I think he could easily be a supporter of another referendum on independence at least. Standing on that ticket at the Clacton by-election, the Arbroath of the South, steeped in anti-colonial history and woad-painted Pagan worship, could be a winner for both the people of Clacton and Scotland.
According to the electoral commission he is only standing in England. Not registered to stand in Scotland or Wales. Perhaps that is because there is just one of him but there might be a case for English independence there. Maybe we should contact him.
I doubt the SNP would stand anyone for English independence if it was suggested by anyone from Wings.
Today,8 July the Herlad (sic) reported the donors are going to sue demanding repayment.This looks good
The Nasty party (SNP) isn’t going to be able to USE the public purse to fight this one.
Today,8 July the Herlad (sic) reported the donors are going to sue demanding repayment.This looks good
How amusing that the current SNP treasurer is called Stuart Campbell McDonald. link to en.wikipedia.org
Its a common name in Scotland but not so common in Bath.
OVERHEARD in a shop today.
Old Man…….Trump just wants to set the world to right.
Young Man…Yeah, but he should keep out of football.
The essential wisdom of the masses.
Football’s all very well, TURABDIN, and some people are enjoying Wimbledon, but the greatest televisual spectacle of the moment is The Funeral.
If we take the three Baltic States – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – they dispensed, largely, with political party support and went all-out on civic, people-driven nationalism/independence. That, I suspect, is where we are headed now.
However, there is a massive proviso on that apparently simple solution to the mess the SNP has left: we have no real experience of a mass civic movement that includes nationalists, independistas (no, they are not the same thing), those who view independence as a means to an end the ‘woke’) and those who are frightened by the thought of being left behind (that would be mainly traditional Unionists and ‘New’ Scots).
If the SNP is brought down, we must quickly mobilise to create just such a movement out of the remnants (and not, in any circumstances turn to the pretendy independistas, the Greens) try to create a workable template for an independent Scotland and not succumb, or pander, to disruptive elements that appear to be ‘progressive’ but are, in fact and deed, the very opposite. By that, I mean the faux empathy brigade, the Me-ists.
The other massive proviso – very much bigger than the first – the movement – will be the actual means of regaining our independence. The Baltic States, no matter how many marches and demonstrations and hands-holding across borders they did, relied entirely on the fall of the Soviet Union, the fear of Russian populations stranded in the three states and the magnanimity of the indigenous population in not exacting revenge by expelling them, but to set about the far more important task of rebuilding their countries as independent nation states.
Realistically, and brutally true, it is going to take the fall of England-as-the-UK for Scotland, Wales and NI to come anywhere near independence now. This is what we must prepare for: the fall of England as the mainstay of the Union. If anyone thinks that Scotland is a basket case, England is very much worse. Just as the Scandi States did, and just as the Baltic States, Poland, the Eastern Europeans had to do, we will have to rebuild across borders: that is, we will need to co-operate across a broad spectrum of future activities/projects, even though we will all be independent nation states again. There will be no room for pettiness, revenge or point-scoring – and certainly no room for silly people who are too wrapped up in their own pettifogging tribalism and unrealities to read the runes.
This is the scrutiny that is so needed. Well done Stu and your team. There is no doubt in my mind the SNP has been corrupted and those who weild power within it are compromissed.
What Stu is doing is creeking open the door to let light in on the shady activities of these people.
Without wings… were stuffed!!
O/T: Clacton by-election. Surely this is a good opportunity for a Scottish independence candidate/party to stand? Their platform could be independence for England as well as Scotland – that should appeal. It’s a good platform for getting some facts across about Scotland’s wealth and constitutional position.
This is actually a good idea. The media will be glad of anything that isn’t Farage or Binface.
They could dust off and re-use the policy statements, economic arguments, and timeline they presented to great popular acclaim in the run up to the HR elections only 2 months ago.
Erm.
The Clacton by-election is a farce – yes maybe the SNP should be involved!
Has The National finally realised that their meagre subscriptions/sales among the Wee Ginger Fud loyalists aren’t cutting it? Or has the penny finally dropped that for a decade all the SNP has done is look out for the SNP by ripping off members and duping supporters?
link to archive.is
COMMENT: Why are SNP figures not making a compelling case for independence? By Jonathon Shafi
Quite something when Nicla’s fanzine publishes a piece which concludes…
“In this sense, it is not just money that has been embezzled, but the idea of Scottish independence as a living phenomenon.
That has been reappropriated as a party political tool to the extent that leading figures in the SNP seem to have forgotten how to make the argument at all.
It doesn’t matter how inviting the objective circumstances are, or how fertile the terrain is to make a big argument for independence, the endeavor has been sanitised.
That is why even with the fall of six British prime ministers in less than a decade, the case is not being made with drive, tenacity and conviction.
Because ironically enough, it is not in the SNP’s interests to do so.”
I couldn’t agree more!
Some of us have been saying on here since 2015 about the SNP and Sturgeon its a pity most not all are starting to realize how bad she was and what she done.
John Swinney has been totally played by Nicola Sturgeon she left the scene with no Interest to return to Scotland. All that needs to be done now is for John Swinney to finally put the nail in the SNP coffin and he hasn’t got a clue he’s doing it.
John Swinney is the last Joker in a deck of cards, even today he doesn’t realize that she’s played him, peter and Salmond to name but a few and of course she played the Scottish people as well.
Supporters of the SNP thought loyalty was to the party and not the country had such blind faith in her that even when she was saying things like cbyernats keyboard worriers they just couldn’t see beyond her ("Tractor" - Ed)ous behavior. She got so confident that she even went on national TV and stated she was British and would remain British even if Scotland became Independent.
Just look at where we were in 2014 to where we are now. If someone had said what the Yes movement would look like in 2026 you’d tell them straight your of your head.
John Swinney just hasn’t a clue what he’s supposed to do or how he does it and I’m afriad just saying your strong doesn’t make you are strong.
If the SNP folds as a party its John Swinney who’s made it happen all along he’s put Nicola before everything else and he’s hasn’t got a clue that History isn’t going to be nice to him, but why he’s a moron.
He actualy believe he took over the party to safe the SNP, John that was never the plan your the final nail it the party’s coffin, you’ve been the Nicola’s fool since she became FM.
“Why are SNP figures not making a compelling case for independence?”
It seems as if intellectuals on the left, including Shafi, Riddoch etc, still ignore postcolonial theory, which tells us the answer, as Fanon explained:
– the dominant national party ‘makes an accommodation with colonialism’;
– the party becomes ‘infiltrated’ by colonial actors;
– the party elite ‘feathers its nest’ and ‘builds up its pensions’;
– it ‘takes the movement up a blind alley’;
– the party elite refuse to act on the most urgent matter of ‘freeing the people’ because they ‘fear the colonizers tanks and planes’;
– it ‘attacks the radicals in the party’ also ‘using colonial forces’ to punish them;
– it ‘behaves like a gang’ and appoints its friends to key positions;
– the party ‘depends on slogans’ and leaves the matter of independence’ to future events’;
– the party ‘becomes calcified’, immobile, unable to move forward;
– it lacks any ‘innovation’ on the cause;
– it ‘delays independence’ which is what leads ‘to conflict’;
– it ‘ruptures the movement’;
– it works ‘to keep the racket going;
– the elite become ‘colonial watchdogs’;
– and, finally, once the people figure out they have been duped, ‘the national party disintegrates’, which is what we are seeing now.
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
“intellectuals on the left”
Oxymoron.
(The Left certainly does put the “moron” into oxymoron….)
““moron””
Ye wad shuirly fund gey mair ‘morons’ tae the poleetical richt, gied the condeetion o the Western libeal-imperial pouers!
“finally, once the people figure out they have been duped, ‘the national party disintegrates’”
“Finally”, Alf?
No way can that be “finally”.
Dinna be shy, Alf. Tell us what happens next.
“Ye wad shuirly fund gey mair ‘morons’ tae the poleetical richt, gied the condeetion o the Western libeal-imperial pouers!”
Try spellcheck.
“Tell us what happens next”
There are only two possible outcomes with colonialism, Hatey, as stated at the end of this 12-min presentation:
link to facebook.com
“…try spellcheck….”
Try fucking off somewhere else.
@ Alf Baird says: 9 July, 2026 at 12:40 pm
I don’t do Facebook, Alf.
How odd that you do. If I was asked to name one concrete example of the colonialism you constantly rail about, Facebook would likely come up.
A foreign owned and controlled, fundamentally malign, social justice evading influence that has warped, twisted and damaged the well being of an entire generation of Scots.
But hey, I guess they’re not English, so who cares, eh?
“There are only two possible outcomes with colonialism”
Sae dinna be shy. Tell the truth and shame the devil.
“Try fucking off somewhere else.”
Ooooh Fatso! 😀
I doubt you can even stand up straight unaided, let alone blow the skin of a rice pudding. (In fact PLEASE DON’T).
Is it worth including as evidence the yellow forms with the two tick-boxes that were sent out to people? One to donate tc SNP and the other to the ring-fenced fund? That would support the clear independence of the two funds?
@ robertknight: yes, amazing that The National should publish such an honest appraisal of the SNP’s failings on independence. Is it a sign of major moves to cleanse the party?
I’d like to think so, but as will all forms of the press they are guided by sales.
It’d be interesting to see just how badly The National has done over the last 5 years,or at least since the notorious front-page afforded to the Alphabetites after Salmond was cleared.
Perhaps the 400,000 fewer votes for the SNP in May, corresponding to the 400,000 drop in turnout, has got The National thinking that with Saint Nicla’s halo well and truly around her ankles, sales might continue in one direction if a shift in attitude isn’t forthcoming.
If The National suddenly becomes SNP critical they may boost circulation amongst the Pro-Indy Anti-SNP readership they lost some time ago.
Then you read the comments and think what planet are these people on? Your being told the truth and the CEO of the SNP has been jailed, and then you have these same people arguing it was all rubbish by wings and yet Peter Murrell pleaded guilty and is in jail. How much more information do you need that the SNP isn’t working for Scotland its working for the UK and themselves.
Some of the comments people write on The National in their defense of the SNP, you thick how F*cking blind can you be or so thick you can’t see the truth.
To be honest its one’s who are defending the SNP who’s stopping progress in any shape or form, and you think shut up and go away all your doing is spreading mis-information its because of this Scotland and the SNP is in the mess its in.
Riddock, Dug, Pop, The National, haven’t help Scotland cause one little bit in fact they’ve help cause the mess we’re in because of their blinding love for party before country and to be honest I’m not interested in hearing from these people anymore. I never read what they say they have no importance in the movement.
I didn’t read the comments to be fair but I’ll sometimes pop over to Wee Ginger Fud and see what the delusional have to say for themselves – no need to drop acid to remove yourself from reality, just spend ten minutes in the comments section.
Whilst there may be some dubiety attached to the political veracity of some of its contributors, each year The National publishes a copy of the McCrone Report.
More than can be said for The Daily Redcoats, whose contributors leave no doubt whatsoever in the veracity department.
WGF is a gust of fresh air compared with the disgraceful and disgusting poison perpetrated by the teatowel wearers and their fellow travelers on CM BTL.
I was very confused when, in 2022, the Scottish Government announced that there WOULD be a referendum, and even announced a date for it (19 October 2023), even though it was very obvious that there was no path to make that happen and there had been no preparations for it. I couldn’t quite work out what on earth they were thinking, and chalked it up to incompetence and desperation.
But could it be that formally announcing a referendum date, even with no intention of actually making it happen, was a legal trick to let them tap into that ringfenced fund for day-to-day operational costs?
And even if that wasn’t why they called the referendum date, I’m astonished that John Swinney isn’t referring to that to explain why the ringfenced fund is gone: something like “in 2022 we launched a referendum campaign, at which point we accessed that ringfenced money and spent it”. It’s not a totally convincing argument, but it’s a damn sight better than this “yeah we just spent it, what’s the problem?” line that he seems to be taking. If I was advising the SNP on comms, that’s what I would suggest…
Wheesht PB – dinna gie them plausible alternatives!Though that said it is a tad late to offer such an excuse.
Anyone noticed how giddily nationalist the english media have become?
You’d think they’d already won the world cup, wimbledon and farage was once again king of clacton.
Could it be trump disease exacerbated by collective heatstroke? or just the symptoms of systemic senility?
Can’t say I’ve noticed, TURABDIN, no.
And then I also have little to compare it against.
Although the scenes coming out of Tehran and Moscow do give one food for thought.
No. People are just pleased the England team are for once playing some decent football and we have one player doing well at Wimbledon. This pleasure is reflected in the media and is no more ‘nationalist’ than any country. As for Farage he is quite divisive, and his latest move has not gone down well pretty much across the board including a lot of the right wing media. People on the whole do not like those who play the victim card.
Your understanding and knowledge of England is very poor as shown by virtually every post you make about the place.
So…the ‘National Broadcaster’ eh?
“…People are just pleased the England team are for once playing some decent football…”
What people?
“…. and we have one player doing well at Wimbledon…”
Who’s “we”?
The ‘Great British Public’? i.e. the great English public. Piss off with your ‘Great British Sarcasm’, please, Inglis.
“Blow it out your arse”™, Fatso.
People like me were the first to be thrilled for Scotland when the great Andy Murray was at the peak of his powers (in fact I even came on here and said so at the time, to a much friendlier, gracious and mature reception then as compared to now). I, like many others, also supported Scotland in their WC games.
We’re not all two brain celled, hate-filled twats, unlike some…
Hey, CC, you got a “please” from Wally W.
He must have twigged he gets mair haddies thrown his way if he plays nice.
It can’t be nice being “James”, as he told us yesterday the voices inside his head are speaking in an English accent.
Aye, just like you, petal.
Why don’t you three get a ‘family room’ somewhere for a night?
I agree Turabdin. It’s not normal to have another country’s achievements thrown in your face via media. I’m thankful that all the youngest members of my family live and were born in England and that I can enjoy Englands victories (just a little bit). I also like Englands ethnically diverse team too. Don’t tell Hate-filled.
OK, I won’t.
On the subject of ethnic diversity, I half watched near 20 minutes of the Canada-Morocco game before I twigged that the brownest team was actually Canada.
WTF!
i have an aversion to jingoistic idolatrous nationalism of the flag waving sort….i was born in a country where such stuff was normative.
western political leaders flanked by flags, aping the american habit, is becoming standard.
the semiotics of insecurity?
the trump régime’s incoherent bluster & posturing comes readily to mind.
i too applaud ethnic diversity but i am rather biased in that regard.
Seriously, TURABDIN?
No mention of the events in Ir@n? How ethnically and religiously diverse are that lot?
But that is not what is happening. It is simply being pleased that English sports people are doing well. You are seeing jingoistic nationalism when it isn’t there. Flags have always been waved at sporting events as signs of allegiance and it does not ape the US, though I agree, outside of that, it is getting more like that, everywhere. Does the Saltire escape that censure?
England’s football team’s diversity is a great thing and no-one can ever convince me that black players like Bellingham and Saka are not English as they are. If Bellingham’s skin was not black, given that his almost his entire cultural reference points and upbringing are English, there would be no question of it..
one day, soon …
link to youtube.com
wir aw jock tamsons bairns
we know where you live now, main; the nonce-police won’t be able to protect you forever
link to archive.ph
– aren’t policeman getting younger, and a lot shorter
– cops …
link to youtube.com
I reckon the SP wisnae in the video; his ankle tag widnae let him go ootside….
James – you will have noticed I am English living in England so that is what I mean by ‘we’ when I replied to Turabdin who was, as usual, misrepresenting the place. Ditto ‘people’, the English people. I do not speak for anyone in Scotland many of whose inhabitants will at best have no interest in any English sporting success. I never mentioned British or Britain because it is the English Turabdin was talking about and thus what I refer to.
I don’t know what Great British Sarcasm you refer to.