The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The Liberty Of Wallace

Posted on October 17, 2020 by

At the climax of a popular and multiple-Oscar-winning movie from 1995, the Scottish leader William Wallace is portrayed heroically roaring the word “FREEDOM!”

Unfortunately, at the time he’s bound by ropes to a wooden table, having been hanged until half-dead and then had his intestines torn out with a knife shortly before someone lops his head off with an axe, cuts his body into several parts and displays them on spikes all around Scotland as a warning to anyone who might seek its independence.

It’s in this sense that we’re forced to assume the Scottish Government has interpreted the word “freedom” in the phrase “freedom of information”.

Because in relation to information about its investigation of false allegations of sexual harassment against the former First Minister Alex Salmond, the Scottish Government seems determined to keep the truth tied to a table and torture it until it’s dead too.

Let’s have a recap.

————————————————————————————

8 OCTOBER 2020

Scottish Government denies hiding documents about the investigation from the search function on its Freedom Of Information website, despite being provided with a list of 16 such documents which evade all text searches, when those same searches work for documents about anything else.

8 OCTOBER 2020

Scottish Government denies holding any information about a meeting between Nicola Sturgeon and Geoff Aberdein on 29 March 2018, despite already having published official documents confirming that the meeting took place.

The First Minister had previously claimed on 4 August 2020 that she “had forgotten that this encounter had taken place until I was reminded of it in, I think, late January/early February 2019“.

16 SEPTEMBER 2020

Scottish Government refuses to provide information regarding supposed civil service policy relating to allegations against Alex Salmond.

16 SEPTEMBER 2020

Scottish Government refuses to provide details of its legal advice regarding the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond.

31 JULY 2020

Scottish Government denies knowing anything about a meeting between Nicola Sturgeon and Geoff Aberdein on 29 March 2018. (Like all the other denials prior to 8 October, this document CANNOT be found on the Scottish Government’s FOI page by searching for the word “Aberdein”.)

30 JUNE 2020

Scottish Government publishes First Minister’s diary for 29 March 2018, containing no mention of meeting with Geoff Aberdein. It also publishes a completely blank diary page for her chief of staff, Liz Lloyd, on the same date.

19 JUNE 2020

Scottish Government flatly refuses to answer 12 questions concerning meetings between Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Salmond and Geoff Aberdein, who arranged them, who was present and what was discussed. In most of the 12 cases it does not even provide a reason for the refusal.

4 JUNE 2020

Scottish Government refuses to answer several questions relating to the allegations against Alex Salmond, in particular concerning the Permanent Secretary, Leslie Evans.

(Evans, curiously, also has a habit of “forgetting” meetings attended relating to the allegations against Mr Salmond, this time involving Liz Lloyd.)

16 DECEMBER 2019

Scottish Government refuses to say whether it has assisted any investigation into the leak to the Daily Record in August 2018 of confidential information relating to the allegations against Alex Salmond.

26 NOVEMBER 2019

Scottish Government refuses to provide details regarding its legal advice about the judicial inquiry brought by Mr Salmond in respect of the allegations, or about the contractual arrangements of Leslie Evans.

25 SEPTEMBER 2019

Scottish Government refuses to disclose information relating to its legal advice in connection with the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond.

13 SEPTEMBER 2019

Scottish Government refuses to provide details of communications between the First Minister and Liz Lloyd, between August 2018 and January 2019 on the subject of the allegations against Alex Salmond, citing cost reasons.

It also refuses to detail the costs to the Scottish taxpayer of the judicial inquiry raised and won by Mr Salmond, and numerous other requested pieces of information.

13 SEPTEMBER 2019

Scottish Government refuses to provide details of its legal costs relating to the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond.

10 SEPTEMBER 2019

Scottish Government refuses to provide details of legal costs relating to the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond.

10 SEPTEMBER 2019

Scottish Government refuses to provide details of its internal legal costs relating to the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond.

10 SEPTEMBER 2019

Scottish Government refuses to provide details of legal costs relating to the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond.

23 MAY 2019

Scottish Government refuses to provide details of any communications between Liz Lloyd (or other Scottish Government staff) and the Daily Record newspaper in August 2018, when the Record broke the story of allegations against Alex Salmond.

13 FEBRUARY 2019

Scottish Government refuses 31 of 32 requests for details of Liz Lloyd’s diary, on various dates between January and August 2018. No reason is given for the refusal. The only information disclosed from the 32nd request is which newspapers Lloyd claimed expenses for on 2 April 2018.

13 FEBRUARY 2019

In response to a request for details of the First Minister’s diary on 2 April 2018, Scottish Government again provides a completely blank sheet of paper.

It also declines to provide information for several other dates.

8 FEBRUARY 2019

Scottish Government publishes Liz Lloyd’s diaries for five dates in April, June and July 2018. The entry for 2 April does NOT include mention of any meetings with the First Minister, Alex Salmond or Geoff Aberdein.

This is despite the First Minister subsequently telling Parliament that she had held a meeting at her private Glasgow home with all three of them on this date, from which her husband, the SNP’s chief executive Peter Murrell, had been excluded because it was government rather than party business.

7 FEBRUARY 2019

Scottish Government refuses to answer questions regarding the conduct of the initial investigation into allegations against Alex Salmond.

20 SEPTEMBER 2018

Scottish Government refuses to answer any of six questions relating to the allegations against Alex Salmond, or even to confirm or deny holding information.

20 SEPTEMBER 2018

Scottish Government refuses to provide information relating to possible complaints about the conduct of Alex Salmond.

20 SEPTEMBER 2018

Scottish Government refuses to provide details of any communications between the First Minister and a special adviser relating to allegations against Alex Salmond.

20 SEPTEMBER 2018

Scottish Government refuses to provide details of communications between the First Minister, Leslie Evans and Peter Murrell relating to allegations against Alex Salmond.

20 SEPTEMBER 2018

Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny holding information regarding communications between government officials and civil servants relating to allegations against Alex Salmond.

20 SEPTEMBER 2018

Scottish Government refuses to provide details of communications between ministers and staff relating to the allegations against Alex Salmond.

20 SEPTEMBER 2018

Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny holding any information regarding communications between the First Minister and Alex Salmond on any subject in 2018.

20 SEPTEMBER 2018

Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny holding any information regarding communications between the First Minister, Leslie Evans and Alex Salmond on any subject in 2018.

20 SEPTEMBER 2018

Scottish Government refuses to answer eight questions relating to communications between the First Minister and Alex Salmond in relation to allegations against him. 

20 SEPTEMBER 2018

Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny holding any information regarding communications between the First Minister, Peter Murrell, Alex Salmond and any other Scottish Government ministers or staff relating to the allegations against Mr Salmond.

20 SEPTEMBER 2018

Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny holding any information regarding communications between the First Minister and Alex Salmond regarding allegations against him in 2018.

20 SEPTEMBER 2018

Scottish Government refuses to confirm or deny holding any information regarding the outcome of any discussions between the First Minister and Alex Salmond regarding allegations against him in 2018.

20 SEPTEMBER 2018

Scottish Government denies Nicola Sturgeon knew anything about the allegations against Alex Salmond before April 2018. (Also here.)

————————————————————————————

When his head is detached, incidentally, Wallace finally releases his grasp on the blood-soaked document he’d been clutching tightly in his fist.

We make this observation without comment.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 17 10 20 16:01

      The Liberty Of Wallace – politics-99.com

    149 to “The Liberty Of Wallace”

    1. Astonished says:

      ye didnae miss.

    2. Martha Chisholm says:

      How in the name of all that’s holy are they getting away with this….

    3. Fraser Reid says:

      They get away with this Because of true believers that the SNP are holy – now I can understand why some “humans” in Scotland still vote tory.

    4. Bob Mack says:

      My dear boy. It’s all just a coincidence.

    5. Bob Mack says:

      What’s the difference between fighting for liberty and “taking” them?

      Wallace was good at one and the SNP are good at the other.

    6. John Moss says:

      Do you really think that the Scottish Government has something to hide?

      I wonder what could it be?

      I think I’ll submit an FOI request and see if they will tell me.

    7. Nell G says:

      “But can we no keep them until after Independence then have a clear oot? We’re so close!”

      -Has got to be the most moronic train of thought circulating at present. Is it me or are people getting dumber by the day?

      Nicola is playing for the other team! She’s a fraud, a spook, a walking talking lie, a treacherous ("Quizmaster" - Ed).

      She might very well get the S30 in time as I think there is an unstoppable force now, we might win a subsequent referendum but you can be sure it won’t be the Independence we’re looking for and will be a tangled web of caveats.

      I don’t want her anywhere near negotiations.

    8. CameronB Brodie says:

      A party which seeks to deny biological reality is no longer capable of supporting democracy, as it has become a club for delusional authoritarians. I blame the Lord Advocete, who appears incapable of supporting democracy.

      The SNP needs to remember the Scottish legal Establishment’s hostility towards the Natural law of things, makes them an enemy of authentic culture. The party also clearly needs new leadership that is capable of supporting the rule-of-law.

    9. Mist001 says:

      Can you imagine if this outfit was ever in charge of an independent Scotland when this is how they are now?

    10. David Rodgers says:

      When NS answered questions on this in parliament recently she gave such an assured performance that she was in no way withholding information and was available for questioning etc. (although latter point is a distraction to some extent).

      Then you look at the timeline above…. There’s somewhat of a disconnect between that and NS viewpoint!!

      Does SG think this will all blow over in time? It didn’t happen that way in Watergate (which this is reminiscent of in many ways). At least Nixon was plotting against his real political opponents!

    11. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      New SNP promo video:

      youtube.com/watch?v=cTsvLjAzozE&ab_channel=SiXDwArF

    12. Livionian says:

      Prediction: 23rd November 2020, nose of lying Scottish government grows longer than Rudyard Landyard’s chances of replacing Sturgeon

    13. Kenny says:

      This particular article pushes against an open door with folk who regularly visit, and support, everything you do on this site, but it’s chronological and informative importance is of greater benefit for ‘the others’.

      I’m thinking; substitute every example of Scottish Govt, First Minister and every term, name etc with its equivalent Westminster Office or minister etc in this article, hand it to one of ‘the others’ and watch their disgust. No wish to alienate our fellow pro-indy, but what does it take for them to?…

      Good resource, Campbell!

    14. Robert Hughes says:

      Mist001 says:

      “Can you imagine if this outfit was ever in charge of an independent Scotland when this is how they are now? ” . The difference being in an Independent Scotland we could sling them out on their lugs without fear of letting a Brit Nat Party replace them

    15. Mist001 says:

      @ Robert Hughes

      Well, suppose Scotland gains its independence, who would be the party in charge the very next day?

      You think this shower of shysters are going to give that up without a fight? As the Rev demonstrates here on a daily basis now, they would use every dirty underhand trick in the book, including rigging elections, to remain in power.

      As an outsider just now, I see the Scottish government behaving like I’d expect from a third world banana republic government. Can you imagine what Scotland would be like if they managed to get their hands on real power?

    16. Joe Bloggs says:

      By the way, there is an analysis of FOI requests to the Scottish Government and the exemptions they have used in thousands of cases:
      https://twitter.com/dav_smyth/status/1291393470888902657

      The First Minister likes to say that they are cooperating with the enquiry. However, they don’t want Liz Lloyd to give evidence, and it seems to be on the spurious grounds of her being a civil servant from what I can make out: https://www.thenational.scot/news/18656652.alex-salmond-inquiry-government-insists-fms-chief-staff-cant-give-evidence/

      When Ruth Davidson quizzed the FM at FMQs about the Geoff Aberdein meeting of 29th March, she claimed that it was a spur of the moment meeting, where he just popped his head round her door in parliament whilst visiting an old colleague. But, doesn’t Geoff Aberdein’s testimony to the court say that:
      a) the meeting was planned several weeks ahead
      b) that he met with the FM’s chief of staff several times throughout the month of March
      c) that the meeting was attended by one of the complainants.
      If those things are true, then surely the ministerial code has been broken for numerous reasons:
      1. If it is party business (the reason given for the 2nd April meeting on the same topic being unrecorded and unminuted), why is it being held on the parliamentary estate, which forbids the use of the parliament building for party business
      2. If she claims it was an unplanned meeting, why was it organised in advance. If it was, she must have known not just on 2nd April, and her revised date of 29th March, but even earlier. Otherwise how could she ask for a meeting to take place about something she knew nothing about
      3. If a complainant was present, why did the FM not say that this was something she would not have any involvement in, because it was being handled by the permanent secretary. Surely if a complainant was there, it follows that the FM meddled in the complaints process against her own government’s procedure.

    17. Hatuey says:

      Mist001 says:
      17 October, 2020 at 1:03 pm
      “Can you imagine if this outfit was ever in charge of an independent Scotland when this is how they are now?“

      A lot of us are watching this fiasco and imagining exactly that. How Scotland deals with this will have a huge bearing on how many people vote in any independence referendum.

      If independence means the country will be in the hands of a bunch of corrupt blazer types, I think I’d prefer the indiscriminate corruption of Westminster.

      Scotland is on trial right now. If the SNP get away with this, it means the whole system, including the judiciary, media, and political system, is corrupt to the core. And if the Scottish people stand by and do nothing about it, it means they are corrupt too.

    18. Stoker says:

      Hatuey says:

      ” And if the Scottish people stand by and do nothing about it, it means they are corrupt too.”

      As they say, all it takes for evil to flourish is that good folk do nothing.

    19. Garavelli Princip says:

      CameronB Brodie says:
      17 October, 2020 at 12:58 pm
      “A party which seeks to deny biological reality is no longer capable of supporting democracy…

      …..The SNP needs to remember the Scottish legal Establishment’s hostility towards the Natural law of things…”

      Indeed so. I blame the private boarding schools and the Oxbridge ‘education’ so many of the Faculty of Advocates have had. These are designed to distance boys and young men from normal, natural family life.

    20. Scozzie says:

      I find it so painful watching this from afar and it feels like Scots are in suspended animation. Where is the urgency being brought upon the Scottish government to act on the promise of Scots having a right to decide on independence if Scotland was pulled out of the EU against our will – you are 11 weeks away from no deal Brexit FFS!

      The SNP leadership needs toppled immediately for any kind of chance to progress independence. Independence MSPs / MPs you need to step up and force a ‘step down’ from NS and her team. SNP / independence supporters you need to be putting massive pressure on those independence MSPs / MPs to ‘force the hand’.

      You cannot coast along to May 2021! And you cannot win independence with a compromised, corrupt, and conspiratorial leadership.

      You need a CLEAN leader that will fight for Scotland – and it will be a fight in the political sense. NS has proven all she wants to do is dangle carrots to retain power. She is not a leader and has no appetite to deliver independence – 6 years of missed opportunities has proven that.

      Polls, I hear the NS believers cry – well polls are just that. Look how Better Together dropped massively to a narrow win when push came to shove. When people get a sniff that NS and the SG are just as corrupt as WM (if not more, as I don’t ever recall a WM government trying to bang up a former PM to life in prison), then will they vote for that? Will they have CONFIDENCE in SNP delivering independence?

      I look around the world and peoples are rising up to assert their various political rights. I’m not advocating violence or even mass protests in Scots, but please DO something to show your determination for independence and hold they SNP to account to deliver it – and I don’t mean giving them one more bloody mandate. Polls mean nothing and waiting until May 2021 is way too late.

      Not to mention the McWoke parachute regiment being propelled into candidate seats – the whole thing is a monumental fuck up and all about NS consolidating her power.

      I don’t mean to offend, as my heart and soul is Scottish to the core but FFS please take control of this shitshow.

    21. Alf Baird says:

      Mist001

      Worth remembering that the so-called ‘Scottish Government’ is still more or less a spending department of the UK Gov and run by whoever Whitehall sends up ‘ere. ScotGov as we can see does not always operate in Scotland’s interest, rather it may seek to undermine Scotland if that is in the UK interest.

      A further and perhaps more serious problem will arise if Scotland does become independent and Whitehall’s finest are still left in situ to run the show. That is not my definition of an independent Scotland.

    22. CameronB Brodie says:

      Garavelli Princip
      I’m afraid it’s deeper than simply social conditioning. Scots law embraced the Natural law until union with England, which is culturally hostile towards the Natural law, as it challenges the authority of the Crown in Parliament. So Scots law has been forced to turn a blind eye to the Moral law, in order to support the English tradition of Parliamentary sovereignty, and the undemocratic practices of British constitutionalism.

    23. Kenny says:

      The polls are also based on the overwhelming majority of Scots not having any idea of what has been going on.

      People link the FM solely with Covid broadcasts and are absolutely unaware of the whole Salmond story.

      The unionists would be MAD not to use the whole woke “womxn” nonsense in any indyref campaign. That is a majority of the electorate!

    24. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      The Tories were extremely smart to float the idea of the GRA…then immediately reverse it when the Labour and SNP wannabe-moral extremists had grasped the jaggy thistle eagerly, intently, forcefully, stupidly, pathetically.

      Played like bloody fools.

    25. James Che. says:

      Alf Baird, this is something that goes under the radar quite often,
      Perhaps the reason for thousands of civil servants already being set up in Scotland, is to run Scotland from within the Scottish government, after all, good ole Westminster has not put them here for a holiday. Is it not the case that The A S case involves many civil servants, it often seems the old original SNP are now civil servant run.
      Is it not Micheal gove that has something to do with civil servants here in Scotland?
      From Jack, Mundells, and Westminster’s civil servants, Scotland’s devolved parliament is run by England’s parliament,

    26. kapelmeister says:

      Sturgeon’s power base in the party is a coalition of wokes and careerists. Neither of these two groups are motivated to regain Scotland’s independence. Sturgeon indulges both groups by giving them what they want. Particular policies for the woke faction, and patronage in the form of ministerial or party posts for the careerists. In return they have been loyal to her.

      There is crossover between the two groups, since many wokes seem just as keen on nice parliamentary salaries.

      The pure careerists’ loyalties of course cannot be relied on. If a careerist perceives a leader to be weakening – as Sturgeon is – they will get ready to switch allegiance to a replacement leader who can steady the ship and keep them at the trough. Since Sturgeon must know this fact of political life, it has probably reinforced her reliance on the pure woke element and partly explains her unshakeable determination on GRA.

    27. CameronB Brodie says:

      Scots will never enjoy the benefits of democracy, while our legal Establishment place their British nationalism and “ambivalence” towards the Natural law of things, above the interests of democracy.

      Practical Reason, Human Nature, and the Epistemology of Ethics: John Finnis’s Contribution to the Rediscovery of Aristotelian Ethical Methodology in Aquinas’s Moral Philosophy: A Personal Account
      https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1291&context=vlr

    28. Alastair Ewen says:

      Events, dear boy, events….

    29. Republicofscotland says:

      We don’t want to detach Sturgeon’s head, but do want to detach her, her husband and their clique from the Scottish government and the SNP.

      Sturgeon and Murrell, along with a few others have acted disgracefully bringing shame on Scotland with their lies and deceit, its time for them to go.

    30. Republicofscotland says:

      Mist001 @1.34pm.

      One also wonders if after Scottish independence would the unionist parties at Holyrood still do Westminster’s bidding in Scotland. Afterall those unionist parties don’t actually care about Scotland, if they did they’d want independence.

    31. Bob Costello says:

      Would perhaps an appeal to the information commissioner be an idea. I have had to do this with Dundee council and won the appeal.There will also be an ombusman.

    32. Mike d says:

      O/t. Jacinda ardern has won the New Zealand election again. Covid didn’t stop any election there. I must have missed that on the MSM here, as it’s been all trump and other BS.

    33. Alec Lomax says:

      Kenny, it may surprise you if the majority of the Scottish electorate have other priorities than wokeness. Y’know little things like the pandemic, the effect of a no deal Brexit, and getting shot of the Tories.

    34. Alec Lomax says:

      Scozzie, who other than the SNP are going to deliver independence?
      Take your time now. No hurry to answer.

    35. Tom says:

      ” .. who other than the SNP are going to deliver independence? Take your time now. No hurry to answer.”

      No problem (Alec, 4pm), of course it will be the SNP to deliver indy, just a different SNP, led by different people, to the SNP we have now. Easy-peasy!

    36. Andy Ellis says:

      @Alex Lomax

      The question SNP ultras have to answer surely is how the SNP are going to deliver independence Alec?

      Wishing really hard and asserting that British nationalists will just cave in to our umpteenth mandate is NOT a plan, however often Pete Wishart petulantly assures they will do so because *reasons*.

      It won’t matter if the SNP have an outright majority after 2021, it’s immaterial if 58% or 68% vote for pro-independence parties, if the elections are specifically plebiscitary. Johnson will simply say “now is not the time” for the next 8 years.

      Nothing the Scottish government can do will change things as long as they accept that the only feasible route to indy is a referendum Westminster graciously allows us to hold. When you’ve digested that, and come up with a Plan B, get back to us. Otherwise, we might as well accept that “once in a generation” is actually true and that the next chance we get to vote is more likely to be 2039 than 2021.

    37. susanXX says:

      Well said Tom@4:29pm.

    38. paul says:

      The party {which is for the careerists} is over.

      The party {which is for the careerists} is over.

      someone said

      Trust comes on foot and leaves on horseback

    39. Alf Baird says:

      James Che.

      I have been, and currently still am an appointed external adviser to Ministers in a particular area of policy. In my experience, and area of policy, it has been civil servants and other public officials (e.g. heads of public agencies) who determine policy objectives and develop the plans intended to achieve set objectives. Ministers merely rubber stamp these objectives and plans. Manifesto’s are very broad and less detailed. That has been my experience since before devolution as far as I can recall in the area of policy I am referring to. Ministers actually appear to decide very little, if anything, whilst senior civil servants more or less run the show. Ministers cut ribbons and take the plaudits when all goes well, or seems to go well, and they run for the hills when things go pear shaped, as they now invariably do.

    40. JGedd says:

      @Alex Lomax

      ‘…the majority of the Scottish electorate have other priorities than wokeness.’

      I agree but you might try telling that to the SNP leadership & their cohorts of woke activists. They seem bent on imposing it by stealth. How well do you think that same majority might feel when they discover that?

      If it is their sincerely held belief that Scots should welcome GRA legislation, then they should postpone that until after independence & then allow debate. It is not a winning strategy to do things by subterfuge. They are learning bad habits from the so-called liberal ‘left’ in Canada & the US. The idea that you can get away with these measures by just sneaking them in as part of a package, is counter-productive. It will only create resentment & that will not aid their advocacy for those they claim to wish to help.

    41. Hatuey says:

      Alf Baird, that just doesn’t wash.

      It wasn’t civil servants that decided to “fit up”, Salmond.

      It wasn’t civil servants that decided to change “the procedure” so that they could go after former ministers.

      And it certainly wasn’t civil servants that decided to remove the first minister from “the procedure”, after – and only after – that same first minister had unleashed the hounds (with the clear intention of trying to give herself ‘plausible deniability’ down the line).

      It’s that final point that is most damning here. It stinks of premeditation and conspiracy.

    42. J Galt says:

      Alf Baird@2.22pm

      “the so-called “Scottish Government” is still more or less a spending department of the UK govt”

      And a not particularly competent one at that as their record on transport infrastructure shows – in particular the Calmac newbuildings saga.

    43. Beaker says:

      @Mist001 says:
      17 October, 2020 at 1:03 pm
      “Can you imagine if this outfit was ever in charge of an independent Scotland when this is how they are now?”

      I think that might be one of the reasons the polling is only at 58% or whatever. And 8% of that is probably due to COVID.

    44. Alf Baird says:

      Hatuey

      Who makes the decisions? You might wish to read the current Gordon Dangerfield analysis which notes, among other things, that:

      “As usual in this whole affair, the person making all the key decisions about what evidence is to be provided and what withheld is that correspondent, the Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans.”

    45. Alf Baird says:

      J Galt

      Yes, there are numerous examples of questionable spending decisions by ScotGov going back many years, ferries being just one example of a waste of £billions (yet still an outdated obsolete fleet), and which has done little to enhance the competitiveness or development of Scotland or its people.

    46. Lochside says:

      Maggie C.A 6.17..’S link to Gordon Dangerfield’s blog. His final comment:

      ‘A plea for rationality

      So I ask these questions in all sincerity, and above all as a person who prizes logical and rational thought:

      If, because the inquiry is partly into her “actions”, Nicola Sturgeon has to recuse herself from all decisions about providing documents and evidence to the inquiry, why doesn’t Leslie Evans have to do the same?

      Why is Leslie Evans still running the Scottish Government’s show?

      liz Loyd, and Evans..both English ‘civil servants’. And following on from Alf Baird’s contributions as an actual consultant to Holyrood, confirms the reality of the colonial ruler placing ‘swing men/women’ in positions to undermine and manipulate our ‘government’ to Westminster’s agenda.

      Add in a leadership led by a wokerati fanatic, Sturgeon, with a monomaniacal agenda to punish the ‘age old ‘ enemy to the utter detriment of Independence. If you doubt this..check out Iain Lawson on the death grip the NEC are currently exerting on the selection process for candidates for the May election.

      This death by doctrinal insanity of our Leading Independence party is a clear message that the Sturgeon/Murrell axis of evil is determined to capitalise on the ephemeral lead the SNP enjoys and created by Boris the Buffoon’s bourach, and to win the 2021 election, impose GRA and the HATE Bill at all costs.. so that the S30 smokescreen and Never-Indy can go screw itself as long as they have the most Virtue signalling fucked up colony in the world.

    47. Ottomanboi says:

      Covid-19, whatever that is, has focussed attention on the quality of ‘leadership’.
      The X on a slip of paper democracy is over.
      The venerable adage ‘shit floats’ has never been more apposite than now.
      We must demand and expect accountability from those who presume to exercise authority.
      Be informed! Question everything!

    48. Effijy says:

      Of course some SNP investments have proven not to be winners.
      What Government ever had a perfect investment record?

      Let’s have a look at Labour’s Holyrood build.
      Estimated cost £30 Million,actual way over £400 million,
      Labour Council’s Edinburgh Trams many times over budget for half of the build.
      Gordon Brown PPI gave us £50 Billion of schools and hospitals that will cost £305 Billion.
      He sold our Gold reserves shortly before the price tripled and he killed final salary pensions.

      Tories- how about selling off Royal Mail for £1 Billion below its value to Tory Hedge Funds.
      Graylings Million’s for Brexit ships that didn’t exist.
      The billions of non disclosure contracts to Tory supporting companies.
      How about the £25 million to each of the 61 Tory marginal seats bribe voters?

      SNP got involved in the Island Service ships and Prestwick Airport to save jobs and maintain
      Transport links that benefit the community and trade routes.
      These where at least noble schemes that would help ordinary people.

      I’d wear my fingers out listing the corrupt backhanded and billions corrupted by the Irish Tory DUP.

      Which party above would you say has the better record?

    49. Far North Davie says:

      Hmm, from my memory of events there is no document in Wallace’s hand but a ‘love’ token (a wrapped thistle head) that was given to him by Murron, his future wife, after his father is murdered by the English.

    50. Kenny says:

      The wokerati and Sturgeon’s support of them show that Sturgeon is not a democrat.

      It would be an extremely rash person to think she would care about another democratic thing: the people of Scotland making decisions for Scotland.

      Sturgeon is very much a “bolshevik”. Power is the aim and any vehicle is good that gets that power. I also sometimes wonder if it is healthy to be so “anti-Thatcherite” and “anti-Tory” as she claims to be. Because if you are obsessed by an enemy, you are usually yourself in some way like that “enemy”.

    51. Republicofscotland says:

      MaggieC, thanks for the link.

      Mr Dangerfield has submitted a FOI request to the Scottish government, going by the above he’ll need all the luck he can get to receive a lucid reply.

      “One aspect of the First Minister’s abdication of her responsibilities which seems to have passed unnoticed in the Salmond inquiry is her decision to “recuse” herself from providing the Scottish Government’s evidence to it.

      It’s difficult to ascertain exactly when this decision was made or when it was first communicated, so I have submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Scottish Government seeking the full details, and I’ll provide them here when I get them.”

    52. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      Chucked in a tenner for this:

      crowdjustice.com/case/stop-scottish-government-redefining-woman/

    53. cynicalHighlander says:

      @Kenny says:
      17 October, 2020 at 7:45 pm

      Sturgeon is very much a “bolshevik”. Power is the aim and any vehicle is good that gets that power. I also sometimes wonder if it is healthy to be so “anti-Thatcherite” and “anti-Tory” as she claims to be. Because if you are obsessed by an enemy, you are usually yourself in some way like that “enemy”.

      Every time she speaks she sounds like Thatcher, my ears switch off.

    54. crisiscult says:

      Rev – is there any money left to advertise a little more? I was talking to a couple of friends who are active in the SNP and they think there’s a general belief in the SNP that this (criticism of Nicola, GRA, etc) is a side show on social media. They are focussed on the polling data: nos to yes; great numbers for SNP; etc.

      I feel this is urgent. We need new leadership in the SNP before Christmas if we’re to take the May opportunity.

      If no funds left, then a quick crowdfunder for leaflets, billboards, whatever, to get the word out more widely. Most of us have noticed that MSM aren’t making a big deal out of this right now, for obvious reasons.

      PS Speaking of funds, any word on the SNP accounts and the ring-fenced indyref funds?

    55. Mist001 says:

      All this stuff about GRA, trans rights and all this, well have we got Leslie Evans all wrong here?

      The reason I’m asking is that the name Leslie, when spelt this way, is the masculine form of the name. Lesley is the feminine form.

      So, why does Leslie Evans have a mans name?

      Is there something they’re not telling us?

    56. Breeks says:

      Alf Baird says:
      17 October, 2020 at 4:47 pm

      …. Ministers actually appear to decide very little, if anything, whilst senior civil servants more or less run the show.

      I respect your perspective Alf, but when you look at the big picture holistically, none of these SNP dynamics can be swept under the carpet, from fitting up Alex Salmond, overriding Scotland’s Democratic and sovereign Remain Vote, squandering Referendum mandate after Referendum mandate, blocking Joanna Cherry from Holyrood, the Wokerati infiltration of the NEC, the rigging of vetting process and candidate selection, the bizarre and uncalled-for pursuit of a second Brexit Referendum, … I could go on.

      In fact I will… The reluctance to embrace YES organisations and AUOB marches, the deliberate avoidance of the word “Independence”, the air brushing of Alex Salmond’s political legacy, the refusal to dispute GERS figures, the obstruction and disingenuous ‘cooperation’ with the Salmond Inquiry, the GRA and Hate Crime Bills, the £3 million bunged to our enemies in the BritNat Media. The State’s one sided hostility to pro-Alex Salmond supporters… I could go on.

      The clinging on to COVID like a limpet, and the blanket ban on any political activity that isn’t COVID, the wilful disinformation that Section 30 is the only legal route to Independence, the refusal to undertake any legal action to clarify the legal necessity of a Section 30, indeed the active disruption and obstruction of Martin Keatings taking that initiative, the farcical assertion that Boris Johnson is going to approve a Section 30, the absolute refusal to engage with and open hostility towards the whole notion of List Party targeting the Unionist Seats. The absolute refusal to discuss an option B at Conference.

      Pinch me I’m dreaming, but I thought the SNP was meant to be on OUR side!!!

      OK, let’s take the balanced view, because it wouldn’t be fair just to focus on the negatives, we need to remember the positives too… All the things the SNP has done to promote Scottish Independence these past five years… Like… eh…

      Yeah, em,… all the positives…. like eh,…. well,…. em…. oh yeah, like all the money that’s ring fenced for the next referen… oh.

      Em,… they designed those lovely piggy banks!

      Land reform! They eh, oh no, they didn’t, did they?

      The stopped our immigrants being deported… or no, actually no they didn’t.

      And eh,… em,…. You know, and all those ‘other things’ they did to promote Independence. The list is much too long to mention.

      Oh fk aye! The BRIDGE! THEY BUILT A BRIDGE! Ha! Ha! See? You malcontents of little faith. The SNP built a bridge… and a single line of railway track to Galashiels for Edinburgh’s commuters..

      So when you do look at this mess holistically, take it all in the round, IF all of this ‘wonderful and inspiring’ Independence Campaign isn’t a coordinated conspiracy from the top down dedicated to the dismantling of Scottish Independence, then it’s a truly biblical one-sided coincidence, and surely we poor Scots must have a hotshot contender for the world’s most feckless and incompetent leadership on the entire planet.

      You’d almost hope it all was a conspiracy, just to save their blushes.

      Now remember kiddies, vote SNP! No, for chrissakes DON’T read the label! Just vote for the SNP because the Tories are bad.

      I’m sure there’s a cruel and ironic parallel to be drawn between Catalonia’s Politicians being sent to jail for respecting democracy, and Scotland’s bunch of crooks who deserve to be in jail, sit in office like they’re untouchable Prima Dona’s and take the absolute piss. “They’ve” got Independence over 50% in the polls you know!

      I cry myself to sleep these days.

    57. The Dissident says:

      @Breeks

      “I’m sure there’s a cruel and ironic parallel to be drawn between Catalonia’s Politicians being sent to jail for respecting democracy, and Scotland’s bunch of crooks who deserve to be in jail, sit in office like they’re untouchable Prima Dona’s and take the absolute piss.”

      Bravo. Bravo. Bravo.

    58. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      ‘cynicalHighlander says:
      17 October, 2020 at 8:10 pm
      @WhoRattledYourCage’

      Thanks for that.

    59. cynicalHighlander says:

      @WhoRattledYourCage

      Where you using phone?

    60. Saffron Robe says:

      “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
      George Orwell

      And Nicola Sturgeon is no revolutionary!

    61. cynicalHighlander says:

      @Saffron Robe

      She’s stationary.

    62. Ron Maclean says:

      From Written Submission from Nicola Sturgeon 4 August 2020 (To Fabiani Committee)

      PARTY POLITICAL MATTERS
      ‘In relation to ensuring that there is a clear distinction between my role as First Minister and my role in the SNP, I have regard to the terms of both the MSP and Ministerial Codes of Conduct.’

      As First Minister and head of the Scottish Government, she ‘… is responsible for the overall development, implementation and presentation of the administration’s policies and for promoting and representing Scotland at home and overseas.’

      Ms Sturgeon as Leader of the SNP – ‘(a) sets the political direction of the Party; (b) leads election and other campaigns; (c) approves manifestos for parliamentary elections; (d) articulates the argument for an independent Scotland; and (e) is Leader of the Scottish Parliamentary Group if a member of the Scottish Parliament.’

      As Leader and a National Office Bearer, she is a member of the National Executive Committee which, among other things, is responsible for the ’strategic management and political direction of the Party’ and ‘ownership of the Party’s assets and management of the Party’s financial affairs’.

      She talks most days about Covid, makes sure we don’t defy Westminster and rakes in the money. Her track record, and the company she keeps, speaks for itself. I suspect that there’s more than one blank page in the First Minister’s diary.

      In six years what has she done to achieve her country and party’s aims and objectives?

      How much longer can we allow the fantasy to persist that the only way to independence is via the SNP led by Nicola Sturgeon?

      Reminder – From The Constitution of the Scottish National Party
      The aims of the Party are –
      (a) Independence for Scotland; …

    63. cynicalHighlander says:

      @Ron Maclean says

      Reminder – From The Constitution of the Scottish National Party
      The aims of the Party are –
      (a) Independence for Scotland; …

      Telescopic sights wrong way round

    64. paul says:

      I cry myself to sleep these days.

      I understand that, which is why I awake with anger each new day.

    65. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      ‘cynicalHighlander says:
      17 October, 2020 at 8:50 pm
      @WhoRattledYourCage

      Where you using phone?’

      Nah, PC. Sometimes I can post links here that work, sometimes not. Shrug.

    66. cynicalHighlander says:

      @WhoRattledYourCage

      Just thought I’d ask as both yourself and Ian B’s links missed out the “https://www.” link, thought it might of been device used but obviously not.

    67. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @cynicalHighlander –

      Dunno about WRYC, but in the link you kindly ‘fixed’ for me it was probably my fault as I’m so used to stripping away the ‘http’ bit before posting here as I often link to YT vids.

    68. CameronB Brodie says:

      “I also sometimes wonder if it is healthy to be so “anti-Thatcherite” and “anti-Tory” as she claims to be. Because if you are obsessed by an enemy, you are usually yourself in some way like that “enemy”.”

      No need to wonder, as the brain architecture of the typical right-wing mind is simply not capable of supporting ethical rationalism. It doesn’t deal well with change, complexity, or difference, and focuses in the immediate to short term. This is compounded by a psychological drive to seek privilege, or support inherited privilege, and a bias towards tradition as being the best guide to the future. As far as I can remember from studying comparative cognitive biology and stuff, though there are probably more cognitive and empathic deficiencies I’ve forgotten about.

      That’s a very rough and general sketch, but we are all bio-psycho-social animals who’s politics reflect the bio-social culture we grow up in. This is what is called our moral semiosphere, e.g. tribe, clan, nation. This is what British nationalism denies Scots, as Westminster is now openly supportive of EUGENICS. But so is the SNP. 🙁

      Sign Systems Studies 33.1, 2005
      On the semiosphere

      https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.693.9961&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    69. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      ‘cynicalHighlander says:
      17 October, 2020 at 9:55 pm
      @WhoRattledYourCage

      Just thought I’d ask as both yourself and Ian B’s links missed out the “https://www.” link, thought it might of been device used but obviously not.’

      I find that, when I post a link sometimes, when I submit the comment that it just disappears. So I go back and snip the ‘https://www.’ bit from it, and it can be cut-and-pasted. I am not huge techknowledgeable so, well, shrug again. It’s an important link I posted, there, mind you.

    70. Sarah says:

      Signs of hope that some of the SNP key posts may have new occupants soon- Marco Biagi and David Henry standing for National Secretary.

    71. cynicalHighlander says:

      @WRYC

      Yes already done so and will do again if needs be.

    72. Alf Baird says:

      Breeks

      I think we accept there is something sorely dysfunctional about both the current SNP leadership and the ScotGov civil service hierarchy. Both appear now to be neutral on independence and brexit which seems anti-democratic given what the voters were told at the last election. Both are basically acting together as a UK Gov colonial department and appear intent on implementing further oppressive policies for which they have no mandate, and indeed which seem to be targeted at independence campaigners.

    73. Fireproofjim says:

      Can anyone help?
      I’m a subscriber to the National. Digital edition.
      For the last couple of days I’ve been getting no edition. Just a message from Google saying “ too many redirects have occurred “ .
      Has anyone elee had this? I have done nothing different from the last six months.

    74. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      ‘cynicalHighlander says:
      17 October, 2020 at 10:17 pm
      @WRYC

      Yes already done so and will do again if needs be.’

      Thank you.

    75. McDuff says:

      alec 4pm
      The thing is Alec this SNP do not want to deliver independence.

    76. boris says:

      But he and others had misread the political scene. The influence of little consequence of the large body of S.N.P. MP’s had exposed the futility of sending S.N.P. MP’s to Westminster.

      Unionist politicians were not slow to act and seized the opportunity given over to them by a complacent S.N.P. leadership and planted seeds of confusion and apathy among Scots voters.

      The Unionist’s also introduced “tactical voting” into Scottish politics setting aside their political differences, jointly campaigning in a number of Scottish constituencies, where the incumbent S.N.P. MP would be vulnerable to a low percentage swing in the voting.

      Faced with this scenario Alex and a number of other S.N.P. candidates failed in their bids for re-election.

      https://caltonjock.com/2020/10/17/its-not-too-late-the-s-n-p-should-abandon-namby-pamby-politicking-and-pursue-independence-now/

    77. Robert Graham says:

      Filmproof @ 10:38
      I wouldn’t bother you ain’t missing much, the worst website I have ever visited it’s the land of the pop up ads ,pages not loading correctly constant prompts that you have reached your limit of content read , countless invitations to subscribe in order to continue, A comment section with the same loony posters every single day , I got banned probably because I complained about the constant unregulated tripe they were allowing to be posted in their comments section and said I thought they were allowing this tripe in order to boost the traffic to the site , miss it aye like a boil on my arse .

    78. cynicalHighlander says:

      @WhoRattledYourCage

      But why the fuck are we having to defend womens right from the SNP? Nuts on stilts.

    79. Hatuey says:

      Alf baird: “You might wish to read the current Gordon Dangerfield analysis”

      I had already read it before I responded. Dangerfield’s point is more nuanced than you are suggesting. And actually I find it a bit muddling.

      He’s essentially arguing that the same basis upon which Sturgeon recused herself could be used as a basis for Evans herself removing herself, since her role in all this is central to the scope and focus of the inquiry.

      But it wouldn’t make any difference if Evans recused herself.

      There appears to be institutional bias here that permeates the whole leadership of the civil service, government, the SNP, and more. We have corroborating evidence of all that.

      If Evans was removed, we can be sure that the hostile and uncooperative approach we’ve seen so far would continue.

      And that’s why we need a Judge-led inquiry into everything.

    80. Saffron Robe says:

      “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
      George Orwell

      And Nicola Sturgeon is no revolutionary!

      cynicalHighlander says:

      She’s stationary.

      Nice one cynicalHighlander! She’s stationery and as much use as an empty highlighter!

    81. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      ‘cynicalHighlander says:
      17 October, 2020 at 11:27 pm
      @WhoRattledYourCage

      But why the fuck are we having to defend womens right from the SNP? Nuts on stilts.’

      Because black is white, up is down, and an ostensibly ‘feminist’ FM wants to call men women. It’s madness, total and utter, makes no sense. Tired of thinking aboot it all, to be honest. Depressing and ludicrous.

    82. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Hatuey (11.38) –

      I’m sorry, but this:

      ‘And that’s why we need a Judge-led inquiry into everything.

      is just not acceptable to many of us.

      We don’t need judges to lead inquiries into anything.

      We don’t need their ‘findings’. We’re perfectly capable of finding things out for ourselves if we have enough information.

      So, do you see the problem here, given the topic of this thread?

    83. Hatuey says:

      Breeks’ comment at 8.19 is well worth a read.

      “The BRIDGE! THEY BUILT A BRIDGE!”

      I often think how much Sturgeon has in common with the character Colonel Nicholson in the movie ‘Bridge Over the River Kwai’.

      It’s very psychological.

    84. CameronB Brodie says:

      cynicalHighlander
      The NEC simply lacks the necessary socio-legal or human right law insight to spot when the civil service are playing fast and loose with the law. They have also come under intense ideological lobbying, and there are obviously some pretty poorly developed moral characters aboot. As well as some pretty poorly defined feminists who appear not to understand feminist theory, as they are blind to the social imperative of bioethics. But this would also appear to be the case with the Lord Advocate.

      The Scottish civil service followed a gender-critical approach to law and policy design, which is international best practice. Someone in a position of authority instructed them to abandon this procedural approach, so that the GRA amendments could advance. As to motive?

      correction….This is what is called our moral semiosphere, e.g. FAMILY, tribe, clan, nation….

      Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Volume:5 Issue:2 Dated:(Fall 1994) Pages:189-203
      Falling Back on Natural Law and Prudence: A Reply to Souryal and Potts

      Abstract:

      In their desire to combat what they perceive to be a state of cultural illiteracy in the field of criminal justice ethics, Souryal and Potts recommend a revision of criminal justice curricula to include courses on the history of Western political philosophy.

      In the past masters of political philosophy, they hope to find an effective “fallback” position on questions of moral judgment and discretion. This essay locates that position in the traditional Western theories of natural law and prudence.

      For such past masters as Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Edmund Burke, natural law serves as the source of transcendent values for fallible human beings, who require immutable moral goals towards which to strive. According to these thinkers, prudence serves to translate eternity into the here and now and to adapt fixed rules to new situations.

      Aristotle devises a strategy to extract some degree of natural law-based decency from entrenched tyrants by manipulating their fear of revolution. Aquinas proposes that legislators create statute laws from natural law standards and then adjust those statutes to citizens’ ability to obey them. Burke admonishes French philosophers for forcing theoretically just democratic values on a society unprepared for democracy.

      The theories of natural law and prudence are based on a view of human nature that is neither idealistic, cynical, nor pragmatic. This view is less willing to compromise ideals than is cynicism and pragmatism; it is less willing to ignore extenuating circumstances than is idealism. This view, moreover, neither overestimates nor underestimates individuals’ ability to lead their own lives and to create a stable, moral society.

      Criminal justice educators who may consider political philosophy to be irrelevant and too abstract for their discipline should consider the issue of honest officers confronting police corruption. An analysis of this concrete problem from the perspective of Aristotle, Aquinas, and Burke will produce realistic “fallback” positions on discretion and moral judgment, for which criminal justice administrators have expressed a need and which Souryal and Potts’ students could endorse.

      Main Term(s):
      Criminology

      Index Term(s):
      Discretionary decisions; Police corruption; Professional conduct and ethics

      https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=153646

    85. Kenny J says:

      Alf Baird says:
      17 October, 2020 at 4:47 pm

      James Che.

      I have been, and currently still am an appointed external adviser to Ministers in a particular area of policy. In my experience, and area of policy, it has been civil servants and other public officials (e.g. heads of public agencies) who determine policy objectives and develop the plans intended to achieve set objectives. Ministers merely rubber stamp these objectives and plans. Manifesto’s are very broad and less detailed. That has been my experience since before devolution as far as I can recall in the area of policy I am referring to. Ministers actually appear to decide very little, if anything, whilst senior civil servants more or less run the show. Ministers cut ribbons and take the plaudits when all goes well, or seems to go well, and they run for the hills when things go pear shaped, as they now invariably do.

      Hatuey says:
      17 October, 2020 at 5:30 pm

      Alf Baird, that just doesn’t wash.

      It wasn’t civil servants that decided to “fit up”, Salmond.

      It wasn’t civil servants that decided to change “the procedure” so that they could go after former ministers.

      And it certainly wasn’t civil servants that decided to remove the first minister from “the procedure”, after – and only after – that same first minister had unleashed the hounds (with the clear intention of trying to give herself ‘plausible deniability’ down the line).

      It’s that final point that is most damning here. It stinks of premeditation and conspiracy.

      A wee pointer on this. In, I think, 2017, we were out canvassing and the area MSP appeared. I, the course of a wee chat, asked why the Land Reform Bill had been so weak.
      He said, it was the civil servants draughting it. I said, I thought you guys made the policy, they put it into legalise.
      He smiled and shrugged his shoulders.

    86. cynicalHighlander says:

      @CBB

      I think it’s called commen sense in laymans terms which cannot be taught only learnt via life long learning and that life doesn’t have to be that long until it kicks in, only some individuals are immune from ever learning.

    87. Denise says:

      Please everyone vote for David Henry as National Secretary.

    88. CameronB Brodie says:

      It is simply not possible to support public health, social justice, or democracy, without a respect for Natural law. Unfortunately, both our parliaments are desperate to force Scotland to reject the Natural law entirely. So Brexit marks the end of open union between Scotland and England, and the dawn of a new gammon flavoured despotism of universal English Torydum. And the SNP are working on the law to run Scotland as their own wee fiefdom, apparently. 🙁

      International Journal of Law, Volume 3; Issue 2; March 2017; Page No. 01-06
      The need to observe natural law in judicial decisions in Nigeria

      Abstract

      An accused person has constitutional safeguards in the course of his trial under the Nigerian criminal justice. Civil litigants also have rules and principles that guide them in seeking redress in law court of Nigeria. The objectives of this paper is to examine to what extent the judicial process in Nigeria has been achieving justice for litigants by the application of natural law as a guide in judicial judgments.

      This paper will approach the problems in the Nigerian judicial decisions by reference to Internet sources, Newspaper Publications, Law text books and Law Reports. This paper seeks to point out the place of natural laws, morality in the administration of justice. It looks critically at the input of morality and natural law in the laws that are used to administer justice in our civil and criminal jurisprudence.

      It also takes a critical look and analysis of the judgments of the Apex court and the lower court and deduce to what extent these decisions conform to morality and natural law. This paper concludes by noting that some of the judgments lack the coloration of natural law, lack the application of canon law, lack moral tone while some actually conformed to the principle of morality, natural law, equity and good conscience. This paper recommends the strict observance of morality and natural law in future judgments.

      Keywords:
      morality, natural law, judgment, justice, good conscience

      http://www.lawjournals.org/download/95/3-1-17-285.pdf

    89. CameronB Brodie says:

      cynicalHighlander
      There’s certainly some right cupid stunts in the NEC, but there’s also a hint of evil in there.

    90. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Epic stuff from oor Wull, copied over from last thread –

      wull says:
      17 October, 2020 at 11:16 pm

      And by the way, for my own part, I don’t think Keir Starmer got it all wrong in that interview. Not ALL of it, at least.

      If I heard him right, he did say Richard Leonard (or whatever his real name is) CAN become Scotland’s FM, which is fair enough. So he can. So can you! So can I!! So can anybody (if he/she stands in May – there’s still time to join the circus and put your hat in the Holyrood ring – if the same he/she gets elected, stands for FM and gets voted in to that recently tarnished.

      All that CAN happen.

      It’s a potential. Though it’s not an actuality, it is still a possibility. Sir Keir Softie (not Hardie), against whom I bear no grudge, is a lawyer. He picks his words carefully. He knows exactly what he is saying.

      And he knows how to stay (if only just) on the right side of that tiny borderline between truth and untruth. ‘Of course, Dick CAN become Scotland’s FM’ is no lie; it’s a true statement.

      And besides Dick, so CAN Tom; and so CAN Harry, and so CAN whoever you like.

      Sir Keir did not say that our (or rather his) Dick WILL become Scotland’s FM. Only that he CAN. He avoided that trap very nicely – things that are potential can indeed happen – and he made no predictions. That something CAN happen is not a prediction, or a prophecy or a foretelling of a future event. That future event MIGHT happen – but, then again, it MIGHT NOT!

      Politicians have to avoid predictions, since they make them a hostage to fortune. Predictions tend to go horribly wrong, and when they do, they entangle politicians in all kinds of horrid ways. Sir Keir avoided such future entanglement.

      So, … Give credit where credit is due. In so far as the interview was an obstacle race (as all decent political interviews are), Keir played a Starmer. At least at some points. Just look at the beautiful way he body-swerved that particular booby-trap about Rik the Lion-point’s future political career. ‘Of course he CAN become Scotland’s future FM …’

      There is a world of difference between a ‘Can’ and a ‘Will’, as every QC surely knows. If Keir was a Hardie and a Scot, he would have said ‘Aye, he can’. And he would have said it With a wee – slightly mischievous – smile. he would have made a very slight pause and then, leaving it at that, he would then have moved on to the next point.

      Thereby leaving the Rik the Lion-point quite behind him, trailing it in the dust while he went on to his (not the interviewer’s) next point.

      Leaving it, indeed, for the rest of us to fill in the missing words. These being represented by the pause. ‘Aye, he CAN … (pause) … but, … he WINNA …’

      For Keir Stardie, or Start-up or Star-dust (or whatever his name is) to stay on the right side of that vital border-line between truth and falsehood, and not get himself entangled in predictions or prophecies which will bounce back to entrap him later, it’s OK if we say it … That is, it’s OK if WE fill in the missing words … so long as HE DOESN’T.

      He’s not a Scot and he’s no Keir Hardie, and he doesn’t know much about Scotland … True, but, whatever you may think of him, it would be foolish to underestimate him.

      He said enough in that interview to allow himself to change his mind, depending on future outcomes. He didn’t make himself a hostage to fortune, and gave himself enough wiggle-room to get out of his current position honestly, and honourably. Which is potentially – just potentially – very good for us.

      And, while the Starmer mustn’t allow himself to look weak, and didn’t, I am pretty sure he is not the kind of blustering bully that Boris Johnson is. If so, and if he really is rational and reasonable enough to make ‘changing his mind’ a real possibility when circumstances require it, that is excellent news. We shouldn’t begrudge him it; such a change is still on the cards.

      As for that seemingly Thick Lion-point, who seems to be completely without a point, and entirely without a roar – or even a whimper – to the contrary of what Keir Starmer seems to believe, he can hardly be under-estimated enough. I’m quite happy, and I’m sure it suits almost everyone in the independence movement, for Sir Keir to continue to go softly, … softly, ever so softly, on this duddiest of dud politicians, and dampest of damp squibs …

      Yet, isn’t it time for someone truly Scottish in the Labour Party to stand up, and tell Keir to get ‘mair Hardie’ on him? There must surely be someone, even in the Labour Party in Scotland, who is genuinely aware of the Scottish political tradition. They can’t all be damp squibs and non-firing duds – surely!

      Someone, therefore, who, you would hope, on the basis of that Scottish tradition, is not fundamentally opposed to the sovereignty of the people. And who therefore sees independence as a real possibility, and a fundamental right if that is what the people of Scotland want.

      Can such a man not stand up, and make Labour in this country Scottish once again? There must be somebody who can get ‘Keired up’ for it … or … or?

      Or is it a case of ‘Aye, maybe he CAN – maybe he or she COULD stand up – but they juist WINNA’ dae it…? They juist winna’ dae it! Nane o’ them. No’ even wan o’ them. Naw noo; naw nuvverr.’

      In that case, let the whole thing just collapse, and end with a rendition:
      ‘And there’ll be no Keir Hardies, and no real Labour tradition,
      In Scotland, no more!
      For Rik, the pointless Ard, was without a Scottish vision:
      The Lion that never roared!

      For Old Labour’s Scots tradition, true auld fouk just wailed and
      wept:
      Rik killed it dead, and buried it, for ever, around his scruffy
      neck.
      The auld yins had never seen a leader so unScottish, or inept,
      While New Keir, down in London town, agreed, condoned … and
      slept
      Till everything dissolved, and Labour died the death.
      What Scots had aince revolved around, true Scots now laid to
      rest.
      The wildest dreams aince roved with it, but NOW – it’s for the
      best –
      These dreams have all transferred themsel’s, tae vote fur
      Scotland’s ‘Yes!’

      And never more will Scots let mealy manky politicians mak’ sic a
      mess
      O’ them, their country or their folk, by crook or lie, or mad-
      eyed woke,
      For lassies, lassies aye will be; an’ a bloke, for a’ that is – a
      bloke.
      It’s no yer’ Pairties, nor yer NECs, decides whit’s human nature:
      For Scots ken weel it’s Scots themsel’s decides whit’s Scotlan’s
      future.

      If Labour sank and died sae swift, the same tae ithers too can
      happen,
      An’ just as quick, or quicker yet, the curve that rose can
      flatten,
      Falter, fail, an’ doonward spiral, descend and crash, burn up in
      flames,
      An’ never more can its revival ever happen, for ithers tak its
      place.
      So SNP, beware! An’ learn! Be quick aboot it, ‘fore it’s too
      late:
      Re-form yersel’s, re-find yer goal, or else – forever meet yer
      fate.

      We’ll no’ be takken in again, nor takken for a ride,
      Nor ambushed by the lobby groups, that in oor Pairties hide:
      New SNP seems just the same: New Labour’s Ghost walks once again.
      A shadow of her former self: all gobbled up by pride of pelf.

      It willnae dae, we’ll stand it never:
      Fake candidates guid fowk will sever.
      If their true goal’s not independence
      We’ll vote for ithers tae defend us
      And reach oor dream, of Scotland Free,
      Which all true Scots sae lang to see.

      All for ‘Independence Now’! The chancers shove them oot:
      An’ a’ thae graftin’ entryists, let’s gi’e them a’ the boot.
      An’ as for schemers on the NEC, let’s warn them loud an’ clear:
      Their candidates oor vote won’t get if they are not sincere
      About the goal of ‘Independence First’; an’ Fast, an’ Naethin’ in
      Atween:
      An’ if they turf oot a’ the best, by subterfuge, or lie, or
      screen,
      We’ll campaign loud an’ clear against the chancers they’ve shoed
      in.
      An’ help the hale electorate tae pit them in the bin.

      For Scotlan’ isnae theirs, it’s oors: the people are supreme:
      Whit willnae die is ‘Scotlan Free’, for that’s the people’s
      dream.

      Subvert, pervert, and do your damnedest, you lobby-jobbies may;
      Ye cannae win a war ye’ve waged against the people’s say.
      A battle here, a battle there, micht mak’ ye think ye’ve gained
      the day,
      But in the end ye’ll be fun’ oot: true Scots will mak’ ye’s richt
      dear pay
      For a’ the fiddles ye hae faked, an’ a’ the fowk ye hae
      forsakkit,
      Wha’ gobbled everythin’ in sight, an’ cost pair fowk a pretty
      packet.
      Whate’er yer Pairty, ye’ll be OOT, an’ on yir ear, an’ skelp’t
      an’ sakkit,
      An’ i’ the end, yon Freedom’s Charge – at last – will mak’ it.

      True Scots, staun’ up! Mak’ sure you’re counted:
      Your country’s yours! No’ ither’s bounty!

      Let Labour die, an’ a’ thae rovers, that used yer votes to fill
      their pockets;
      Send them tae graft like a’ thae Grove-rs, their eyes on gold up
      tae their sockets.
      Tell them the gowd is no’ the man, an’ blast them oot wi’ mighty
      rockets.
      Vote them aff their gravy-train, mak’ sure they’re ane an’ a’
      forgottit.
      For these were scum, an’ werena’ Scots,
      Wha’ loved the haves, forgot have-nots.
      Wha’ for themsel’s, they cared a lot:
      An’ for the poor? Cared not wan jot.

      Whate’er the Pairty they come fram:
      Pit them back, whaur they belang.
      Wha’s no for us, but sucks oor blood
      Will get flushed oot, in wan big flood.
      Boils on our bodies? Meet yer lancers:
      We’ll no’ be conned by bums an’ chancers.
      With us they’ll rove, and thrive, no more,
      For aince an’ a’, they’re oot the door.
      We’ll no be scammed, an’ ever scunnered,
      E’en if true Scots are just a hunner
      We’ll staun’ an’ fight, till win we do
      For Scotlan’s cause is richt, an’ true.

    91. CameronB Brodie says:

      Sir Start-up may be a QC and show skill in skirting the edges of procedural correctness in Westminster, but he has scant regard for either the Natural law or international law. Otherwise he would be objecting to Scotland’s Brexit subjugation. So he’s an English QC who appears content to place Parliament above the Moral law and the principle of “equality in law”, which is the tradition of English legal culture and the core of British nationalism.

      New England Journal of Public Policy, Volume 31 Issue 2 Special Issue: ICO Article 4
      11-20-2019
      The Right to Self-Determination: Philosophical and Legal
      Perspectives

      https://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1754&context=nejpp

    92. Hatuey says:

      Ian Brotherhood: “ We’re perfectly capable of finding things out for ourselves if we have enough information.”

      I agree. But you don’t. And you’re not getting it. You never will. Why? Because it would be illegal to give you it.

      And even if you did have it, which isn’t possible, what then?

    93. CameronB Brodie says:

      Sir Start-up is simply a narrow English/British nationalist and certainly no ally of Scots.

      Ideas y Valores vol.66 no.163 Bogotá Jan./Apr. 2017
      Creating Justice in an emerging world the natural Law basis of francisco de vitoria’s political and international thought

      ABSTRACT

      This article outlines Francisco de Vitoria’s conception of natural law and natural right in an effort to amend a number of interpretations in the academic literature on his political and international thought that misapprehend Vitoria’s iusnaturalism.

      In this view, his use of the Thomist doctrine of natural law and justice lays the foundation for his works on politics, society and international relations since the doctrine itself espouses equality and justice both within the domestic realm and between discrete communities.

      In an implicit appeal to the link between ethics and politics, his doctrine of natural law, moreover, fulfills a critical and constitutional role by designating justice and the common good as a pattern of order to which power and authority must conform in order to be legitimate.

      Key words:
      F. de Vitoria; international relations; justice; natural right; power

      http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0120-00622017000100039

    94. Saffron Robe says:

      I think we have to take some comfort from the fact that the duplicity of the SNP leadership has been uncovered before independence.

      And although it seems we are being attacked and undermined at every turn by Westminster while Nicola Sturgeon stands idly by, there is nothing that independence cannot set straight. For instance the UK government hubs would become Scottish – UK assets in Scotland – and therefore negotiable. We could turn them into headquarters for the Scottish civil service (Wallace House?) or they could become embassies for England and Wales (together that is until Wales gains her independence too!).

    95. CameronB Brodie says:

      Brexit re-interprets the British constitution from a political agreement between equal sovereign states, into Scotland’s binding bill of sale to Westminster. This is not what the constitution was intended to support, as it empowers English Torydum to act on behalf of the entire UK, and denies the potential for a cultural dialogue.

      Subsequently, Brexit eradicates Scotland’s constitutional identity from global legal consciousnesses, along with Scotland’s contribution to the Natural law. So Brexit is technically a crime against humanity, though it’s apparently cool for our some.

      Fordham Law Review, Volume 69 Issue 5 Article 22, 2001
      Justifying the Natural Law Theory of Constitutional Interpretation

      https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3720&context=flr

    96. CameronB Brodie says:

      sorry….So Brexit is technically a crime against humanity, though it’s apparently cool for our legal Establishment.

      The Ontological Foundations for Natural Law
      Theory and Contemporary Ethical Naturalism

      http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=dissertations_mu

    97. Breeks says:

      Alf Baird says:
      17 October, 2020 at 10:30 pm

      ….. Both are basically acting together as a UK Gov colonial department and appear intent on implementing further oppressive policies for which they have no mandate, and indeed which seem to be targeted at independence campaigners.

      We don’t disagree Alf, but I firmly believe we have a big problem with so many people being content to trust the SNP with another mandate in 2021. That trust is sorely misplaced.

      It feels to me like an insidious plot to make the SNP toxic and unelectable, and the plot is on course to come to fruition by May 2021 when the SNP gets absolutely pilloried for it’s GRA, war on feminism, and Wokist infiltration of candidates, and grubby conspiracies. The Establishment and it’s media have the SNP exactly where they want them, more ammunition than they have ever had before, and good ammunition which will find it’s target. The SNP will be ridiculed and systematically slaughtered.

      The point about the list I made of SNP failings is that this cannot be accidental. The pattern is too damning. We are not witnessing a lack of will from the SNP to push for Independence, what we are seeing is an active and pernicious determination to destroy it.

      It is a vital distinction which desperately needs to be recognised, or we sail towards disaster. The “wheesht for Indy” people are making a dangerous misjudgment which can very soon be a fatal misjudgement which will cost us dear.

    98. A Person says:

      Morning all.

      Today’s Sunday Herald reporting on its front page that Nicola Sturgeon has a plan to hold indyref2 in…2026.

      In other words, if she wins the next election, any time there’s any dissent in her term she can point to the alleged forthcoming referendum as a means of silencing her critics.

      By 2026, to be crude, memories of Brexit will presumably have faded, so that will presumably lose a lot of its potency as an issue.

      Also by 2026, Johnson will probably have gone, to be replaced by a more palatable PM.

      Plus, by 2026 people will, I’d have thought, just have grown sick of the SNP-the “swing of the pendulum”- and people might use an referendum as a way of “showing they’re fed up”. A daft thing to do but it’s how a lot of people who aren’t very politically engaged think.

      I would say “does she think we came up the Clyde on a banana boat?” but seeing as this site is one of the few on the whole internet where Sturgeon receives anything other than fawning praise from independence supporters, perhaps she’s on to something…

    99. Abalha says:

      In reply to A Person at 736am

      No Andrew Wilson is saying by 2026 Scotland would actually be independent – long grass kicking in my view, he, his pal (the odious) Angus Robertson, Sturgeon, Murrell etc, more than happy to continue as they are.

      From the article

      ”Wilson believes Scotland could be fully independent by 2026. “We’re looking at the bulk of the process completed in the term of the next Scottish Parliament, by which I mean getting a vote, winning a vote, and securing the negotiations.”

      SNP’S FUTURE?

      WILSON notes wryly that the SNP once ran an advert saying “vote for us and we’ll resign”. But will the SNP whither in a post-independence Scotland? “No doubt some people will be more comfortable in other parties, but I see an enduring case for a centre left – or centre ground – organisation, but to continue it would need a vision.” If the SNP successfully delivers independence – and crucially prosperity – “there will be many reasons for it to keep going”.

    100. Abalha says:

      And a Times article on Andrew Wilson’s growth commission report noted that after its publication in 2018 no debate was allowed at conference but assemblies would happen.
      Did they?

      What an utter shower of mediocre control freaks, determined to hold onto power at all costs, with the independence of Scotland something they dangle in front of people.
      That Neil Mackay Sunday Herald article today refers to Andrew Wilson as;

      ”Andrew Wilson is the brains behind the Yes movement ”

      What?

      From the Times article 15/08/18

      ”The SNP said that the growth commission report would be a subject of debate at national assemblies this year which the party had organised specifically for this purpose. These discussions would be taken forward as motions for debate at another major party event, but not the main national conference”

    101. Abalha says:

      And John Boothman says Shirley-Anne Somerville could be in trouble in Dunfermline, let’s hope so. Of course were she to lose her seat the Sturrells would give her some sort of job.

      (archive site down for me so apologies for not posting links)

      From today’s article

      ”One of Nicola Sturgeon’s closest cabinet allies, Shirley-Anne Somerville, is facing a challenge for her Scottish parliament seat from a former Royal Navy commodore with a CBE who served as Somerville’s agent at the last election.

      Rob Thompson, who enjoyed a distinguished naval career and was managing director of the Portsmouth Naval base between 2008 and 2011, is mounting an assault on Somerville’s Dunfermline seat.

      Hers is one of several being contested in local selection battles — described by SNP MSP Alex Neil as “mini civil wars” — ahead of the Holyrood elections in May.

      Thompson, who served in Whitehall in research and procurement roles has already won support from key activists and councillors”

    102. Daisy Walker says:

      Robertson The Odious – has a ring about it.

    103. Andy Ellis says:

      So the gradualists in the party have finally come clean then: #indyref2 is an aspiration for 2026….maybe?

      Presumably it’ll still be on the basis of seeking Westminster’s gracious permission, and Pete Wishart, Peter Bell, Andrew Wilson and all the other wet-nats will still be telling us that we need just one more mandate, and we have to get over the full effects of Covid-26, and we still need sustained polling of over 70%….or will it be 75% by that time?

      Alternatively, we can start planning for a real independence party: you know, one that actually has some fire in its belly to deliver independence before a real generation from 2014 passes.

    104. Effijy says:

      It is important to remember that Scottish Water uniquely has never been
      Sold off as in other areas and in keeping with the Tory mantra of sell to the
      Rich and let them increase the costs to the people.

      The internal market bill gives Westminster control of all Scotland has so
      You can expect it to be sold on the cheap to English owners, job losses,
      Lower quality and reliability with water meters and above inflation costs
      for the Scots.

      My anger grows daily with both governments!

    105. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      ”Andrew Wilson is the brains behind the Yes movement.”

      Who the fuck is Andrew Wilson? Laughing.

      “There was madness in any direction, at any hour” – Hunter S Thompson.

    106. Abalha says:

      In reply to Daisy Walker, ha very good, like it ‘Robertson the Odious’.

      But in all honesty he is a seriously bad dude.

      And I see he’s working his way through his wife’s 2014 Yes supporting ‘celebrity’ list.

      So far we’ve had Brian Cox and Ricky Ross ‘we support’ videos.

      We can maybe look forward to Martin Compston or boxer Alex Arthur and maybe if we are really, really lucky Irvine Welsh.

    107. Daisy Walker says:

      Business for Scotland is looking for support for Indy to reach 60% by the end of January 2021 – 1 month into the damage that will be Brexit.

      I wonder what the Brit Nat tactics will be at the start of January 2021.

      Mitigate the effects of Brexit in Scotland, go slow on the UK Internal Market Bill Power Grab, release enough negative Media on NS to prevent an overwhelming SNP majority, thus allowing NS to step graciously down (and onto a lucrative reward elsewhere) and also ‘kick the can down the road re Indy, rely on the NEC careerists to make the SNP truly unelectable thereafter.

      That would be one – long term – plan B method.

      Plan A – go all out for the power grab – and they’ve built the office for it, and put the legislation in place – release the media hounds and prod the NEC Careerists to do their stuff- make the SNP and NS totally unelectable. Keep boris in the fridge (much easier with a Holyrood election).

      I’ve tried to find out how much it costs to stand as an elected rep – so far all I can find is reference to a £500 deposit (which is returned if you get %5 of the vote). Call me old fashioned, but when I see the word ‘deposit’ I assume there is a larger lump sum to come after.

      Does anyone know if this is correct, and if so how much.

    108. susanXX says:

      The future just looks blacker and blacker.

    109. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      Jesus Christ. This Herald article is…incredible.

      “Wilson is sitting in his rather chic man-cave – a study in the garden of his Balerno home, which he’s dubbed “Washington” as a cherry tree was chopped down to build it.” This man thinks he’s the president. A totally fascinating, revealing detail, showing where his thinking is at. And it’s not in Scotland, like the rest of the America-worshippers in Holyrood.

      “Sturgeon, he believes, is a “hugely valuable asset” when it comes to a post-independence Scotland. The respect she commands internationally would be significant over re-entry to Europe. Some senior Yes figures worry that the Salmond saga could exhaust Sturgeon so much she just quits. That would be a bad blow, Wilson believes.” Jesus Christ! Poor Nicola! Her fit-up never worked, and so she might quit! She never managed to put her mentor in jail for the rest of his life on trumped-up charges, so she’s exhausted! Poor her!

      “When it comes to winning independence, “the biggest lesson is to learn how not to do it from Brexit – don’t go low, don’t go populist, as even if you were to win on such a prospectus the aftermath would be really bad”.” Interesting comment. Don’t appeal to the vast majority of the population. The Scottish people are not to be trusted as an entity if you got them to vote Yes on terms that were theirs, not yours. Jesus, the condefuckingscension is INCREDIBLE.

      ““The tone has to be right, we need to be seen by the rest of the world and the UK as the opposite of those prosecuting the case for Brexit … Most people are open to persuasion if they’re properly engaged and treated with respect,” he says.” Except, you know, they’re the (spitsneerhiss) general population, with their horrible ‘populist’ notions about living in an independent country, where the SNP would ostensibly no longer exist. Anarchy would reign!

      “If you’re attacking a person it’s a good sign you’ve lost the argument.” Says the man who just attacked any ‘populist’ notion of independence. The whole idea of populism, is, well, that it’s POPULAR WITH THE POPULACE. So who wouldn’t want to win indy by appealing to the lowest common denominator? All else could be worked out post-independence. It’s only recently that the ostensible left have demonised ‘populist’ as ‘evil redneck scum,’ and it’s the kind of argument that has helped Trump and Johnson stay in power.

      “We must remember that even our most bitter opponents will be citizens of an independent Scotland the day after [a successful Yes vote],” Wilson says. “The minute we win, our opponents have to become our allies.” Aye right, that will happen. We could maybe use Northern Ireland as a barometer for how the queen-lickers would react. Hopefully not, but you never know.

      “After a Yes vote “we’d seek to bring the most experienced talents of Scotland to bear on what happens next” – namely negotiations with Westminster. “I’d love people like Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown, and others, to play a role in making good the decision of independence.” Jesus fucking Christ! What need even be said aboot this UTTERLY INSANE SHITE??!

      “Slow and steady is his mantra. “It’s important not to rush the fence because we’ll give the Prime Minister the ability to resonate with people by saying ‘now is not the time’.” He notes that the same line worked for Theresa May.” Chuckling sadly.

      “With a seemingly intransigent Boris Johnson, Wilson hints of a possible legal fight over a second referendum. “The party is very lucky to have big legal brains,” he says.” Laughing out loud here.

      “If the SNP successfully delivers independence – and crucially prosperity – “there will be many reasons for it to keep going”.” Still laughing.

      Shaking my head. The fuck with it.

    110. Contrary says:

      Abalha,

      Yes assemblies did happen – but really, who could be bothered reading the entirety of the Growth Commission report; long winded and barely readable, and filled with mince as it is; I believe assemblies were formed and different ones examined different parts of it – the procedure and conclusions must have been so successful, because we’ve heard so much about it ,,,, oh. No, we didn’t did we, maybe not then. It’s withered away, while NS still quotes it as a bible of best practice, while many SNP groups are following a different path entirely and listening to the likes of Tim Rideout – whose resolution, so firmly ignored by NS and the leadership, did, in fact, pass in conference and so is, in fact, SNP policy (whether the leadership likes it or not)

      That resolution – that an independent Scotland needs its own currency ‘as soon as practicable’ (ie immediately) – is directly at odds with the Growth Commission report, and Wilson’s ideology. I AM, however, hoping that Wilson will change his mind on this aspect – he appears to be pally-wals with Mark Blyth who has recently accepted MMT (at the early stages of his acceptance, but broadly what he teaches on macroeconomics is in line with MMT) – and this is the doctrine needed for knowing that independence can be done successfully – from an economic viewpoint. Wilson is a micro-economist, he knows his accounting, but can’t think outside that (ie applies household budget thinking to a country’s macro economy – and it doesn’t work like that).

      Or, more succinctly, Wilson is an arse, but I hope he’s for turning.

      I still had the vain hope just months ago that with Wilson’s (turned) influence, Nicola Sturgeon could be forced to go for independence – but that’s a non-starter. She and the SNP leadership have been so active in doing what they can to harm the cause of independence, on so many fronts; as the evidence builds and more things are revealed, I can see that nothing will force her to go for independence – we will be stuck in limbo forever with her anywhere near to power in the SNP.

      Who wants someone with no conscience and no morality in charge of our legislature anyway – how can someone like that be trusted to produce good law and order?

    111. Mist001 says:

      2026. There’s nothing else that I can add.

    112. Contrary says:

      WhoRattledYourCage

      Thanks for the info on Wilsons article (I don’t read the press, so appreciate the picked out bits people give!).

      Just a note on populism though – it doesn’t really mean ‘choice of the people’ exactly, it’s a term reflecting personality politics – people will vote for one person regardless of what maniac policies they dream up (Trump, Boris,,, Nicola). Wilson’s comments on it are interesting – and I agree that his dismissal of it is more to do with how the great unwashed should not be allowed to choose – but populism isn’t something we should be aspiring to. It’s populism that has everyone hanging from every word NS comes out with, whether it is a lie/bad policy/mince or not.

    113. McDuff says:

      Breaks 4.26am
      Good post my thoughts entirely.

    114. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      Contrary, so because Nicola Sturgeon is popular with the people we shouldn’t aspire to be popular with the people? Eh?

      ‘pop·u·lism (p?p?y?-l?z??m)
      n.
      1.
      a. A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.’

      https://www.thefreedictionary.com/populism

    115. Famous15 says:

      Just fact checked 2026.

      That is the suggested date for total independence all done and dusted so indyref2 would have to be 2021 or 2022.

    116. Contrary says:

      Daisy, I thought the deposit was more than that, a couple of grand at least – but I can’t tell you why I think that or give you references ,,, I did vote for a Scottish Greens chap once (he was a good councillor apparently and seemed fairly sensible) when he stood for Westminster – mainly just so he could get his deposit back – and he did! I think he got 6% of the vote (the only Green to get it back in whatever election it was). Maybe different deposit costs for different elections? You might have to prove you have enough election campaign funding, but the deposit may indeed be ‘only’ £500.

    117. Graeme says:

      As far as I understand the deposit for a UK Parliamentary election is £500 you’ll find more info here

      https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/vote-in-general-elections/standing/

      I can’t find out if it’s the same for a Scottish election but you’ll probably find the info here

      https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/candidate-or-agent/scottish-parliamentary-elections

    118. holymacmoses says:

      This article on the new suggested referendum timetable should sort out the people who want Independence and the people who like Sturgeon.
      Personally, like Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, I think she’s made a BIG mistake announcing this:-)

    119. Contrary says:

      WRYC,

      I’m only saying, that it’s generally associated (by the powerful elite I should imagine) with personality politics – I’m accepting the actual meaning of the word – but in general it’s used to describe situations where people blindly latch onto one policy by one person, and ignore everything else. It’s not right or wrong, but when anyone uses the word populism – it can mean different things to different people, and not necessarily the dictionary definition.

      Populism, in theory, should be the very definition of democracy – that’s not how it is though – it’s just a picky wee thing, but it meant it took me a minute to work out your meaning as opposed to Wilsons meaning – he’s using the ‘personality politics’ definition, and you are using the absolute meaning of the word. His comments should be taken in light of that – though your points are quite valid even then.

    120. Ottomanboi says:

      WhoRattledYourCage.09:44
      Attention seeking religious profanity does not encourage a reading of your posts.

    121. susanXX says:

      What sickens me most about NS is her American presidential address style – all spin and no substance.

    122. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      ‘Ottomanboi says:
      18 October, 2020 at 10:49 am
      WhoRattledYourCage.09:44
      Attention seeking religious profanity does not encourage a reading of your posts.’

      How about non-religious ‘profanity,’ which is a meaningless religious concept anyway? Not being attention seeking. First phrases that come to mind. Are you a godbotherer?

    123. Andy Ellis says:

      @whorattledyourcage 9.44am

      The principles set out in Andrew Wilson’s article are as good a method as any of separating the sheep from the goats both in the SNP and the wider independence movement.

      The gradualists prospectus envisages a broadly centrist SNP guiding the newly independent Scotland which votes Yes in an agreed referendum sometime in the late 2020’s. It will be a Scotland using the UK £, co-operating closely with the UK and seeking a way back into the EU, trying incrementally to build the institutional and socio-economic bases of the new state on broadly the same pattern as we have now.

      Essentially Scotland will be old wine in a new bottle. The stodgy, grey-suited managerialism of the party and the new Charlotte Street Partner style elite will seek to guide the rambunctious elements of the independence movement towards the bland, neoliberal consensus they feel comfortable in and with.

      The alternative view, which is not currently being articulated anywhere much as far as I can see, is for something more radical. There is – or I now suspect was – a real window of opportunity for something more radical: an accelerated programme, a movement with real fire in its belly to take the fight to the unionists and make it quite clear that Westminster’s legislative authority over Scotland is subject to the consent of the Scottish people.

      That window may already be closing. The big question for those of us who profoundly disagree with the gradualist approach is what we do now?

      Do we wheesht for indy, and sit on our hands until the SNP eventually deliver on their promises, or do we start organising now?

    124. Republicofscotland says:

      2026 or by 2026 is far too late for Scottish independence, god only knows what damage Westminster will have done to Scotland’s economy, and what meagre powers if any Holyrood will have left to wield by then.

      No if there’s to be a indyref it must be next year after the Scottish elections or in very earlier 2022, preferably the former.

    125. Republicofscotland says:

      https://www.thenational.scot/news/18802687.scottish-independence-54-per-cent-uk-think-coming-year-so/

      Now how to force Sturgeon’s hand on this, or see her and her nasty wee husband removed to allow an FM who really wants Scottish independence.

    126. Daisy Walker says:

      The quotations from the Wilson article are just sickening. I wouldn’t let Alastair ‘Lord” Darling or Gordie Broon anywhere near – anything. Greedy, neocon bampots that they both are.

      It sounds like he’s setting up a ‘dignified exit’ for NS.

      The can has been removed from the country, never mind the street, with this lot.

      Re election deposit. For Holyrood elections it is £500 ‘deposit’ which is returned if you gain over 5% of the vote. My question: is the deposit a forerunner to a remaining amount. I cannot find this information on the EC site.

      @ Graeme, I’m speaking to a computer expert tonight, and might be able to sort out/or replace my computer. Hopefully be able to view your video in the next day or two. Failing that I’ll e-mail my phone number and we can discuss (though not today as have other commitments). Hope that is OK.

    127. Jason Smoothpiece says:

      Aye we need the help of Alastair Darling and the obviously disturbed Gordon Brown to get us on our feet. Perhaps we could install his gracious majesty Prince Andrew as regent as he is not busy at the moment.

      What pish is spoken by those in the party change needed urgently.

    128. Republicofscotland says:

      Our Scottish history is very seldom taught, I bet more Scots know how many wives Henry VIII had that there were King Malcolm’s of Scotland. Our culture has been replaced with that of our neighbours South of the border, via the media which is completely controlled by England.

      Our councils allow our heritage sites and noted Scots folks homes to have developments built on or near them or even demolished. Our (some of) our politicians have allegiance to a foreign government 500 miles away, our assets have been stripped and sent South for over 313 years, so much so that Scots developed a cringe about themselves.

      Yet we have this fantastic opportunity of Scottish independence that will change most of the above, and allow Scotland to flourish greatly in the big wide world, seeing other nations not through the eyes of the FCO or British embassies but through the eyes of Scotland.

      Sadly though it doesn’t look like the FM we trusted with delivering that cherished dream will fulfil it. But as Salmond once said the dream will never die and Sturgeon thankfully can be replaced by an FM who does want to see Scottish independence

    129. Abalha says:

      In reply to Contrary at 958am,

      Thanks for that comprehensive response on Wilson and the Sustainable Growth Commission, sounds like a nightmare, deliberately so, so much bureaucracy,I remember one member telling me they just got so fed up of the meetings, was hardly worth the effort.

      Wilson, Robertson the Odious, the Sturrells etc, really are our new aristocracy, to borrow from Orwell; unfortunately they are so bloody mediocre, I despair to be honest.

    130. Daisy Walker says:

      How to force the SNP / NS’s hand on this?

      1/ Support for Indy at 60% and over. This is her red line in the sand – once its reached the argument that ‘Scotland isn’t ready for another IR’ is outdated.

      2/ While canvassing to get support over 60% – identify local election candidates willing to sign up to ‘The Delcaration of Bath” for Indy, and inform the voters of the urgency for this Holyrood Election to be plebiscite on Indy (the SNP have been downplaying/neglecting this big time).

      3/ Set up a Fund Raiser to support Candidates who sign up to The Declaration of Bath for Indy (this can include SNP candidates on an individual basis, provided they sign up for it, it does not go in the generic SNP pot).

      4/ Common themes to present the case:

      5/ Older voters – Indy is needed to save our NHS, our Devolved Parliament, Scottish Water and Food standards

      6/ Brexit Voters – 33% of them are now concerned about Brexit – emphasise the chaotic manner by which it has been pushed, the job losses, the positive business case for Indy.

      7/ Everyone – We can do so much better than Boris.

      The Leverage that 1 and especially 2 provide is essential to change SNP policy – the momentum of 1 – 7 is essential to get the bulk of the SNP ‘gradualists’ to get their mojo back.

    131. Willie says:

      Waking up this morning, refreshed and renewed, reality sunk in as I re-read this article.

      Quite honestly, would anyone want independence with someone like the First Minister. All the actions show is vile vicious corruption and an abuse of power. And that is what we see, and only what has been exposed.

      Coronavirus emergency. Now what does anyone think tha5 will allow Sturgeon to do.Ditto the Hate Crime legislation.

      We MUST, and I repeat MUST, get shot of people like Sturgeon and her ilk.

    132. Graeme says:

      That’s ok Daisy there’s no rush, it’s just the beginning and it needs a lot of work but it’s gonna be difficult condensing it all into a reasonable timeframe and that’s what I’m struggling with at the moment

    133. Graeme says:

      @ Daisy
      If you want I can post the link here for you to view it should just be a question of clicking on the link and it will play I’ve set it for public viewing, I don’t have a problem with anybody viewing it at this point it’s only an unedited start sequence

    134. kapelmeister says:

      So we learn from the Herald that Andrew Wilson has a union jack scatter cushion, thinks Alistair Darling should represent Scotland in negotiations and that Scotland should send an annual goodwill payment to London for years after we get independence.

      I see from the Herald’s photo that in middle age Wilson has started to show a striking resemblance to Neil Sedaka. Judging by these latest comments, you can easily imagine Wilson, after Scotland votes Yes, saying, a la Sedaka…Breaking Up Is Hard To Do…..so let’s nae bother.

    135. Tom says:

      Guardian Paywall

      I’ve been getting morning and afternoon news digests from The Guardian for donkeys, but they now insist I read their ‘Pledge’ and donate first. I used to be able to get beyond these, but no longer.

      Anyone else found this?

      While I’m happy to go on finding out what they say about the world, I won’t donate in order to do it, because they are so completely London-centric and Brit Nationalist; just as much as the Telegraph, Times etc, and if anything even more hopeless with their coverage of Scotland.

      Their (very) occasional articles on Scotland, which on the daily news digests get lumped together under the one heading ‘Scotland’, particularly irritate. While undoubtedly an accurate reflection of their England/London centric view of the world, it leaves Scotland as somehow ‘other’.

      Anyway, I think they’ve introduced a paywall by another name; maybe not for everyone, but certainly for me ..

    136. Cod says:

      “despite being provided with a list of 16 such documents which evade all text searches, when those same searches work for documents about anything else.”

      This bit is incorrect, as was pointed out by myself, and at least one other person, with examples and links. In fact, you asked for examples, and recieved them, in that thread.

      The search function, however, is undeniably screwed, as, since was demonstrated by those supplied examples, it was showing the same problem with totally random things not being returned in direct search results, while showing up in Google.

    137. mike cassidy says:

      The Wilson interview

      SNP target 2026 in ‘roadmap for independence’

      https://archive.is/FTRin

    138. CameronB Brodie says:

      Brexit constitutes a crime against humanity, yet Scot might get a chance to determine our future some time in the next decade? Can our politicians be any thicker or less effective? If only the FM wasn’t such narrow minded and parochial authoritarian, who is either ignorant of the law or does not respect it. That’s what your populism shaped around a cult of personality does, it enables FASCISM.

    139. Abalha says:

      In reply to Kapelmeister;

      You say,

      ‘I see from the Herald’s photo that in middle age Wilson has started to show a striking resemblance to Neil Sedaka’

      Excellent!

    140. MaggieC says:

      WhoRattledYourCage @ 9.44 am

      This from the article ,

      “Too influential?

      WILSON’S role as the co-founder of the influential Edinburgh PR firm, Charlotte Street Partners, has fuelled concerns that lobbyists are too close to the SNP Government. Wilson, however, swears everything is above board. “We don’t lobby Government,” he insists. “

      “i’d love people like Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown, and others, to play a role in making good the decision of independence.”

      Link to the full article in the Herald ,

      https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18802847.big-read-snp-target-2026-roadmap-independence-partys-top-strategist-andrew-wilson/

      I see that Andrew Wilson doesn’t mention in the Herald article that he’s on the board of the John Smith centre along with Ruth Davidson , Ed Balls etc ,

      So how much lobbying is done through the John Smith centre ? ,

      https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/socialpolitical/johnsmith/aboutus/ourboard/

      And of course we all know on this site ( she who should not be named ) who works for them ,

      https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/socialpolitical/johnsmith/aboutus/ourstaff/

      He might want to bring Alister Darling , Gordon Brown etc on board . Well I’m sorry but how the hell can you bring members of English parties into our Independence decisions , they should be done for treason for their stance against Scotland in 2014 , and also the English tories , labour and libdems etc will have to form new parties as there’s no way that they can sit in a Independent Scottish Parliament .

    141. MaggieC says:

      Me @ 12.34 pm ,

      Sorry , forgot to post the archive link to the Herald and i see that someone else had already archived it .

      https://archive.vn/FTRin

    142. twathater says:

      On reading that Wilson article in the herod I went to read the comments section , my ,my Wilson has certainly given the unionists something to CELEBRATE, with a few of the queen NS apologists readily accepting the GRADUALIST approach, and some are quite willing to accept bringing former and current abusers and corruptors of Scots and Scotland on board , also his yearly contributions to the former uk would alleviate any bad feeling towards us , and we could also contribute to the international welfare fund through the ruk without acknowledging the poverty and homelessness endemic throughout Scotland,it must be quite reassuring and self satisfying distributing Scotland’s wealth throughout worthy causes whilst our own people starve

    143. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      This is jist is valid noo, mibbe even mair sae, thin it wis when the film came oot in 1976. If Scotland goat mentioned in this, it wid be is a cornershop staffed by a mentally ill clown, whae widnae serve ye unless ye wur wearing rainbow klaze. N that’s no ‘Scottish cringe,’ it’s straight tragic disgusting truth.

      youtube.com/watch?v=35DSdw7dHjs&ab_channel=FilmStruck

    144. Daisy Walker says:

      @ Graeme,

      If your willing to post it here. I’d love to see how its coming along.

    145. A2 says:

      Has it occurred that maybe they can’t find anything because they are using their own search engine ? 🙂



    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