Wings Over Scotland

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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

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: link to thenational.scot

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Events, dear boy, events….

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.

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.

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

” .. 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!

Well said Tom@4:29pm.

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.

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.

Latest post from Gordon Dangerfield ,

link to gordondangerfield.com

@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.

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.

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!

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.

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.”

@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.

@WhoRattledYourCage

link to crowdjustice.com

…. 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.

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

Thanks for that.

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

And Nicola Sturgeon is no revolutionary!

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; …

I cry myself to sleep these days.

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

@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 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
link to citeseerx.ist.psu.edu

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

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.

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

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

Thank you.

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.

link to caltonjock.com

@WhoRattledYourCage

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

“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!

@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?

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

link to ncjrs.gov

@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.

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

link to lawjournals.org

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.

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?

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!).

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
link to epublications.marquette.edu

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…

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”

Robertson The Odious – has a ring about it.

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!

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.

The future just looks blacker and blacker.

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?

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.

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.’

link to thefreedictionary.com

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.

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:-)

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

‘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?

@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?

link to thenational.scot

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.

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.

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.

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.

@ 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

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 ..

The Wilson interview

SNP target 2026 in ‘roadmap for independence’

link to archive.is

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!

Me @ 12.34 pm ,

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

link to archive.vn

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

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