The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The Once-In-A-Generation Game

Posted on January 22, 2016 by

The phrase most repeated by angry Unionists in the 16-and-a-bit months since the independence referendum is surely “once in a generation”. While the SNP quietly gets on with the business of government, having not mentioned a second referendum in its 2015 manifesto and not being expected to do so in this year’s either, the parties of the UK can’t seem to shut up about it.


The Tories in particular seem determined to make “NO SECOND REFERENDUM” the main plank of their 2016 election campaign, despite nobody actually proposing one.

(This is happening despite Ruth Davidson having said just nine months ago that her party wouldn’t block a second indyref, while Ed Miliband said that Labour would. However, Davidson’s organ-grinder, David Cameron, joined Labour in ruling it out just a few months later, which may explain Davidson performing a sudden U-turn akin to her famous one over more devolution.)

And when you boil it down to the brass tacks, what that means is that the parties of the Union want to hold the Scottish people prisoner.

It’s perhaps worth pointing out in passing that the constant wails of “you said once in a generation!” are based on a fundamental untruth about the nature of the comments made by Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon. They’re a deliberate misinterpretation of the words and their context, but to engage in a debate on that basis involves a lot of semantic nitpicking that, while entirely valid, just ends up sounding shifty.

(There are several reasons, but to offer just a single illustrative example: it’s perfectly legitimate to say “I will only do [X] once a year”, and yet still do it twice in two days, if those days are December 31 and January 1. You haven’t actually broken your word. But there’s no way of presenting that argument that sounds good.)

The underlying principle, though, makes a much stronger case. Imagine a scenario 18 months from now where, for one reason or another, support for independence has grown to a point where it’s regularly polling between 55% and 60%.

While far from guaranteed, that’s hardly an outlandish proposition – it only represents a slightly bigger swing than has already happened since the referendum, in a similar space of time, and there are several entirely plausible near-future events which could drive support higher, most obviously a Leave vote in an EU referendum.


What you’d have there would be a situation where as many 6 in 10 Scots wanted independence, yet the country was effectively being kept in the UK against its will and told there was absolutely nothing it could do about it.

That’s clearly not a democratically defensible position. You can’t tell a nation that it’s not allowed to express its wishes for 20 years because of something that happened in the past. Imagine the Tories woke up tomorrow and said:

“Okay, you just elected us with a majority and we think we need 20 years uninterrupted to put the UK to rights, so we’re going to outlaw elections until then for the good of the nation. There’s been too much division and bad feeling already, and having elections every five years would just cause more. We don’t want a neverection”.

There’d be outrage, and quite properly so – the country would have been turned into a dictatorship. The opposition parties would howl in fury. The United Nations would be invoked. The Americans and/or Russians might start bombing. It’s inconceivable. Yet it’s exactly the position that Unionists want to take over a referendum.

An electorate can (and often does) change its mind, sometimes on a dramatic scale and with great speed. But you can’t have an election after every opinion poll, so the democratic parts of the world have settled on a system whereby the people express their views every five years or so.

And if on one of those occasions the people vote for a party which has stood on a platform of having a referendum about something, then that’s what happens. That’s what democracy is. That’s the absolute definition of it. The losers don’t get to say “But you voted for us a few years ago, so you’re not allowed to vote differently now”.

Deep down, the Unionists know that perfectly well. They pretend that referendums are somehow different, and that they’re immune from the normal rules of democracy because they’re too important (the “irreversible” argument, which is of course complete cobblers anyway). But to say that is to say that the people are only allowed democracy for unimportant things, and that’s clearly an insupportable position.

(Not least because it suggests that you’re simply scared of losing.)

The real point of the matter is that neither Alex Salmond nor Nicola Sturgeon, let alone Ruth Davidson or Ed Miliband, have the right to make that decision. Whether and when there’s a second referendum is a matter exclusively for the people of Scotland.

Should a time come when the majority of the population wants one, it seems a safe bet that a party will put one in its manifesto at the first opportunity and let the voters decide. And whether that’s 20 years from now or 20 minutes, history shows that woe will betide anyone who tries to stand in the way of the people.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 16 06 16 06:02

      All Unions Are Not Equal | A Wilderness of Peace

    246 to “The Once-In-A-Generation Game”

    1. David Wardrope says:

      ANother very good article, though one word “stands” out for me (or not, as the case may be)…

    2. HandandShrimp says:

      Is this “line in a sand – no more devolution” Ruthie speaking here.

      Why in the name of all that is holy would we trust her?

    3. Davie says:

      Wow, if they changed their web address there would not be one mention of the Conservatives.

      Toxic Tories, appealing only to the greedy, the elderly and the bigoted.

    4. Dr Jim says:

      Democracy is what I say it is (heard that before somewhere)

    5. John Sellars says:

      Great article. The one I’ve been waiting for and am sure many others have too.
      On mixing metaphors: You may be skating on the thin end of a wedge with this one: ‘boil it down to brass tacks’

    6. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      I love to mix a metaphor, as alert readers will have noted long before now 🙂

    7. John Walsh says:

      There is a legal document in Westminster signed by all Yoonionist parties , The Northern Ireland (1998) Act.
      Which states a political generation is Seven Years.

    8. Ken MacColl says:

      I am no military expert but I understand that it is difficult to successfully complete a U-turn when driving a tank.

    9. Andrew Haddow says:

      2. Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power
      under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of
      those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to
      be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.

      3. The Secretary of State shall not make an order under paragraph 1
      earlier than seven years after the holding of a previous poll under this

    10. willie says:

      So Davidson, like Cameron is going to tell us what we cannot do, Another referendum if there is one will be at the choice of the people of Scotland. It is most certainly not for a two bit jumped up corporal beholden to Westminster’s old Etonian elite to tell us what to do. Come to think of it actually with thumping majorities of Scottish members in both Hollyrood and Westminster and with a majority of electors, do we actually need to do anything that London dictates. SNP one and two and let’s keep our options open.

    11. Capella says:

      Well put. Democracy delayed is democracy denied.

      Standing in the way of reform doesn’t always work out well. Has anyone been watching Lucy Worsley’s “Empire of the Tsars”? Part 3 covers the period leading up to the Russian Revolution. Cause – too little too late.

    12. Smith says:

      We don’t want a neverection

      There are pills for that kind of thing, y’know.

    13. Luigi says:

      The real point of the matter is that neither Alex Salmond nor Nicola Sturgeon, let alone Ruth Davidson or Ed Miliband, have the right to make that decision. Whether and when there’s a second referendum is a matter exclusively for the people of Scotland.

      Nail on head. That’s the bottom line.

      We could have a referendum every year if the people were up for it. That said, I don’t think the people would be! After all, most people are sensible about it. But we will not be told we cannae have one – especially by the BritNat brigade.

      I understand why the BritNats are just a wee bit nervous about a potential second referendum (well, they are shitting themselves in fact), but surely they must realise that constantly carping on about it will only serve to harden the current 50% support for independence? Any slippage in the soft NO side now, and its all over. If the yoons continue to panic like this, they will only cause further serious damage to their beloved, crumbling union.

      I think Nicola played a blinder when she indicated that it’s up to the people and that she would not support another referendum until she could win in. She has effectively handed the option back to the people , whilst at the same time, reconfirming her commitment to the cause. Brilliant. Contrast the expert manouverings of a class politician with the grumblings of a bunch of clumsy unionist amatuers.

    14. Colin Church says:

      (the “irreversible” argument, which is of course complete cobblers anyway).

      Once again have to recommend clicking on the blue links. One above is a corker from 2012 prefacing Project Fear.

      Just want to get some people and go LOOK! LOOK! It was all there in 2012!

      “Told you” may not help convert but it gets so bloody frustrating.

    15. Clyde1998 says:

      neverection“? Not quite sure about the meaning of that phrase…

    16. nodrog says:

      “the country would have been turned into a dictatorship.”
      Read Jean Freeman’s article in today’s National – it is closer than you think.

    17. Neil Cook says:

      If the people of Scotland wanted to have an independent referendum without the agreement of political parties how could they stop us.
      If we raised the money and set up and got the people to agree to vote and judicated by a foreign polling organisation from Sweden, Norway etc.

      What could the political parties do? Would they ignore the results if the answer didn’t go there way. Personally the political parties should have no role in a independence vote as they have an ulterior motive.

    18. Grouse Beater says:

      It’s one of many mantras picked up by the brigade of ‘we detest democracy exercised.’

      Even Salmond was quick to add that his ‘once in a generation’ was his remark, and not the policy of the Scottish government. Sturgeon has been just as quick to emphasise the decision rests with the Scottish nation.

      As I wrote earlier, unionists have ‘once in a generation’ as 10, 20, 50, and lately 103 years. Salmond clarified his statement as once in a ‘political’ generation – the life of a parliament – 5 years.

      I’d prefer one every year until Scotland is free to grow up, unlocked from its basement habitat in all things political.

    19. Ravelin says:

      @Ken “I am no military expert but I understand that it is difficult to successfully complete a U-turn when driving a tank.

      Actually, a tank can turn on the spot so it’s actually exceptionally easy to perform a U-Turn in one, assuming you are stationary at the time (which the Tory one is, in electoral terms).

    20. Les Wilson says:

      Nicola said the right thing, that it will be up to the people to decide when Indy2 will be. That is the right call and would cause Westminster big problems.

      What I would personally prefer is a floating option as said by Jim Sillers. In that situation a referendum can be called for a variety of unspecified reasons at the moment, but if an event occurs that damages Scotland on any front. If Scots are outraged at whatever it is, then Indy2 could be called.

    21. Ali says:

      Less than 2000 people actually voted for her. Far too much attention gets paid to anything she thinks or says.

    22. Papadox says:

      OK Ruthie baby, if we (the people of Scotland) decide we want out of this cesspit and you deny us a referendum what do you suggest we do then?

    23. galamcennalath says:

      The problem for WM is democracy. They really aren’t used to having to deal with it.

      I’m not saying that flippantly, I believe it to be true. They have a fptp system for WM which returns governments the majority of voters didn’t want. No matter which party forms the government at WM, the never upset the routine too much. Many aspects of the established system are considered sacrosanct.

      People driven developments in Scotland, on the verge of being the will of an absolute majority, threaten everything for WM. They really can’t come to terms with what is happening.

    24. nodrog says:

      When does a generation start? – When does a generation end?
      In Stuart’s example of 31st Dec – 1st Jan yes that is once in a year I changed my mind.
      So a generation starts and ends day by day.
      Almost as often as a Tank Commander changes her mind!

    25. Sooz says:


      Of course it’s up to us. Perhaps Ruthie doesn’t understand the meaning of free will.

      I buy my energy from a company that doesn’t hold me to a fixed term. How would it be if I signed my agreement with the words “I swear never to ever change my supplier ever again because I’ve made my decision and that’s final.” That would be ludicrous.

      What the “but you said a lifetime” whingers dishonestly fail to take into account is that Alex is no longer the First Minister and as such he has no overall say in when the next referendum is held. It’s nothing but a petulant whine from the Yoons.

      Let’s see them get energised instead about Cameron’s broken promises about tax, student grants and a mountain of other things. But no, they’d rather pick and pick at the SNP because it takes less effort than actually standing up on their hind legs and doing something about the real threat to their lives and their families and their jobs – the Tories.

    26. Alison Rollo says:

      I love that reference to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which states a political generation is 7 years!! Right then, that makes 2021 sound just perfect. Should easily be at 60% by then!! Can’t wait!

    27. Free Scotland says:

      A fitting image for an angry unionist – the Tank Commander wearing her customary scowl. Her forehead seems to be permanently locked in frown mode.

    28. Do we expect anything other than the unionists taking any opportunity they can to misrepresent what Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon say.

      Though what I also find interesting about the unionist politicians is this: not only have been very keen to go to war to depose dictatorship and bring democracy to people living under such regimes.

      But they were prepared also to support the right of self determination of the people in the countries of Eastern Bloc to be independent from Russia.

      Yet these self same unionists do everything in their power to prevent the people of Scotland from exercising their right for their country to be independent.

    29. The Man In the Jar says:

      @Ken MacCall
      I can claim some expertise in the mater of driving armoured vehicles and I can confirm that it is indeed extremely easy to do an U turn in a tank!

    30. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      The unionist case against another referendum is based on the giant bluff that we have to ask UK’s permission to have one.
      What is irritating about this is the fact that quite a lot of Yessers believe this.

      The United Nations is completely unambiguous about the inalienable right of self determination and the right of any community to freely decide how it governs itself without any interference from any other quarter.

      We can have referendums as often and as many as we like.

    31. HandandShrimp says:

      When the Tories can actually command a majority in Holyrood they can block a second referendum all they want.

    32. ArtyHetty says:

      It’s a case of shut up and eat your cereal you uppity jocks, again.

      Destructive, dangerous and sinister in every move they make, the unionists will be given all the exposure they need to tell their lies in the next few months. However, should they have any doubt as to the steadfastness of the majority of the Scottish people, it is coming yet, for all that, no matter how they try to twist facts and scaremonger.

    33. Bob Mack says:

      Two words. Spot on.

      When Mr Salmond made his remarks ,I believe he was not talking abouta human generation ,but rather a political one, considering that he was resigning and handing over the reins to another.

      Politicians can have a very short life span as we know.

      Settled will also has connotations on whatever politicians decide.In the case of the referendum,they think it means forever. In the case of Scotland sending down 56 SNP MP’s to have its voice heard,it means nothing.

      They have deliberately ignored that settled will, by refusing to listen to any proposals put forward by our elected representatives,on our behalf,with regard to the Smith Commision and the Scotland Act. Our will meant nothing then did it?

      What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.To hell with them.

    34. Dan Huil says:

      Disnae matter what Cameron and his wee Scottish[!] sychophants say; it’s pro-indy versus anti-indy from now on till Scotland regains its independence.

    35. Mabel says:

      Good article. There’s a very good reason Wings website is more popular, by a head and shoulders margin, than other pro indy blogs and it’s that not only is it consistent in its message, thorough in its research and merciless in its attacks on the opposition, but more than this you’ve proved yourself a better tactician than anyone apart from Nicola herself. Knowing where and when to use the icepick makes all the difference.

      Recent days have shown not all independence supporters are as savvy but I think we should all try to follow your example here in knowing which arguments (even if relevant) not to use but to find more effective ones. The tactics to counter ‘once in a generation’ are a start. I look forward to the follow-ups.

    36. Dr Jim says:

      The Tories keep trying to get elected in Scotland constantly even though we’ve rejected them, why don’t they stop trying and just get over it and go away

      Same argument

    37. Breastplate says:

      I do expect the SNP to put indyref2 in their manifesto. I want to be very clear on that.
      I understand that they may have some ridiculous excuse not to, if that were to happen I would be exceptionally disappointed.
      I’m sure there would be many more like me.

    38. HandandShrimp says:

      “A fitting image for an angry unionist – the Tank Commander wearing her customary scowl. Her forehead seems to be permanently locked in frown mode.”

      Free Scotland

      It is a Tory thing. Cameron and Mundell have exactly the same clenched, rat trap scowl.

      They must think it gives them gravitas or something or perhaps that is what happens to your face when you are permanently thinking up ways to make the life of plebs a misery.

    39. galamcennalath says:

      Alison Rollo says:

      “… makes 2021 sound just perfect.”

      The insurmountable problem is we need an SNP majority in Holyrood. Some might argue we just need a pro-Indy majority, maybe, but that’s far riskier. Either way, if IndyRef2 isn’t pushed through in Edinburgh, it won’t happen.

      If the SNP get an overall majority in 2016, then to my mind we must have IndyRef2 in the next parliament. Otherwise, we risk a generation suddenly becoming decades!

      Even if events mean a majority of Scots want Indy, but there is no majority in HR to declare a referendum, it simply won’t happen.

      Our first BIG hurdle is in May 2016, and we MUST get over that or most of us can simply give up any ideas of Indy in our lifetimes. Once that hurdle is overcome, we may be able to move towards Indy.

    40. gordoz says:

      The yoonies totally want to restrict peoples rights by targetting’superficial statements of incrimination’. We’ve just seen what Carmichael got away with .. Politics they called it.
      Works both ways.

      They totally blind themselves to the rights of new voters and the chronically ill or aged by fitting time restrictions to their cause.

      Together with Democratic Justice, Emancipation is the name of the game here.

      The fact or process of being set free from legal, social, or political restrictions; liberation.

      Lets take this example

      “the social and political emancipation of women”; are we to deliberately suggesting restrictions on this Ruthie ??

      Politics – pure politics; and if Scots fall for this pish after what we’ve been through then we are the mugs.

    41. tartanarse says:

      Stu rarely gets things wrong but I believe a neverection is what happens when one partakes of too much McEwen’s export.

    42. Scott says:

      Re Ruth Davidson I sent the below story to her on the 27th April 2012 I still await a reply.never trust a Tory.

      Tory council candidate Les Mason is standing in a North, West and Central Sutherland ward at next month’s council elections following a telephone request from Conservative headquarters. Mr Mason only agreed to stand for the party on the condition that he did not have to campaign, and as long as Tory HQ gave him a guarantee that he would not be elected.

      Mr Mason lives almost 100 miles away from the area where he is standing as a councillor. He has no plans to visit the ward where he is a candidate. Mr Mason admitted that the Tory strategy was to put up candidates like himself as spoilers, and freely acknowledged that he is only on the ballot in an attempt to split the vote and reduce the chances of the SNP candidate getting in.

      Interviewed Mr Mason said: “Someone in Edinburgh at the top of the party phoned me up and asked if I would like to help them out. I emphasised I would but only if they could guarantee that I would not win.

      “I did offer to go up to North West and Central Sutherland but the party bosses said there was no need to.

      “They told me to do nothing and that was it. All they wanted was my name on the ballot paper to reduce the chances of the SNP getting in.”

      He added: “That’s why people like me have been asked to stand, not because we have any hope of winning, but to split the vote and reduce the chance of the SNP getting in. That’s the Tory strategy.”

      This was taken from a newspaper report at the time.

    43. Luigi says:

      Dan Huil says:

      22 January, 2016 at 11:27 am

      Disnae matter what Cameron and his wee Scottish[!] sychophants say; it’s pro-indy versus anti-indy from now on till Scotland regains its independence.

      Yup. The Tories have already cottoned on to the new political landscape in Scotland, and seem to think they can actually make some modest gains on the back of it in May. Labour, on the other hand, are completely at sea. Still in denial, tossing to and thro, they keep trying to paper over the widening cracks, as demonstrated by the recent, deceitful yet painfully transparent offers to ex-supporters who voted YES last year. Desperate stuff.

    44. schrodingers cat says:

      Nicola is right to point out that it’s up to the people of Scotland to decide. Cameron couldn’t really stop holyrood holding one.

      the SG is trying to avoid a “face off” with WM and while referendums are not legally binding and he could announce in advance that he wouldn’t recognise the result and urge unionists in Scotland not to participate. You cant force people to vote. you can be certain that the councils controlled by unionists would be only too happy to obliged. the councillors are the last line of defence,(it is no accident that they are the prefered go to renta quote source for everything at the moment) they would simply refuse to hold a referendum in their area.

      a face off like this would only highlight how powerless holyrood actually is, Cameron slapping down Nicola would only win him votes.

      before Nicola can even call indyref2, we need to control all 32 councils, a virtual impossibility. we would also need 2,25 million yes votes, about 62%, this equates to 50% of the entire electorate, anything less and Cameron will use this as an excuse to dismiss any ref result. Yup, dead folk could once again swing a referendum.

      even if we could get 50%+ yes and controlled every council, Cameron would still refuse to accept the result. this is the point where a “face off” is unavoidable.

      our only recourse after that would be a campaign of civil disobedience, and those calling for the yes campaign to become more “radical” will get their wish

      Westminster are not about to role over and give up without a fight, and they fight dirty, we know this.

    45. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I do expect the SNP to put indyref2 in their manifesto. I want to be very clear on that.
      I understand that they may have some ridiculous excuse not to, if that were to happen I would be exceptionally disappointed.”

      Then get ready to be exceptionally disappointed. There is no justification for them to do so.

    46. a supporter says:

      Just a few years ago Ireland had 2 Referenda within a few years of each other over leaving or staying in the EU, simply because the Government didn’t like the result of the first one. Cue BrexitI and II?

    47. galamcennalath says:

      Dan Huil says:

      “it’s pro-indy versus anti-indy from now on till Scotland regains its independence.”

      Definitely. We can worry about left-centre-right after we win Indy.

      I think the Tories realise that and have dug their heels in as the de facto anti-Indy party. Probably because they know their remaining core of support are BritNats. However, I think they are actively trying to attract BritNats from Labour. You would expect that style of nationalism to gravitate to the right.

      I suspect some on the ideological left may not yet appreciate the new chasm in Scottish politics.

    48. “…only Ruth Davidson & her party are 100% committed to defending our place in the UK.”

      Defending against what? Obviously it isn’t Labour. So must we presume she means the Conservative Party?

    49. Dan Huil says:

      @Tartanarse 11:43am

      Thank god for that. Here’s me thinkin’ it wis aul’ age!

    50. schrodingers cat says:

      Then get ready to be exceptionally disappointed. There is no justification for them to do so.

      I agree with this, at best it will be a commitment to hold indyref2, but with a conditional clause, “should the people of Scotland desire one” suitabley vague enough to allow Nicola to keep her options open.

      the promise will be accompagnied, in every interview with the caveate ” but I don’t forsee, or am I planning a referendum in the next election cycle”

      why would anyone want to make a firmer commitment to indyref2 before seeing the result of the eu ref?

    51. HandandShrimp says:

      I think there will be provision in the manifesto for a second referendum. It will not be automatic should they win a majority because that will make them hostage to fortune. It will be based on circumstances and the I believe the manifesto will outline potential trigger points, like the EU referendum.

      I think Nicola will want to keep control over her destiny and choose the best time to hold another referendum.

      In some ways I think the Steve Bell cartoon hit the nail on the head when he had Nicola saying that she “would not hold a second referendum until she holds one”. He was no doubt trying to point out that she would definitely hold one but that is fine with me. I want her to hold one when she is absolutely sure the timing is right. I think Nicola has good judgement I am content to give her my vote to exercise that judgement.

    52. Scott says:

      Just heard this Amazon to create 2500 new jobs is oor Willie going to phone them that he does not want them to come to Scotland someone should ask him.

    53. schrodingers cat says:

      I think they are actively trying to attract BritNats from Labour. You would expect that style of nationalism to gravitate to the right.

      I suspect some on the ideological left may not yet appreciate the new chasm in Scottish politics.

      last nights by election result is an example of exactly that happening, this realisation has begun.

      I have asked a few times on wos, how many of the remaining 25% labour voters in Scotland are left wing socialist. In may we may find out.

    54. Top tip manifesto readers. A manifesto is a guidance document; a insight into what a party might do in the future based upon what it thinks it knows now.

      But we all know that the future is naturally unpredictable so many future actions never even get mentioned. That a referendum doesn’t get included, doesn’t mean that it definitely won’t happen.

      Sure, it may be a political gamble to promise something & then do the opposite but that never hurt the Liberal Democrats. They’ve always been irrelevant.

    55. galamcennalath says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Then get ready to be exceptionally disappointed. There is no justification for them to do so.”

      I see no reason why, if there is a ‘good excuse’ like EngExit, plus demand via polls and or petitions, then the SG can call a referendum. It doesn’t need to be in a manifesto, does it?

      I definely wouldn’t want to see a referendum with a list of conditions. That would be constraining.

      Indy is SNP policy. A majority SG can call IndyRef2 when appropriate, I would have thought.

    56. Breastplate says:

      The justification is that I would like them to represent my position. I don’t see any justification for them not to when that has always been the essence of the party.
      Of course if that has changed and there is no commitment to independence then why should independence supporters vote for them.
      This is as always my opinion.

    57. robert graham says:

      A bit o/t but with reference to capellas post about the BBC series on the Russian czars, i downloaded the three episodes but dumped them after viewing episode one , all involvement or influence Scots had in Russia and her Navy mysteriously has been airbrushed out , a total farce as in full view directly behind the presenter was a plaque with the a St Andrew’s cross on it , indeed on the same ship a bloody great reverse Saltire this even today is still a Russian Naval Flag , it is amazing how petty the British state can be , all points covered including actively denying from the 50s onward ,Scottish School children access to their own history, they have been at it a very long time don’t expect Independence too soon this will be a long game dont give up

    58. John Sands says:

      It will be interesting to hear what they all say if the UK is kept in the EU by 51 to 49. Especially if it is Scotland
      that causes that result.

    59. heedtracker says:

      One powerful block on Scottish democracy changing is ofcourse the BBC in Scotland. Despite defeating Scottish independence, they may be weakened but the way they Project Feared the life out of Scottish democracy, in that 2 week hysterical terrorising especially, is a clear threat to progressive politics in their Scotland region.

      So its back to usual daily BBC UKOK propaganda, tell them they’re shite, they’re merely a shitty little region of Great Britain and Project Fear them in to NO all over again too.

    60. Graeme Borthwick says:

      Ruthie and The Dug know that they have no future here. They are both playing to a London Audience. When they are finally forced out of Scotland they will…as Lady Moan…find a safe haven.

    61. DerekM says:

      The neo liberals do not like referendum they think it is their right to make choices for you plus they know that a referendum has the potential to awaking the populace and that they might become informed and start asking hard questions.

      Hence the reason pig shagger is looking for a time to have the EU referendum when England is distracted,the last thing he wants is a repeat of a popular movement brought about by a yes/no referendum,i expect it to be sprung on us with the least amount of time to campaign officially that he can get away with,it would have been very soon except his ploy of taking the UK to war hasnt had the desired affect he was looking for and instead has backfired on him.

      As for Ruthie tank commander i wonder if she has stopped for a second to think about just what it means to sit in opposition in OUR parliament,we expect no we demand professionalism and loyalty to OUR parliament the bar is very high failure to do so will result in us ripping you to shreds.

      Be careful what you wish for tories.

    62. Inverclyder says:

      There will not be a 2nd referendum until the SNP have control of the councils and uncover who knows what!

      To me the timeline will be…

      2016 SNP win increased majority at Holyrood
      Tories – increased seats
      Labour – almost wiped out
      Greens – increased seats
      Lib Dems – no seats

      2016 EU Referendum

      2017 Council Elections with SNP increased majority and overall control of more councils.

      2018 / 2019 2nd Referendum with 6 week campaign.

      2020 Independence around the time of the Westminster Elections where the South of England vote the Tories in yet again.

    63. Robert says:

      The “once in a generation” was an observation, not a promise, or offer for sale. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion.

    64. Andrew McLean says:

      Ruth Davidson another despot in the making her undemocratic wish to prevent a nation the right to self determination with her authoritarian colonist brief from her totalitarian pig fucking master!

      I wonder what her reward is, will he let her hold the pigs head, “squeal Ruthy squeal, you know how I love it”! or is that position reserved for the first Labour ex MP or MSP deserting to the Tories, after all they are big on sharing the spoils aren’t they!

    65. Clapper57 says:

      The union is alive and well i.e. the union between Tory and Labour

      Had a wee look at WOS Twitter only to see photo of Labour Councillor Monica Lennon canvassing for the Hamilton Nth & East by election with other minions of doom.

      Cue photo opportunity ….all of them had a Tunnock’s teacake in their hand and one had a box of said teacakes….yes let’s promote the product of Boyd Tunnock that well known……….Tory !!!! l..o..feckin…l.

      Is there not one ounce of intelligence (nah !) within SLAB that has not realised that these types of infantile antics are not a politically winning formula. Duh !

      Keep doing it SLAB please as you are now justifiably perceived as the new Raving loony party for Scotland .

      Let’s hope they continue same (losing) formula in run up to May elections as I am sure the biscuit will override any other political and social issues with the voter in Scotland.

      # what are Labour For.

    66. yesindyref2 says:

      I’m nearly sure there’ll be something in the SNP manifesto like:

      “We reserve the right to call a Referendum on Independence, if the Scottish People want one, or the circumstances justify one.”


    67. Luigi says:

      I agree with some of you wingers that the council elections in 2017 are just as important as the Holyrood election this year.

      The red tories are down but not out. Before the next referendum, the enemy needs to be further degraded. Scottish Labour truly is the last remaining obstacle to independence. Deal with it, and the road to IndyRef 2 is clear.

      Bear in mind folks, that we are not expecting total red tory annihilation. Whilst that would indeed be a nice thing, it is not critical. What is required is that the red tories are no longer an effective force in Scottish politics. In other words, as long as they are no longer in control of any Scottish council by mid 2017, we can tolerate a few red tory monkeys that may still be standing. They will be ignored.

    68. James says:

      The problem with the threat of regular referendums is that it negatively affects investment decision making, particularly inward investment decisions.
      The SNP should rule out another referendum for next 10 years and spend those 10 years re-balancing and developing Scotlands economy so that there is a much lower fiscal deficit and the “its the economy stupid” question can be won not lost.

    69. Breastplate says:

      I agree Inverclyder, I’m not advocating an indyref on the first day of the new Scottish Government.

      I want a commitment to indyref2 in the manifesto so we can circumvent all this nonsense about what could trigger a referendum on independence.

      Vote for us because we could give you reasonable governance on the things we’re allowed to doesn’t trump the independence message EVER.

    70. yesindyref2 says:

      Make that:

      “We reserve the right to call a Referendum on Independence at any time, if the Scottish People want one, or the circumstances justify one.”

    71. ScottishPsyche says:

      I used to get annoyed whenever a Yoon would come out with the ‘once in a generation’ line.

      Now I just think ‘Aye Right’.

      Nothing is certain in this world. Same goes for their oil price dramas (husband has worked in oil exploration for 30+ years – the variable price of Brent crude is an unwelcome constant in our lives!).

      The divided nation the Yoons lament has always existed – they just cannot ignore it anymore. They also cannot accept their part in creating it.

      I agree the manifesto should contain something along the lines that should the circumstances be right e.g.polling, world events, UK government events then we go for it. A majority of the electorate voting for the SNP under these circumstances gives them a mandate just as before.

      The difference is we know the Yoons have used all their arsenal and that is what they are worried about. We know how they operate and the depths to which they were prepared to go.

    72. Here’s another little gem that is apparentaly on the Labour hamewebsite

      and has appeared in today’s online Dundee courier

      Mass resignation of Scotland’s Labour councillors over cuts ‘worth considering’ –

      By John Morton Mid Fife and Glenrothes Constituency Labour Party.

      All of Scotland’s Labour councillors should consider resigning in protest against the financial meltdown facing local authorities, it has been suggested.

      Mr Morton said if the cash squeeze for councils does not improve in the next year a mass resignation “might be seriously worth considering”.

      Writing on the Labour Hame website, Mr Morton said the cuts to local budgets make the “entire notion of local democracy meaningless”.

    73. Helena Brown says:

      James @12.36pm, you may think you have made a worthy suggestion but it seems to me that the only way to sort both the Scottish Economy and business is to hold the reins of power and that means you do not have to go cap in hand to your neighbour. I keep saying that Countries are businesses these days, in fact it has always been so. So the only way we can bring business or nurture business, straighten the economy is to be actually running it.

    74. Skooshcase says:

      Let’s envisage a time in the (hopefully, near) future when a majority of the people of Scotland are inclined toward Indy Ref2, or, as Nicola Sturgeon said, “… it will be down to the people of Scotland to decide whether they want to vote for independence or not.”

      Serious question here:

      How will/can the people of Scotland let the Scottish government know that the time has come for IndyRef2, and they want it ASAP?

      Remember, it would have to be a collective voice and not just the urgings of those on pro-indy websites and social media. So, then…?

      (I’ve read it and heard it said, but I genuinely do not know how it would be implemented.)

    75. Helena Brown says:

      Robert Graham @12.09pm, I waited and wondered where Catherine the Great’s Scottish Admiral had got to also considering Samuel Grieg who is buried in the High Church at her personal request in Estonia and was also reputed to be her lover.

    76. schrodingers cat says:

      2017 Council Elections with SNP increased majority and overall control of more councils

      2018 / 2019 2nd Referendum with 6 week campaign.

      cant happen, how can you have indyref2 if a labour/unionist controlled Glasgow council refuses to participate? how legitimate would any result be?

    77. Anagach says:

      yesindyref2 says:

      I’m nearly sure there’ll be something in the SNP manifesto like:

      “We reserve the right to call a Referendum on Independence, if the Scottish People want one, or the circumstances justify one.”


      Not Dawdle. As the Rev says nothing has happened to call another Referendum, no major shift in voting intention, no major change forced upon Scotland (that is in the public domain and known about).

      So its, put in the manifesto that they keep the option open, but not commit to call one. Is really the best option at this stage.

    78. Stoker says:

      Rev wrote:
      “And whether that’s 20 years from now or 20 minutes, history shows that woe will betide anyone who tries to stand in the way of the people.”

      And the only history that matters is the history we make today,
      as someone once said.

      The Rev also wrote:
      “And when you boil it down to the brass tacks, what that means is that the parties of the Union want to hold the Scottish people prisoner.”

      Aye, and just watch this prisoner operate, i’ll be voting against staying in the EU because i would rather see us in some sort of Nordic alliance but watch just how quickly, in the event of a leave vote, i could be persuaded to see the SNPs reasons for staying in.

      Scottish independence is all that matters, needs must!
      We get the bairn to the barbers first, then we negotiate the cut.

      SNP x 2

    79. yesindyref2 says:

      As far as I’m concerned Tunnocks can do what they like with their branding to increase sales outside Scotland, whether in the UK or the Middle East, and if that means putting the Union Jack on their product packaging, then good luck to them, it safeguards jobs and perhaps brings more, to Scotland. I prefer to brand mine with the Saltire, but that’s a personal – and business – choice.

      But Scotland sees nothing of the increases in National Insurance or corporation tax on profits from Tunnocks increase sales and profits, and it’s a shame that the Scottish Brand isn’t strong enough to push abroad, but has to hide behind the UK brand.

      The only way to improve Scotland’s Brand and hence economy is by Independence, and there should be no time limit placed on efforts to achieve that. It needs to be done as soon as possible.

    80. Luigi says:

      When public support for Scottish independence is clearly above 50%, the SNP ain’t gonna take any more shit from Westminster.

      A wee bird told me. 🙂

    81. Dan Huil says:

      @James 12:36pm

      Inward investment increased during the lead-up to the 2014 referendum.

    82. Giving Goose says:

      Re Scott says;

      I used to live in the same village as Les Mason (Milton, Drumnadrochit) and to emphasise the sheer cynicism on display by the Tory party, old Les was in now way in good health to do the job. He passed away not long after.

      I remember at the time that I was absolutely brimming with anger at these shenanigans by the Tories and was on the point of going round to Les’s house to talk to him about it. But I decided that it was a pointless exercise because he was so frail.

      What this episode displayed was that Unionist Cynicism doesn’t stop at the Scots electorate, it extends to their own candidates and the selection process. Les shouldn’t have been put in that position, but when your a Unionist politician, who gives a f*** about what is right (or wrong) as long as the job is done and Scotland is kept shackled to and ruled by a London elite who couldn’t give a shite about Scotland or it’s people just as long as it serves their purpose as a vast piggy bank to be raided on a constant basis.

      As for Les….he’s probably been forgotten by Ruth and co; just another bit of cannon fodder for the Tory/Lab/Lib blessed Union.

    83. Proud Cybernat says:

      Nice one, Rev.

      This “yae cannae have one” is entirely symptomatic of the sabernat, colonial mindset. They view a referendum like a physical bloody war on a real bloody battlefield – like Culloden, like Boswell Field or any other physical dust-up where the losers are vanquished and conquered FOREVER. That’s it – end of the matter. We won, yous didnae. That’s the end fof it FORVER. Now STFU.

      That’s the sabernat mentallity. They don’t quite get the idea that democracy has pretty much (though not always) ended the need for such ‘bring it on ya bams’ square gos in bleak, barren fields where the winner takes all FOREVER.

      Welcome to the 21st century Yoons where democracy ROOLZ.

    84. carjamtic says:

      What is a Generation ?

      When will Indyref 2 happen ?

      Difficult question,as difficult as last years Higher Maths (Q8).

      Make no mistake Westminster will engage with Holyrood and attempt a death roll.

      Tory plans are already underway,calculations being made,strategies optimised,they want to drag the very idea of Independence into the water and drown it along with the hopes of a nation.

      Worry not though,we have our own crocodiles in Dundee,a WGD in Glasgow,WoS in….well everywhere and our own Nippy Sweetie.

      Not to mention the most savvy voters anywhere.

      I trust our FM to steer our course through these dangerous waters and deliver our Nation freedom through the democratic process.

      Whatever strategy she has will receive my 100% backing,these tories mean to harm us,let’s give them no encouragement.

      SNP x 2

    85. schrodingers cat says:

      Mass resignation of Scotland’s Labour councillors over cuts ‘worth considering’ –

      as I said, the councillors are the last line of the unionist defence, they are coming to the fore and their profile being heightened by the msm, especially bbc north Briton.

      after their mps have been wiped out, their msps are useless and also about to take another beating, they are out of choices

    86. Jack Murphy says:

      OT. Scottish Labour getting desperate or semi-detached in their thinking:-
      “The SNP have failed in their duty to oil and gas workers”. 🙁

      Wings Over Scotland Twitter response:- “Scotland voted No. The Scottish Government doesn’t control the oil industry.”

      Got the message yet ‘Scottish Labour’?
      We’re in for another 10 years of Westminster Tory governments!!!!
      Sit doon and think aboot it.

    87. galamcennalath says:

      Giving Goose says:

      “… when your a Unionist politician, who gives a f*** about what is right (or wrong) as long as the job is done and Scotland is kept shackled to and ruled by a London elite who couldn’t give a shite about Scotland … ”

      That is the way I feel about what the whole Unionist presence in Scotland. One thing and one thing only fills their minds … thwarting Scottish self determination at literally all costs.

      They don’t actually give a damn about bridges, council services, the NHS, school attainment etc. Everything is nothing more than an opportunity to make political capital towards their imperial aims.

      If any in their ranks don’t believe this is what they now represent, they are simply needing to open their eyes and ears!

    88. Ian says:

      The ‘once in a generation’ statement was an opinion based on the situation at the time. However immediately after the referendum the massive increase in the SNP membership changed the situation in a way that very few could have foreseen. So what would an intelligent person do when the situation changes so dramatically? Obviously update their opinion. The less intelligent or those with their own not so hidden agendas would simply hang on to their now outdated dogma. Doesn’t that just sum up Westminster and their various branch offices.

    89. Vambomarbeleye says:

      Man in the jar
      Don’t for get its actually a neutral turn. Which in Ruthies case means she is still talking pish which ever way she’s looking.

    90. Scott Borthwick says:

      On the subject of mixed metaphors and Ruth Davidson’s position on another referendum: you can’t teach an old dog to sell a pig in a poke.

      The union’s dying, an’ we’re no’ buyin’.

    91. Joan Edington says:

      Poor Ruthie, she’s asking for the Regional vote as the only chance to keep her seat.

    92. Fireproofjim says:

      Robert graham at 12.09
      In the second episode of “The Romanovs” there was quite a lot about Charles Cameron. Catherine the Great’s favourite architect,and it was stated that he was Scottish.
      I don’t think there was any intention to eliminate any mention of Scots in the programme. They can’t mention everyone.

    93. Grouse Beater says:

      When I saw Ruth Davidson on the other side of the gas station petrol pump she didn’t tell me to hurry up the oils almost done.

      And she filled her tank to the top, the greedy ..

    94. heedtracker says:

      Fraser Nelson ?@FraserNelson 5h5 hours ago
      David Cameron wants the banks to help his campaign to stay in the EU. Is he mad? My @telegraph column:

      Horatio displaying upcoming relentless WTF for YES voters in Scotland. RBS were leaving Scotland, with Scotland becoming a nation state March 24 2016, they said, at the behest of Cameron


      Rancid The Graun loved that one, although that Britnat outfit no longer report anything in their Scotland region at all now.

      From shitting hard on Scottish democracy, to pretending Scotland no longer exists, with spectacular displays of hard core red/blue tory hypocrisy…

      How very teamGB media

    95. Papadox says:

      The Establishment and its lackeys (MSM, EBC) are going to try every dirty underhand trick to undermine the SNP performance in the Holyrood elections. That is their objective, if they can’t dent the SNPs momentum and hold on Scottish politics then the unionist cause is over, sooner rather than later, and they know it.

      It goes without saying that next years council elections are very important. However I think the council elections will look after themselves provided the Scottish Government doesn’t catch a crab.

      Needless to say the SNP will be SAVAGED by the establishment and its agents, to who’s advantage? There in lies the answer. FREEDOM!

    96. Proud Cybernat says:

      “Once in a generation” is nothing more than a figure of speech to get over the fact that “these events don’t come along every day” and that there is simply no way of knowing how long it will be fefore the next one will come along.

      If I say to my daughter that applying to be on the ‘X-Factor’ when auditions come to Glasgow is a once in a lifetime opportunity, does that mean she can’t apply next year or the year after or… you get the idea.

      It’s simply a figure of speech – that’s it.

    97. Brian McKay says:

      So, what Alex Salmond actually said was; “In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, this is a once in a generation opportunity for Scotland.” This was not a matter of SNP policy it was an opinion of one man. Hardly an out and out commitment.

    98. Tam Jardine says:

      Once in a generation opportunity- it may turn out to be but it may not. No-one from what I have read ever ruled out another referendum within a generation, nor could they.

      It is just nonsense. As a private citizen I could rule one out forever and it would be as meaningless. What mandate could a politician have to rule out a referendum?

      What is the EU referendum? Is that a once in a generation opportunity? If you want to leave the EU then it could be. Can someone ask Cameron if the EU referendum will be once-in-a – generation?

      It’s called democracy. You might as well advocate banning referenda than try and introduce a timescale to the will of the Scottish people. The UN laid all this stuff down years ago. To try and circumvent it you’d be advocating leaving the UN.

    99. schrodingers cat says:

      they don’t actually give a damn about bridges, etc

      its worse than that, Cameron and the unionists are now actively destroying Scotland in the hope of undermining the snp at the same time.

    100. Lenny Hartley says:

      The SNP must put something in their manifesto saying that if the people want one or circumstances chane then they reserve the right to hold Indyref 2.

      Otherwise imagine if their is britexet from EU and they decide to hold one it gives Westminster ammunication to attack it as undemocratic (I know that’s an oxymoron but it’s Westminster we are dealing with) A wee paragraph at the end will suffice.

    101. scribblerdubious says:

      An interesting counter to this situation – parties wishing to deny/block a “re-run” of a referendum – is Lisbon2 in Ireland.

      The Irish government didn’t like the people’s “no” so freaked them spectacularly for a year about the economy via a hugely pliant media and re-ran it. Lo and behold…in came the “yes”.

      I remember being quite astonished at the time, the way that people were desperate to look the other way at the blatant democracy-under-duress and justify their volte face.

    102. Chic McGregor says:

      If a referendum were refused, which is not impossible the issue can be effectively forced.

      The SNP MSPs (+ Greens etc) could resign on mass and re-stand with a new manifesto which has as no 1 policy item “The Scottish Government will begin immediate negotiations with Westminster for independence.”

      To thwart that Westminster would have to suspend the Scottish Parliament. Again, something which is not impossible.

      But in that eventuality, the same thing could be done with the 56 MPs at Westminster.

      Would they be willing to ban them from the HoC or even arrest them?

      Maybe, but I suspect awareness of international condemnation would have prevented things from getting anywhere near that far.

      But you never know. Sometimes I think the UK is only a bawhair away from becoming a full blooded Nazi state.

    103. Legerwood says:

      Fireproof @ 1.39

      I agree with you. The series of 3 programmes was a pretty shallow overview of the Romanovs – and skipped the bit where the Romanov connection became pretty tenuous.

      A couple of years ago the National Museum of Scotland had an excellent exhibition about Catherine the Great and the Scottish connection.

    104. Robert Peffers says:

      This is the type of thing I’ve banging on about for what seems forever. Perhaps it is now time to attempt a brief review of just what I’m on about when I speak of, “The Sovereign People of Scotland”, and legal sovereignty.

      There is a basic legal principle on sovereignty that cannot be disputed. One such is this statement :-

      “Being sovereign a body cannot give up its sovereignty”.

      This is actually stated under English Law and reported as such in Hansard. It is in relation to the UK Government’s allowance of the EU law to override UK law. In the sense that if they choose to the UK will remove the EU right to apply EU law upon the UK. It is however a basic legal rule of law, “Being Sovereign a body cannot give up its sovereignty”, at best it can delegate it.

      Which is why, in 1688, the English Parliament had to legally retain the Monarchy as head of state but forced the Monarchy to delegate their sovereignty to parliament.

      The position being that the parliament had deposed their Monarch and would bring in King William & Queen Mary of Orange – but only if they ceded their sovereignty to the Parliament of England.

      Which brings us back to the legal sovereignty of the People of Scotland. This is well established under Scottish law. Thus, under even English Law, being sovereign they cannot legally give up their sovereignty.

      So there is no legal basis for any of the Parliaments, Scotland, United Kingdom or Europe, claiming any legal sovereignty that the Legally Sovereign People of Scotland do not confer upon them, (or put another way the people can legally remove whatever sovereignty they have allowed to any other organisation).

      Anyhow, don’t take my word for it have a look at this :-

    105. tarisgal says:

      Now whenever I come up against this nonsense, ‘IndyRef was the settled will of the people’, I just respond, “Fine. Scotland voted 56 out of 59 SNP MPs and that too must be considered the ‘settled will of the people’. And, if the polls are right, it looks as if the SNP will win the next elections very comfortably. That too will be the ‘settled will of the people’. Therefore… a pact. I will wait a generation for IndyRef2 if you will accept an SNP government for the next 20 years. What say you?”

      I believe that Alex Salmond said ‘once in a lifetime opportunity’… That word ‘opportunity’ always seems to be missing in the unionist quotes. Why is that, I wonder? it’s such an integral part of the meaning of the quote… It wasn’t in ANY way a promise, or a statement by the Scottish National Party that a ‘no’ win would ‘settle’ the constitutional question forever. I read his comments somewhere (wish I could recall where but I didn’t save it! Duh!) that he meant only that it was, FOR SOME PEOPLE (older Scots), possibly a once in a lifetime chance to attain what up to that point they hadn’t dared dream of – an independent Scotland. He also said he wishes now he’d never uttered it as the thought behind the statement has been so radically changed by the ‘winners’!

    106. Iona says:

      @Davie Back off the elderly Davie. Not every elderly person voted No. I have a fantastic photo of my mother at 93 with a great smile on her face as she put her X for Scotland in the Yes box. Just remember there were No voters in EVERY demographic. More in the elderly group without doubt but NOT EVERYONE. I passed an old man the other day with his YES sticker still on his zimmer!!
      Just remember that the YES voters in that group have had to live with this a lot longer than you.

      What we agree on is the greedy voters will vote Tory.

    107. Luigi says:

      Mass resignation of Scotland’s Labour councillors over cuts ‘worth considering’

      Oh please, do you promise? Please, please, bring it on!

      If only…..

    108. Janet says:

      Stuff RISE. What matters most is giving Westminster the shitters.

      I’m making it SNP / SNP this May.

    109. Luigi says:

      Iona says:

      22 January, 2016 at 2:24 pm

      Not every elderly person voted No. I have a fantastic photo of my mother at 93 with a great smile on her face as she put her X for Scotland in the Yes box. Just remember there were No voters in EVERY demographic. More in the elderly group without doubt but NOT EVERYONE. I passed an old man the other day with his YES sticker still on his zimmer!!
      Just remember that the YES voters in that group have had to live with this a lot longer than you.

      What we agree on is the greedy voters will vote Tory.

      Well said. We barely passed 50% in any age group. All ages still have to be persuaded. There is room for improvement across the board. There needs to be!

    110. fletch49er says:

      Does that also ring true for every X-Factor hopeful who bleats that, ‘this is their once in a lifetime opportunity’, only to turn up again the following year when bagged the 1st time round?

      Does it also apply to anyone attempting to attain what they deem as a ‘once in a lifetime opportunity’ for the 1st time and not being successful?

      “If you don’t succeed at first, try, try, try again.”

      Robert the Bruce and that spider, always come to mind when Unionists repeatedly dreg it up.

    111. Almannysbunnet says:

      May I suggest, for a bit of light relief;-

      Neverection, definition – Scottish version of joining the “mile high club” but done at the top of Ben Nevis.

    112. Dr Jim says:

      I wonder who’s planning the biggest rally ever in March

    113. Iain More says:

      To those SNP members who frequent this forum; the SNP better have something its 2016 manifesto that lays out a clear path to a second referendum or at least a clear unambiguous path to Independence or it can kiss my vote goodbye and those of many others I know as well.

      To those SNP members here, take my vote for granted and you will pay for it.

    114. Jock Scot says:

      Personally, I’d still go for 24th March this year as the day Scotland becomes independent. (Was going to be a helluva birthday party!). However, if Scotland is treated as a company which is asset-stripped and then dumped, the crowd-funding to ‘buy it’ wouldn’t be so difficult to achieve and we can start again.Renewables aren’t called that for nothing!.As long as we have Indy. As you may have gathered..might be taking the 20 year timeline here but obviously, sooner the better!

    115. yesindyref2 says:

      @Robert Peffers
      For me, the key part is this:

      Why a Claim of Right now?

      I am on record as saying that the whole work of the Convention was “a series of minor miracles”. Surely the greatest miracle of all was that so many should commit themselves to a claim of sovereignty that implicitly and definitively denied the absolute authority of Westminster in constitutional matters. It is not surprising that many politicians would dearly love to forget the Claim they signed, and consign it to the dustbin of history. We must not allow that to happen.

      Bascially speaking if Westminster denied Scotland the right to have a Referendum, all that would be needed is for the People of Scotland to co-sign the Claim of Right and the Scottish Government would have an unchallengeable right to hold a referendum, at any time it chose, in our name. Westminster could go fiddle with itself.

      The Claim of Right was debatedin Holyrood:


      The motion was passed, but I can’t find references.

    116. yesindyref2 says:

      For anyone who missed the events of Jan 2012, this is when Cameron was trying to steal the Referendum from Holyrood and set up a Referendum Bill in Westminster. I believe that, as well as other moves, this debate was Cameron being firmly told to get lost, and anyone who hasn’t watched the debate, please watch it. It starts on the webpage (1 hour 7 mins long), and there’s a part two as well (just short of an hour).

      Notice the interjections from Neil Findlay and Kezia Dugdale!

    117. heedtracker says:

      Rancid The Graun gives their Scotland region a mention

      “And Labour seems to be on course to lose all the constituency seats it holds in the Scottish parliament, meaning that it will rely on gaining representation at Holyrood through the regional seats that act as a top-up under Scotland’s proportional voting system. In 2011 the party won 37 seats at Holyrood, including 15 constituency ones. According to recent polling, the figure could fall to 26.

      How Lynton Crosby (and a dead cat) won the election: ‘Labour were intellectually lazy’
      Read more
      A Labour spokeswoman refused to comment on the briefing, saying the party did not discuss what was said at shadow cabinet meetings.”

      Keep sticking it to the vile separatists SLab.

      Howsabout another The Vow shyste from these frauds, or an IMPORTANT intervention from Crash Gordon, or even a Salmond pickpocket poster campaign? Cosby trousered nearly £2.5 million for the posters from blue toryboy world. UKOK

    118. Hoss Mackintosh says:

      Strange – this no more Independence referendum in a generation thingy.

      The Good Friday Agreement has a clause that NI can vote in a referendum on re-unifying Ireland every 7 years if their people so wish.

      So if Unionists in NI are happy with that situation why are Scottish Unionists so determined never to have a second independence referendum?

      Is it because they know they will lose next time?

      Project Fear – now feart.

    119. schrodingers cat says:

      Chic McGregor
      If a referendum were refused…
      that would create a stand off, one where wm would be on fairly shaky legal ground. it isn’t necessary either, they could simply say they wouldn’t recognise the result and encourage unionists not to participate. if even one council doesn’t participate the result could and would be challenged.

      Mr Peffers, I don’t doubt the historical and legal truths you make, I just think that wm will undermine indyref2 in anyway they can. at some point in this process, a face off is inevitable beyond which, our only leverage will be civil disobedience.


      I always found the notion that the over 65s were the most pro union when it was, and still is, the over 65s who are the most active yes/snp campaigners where I live. perhaps we should just accept that it is a truth and do what jim sillars suggested, every pro indy group should appoint a steering group/person to deal specifically with pensioners, eg, target them in media systems they still access or on the doorstep. that’s what bt did and what won indyref1 for them.

      Iain More
      To those SNP members here, take my vote for granted and you will pay for it.

      who else you gonna vote for? what good will it do?
      there will be a conditional commitment to indyref2, since until we know the result of the eu ref, it would be stupid to be too ridged in our future plans?

    120. HandandShrimp says:


      The Unionists were bragging that they would win the referendum 70/30 back in 2013. The panic of the last month of campaigning and the closeness of the vote (and the age profile of the No vote) scared the bejaysus out of them.

      A personal opinion that was clearly flagged as a personal opinion is now holy scripture and heretics to this one true faith should be burned at the stake.

      Yup they are running scared. 🙂

    121. schrodingers cat says:

      Strange – this no more Independence referendum in a generation thingy

      Yup they are running scared. 🙂

      its a clutched straw, if that is all they have, they will clutch it

    122. galamcennalath says:

      Hoss Mackintosh says:

      “Project Fear – now feart.”

      My grandmother used to say something like … “If you wish for mischief or harm to be visited on someone, it will rebound upon yourself threefold”

    123. ronnie anderson says:

      @ James 12.36 Dont call us ,and we wont call you for certain.

    124. schrodingers cat says:

      Bascially speaking if Westminster denied Scotland the right to have a Referendum….

      as you say, this could be overturned legally, but this doesn’t mean they cant and wont undermine indyref2. cameron simply saying he wont accept the result and advising unionists in Scotland not to participate would undermine indyref2. no doubt about it. You cant force people to vote. this is what Madrid did to the catalunian indyref.

    125. Chic McGregor says:

      @SC “if even one council doesn’t participate the result could and would be challenged.”

      What result?

      It is a re-election with a new manifesto commitment to negotiate something which might have a result.

      If Us don’t vote in it, even if none stand in it, that is their choice. The SNP/Greens MSPs would still become elected representatives and would still have a new manifesto pledge to stand by.

      Apart from recalling the SP, nothing much they can do about it.

    126. Dorothy Devine says:

      so Mr Moore , you don’t want independence really ?

      As a matter of interest if not a vote for the SNP, whose entire raisin d’etre is independence, then whom?

      Or are you just trolling?

    127. John Nicol says:

      My son and my grandson are a generation apart. One is 27, the other 26.

    128. liz g says:

      Westminster canny say they won’t recognise the results of a General Election though.
      That would I think be our next option to send down MPs elected to void the Treaty and be recalled to Holyrood.
      It would be up to Unionist voters whether to take part or not but the result would I think have to stand.
      Therefore the security of the count and the ballots would be the main concern at that point.

    129. Rob James says:

      First they ignored us, then they laughed at us and I believe we are now entering the fighting phase. The likes of Farquharson’s piece of bilge the other day was purely to provoke a response, preferably one which could be used as news headlines. We shall see more of this provocation, with an increasingly hostile approach.

      We have seen the attack on the SNP office in Dumfries, followed up by the new hub in Bathgate, where Fiona Hyslop’s car was scratched along with another SNP member’s vehicle. Two men were also witnessed filming the premises which has darker connotations than a couple of neds throwing bricks. MSM coverage? I wish.

      Meanwhile stay alert, and don’t contemplate their desired reaction. It only pisses them off even more and eventually they become careless and shoot themselves in the foot. It is our turn to laugh at and ignore them.

      Or as Rudyard Kipling wrote:

      If you can keep your head when all about you
      Are losing theirs and blaming it on you.
      If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
      But make allowance for their doubting too;
      If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
      Oe being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
      Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
      And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise.

      Funnily enough, the establishment claim Kipling to be an establishment man. Personally I believe he had a distinct dislike and embarrassment of the Empire. His appreciation of what is good in a man is contrary to the beliefs of the ‘elite’. He also refused nomination for a knighthood and the position of Poet Laureate

    130. Fred says:

      @ Iain More, well just fuck off then & gie’s peace!

    131. t42 says:

      todays metro newspaper is a UKOK rant.
      2 sturgeon attack stories on the first 4 pages, then a “why trident is great” story!

      nobody is buying their lies anymore, so they are giving it away free.

    132. yesindyref2 says:

      Thing is cat that the Edinburgh Agreement and the S30 order enabling the Referendum set up a two-way precedent.

      Both sides had to honour the result and on the one hand the Scottish Government made its submission to Smith, co-operated and compromised with Smith, have pursued Smith through Westminster, having taken full part in the UK General Elections as part of the UK, are chasing the fiscal framework as they should do “in the spirit of the Edinburgh Agreement”, and have therefore fully honoured the Edinburgh Agreement – and of course the S30 order by holding a democratic and legal Referendum in the first place.

      For their part the UK Government promised to honour a YES result if that happened. But it also means that if a mandated Scottish Government requests another Referendum, the precedent is that there’d be an Edinburgh Agreement II, another S30 order, and the Scottish Government would be able to organise Indy Ref 2, and if a YES vote, Westminster would be obliged to honour it and make arrangements for Independence for Scotland.

      Cameron and Grayling are blustering, and precedent makes their words completely empty. They speak with hollow mouths!

    133. Chic McGregor says:

      @John Nicol

      My daughters played with their aunt when they were a’ bairns. Still think o her mair as a niece than a sister-in-law.

    134. Dr Jim says:

      @Ian More

      The SNP have been threatened by every every Unionist Party in these Islands for as long as I can remember
      Every type of Media has threatened the SNP at one time or another, we’ve even been threatened on behalf of entire countries before

      If you as an individual voter intend to threaten the SNP by withdrawing your vote, your stated reason being the non inclusion of something in their Manifesto which hasn’t been written yet

      You can’t imagine how much I don’t care about that

      As an SNP member, as all SNP members know, our reason for existence was, and is the Liberation and Independence of our country so threaten away because life might not go to the timetable you would impose on the only political party in existence who can actually achieve that aim

      But maybe I’m misjudging you and in fact you are the extreme political strategist who knows more about the subject than those of us actually in the SNP or indeed the FM herself
      If so fire away fill yer boots and inform us one and all of this new insight into your expert experience of political strategy before you decide to vote for the other party who can fulfill that overwhelming desire you have that forces you to threaten the SNP

      Or why not just tell us what your preferred party is from the start, it’s not against the law to vote for whoever you want you know without the drama

    135. Dr Jim says:

      @ Fred

      Wish I’d read your post first before I posted

      Nicely done

    136. Breastplate says:

      Iain More has a valid and important point.
      If there are people who expect a commitment to an indyref2 in the SNP manifesto and it doesn’t appear, they will (like me) be bitterly disappointed.
      I know that may or may not give the SNP cause for concern, it should.
      Not primarily because they could lose votes to other parties but because they would lose votes to utter apathy.
      The SNP shouldn’t fuck about in the sandpit when most people want to go to the beach.

    137. Chic McGregor says:

      “The problem with the threat of regular referendums is that it negatively affects investment decision making, particularly inward investment decisions.”

      Sorry but that is just not born out by the available facts. If you do not believe me, check the UKTI reports on FDI for the years 2013/14, when indyref1 was in full swing.

      They were at the highest levels on record in Scotland and the UK as a whole was also the highest FDI state in Europe during that time period.

      So any impact the referendum had was certainly not negative for FDIs.

    138. yesindyref2 says:

      @Iain More
      On a more agreeable note, I daresay there are a few people who think the same as you do, I’ve seen them posting around the place. They – you – are “lending” the SNP your vote for one thing, and that’s Independence. If they ignore that, they do so at their peril. In the incredibly unlikely event the SNP did actually turn their backs on Indy, there’d be a lot of the 90,000 new members would leave the party I’d expect.

      But the SNP have to steer a very careful path here. Support for Indy is at 50% YES and 50% NO, but taking into account the Green supporters and others, current Holyrood voting intentions show around 52% to 58% that intend voting SNP, with 9% to 11% voting Green and 1-2% RISE and others. That’s a grand total of about 64-68% – well more than the 50% support for Indy.

      That means that around 14% to 18% intend to vote SNP but are currently NO voters, and that’s why the SNP have to be so very careful. Antagonise those 14% + voters and they won’t get an SNP majority in Holyrood to be able to demand Indy Ref 2 (at the right time), so we won’t get a Referendum. and we won’t be able to vote YES.

      So be patient, the plan will unfold in time.

    139. Joemcg says:

      It’s hilarious and extremely annoying hearing the unionists continually twist sturgeons and salmonds words but just contrast that to the multi broken promises and lies spouted by the better together UKOK mob since the vote and rank hypocrisy does not cover half of it.

    140. Capella says:

      As an SNP member I would advise everyone to read the Party Manifestos when they come out, “think very carefully”, then vote for whichever party meets your aspirations.
      Vote with your conscience.
      That is what I intend to do i.e. SNP x 2.

    141. Fred says:

      @ Dr Jim, as if we haven’t enough actresses with Jim Sillars!

    142. thomaspotter2014 says:

      The Project Fear mob have now turned into the Project Feart mob.

      It,s gonna get messy the more desperate they get.

      The reality of their situation is starting to sink in hence the very thought a second referendum has them peeing their pants.

      They know it won’t be like the last one.

      Most of the scares and fears have been used up already and won’t work so well next time round.

      But Nicola is correct to play the waiting game as with almost every day something they threatened would happen with a YES vote is actually going down with a NO vote.

      Without a handle on the Corpmedia outpourings it would be another onslaught that is hard to counter especially on folk that rely on TV/Radio/Newspapers for their information,they are still a sizeable chunk of the electorate.

      That means a Scottish Broadcasting setup and radio channels that aren’t manipulated by Establishment should be DEMANDED not begged for.To even up the playing field.

      Just like EVERY country in the world has-being denied this basic requirement has surely gotta be against some kind of Human Rights legislation.

      Question:Eh excuse me,can we have our own TV channels Mister?

      Answer:No chance Jocks,couldn’t have you lot getting ideas above your station now could we!

      It’s like a real Live version of 1984

      Aren’t we lucky to be so Bitter Together?

    143. yesindyref2 says:

      I’m expecting a very carefully worded provision commitment to Indy Ref 2 in the SNP manifesto.

      It has to be carefully worded though so as not to scare off those who are still NO voters but like the SNP for its other policies. As you say, people should indeed “think very carefully” and then vote SNP + SNP. Oh, you didn’t quite say that 🙂

    144. Gary45% says:

      Once in a generation?
      I have 2 friends who sadly passed away last year, both yes voters.
      That was a “once in a lifetime” as far as I am concerned. When any unionist party supporters try and bring up this the term “clutching at straws” is quite appropriate.

      Every month in Scotland in the region of 4,500 people die.
      In the 16 months since the referendum almost 70,000 people will have died in Scotland, for them it was once in a lifetime opportunity.
      Indy2 Tick Tock

    145. Robert Graham says:

      Oh ok Ruthie we have been rumbled ‘we lied ‘ but it was a political lie , you know the ones Alister got away with , ok here’s the deal you get Dave yer boss to honor this Vow thingy you know the closest to fedrilism as you can get and we won’t push for another referendum for a while , is that a deal then ? ,great want a wee hand getting back on yer tank honey ? oh you don’t need the help from anyone ok carry on .

    146. Chic McGregor says:

      Re FDIs, I took my own advice and went and checked the UKTI official figures for 2013/14.

      UK had highest FDI rate in Europe with over 66,000 jobs down to that inward investment for the period, of which Scotland had over 10,000 or just a tad under 16% of the UK total with only 8.3% of the population.

    147. schrodingers cat says:

      sorry chic, I was perhaps less than clear

      if gcc refuse to participate in indyref2, the result would be undermined

      if unionists don’t participate in indyref2, the result would be undermined

      (2.25m is 50% of total electorate, = 62% on a 84% turnout)

    148. Krackerman says:

      Wow – I took a dip into the world of unionist twitter today – won’t be doing that again – they are scary people! And they really, really don’t like us…

    149. Thrawn says:

      Yes it is not outlandish to imagine that you get a 55 – 60% Indy response in a poll (Scotland might win the world cup also – and I’d imagine the two would be linked) but is it also not outlandish that 2-3 years after that it could drop back to 40-45%. A rise support for independence is not guaranteed to be inexorable or everlasting despite how much you wish it so.

      Also following your logic if we did have polls saying support for independance was at 40% you’d be happy to say no referendum under any circumstances for 10 years

    150. gordoz says:

      Hoss Mackintosh say

      good point sir!

    151. ScotsCanuck says:

      re – the Right and Legality of the Scottish Parliament to call a (second) Referendum, without the consent and/or approval of Westminster, this scenario has already been covered in legal precedent.

      I refer to the 1954 judgement by Lord Cooper in the “McCormack v the Lord Advocate” case, which I will quote an extract from Lord Coopers findings “…. the unlimited Sovereignty of Parliament (Westminster) is a distinctly English principal, which has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional law”.

      Put simply, in Scottish Law the People are Sovereign (as many on this site maintain) and should the People elect a majority of representatives who then ballot for a Referendum on Independence, then that has all the legitimacy required under Scottish Law. Westminster’s approval is not required and should they attempt to annul the vote, they are in breach of the Articles of Union which enshrines Scottish Law “in Perpetuity”.

    152. Dan Huil says:

      “Yes it is not outlandish to imagine that you get a 55 – 60% Indy response in a poll (Scotland might win the world cup also – and I’d imagine the two would be linked…”

      Netball or basketball?

    153. jdman says:

      A “neverection”? ……nothing.

    154. Joemcg says:

      That’s an interesting statistic. If 70,000 people have died since 2014 a fair chunk of those must be elderly,mostly no voters. That’s drastically cut the no majority. Therefore the further down the line we overtake that majority we win! Not rocket science and a damn sight easier to win than “Scotland winning the World Cup” take heed Thrawn.

    155. schrodingers cat says:


      I don’t disagree with anything you have written, but Cameron can undermine the result of indyref2 by instructing unionists not to participate.

      no law or precident can force people to participate

    156. Graham MacLure says:

      @ 5:06
      schrodingers cat says:

      “if gcc refuse to participate in indyref2, the result would be undermined

      if unionists don’t participate in indyref2, the result would be undermined”

      Don’t think so. As in any competition the side not showing up forfeit the competition because no one has absolute sovereignty over the Scots.
      Should the Unionists not wish to cooperate that would be their loss.
      I think “ScotsCanuck” at 5:13 explains it well.

    157. gordoz says:

      SNP hold council seat !

      News – that’ll be your Labour vote switching over to Tories

      almost direct correlation.

    158. gordoz says:

      Suppose it makes sense really Labours socialist Scots have almost all switched to SNP via Indyref .. remnants / Blairites now clearly switching to their true home of Conservatism; Unionist or otherwise.

    159. Skooshcase says:

      Sorry to harp on about this once again, but, since there was no response to what I asked at 12:51 pm (above), I’ll try one more time:

      Serious question here:

      How will/can the people of Scotland let the Scottish government know that the time has come for IndyRef2, and they want it ASAP?

      Remember, it would have to be a collective voice and not just the urgings of those on pro-indy websites and social media. So, then…?

      (I’ve read it and heard it said, but I genuinely do not know how it would be implemented.)

      Anyone able to give an answer this time? And thanks to anyone who does!

    160. Joemcg says:

      Observing various factions of the no side I very much doubt they would attempt a boycott of Indy2 and risk a defeat as many of them are more passionate than loads of yessers. OO anyone?!

    161. James says:

      @ Chic 5.04 pm
      Does that investment spike in 13/14 have anything to do with the oil price spike in those years?
      It’s non oil economy investment that needs to be encouraged.

    162. Breeks says:

      I sound like a broken record, but the last Independence Referendum was compromised by a corrupt and biased media, and if we plough on regardless, the second Independence Referendum will also be compromised by the same strategy.

      IF Scotland had a diligent, dispassionate, mature and objective discussion about our future, then personally, I believe Independence is the only proper and logical conclusion you can come to. I believe the Unionists know this quite well, and that is why they will forfeit whatever integrity or personal status they have to, to make absolutely sure that a diligent, mature and rational discussion does NOT happen.

      That issue, broadcasting, is the battleground for the next step towards Independence. Wrestle control of broadcasting away from the white knuckled grip of the Unionist BBC, and then let Independence and Unionism speak up for themselves, and make their cases respectively.

      I would grab it in an instant if we scraped a 51% majority for Independence, but in all honesty, I would much prefer Scotland delivered a rattling 80 or 90% commitment for Independence. That is wholly impossible while our media is broken and dysfunctional as it currently is, but fix that problem, and suddenly all bets are off.

      If I was a strategist for the SNP, I would call the Unionists’ bluff. Say not one word about a second Indyref, but announce a plebiscite to gauge which powers should be held in Holyrood, and which delegated to Westminster. We should all then throw ourselves into the campaign to oust the BBC’s monopoly on state broadcasting, and as bare minimum, secure at least one independent digital channel for Scotland.
      Supposing we achieved nothing more than that, we could scarcely have done more to help the cause of Scottish Independence whenever we are ready to embrace it.

    163. galamcennalath says:

      If Cameron told Unionists to boycott IndyRef2, he couldn’t also challenge it with a BT2, because that would be taking part in the proceedings, wouldn’t it?

      In that case there would be a very vocal and active YesScotland2 … And very little, other than media, challenging it.

      Under those circumstances 50% of the electorate turning and voting Yes might be achievable!

      Cameron wouldn’t take the risk, I reckon. After the wagon started to roll, he would want to participate.

    164. thomaspotter2014 says:

      Indyref2 won’t be decided by David Cameron’s sayso.

      He cannot stop Scotland having another and people shouldn’t believe he has the power to.

    165. Clapper57 says:


      Apologies if this has already been discussed but want to voice by humble opinion :

      I have just read the piece by Angela Haggerty in the online Sunday Herald “ Why a hectoring online fringe is putting the achievements of the Yes movement at risk”.

      She argues “ a curious self-destructive element has emerged recently “ she also states “ creativity,vibrancy,honesty and debate is being squeezed out of social forums by those who have come to identify their very being alongside the cause of independence” .

      She concludes “ and I will undoubtedly be the latest villain “

      No Ms Haggerty you are not a villain but you are wrong to think that you can suppress those of us who , through frustration., feel compelled to express our opinions at the injustice we feel from the constant onslaught of a biased media and also the self serving opposition parties who seem to have abandoned their principles and the people of Scotland in their quests for power.

      I would challenge you that it is not the ‘hectoring online fringe which is putting the achievements of the yes movement at risk ‘ but in fact those who wish to shackle us to the union using questionable methods devoid of morals.

      I would question what you see as being ‘curiously self destructive’ as being detrimental to persuading those who we feel may have ticked the wrong box ,in what you quote as being the ’55 % ‘ but I prefer to argue we only seek to highlight the harsh realities of remaining chained to this union by means of sometimes colourful , sometimes witty language.

      I would also argue that there is much creativity, vibrancy, honesty and debate generated on this site by those who are loyal to the independence movement. Perhaps Ms Haggerty you feel we do not articulate our arguments in an eloquent enough manner and that the independence movement is best served by contributors from the middle classes .

      Social Justice, which I believe is something you support , is for those who feel they have no power , no voice , no hope , no purpose and more importantly no forum by which they can have their say.

      On this site we are given an opportunity to achieve some power, a voice, some hope and a purpose, however if our manner of expression is not to your taste then so be it, but this forum exists in order for us the people, who otherwise would have no outlet to express and release our frustration and discontentment to challenge those like you and also the many many others who seek to silence us.

    166. Kenny says:

      The remit and whole reason for the existence of the SNP is to achieve Scottish independence. It is not to “hold a referendum every term”. There is a difference and not doing the second at the drop of a hat could very well hasten the first!

      Why does the SNP need to mention a referendum anyway? If they control Holywood and YES is running at 60% they could introduce a bill to hold a referendum and just be done with it. Why hold it in 2019 if 2020 is going to see a horrible Tory government combining Osborne-economics and Boris-britnationlism? Autumn 2010 would, in that case, be the way to go.

      I say: get a Holywood majority in 2016. Control all the councils with the help of our Green and RISE/Solidarity friends in 2017. That is a mandate enough for UDI as it is! And then wait and see if the timing is right in, say, 2018… I would say by that time we could be 55-60%…

      So, when it becomes clear YES is in the majority, run for the next Holywood on an indy platform. The election will then be like a test run, a de facto referendum — leaving the referendum itself to basically just rubber-stamp the decision.*

      [* Does away with the whole worries over postal voting, vows, project fears, etc.]

    167. Eppy says:

      One thing that keeps being forgotten in the “once in a lifetime” quote is the following word, opportunity.

      If I saw a great job, or a fantastic holiday, or a house in an idyllic location which I wanted to live in, they could all be described as “once in a lifetime opportunities”. If the job or the house sale falls through, but a further opportunity comes along a year or two later, am I (or anyone) likely to say,
      “nah, I had a chance and I blew it. I’m just too wee, too poor, too stupid.”?

      Or am I likely to learn from my previous mistakes in failing to grab the opportunity the first time and go for it wholeheartedly a second time?

    168. Lollysmum says:

      Excellent comment 🙂

    169. Lollysmum says:

      Kenny at 6.18pm

    170. Chic McGregor says:


      Well considering oil was at around $100 per barrel from about 2006 with a short-lived dip due to the bank crisis c 2008, otherwise being very steady that would not seem to be an explanation.

      Also, if oil were the factor you would expect to see a similar peak for Norway but in fact FDI took a significant downturn for Norway throughout 2013/14.

    171. Fran says:

      @ Clapper 57

      Here Here

    172. Nana says:


      Only the snp can answer that question but I am fairly certain they have their own methods of judging what the voters want. They are out most weekends and evenings canvassing and gauging support for independence as I’m sure it will have been mentioned.

      It’s difficult, I want independence yesterday but realise that softly softly catchee monkey is the only way forward unless some material change occurs.

      I’m seeing labour councillors moving to the snp, they must be feeling the wind blowing in a different direction, so lets hope their constituents are also.

    173. Kenny says:

      Lollysmum: Aim for the stars!!

    174. Dan Huil says:


      When britnats’ wailing becomes so loud their eardrums burst?

      Serious answer there.

    175. Valerie says:

      The SNP held a South Lanarkshire Council seat in the Hamilton North and East ward in the by-election which followed the death of an SNP councillor.

      First Minister Nicola Sturgeon congratulated Ms Callaghan on Twitter, stating the by election win is the party’s 26th out of 29 contested, since May 2015.

      Also, in case folk missed it, Jim McCabe, North Lan leader is stepping down. Quite significant, as he is seen as a Labour big beast. I think we will see a lot of the old guard standing down, the writing is on the wall for next year.

      Just on the issue of a second referendum, amusing to see these threats from alleged supporters, who clearly don’t read some of the posts by members, that we are working hard right now, and NOT taking anyone’s vote for granted.

      I seem to recall the FM saying they would set out some of the circumstances that may trigger a referendum, the obvious one being a Brexit.

      The party’s whole ethos is independence, and if there is a chance to grab it, SNP will deliver, so don’t know why folk are getting their knickers in a bunch.

    176. Robert Louis says:

      I think this entire ‘non-debate’ about calling another referendum, and whether it needs to be in the manifesto is silly. Whatever Government is elected, be it SNP or another party, has a democratic mandate to govern Scotland, and so they could call a referendum on any subject they like if they wish, whenever they wish.

      It seems as though many, many people, including the SNP have conflated a democratic mandate to actually declare independence with a democratic mandate to hold a referendum, yet both are quite different beasties. It needs remembered that a referendum is just asking a question, so why in heavens name would you ever need ‘special permission’ or need to have it decided prior to election.

      Asking people if they want to be independent, in my mind, does not require any special permission or mandate at all.

      This nonsense started following the 2011 victory for the SNP when unionists started saying ‘Westminster MUST give permission’ for a referendum, but they were wrong. Of course if it were UDI, then of course that is different, but a referendum is merely asking a question.

      This is why the unionists and media keep banging away with this ‘permission’ and ‘;mandate’ nosnesne, because it makes the notion of requiring permission to hold a referendum seem to be correct. It isn’t.

      No special mandate required, no special statement in the manifesto required (although I do think there will be one). Let’s stop falling for unionist rubbish, about ‘permissions’ to hold a referendum, it’s nonsense, and always has been.

      The democratically elected Government will call a referendum if and when they choose. It is then up to the electorate to agree or not. That is what is called democracy.

    177. call me dave says:

      THE prospect of the UK and Scottish governments securing a deal by mid-February to implement new powers for Holyrood looks in jeopardy.

    178. Iain More says:

      Fred says:
      22 January, 2016 at 4:17 pm

      @ Iain More, well just fuck off then & gie’s peace!

      A charming and a thought out response not!

      yesindyref2 at least put some thought into his reply.

      Re Dr Jim. I am a bit tired of being taken for granted by Professional suits and I include the SNP in that category. Oh and my list vote in HLI will go to Jean Urquhart. I have made my mind up on that thanks to the less than intelligent response from Fred. Thank him for that will you. I at least know where Jean Urquhart stands on certain issues.

      I am short on trust. To quote skooshcase “How will/can the people of Scotland let the Scottish government know that the time has come for IndyRef2, and they want it ASAP?” On this I want clarity.

    179. Dan Huil says:

      @ Iain More 7:03pm

      “I have made my mind up on that thanks to the less than intelligent response from Fred.”

      Iain, your comment speaks volumes. Seriously.

    180. Clapper57 says:

      Lollymum & Fran

      Thanks ladies , though I hope my above comments in defence of this site and the people who contribute ain’t gonna be blown out of the water by us fighting amongst ourselves, trolls excepted obvs.

      Have a fabby dabby doo evening girls.

    181. schrodingers cat says:

      if the sovereignty of scots is so set in stone,…

      why and how did wm reject the yes result in 1979 referendum?

      face it folks, Britain will do everything in its power to hold on to Scotland, regardless of the legality or otherwise.

    182. Hamish100 says:

      Ken MacColl says:

      22 January, 2016 at 10:32 am
      I am no military expert but I understand that it is difficult to successfully complete a U-turn when driving a tank

      Ken =
      Surely you keep going in the same direction but turn the turret to the rear. A metaphor for the unionists surely!!

    183. schrodingers cat says:

      I think we will see a lot of the old guard standing down, the writing is on the wall for next year.

      you think so?

      don’t be fooled by bye election results, in a full council election, the system means it is almost impossible to stand 3 candidates in a 3 candidate ward, 2 at most, ergo 30% of councillors in 2017 will be unionists. fact

      with 2 candidates in a 3 candidate ward, there is no way to vote tactically to ensure that 2 snp councillors get elected

      eg, result where 1500 votes required in first round of counting to get elected

      1st snp candidate 4900
      1st lab candidate 1600
      1st tory candidate 1550

      2nd snp candidate 1400

      only 1 snp councillor gets elected

      the snp will take control of many councils but the unionists coalitions will control many, possibly more than the snp

    184. schrodingers cat says:

      the sovereign will of the scots in Aberdeen was over turned by acc when they rejected the result of the referendum on union terrace….

      isn’t that also illegal? it happened though

    185. yesindyref2 says:

      @Dan Huil
      In all seriousness I think your answer is correct, and as Nana says it’s softly softly catchee Indy!

      I see postings from regular Unionists getting more shrill by the day, a really really weird one tonight in the Herald.

      All we need to do is keep cool, keep the heid.

    186. yesindyref2 says:

      @Iain More
      From a comment Fred made yesterday, I don’t think he’s too keen on the SNP, perhaps more of a RISE man in fact …

    187. call me dave says:


      I copied and clicked the wrong link after I archived! DOH!
      Sorry folks.
      The correct one.

      Six key constituencies.

    188. Andrew Parrott says:

      Schrodingers Cat at 1942.

      In the example you quote assuming there are only the four candidates you show the quota would be 2363 votes not 1500 so the only candidate elected on the first round would be SNP 1 and 2537 of his votes would be reallocated. In my part of Scotland experience shows about 75% would re-allocate to the other SNP candidate whose vote would go up from 1400 to about 3300 making him the second candidate elected. His / her surplus transfer would determine whether the Tory overtook British Labour in Scotland (BLIS)to be elected or whether the BLIS candidate kept his lead and was elected as the third successful candidate.

    189. velofello says:

      ‘Once in a generation”, so what. As circumstances change, I may change my mind. Me, my proIndy my mind has hardened as the behaviour of Westminster as unfolded since the general election.

      A situation where the independence question is a 50:50 divide is not good position for the UK. Wiser heads than the Westminster establishment would have sought to bring in measures to reduce the pro-Indy mood, instead they have behaved in a bullying manner – true to their nature.Leopards and spots.

      Just about every utterance from Westminster irritates me now. Fallon yesterday trying to justify Trident and nuclear weapons. North Korea a threat? Over the centuries which countries has North Korea colonised and plundered? And compared to”Great Britain”‘s historical record?

    190. Robert Peffers says:

      @Iona says: 22 January, 2016 at 2:24 pm:

      ” … I passed an old man the other day with his YES sticker still on his zimmer!!
      Just remember that the YES voters in that group have had to live with this a lot longer than you.”

      What we agree on is the greedy voters will vote Tory.”

      Aye! Iona, and this old git, his campervan window stickers, his YES badges on his hat and SNP stickers on his house windows. What’s more I’ve bee campaigning for independence since before I left primary school.

      But for such as myself, who struggled on during the lean years, there would not be an independence movement today.

      There were times it became rather lonely.

    191. Alan Crerar says:

      Referendums? I enjoyed the last one so much (result notwithstanding) I want another one.
      Referendum fatigue? a myth put out by unionists scared of losing bigtime. Switzerland had 6 referendums last year, and 12 the year before. The Swiss still look pretty energetic to me, no fatigue there.
      Lets have a referendum every year (not Indy, yet) to keep our hand in. Something important, and cross-party. How about a keeping Trident in Scotland referendum. Just to keep the civic instinct engaged. Any other suggestions? keep it clean.

      Regarding ‘once in a generation’, while Salmond wasn’t specific, I prefer to use as my baseline that useful creature to the geneticist, the fruit fly – lifespan about 50 days, mating-egg laying re-generation cycle about 20 days. Science has the answer to politics there, I think.

    192. AFewHomeTruths says:

      Surely the ‘once in a generation opportunity’ comment was simply to try to give urgency to and thus maximise the Yes vote. Westminster only agreed to a Referendum in the expectation of a crushing win, and would do all it could to prevent a repeat.

      YES had to somehow get it across that there was something special about that vote but without undermining the legitimacy of a future vote, which we all know will be disputed. Put it another way if the bus is leaving and you want to fill it, you don’t want to say they come in threes.

      The first one was necessary to create the conditions for vote realignment. The next one we should call whenever we will win it, though I still like the idea of standing on an Independence manifesto rather than a pledge to a Referendum. The Tories and Labour would have to work together again. They would have to take part or abdicate all representation. It can only be done though if we are nailed on to win as losing control would be disastrous.

      It was also a coded appeal to those who want Independence but for whom timing was wrong as they had just started a family, lost a job, bought a house or something else that made them feel temporarily more vulnerable. Perhaps also to those who are permanently more vulnerable because of age, though like others I would point out my own elderly parents’ last ever votes were SNP for one and a referendum YES for the other. Please do not make assumptions no matter how tempting. We need to convince more people of all ages.

      Unionists banging on about the phrase suggests that it would have been better to have found a different formula. Nobody who has had even the most fleeting interest in politics should believe the UKOK spin on it. They would have spun any phrase that was used.

      Next time we need to be much more combative if the Unionists say to vote no if you are undecided. If you really can’t chose then it should tell you that you are happy to accept the majority verdict. I have never been a fan of compulsory voting.

      The make it decisive argument is equally wrong. Better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don’t want and make it decisive.

    193. schrodingers cat says:

      Andrew Parrott
      the numbers are purely illustrative,
      in practice
      total number of votes is devided by the number of councillor places in a ward + one

      in this case a 3 ward (there are few 4 councillor wards)

      the 1500 numbers was made up, however, if that number was 1000, and both you and I were snp candidates,

      1. Andrew Parrott
      2. SC

      technically speaking you could take 60% of the total votes, 1st choice, I would get none, the other unionists could overtake me, if not in the 1st round of counting the later

      getting a 2nd snp councillor elected in a 3 candidate ward is a bit of a lottery, not impossible though

    194. peter says:

      Having seen some of the comments on here about people saying that they will vote for other parties if the SNP doesnt include a commitment to another referendum in their manifesto,I can only deduce that they were not Independence supporters in the first place.
      I can remember voting in the 1970s referendum and the crushing disappointment that followed and I also have watched a succession of smug Unionists over the years tell us what is good for us, but it has never dimmed the flame of Independence for me.
      Ihave every confidence that someday it will be delivered, so if you are contemplating voting for other parties , go ahead ,we dont need or want you.

    195. ArtyHetty says:

      Re; Robert Louise@6.53

      Good point you make there. Really the Scottish government are not daft, but it would seem that some are intent on pushing and arguing for something which must be very carefully considered.

      No room for arguing, we need to get on, support and trust the SNP in how they are manoeuvring in order to stave off establishment, unionist destruction of our country. Independence will be on the table, as soon as it is the right time. Too soon and the doubters will be scared off, while the anti Scottish independence factions, will circle the wagons again, using any tactic at their disposal.

      However, too late and the destruction of Scotland by westmonster will have gone too far. I see it within 2-4 years, let the people decide how much more of the westmonster corruption and their asset stripping of Scotland, they can take, that can’t be too far away.

    196. ronnie anderson says:


      Finaly Started

    197. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Trying to catch-up with all the comments…

      Anyone have anything substantial on this looming Feb 12th Smith/Vow-related deadline?

      Heard snippets of Swinney urging goodwill and hard work from all concerned, but the subtext appeared to indicate that this will be something of a showdown.

      Hopefully it’ll shake things up a bit…

    198. ArtyHetty says:

      Regards the so called, once in a generation thing, and the incessant bleating on from the corp media, perhaps they could cast their tiny, empty minds back to the ‘VOW’. Maybe they could cast their empty minds back to the promises of ‘Devo max’, and all manner of assurances which turned out to mean absolutely fck all.

      Why anyone pays for the pap from the bbc and the corp media AND takes it as gospel, must be beyond any normal, reasonable explanation of human behaviour.

      the pages are shrinking today on wings, it happens, but not been the case for a while, hmm.

    199. Robert Peffers says:

      @yesindyref2 says: 22 January, 2016 at 2:49 pm:

      “For me, the key part is this:

      “Why a Claim of Right now?

      I am on record as saying that the whole work of the Convention was “a series of minor miracles”. Surely the greatest miracle of all was that so many should commit themselves to a claim of sovereignty that implicitly and definitively denied the absolute authority of Westminster in constitutional matters.”

      While that is indeed important, what I’m saying above is that in 1688, (when the Parliament of England held “Glorious Revolution”, it was constrained to ditch the Monarchy of England by the basic tenet of English law that states – that being legally sovereign means you cannot legally give your sovereignty up”.

      Let’s get that right – sovereignty means, “GOD given Right”.

      In effect the sovereign is God’s representative and thus nothing but God can take it away. (BTW: I have no belief in Gods).

      So, under the Law of England the English Parliament could not remove sovereignty from the Royals but the Stewart Monarchs wanted sovereignty over both the English & Scottish Kingdoms. Which was why Jamie Saxt upped stakes and moved to England.

      There he was sovereign over, not only England but also Ireland and Wales. King Billy & Queen Mary of Orange, only got to be joint monarchs by delegating their sovereignty to the English Parliament. Which is why the three country Kingdom of England became a Constitutional Monarchy. The law of England states that a sovereign cannot give up sovereignty. That is still English law today.

      The Scots were way ahead of their time. When Bruce killed the Comyn and Scotland was excommunicated along with Bruce the Scots produced the Declaration of Arbroath that circumvented the law of sovereignty, (It had evidence going further back in Scottish law).

      However, the salient point was that when the Pope excommunicated Bruce he was being egged on by Edward,(an acknowledged constitutional expert). However, by the time of the Declaration of Arbroath, Edward and the Pope were at loggerheads as Edward was appointing himself Head of the English Christian Church. The Pope accepted the Declaration and, as the then international leader of all Christendom, decreed Scotland an independent with Bruce the Monarch but without sovereignty.

      This made Scotland unique and way ahead of her time. The Monarchy is NOT sovereign under Scottish law. So the Treaty of Union could not bestow sovereignty upon either the Monarchy of England nor upon their delegated representatives in the Westminster Parliament.

      Quite simply English/UK law still has the Monarch of England as sovereign, The Parliament delegated to use the Monarch’s sovereignty and the Treaty of Union insures that Scots law remains independent and, as English Law says sovereignty cannot be given up, they need a majority of the people of Scotland to delegate their sovereignty to Westminster in order to rule Scotland.

      A General Election that returns a majority for a unionist party across the entire UK is not really a majority of the sovereign people of Scotland delegating Westminster to rule if there is not also a majority in Scotland for that unionist party – now is it?

      Now do you see what I’m digging away at?

      No one has ever specifically asked the sovereign people of Scotland to delegate their sovereignty to anyone. The elected Parliamentarians have just assumed that electing them to office implies that we do.

      Now you may think I’m blethering by talking about God and such, but consider this – on being elected the member of parliament must swear an oath. In England on the bible so that is by God. Scots members have a choice because they are, in law, sovereign in their own right, so need not swear allegiance to the sovereign of England.

    200. arthur thomson says:

      Lots of interesting thoughts on how things could/should pan out. Life being what it is, we don’t know what is around the next corner. It is useful preparation to explore some of the obvious possibilities but a waste of energy to get aerated about it.

      In my opinion, the keys to a successful outcome are of a general nature rather than specific. Another SNP Administration at Holyrood to prove the point that a genuinely Scottish government is best; success in the following local elections leading to an observable improvement in local government; increasing self confidence in the electorate; increasing awareness of and immunity to the unionist lie machine; a state of determination in the electorate to support fundamental change.

      The trigger that will ultimately bring about independence we will not know until it actually happens. For my part, I speculate that it may be that the Westminster system will implode and that the pressure for independence may just be one important factor in bringing that about. Westminster is undoubtedly rotten at its core and as that becomes increasingly obvious it may be that a substantial number of people who voted no, out of a misplaced sense of loyalty, conclude that what they felt a need to be loyal to no longer exists because it has been hijacked by unscrupulous liars. As has happened with the red tory party.

      Meantime we just keep promoting and supporting independence in every possible way.

    201. michael diamond says:

      Tories appealing to the watp bigots who love their yoonyin!.

    202. AFewHomeTruths says:

      @ Skooshcase

      Two blokes who hear an elephant is on the way have a problem. They’ve never seen one. Don’t know what one looks like an bein fearties sit in a room wi the curtains drawn.

      Suddenly there’s a deafening trumpet blast nearby and the room starts to shake before all sunlight disappears with something humongously big outside.

      Even before it heidies the windae in they know what it is and something tells them what they need to do.

      My guess is its like that. I just hope its soon like.

    203. Grouse Beater says:

      The SNP is simply unable to let slip its commitment to regain Scotland’s independence. That means it has to hold mention of a new Referendum in its manifesto, and define how it will be brought about, either by voter pressure, or by outside influence that causes the SNP to set a new one to protect Scotland’s future.

      What the SNP should not do, dare not do, is pussyfoot around the issue, giving us the impression of reneging on a fundamental principal.

      A generation?
      This Scot influenced generations of educators; who knows his name?:

    204. Bob Mack says:

      Having engaged in problem solving with folk for a plethora of conditions ,I can assure you all that the best and most lasting changes come through time. There are no short cuts.

      Scotland has to escape the clutches of a country who has controlled us for so long,it has become almost natural to feel attachment. ( I do not refer to the people on this site).

      To loosen that attachment will take time and patience and dedication from us all. It must be part of our daily life to engage and educate. We will never win over everybody,but hopefully enough will come to realise the folly of remaining with one who abuses you.

    205. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Here’s suggestion for a gig which I, for one, would pay to attend – oor ain Robert Peffers vs Jacob Rees-Mogg in ‘live’ debate.

      Wouldn’t that be wonderful?

      You up for that Mr Peffers?

      For anyone who doesn’t know ‘The Mogg’, here he is in recent action:

    206. Robert Peffers says:

      @HandandShrimp says: 22 January, 2016 at 3:14 pm:

      “Yup they are running scared. :)”

      If you want the real truth they have been running scared for a very long time. I was a shop Steward for over 15 years when being a member of the SNP was certainly not fashionable.

      What is more, at union meetings attended by area & national leaders, with perhaps Labour Party High Head guys in attendance, they all just assumed everyone was a left wing Labour supporter.

      As a paid-up, card carrying SNP member I heard a lot more than they would have liked. They have been scared for decades and now it goes much, much deeper – it has become abject terror.

      I think they are more frightened of a democratic nationalist movement that they are of terrorists. After all they can just bomb the hell out of terrorists. They are still keeping the truth of the death of Willie McRae under wraps. I wonder why?

    207. Rock says:


      “Westminster’s approval is not required and should they attempt to annul the vote, they are in breach of the Articles of Union which enshrines Scottish Law “in Perpetuity”.”

      Why then did Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond sign the ‘Edinburgh agreement’ with the UK Prime Minister, to get Westminster’s ‘approval’ to hold a legally binding referendum?

      Do you think First Minister Nicola Sturgeon would defy Westminster and hold a referendum without its ‘approval’?

    208. Glesca Keelie says:

      Is it too early to go off piste.

      A wee article I stumbled on about that Trump mannie’s pop, and Woodie Guthrie..

    209. ahundredthidiot says:

      Few posts about unionists being feart and I couldn’t agree more. The emotional anger coming out of some of the ones I know can be quite impressive.

      However, we must remember that fear is something we should be afraid of – that, and probably God – our brothers and sisters in the No Camp will be at their very most dangerous the closer to the end it gets for them.

      Scotlands independence will not be without (more) pain, but it’ll be worth it.

    210. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Glesca Keelie –


      Here’s Obama having a go at Trump (2011) –

    211. Iain says:

      Well done Robert Pefers you are a Scottish patriot.

    212. Iain says:

      Sorry about the spelling.

    213. yesindyref2 says:

      @Robert Peffers
      Some time ago I was trying to work out when I thought of and started to believe in Independence for Scotland, and the answer was that I cheered on 11 SNP MPs in 1974, and had my graphs later showing SNP members to rise to 30 or more in 1979, based on growth in support.

      Then along came the Devolution Bill, partly to try to kill of Independence (as in 1997), and to start with some of the SNP were against that, as the bill didn’t go far enough and anyway Independence was their game. I argued against that on the basis of “take what you can, when you can, and build on it”. In the event the SNP did throw themselves behind Devo, and at times distributed Labour leaflets as some of Labour turned against Devo, and others were just apathetic.

      But for many years with the SNP it was a case of if they got a majority of MPs at Westminster, they would go for UDI. I think in those days it would have been aceptable, internationally, though I daresay the rUK would have imposed sanctions as it did with other parts of the departing Empire.

      But then in 1999 Winnie Ewing “reconvened” the Scottish Parliament, in the presence of HRH Elizabeth who could have protested and tried to assert her Sovereignty in the same way Anne did in 1707, but was content to sit as a guest. To my mind that confirms technically the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament of 1707 which adjourned on 25th March but failed to reconvene on 22nd April – to dissolve itself or perhaps repeal the Act of Union only just passed in January (I think). It was Rosebery and Co a few days later who rang bells through the streets of Edinburgh and dissolved it by Proclamation of Anne – something I don’t think they had the authority to do.

      So arguably the current Scottish Parliament, being the reconvened Scottish Parliament of 1707, has ALL powers to its name, including defence, foreign affairs – and the power to repeal the Act of Union with England and, indeed, the Treaty of Union itself. So as far as the Scottish parliament having the power to hold a Referendum without “permission” of Westminster, well, it has that power. But it could face long legal battles if it tried, mounted by any single citizen or group of citizens of Scotland.

      That’s the other side of Sovereignty, which the People of Scotland have, vested by us in that Parliament in Holyrood. And that brings us, neatly, back to that Claim of Right which has been kept going for hundreds of years, 1689, 1842, 1988 handed over to the Scottish Parliament in 1999, and again in 2012. It is extant – it exists in Law.

    214. yesindyref2 says:

      To summarise that long posting, by the way, what I’m possibly saying is that Scotland is already Independent, just that we don’t realise it yet.

    215. ben madigan says:

      i can fully understand Scottish voters’ inclination to choose leave the EU – given for example what happened to greece just last year.
      However tactically speaking, the more England seems inclined to leave, the more Scotland should vote to stay.

      For two reasone 1) to demarcate differences with England and 2) to provide the grounds for Indyref2.

      Once Scotland has gained Independence, and her parliament is set up and the people see it is working satisfactorily etc, Scotland can draw breath and take her time about deciding to stay in or out of the EU. She can weigh up the pros and cons in her own good time and then have another referendum to decide.

    216. Iain says:

      We will win in May, the unionists are needing to deal with the the fact that they are going to lose badly and Kezia will need to find a new job. But the fight for independence goes on and the Scottish people being sovereign is a nail in the coffin of unionism that they will have to address. They have no answer to the right of sovereignty of the Scottish people. We will win just vote SNP,SNP in May and do the same in 2017.

    217. Dr Jim says:

      Ian More wants Nay demands clarity on when the SNP will inform him of their decisions to do stuff or his vote goes elsewhere
      Although I’ve already informed him of how much I don’t care about who he votes for, it’s a free country, he persists in what he believes to be an ultimatum to place his trust in democracy with another party, again his right

      The sequence of events is this, if and or when a decision is reached on the subject of whether the Manifesto is to include a definitive the First Minister will Email me personally as a secure and trusted member of the party for my advice and input on the subject and if Ian More leaves his phone number he will be the first Absolute Plonker I call DUH..

      Actually that’s partly true because if you’re a member of a party and you pay your dues you do get to know stuff before everybody else, Oh, and the FM does email me quite regularly as she does with all 120.000 of us who have the Tech to receive it

      The SNP are pretty good that way, and anyway I think she’s just great, but I’m brainwashed what do I know

      Beep Beep Sturgeonate

    218. Robert Peffers says:

      @Rock says: 22 January, 2016 at 10:39 pm:

      “Why then did Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond sign the ‘Edinburgh agreement’ with the UK Prime Minister, to get Westminster’s ‘approval’ to hold a legally binding referendum?”

      I’ll throw that back to you, Rock. Why ever not? As Westminster’s agreement was not legally required there was no point in not signing. Refusing to do so would only have led to a stand off and long legal wrangles.

      As I state up-thread, it is a very long established legal point under English, International and most established states that being sovereign means the person or body cannot give up their sovereignty. It has long been established under Westminster rules and that even before Westminster became the UK government.

      It is also enshrined under Scottish law that the monarchy, and hence their Westminster delegated representatives, are not sovereign. To clarify, in the three country Kingdom of England the elected MP swears, by their God, their allegiance to the monarch but the Scots MPs only do so by choice.

      If Salmond had refused to sign there would have been years of court arguments and nothing gained.

      “Do you think First Minister Nicola Sturgeon would defy Westminster and hold a referendum without its ‘approval’?”

      I think the good lady has already stated that she will go ahead with a referendum whether they like it or not. Thing is, would she be defying them? The truth is that if she has a mandate she doesn’t need Westminster’s say so. Which is what this whole section of Wings has been about.

      There is no doubt that under Scottish Law the people are sovereign and under English law no one, nor organisation, that already has sovereignty can give that sovereignty away. They can only, at best, delegate it for another to exercise. So all Westminster could do was drag the matter out through the English Courts. Meanwhile the referendum would take place under Scottish jurisdiction.

      Remember the Lockerbie Bomber trial? Not even the combined USA & UK could take the trial out of Scottish Jurisdiction.

    219. Iain says:

      The bottom line, is we get Independence! How we get is irrelevant!

    220. schrodingers cat says:

      ben Madigan

      spot on, voting to stay in the eu isn’t a life sentence, it isn’t a permanent situation

      voting to leave the uk, will be

    221. Nana says:

      Hope the dug and the rest of the red tories have seen this tweet from Ben Riley at tory telegraph

      Jeremy Corbyn warned that Labour faces triple whammy of election blows in May.
      Shadow cabinet told Labour will lose 200 council seats, Welsh Assembly majority and all Scottish constituency seats in May. Brutal.

      and this one from Election UK

    222. Dr Jim says:

      @ Ian More

      Funnily enough right after my previous post i just received an email from the FM but I’m not telling you what was in it

      So there

    223. Capella says:

      @ Nana
      Oh what joy! On that note – off to bed.

    224. Glesca Keelie says:

      Ian Brotherhood says:

      Thanks Ian, right intae his bones. Pity the camera coudnae get in closer to the Donald’s face. Didnae seem to be laughing.

    225. Robert Peffers says:

      @yesindyref2 says: 22 January, 2016 at 11:18 pm:

      “To summarise that long posting, by the way, what I’m possibly saying is that Scotland is already Independent, just that we don’t realise it yet.”

      There is that other wee English Legal fact.

      A sovereign, just by being sovereign, is unable to give up being sovereign.

      So Westminster, which isn’t legally sovereign, but only operates the Queen of England’s sovereignty. (It is after all, legally Her Majesty’s Government), can only legally hold sovereignty over Scotland by the express permission of the legally sovereign people of Scotland.

      In effect Lizzie II is the Queen of Scots and under Scots law the Sovereign people of Scotland can sack her and appoint another in her place if she does not do her job as we see fit. Now what would you call that purring thing we heard about?

      Seriously, though, the problem is getting a majority of the people of Scotland to agree to become independent and to give a mandate to a Scottish Government to declare independence.

      At this point they either just walk away from Westminster and let Westminster attempt to prevent independence. No doubt Westminster would claim it was UDI and it would be up to the Scottish Government to use the English Law that sovereignty cannot be given away. Ergo it would not be UDI.

      The other option is to gain the majority and mandate and then tie things up in the international courts for who knows how long.

    226. I have been S.N.P. sinc 1959 do not like being classed as needing to be told what to do’ wouldnt be where you are if not for us 75-90 odd yr olds trawling the streets year /year so stop knocking us

    227. ArtyHetty says:

      re; Ben madigan@11.19

      Eh? The people of Scotland are more in favour of remaining in the EU, for now. The English have the ‘inclination’ to leave, that must be what you were meaning.

      If we are dragged out by england, we stand to lose much. The human rights act will go, funding for farmers and environmental causes will go and much more. If the human rights act is removed by UKok, then we would need our own act, in order to provide fundamental human rights.

      Do you know, Scotland already has it’s own parliament and it’s working for the people of Scotland against massive odds, ie the wide and varied restrictions, imposed by westmonster.

      Scotland will do even better when independent whether already dragged out of the EU, or not.
      We won’t have any problems regards being welcomed into the EU with open arms. After all, our resources, trade and innovative development are very valuable, and not just to Scotland.

      For now, we need an SNP government to carry on the work they are doing to mitigate tory and red tory backward, destructive, unnessary and cruel austerity policies.

      We need rid of the greedy, self serving, people destroying establishment, whatever happens. The english can vote for self destruction, but we are on a different path thanks.

    228. yesindyref2 says:

      @Dr Jim
      I got an email just after 4 this afternoon (I replied already) – is that a 2nd one you got?

    229. yesindyref2 says:

      @Robert Peffers
      Indeed. Plan A though is Indy Ref 2 with a S30 Order, YES vote and hence full co-operation from Westminster (albeit with negotiations where – despite what the Unionists say, Scotland has the upper hand). That’s the “easy” route.

      There are others, using Westminster, Holyrood – or even adapting the LibDems idea of having a petition to even allow a Referendum, to change it to declaring Independence if the petition – or rather Peoples Proclamation – reaches over 50% of the voting population of Scotland. All things are possible, and Westminster only has some control over the easy route of the S30 Order, much as it might like to claim otherwise.

      it still comes down though to getting the majority of Scotland to not only want Independence which I think a majority does already, but to believe in Scotland, to believe that we can make it, on our own two feet rather than clutching Westminster’s apron-strings in our little mitts.

    230. yesindyref2 says:

      From the Herald: “Constitutional row as UK Government plans to use Scots councils as frontline in its war against illegal immigrants”

      “The Law Society of Scotland’s director of law reform, Michael Clancy, said assessing the issue of legislative consent was not easy, but added: “In the circumstances the Society’s sub-committee came to the view that the Sewell Convention did apply and the Scottish Parliament would need to give consent.” “

      Hehe. Tick tock.

    231. Onwards says:

      yesindyref2 says:
      22 January, 2016 at 4:57 pm

      “I’m expecting a very carefully worded provision commitment to Indy Ref 2 in the SNP manifesto.

      It has to be carefully worded though so as not to scare off those who are still NO voters but like the SNP for its other policies..

      Yes, the herald story linked to above quoting ‘senior party figures’ was swiftly followed by a bemused Nicola Sturgeon tweet saying “That’s news to me!”

      There is a difference between a manifesto with a definite commitment, and one which contains a mandate for a referendum in general.

      IMO, there should be a simple statement in every single Holyrood manifesto stating that the SNP believe independence is the best option for Scotland, and they reserve the right to call a second referendum if majority demand is shown by the Scottish people.

      It looks like most opinion settles on a possible 2020 or 2021 date, which is a reasonable time to respect the previous result. And as the article mentions, a clear manifesto *mandate* is needed to call a referendum.

      If the opportunity arises beforehand it would be crazy not to have that. Imagine a couple of years.. Scotland dragged out the EU, George Osborne as PM with new anti-Scottish policies, followed by a billion barrel oil field discovery, and oil back up to $90, whilst polls are showing 55% YES. Better circumstances might never occur.

      The Tories are going to make clear the SNP is all about independence, so why not embrace it? Ultimately, the final decision is up to the people so why should anyone be scared of democracy ?
      Right now, an electorate divided between unionism and nationalism suits the SNP as long as the unionist vote is divided.

      If there is no mandate for a possible second referendum, then the SNP really will lose votes to other parties, the main distinction between Labour will vanish, and the party could split.
      Yet all momentum would be lost if targets for a second indyref were set so high as to be impractical. eg the idiotic suggestion for 60% needed in the polls outwith a referendum campaign.

      It’s a balancing act, and I trust they will come up with the right wording around a floating mandate.

    232. DerekM says:

      Yea Alan Crerar im with you on that one ,the truest form of democracy is a populace referendum,it doesnt get more democratic than that.

      And you are right it doesnt need to be about independence it could be oh about having our own representatives working for us in Europe.

      Should Scottish government representatives be in charge of all the European affairs of Scotland,i know one ex first minister who would just love that one.

      As i said before the neo liberals are terrified of referendum simply because it means we get to decide not them,they want to rule not serve.

    233. jdman says:

      Ian Brotherhood
      “Here’s suggestion for a gig which I, for one, would pay to attend – oor ain Robert Peffers vs Jacob Rees-Mogg in ‘live’ debate.

      Wouldn’t that be wonderful?

      You up for that Mr Peffers?”

      Ho ho ho
      I would pay money (an me a Fifer anaw) to see that
      I can imaging “The Mogg” in his (annoyingly) likeable plummy tones saying to Bob

      “Oh I say, there’s one of you and 330 of us, a bit unfair dontcha think?”

      And Bob replying in his (pluckys raw, Keltys finest accent)
      “Aye Aa suppose your right,

      You go an get reinforcements Aa’ll wait richt here”

      ps please God let me have spelt pluckys raw richt, he knows where I live!

      Bob (hiya Bob) Peffers
      “Aye! Iona, and this old git, his campervan window stickers, his YES badges on his hat and SNP stickers on his house windows. What’s more I’ve been campaigning for independence since before I left primary school.”

      An you learned at this mans knee eh?

      Its a source of immense pride to Irene that she (as a child) used to go round the doors in Cardenden with Jimmy handing out SNP leaflets when there was nowhere near the support they have today!

      I on the other hand am immensely proud of my wife!
      Schrodingers cat
      “the snp will take control of many councils but the unionists coalitions will control many, possibly more than the snp”

      Which of course is unacceptable, surely the Scottish government can/should do something about this disgraceful gerrymandering by unionist parties in councils such as Stirling where the SNP are the single biggest party but find themselves outvoted by a Labour and Tory coalition
      Attempted to remove Stirlings OWN saltire which (because of Bannockburn) has a lion rampant on it, with a union flag

      The Herald says
      “The parties, who run Stirling Council in coalition, said they were standing up for “symbols the men and women of Stirling have fought and died under for 300 years”.

      Not a thought was given to the men and women who died 400 years before that to defend their homeland!

      Now you just got me MAD!
      dont even get me started on their absolutely disgusting behaviour at attempting to scupper the 700 year Bannckburn commemoration

      Which blew up (snigger) in their faces leaving them with a financial shortfall, which no doubt the tories bailed them out with taxpayers money.

      Bob Peffers
      “At this point they either just walk away from Westminster and let Westminster attempt to prevent independence. No doubt Westminster would claim it was UDI and it would be up to the Scottish Government to use the English Law that sovereignty cannot be given away. Ergo it would not be UDI.”

      I see where your going with that Bob
      In effect we were never NOT independent but simply governed by Westminster wth our consent simply removing that consent restores the status quo ergo not UDI, good point.

      That is a point that needs to been explored and made main stream thinking PDQ!

    234. jdman says:

      This is what the SNP have delivered/are delivering
      Dear John, (email from Nicola Sturgeon)

      This week I was in Dundee to see the fantastic progress being made at the £100 million Waterfront development.

      This major revamp is one of many big infrastructure projects being delivered by the SNP government.

      In the summer we opened the Borders Railway – the longest new domestic railway to be built in Britain in over 100 years.

      We’re on track too with our target of building 30,000 affordable homes by March 2016.

      Then there’s the Queensferry Crossing, Scotland’s largest infrastructure project in a generation – another of our projects on schedule and under budget.

      £400 million is being pumped in to deliver superfast broadband to 95 per cent of properties across Scotland by the end of 2017.

      And the A9 Perth-Inverness will see £3 billion invested to complete around 80 miles of dual carriageway by 2025.

      With patients now streaming through the new southern general in Glasgow, work turns to the new Acute District General Hospital for Dumfries & Galloway and the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Edinburgh.

      In the run up to Scotland’s election in May, I’ll be setting out our investment priorities for the next 5 years.

      If we are re-elected in May, I am more determined than ever that our SNP government goes on delivering for local communities.
      @me again 🙂

      Let’s remember Jack McConnell returned 1.5 billion to the UK treasury because he “couldn’t think of anything to spend it on”!

    235. starlaw says:

      Trains to be built in Spain. So too are the British Armies 590 new Scout or Armoured cars. Have not seen a mention of this in BUM newspapers.

    236. Nana says:

      Rev Stu, first lot of links failed to show, must be stuck in moderation. Tried to repost as I thought perhaps there was something causing a glitch.

    237. Fiona says:

      but to engage in a debate on that basis involves a lot of semantic nitpicking that, while entirely valid, just ends up sounding shifty.


      It is a clever way of closing down true debate, and it is very difficult to counter for just the reasons you give.

      Unionists know it is nonsense: but they know it often works as well

    238. Robert Peffers says:

      @schrodingers cat says: 22 January, 2016 at 3:11 pm:

      “Mr Peffers, I don’t doubt the historical and legal truths you make, I just think that wm will undermine indyref2 in anyway they can. at some point in this process, a face off is inevitable beyond which, our only leverage will be civil disobedience”.

      Nearly missed your comment, schrodingers cat, If the longer term history teaches us anything on this matter of legal sovereignty it is that neither war or civil disobedience wins the argument. Though they may well play a significant part.

      The significant wins made by Scotland were all ultimately achieved by the laws of England and their effects on English politics.

      Just starting with the Scottish/English wars of independence we see the bloodshed and strife ended not just by battlefield victories but by the Declaration of Arbroath.

      This saw the then leader of all Christendom not only ruling that Scotland was an independent kingdom but that the reason she was independent hinged upon the fact that the excommunicated Bruce was not sovereign because the People of Scotland were. That is Bruce could not be sovereign but could be the protector of the people’s sovereignty. A legal decision.

      Next significant happening was the English, “Glorious Revolution”, but in this case the legal issue of sovereignty was that the English Kingdom’s Sovereign was the crown of England and, being sovereign, the sovereign could not give away the sovereignty.

      It is the whole legal basis for the English sovereign having retained as the head of state in the three country Kingdom of England. English law is based upon the people being subjects and everything, including those subjects, being owned by the sovereign.

      However, as sovereignty cannot be given up under English law, the Glorious Revolution forced King Billy & Queen Mary to delegate their sovereignty to parliament while legally retaining it.

      Next up was the Treaty of Union and that sees the Scottish legal system being forever sacrosanct and thus Scotland’s law remains that the people are sovereign and under English law they cannot give it up.

      Here then is the anomaly – the people of Scotland have never explicitly been asked to give up their legal sovereignty and under English law they cannot legally do so.

      Yet The Establishment have continued to claim legal sovereignty over Scotland but that, like King Billy & Queen Mary, they cannot legally do. So the Westminster Establishment would seem to be assuming the people of Scotland have delegated their sovereignty to their elected representatives at the United Kingdom Parliament.

      If the people of Scotland cannot, under English law, give away their sovereignty then they can only delegate it to be operated by their agents in the UK parliament.

      This is thus the nub of the matter – until now these agents have been from unionist parties only too ready to accept the Establishments assumption of legal sovereignty.

      Yet that assumption is, in itself, not legally proven. There is no documented legal proofs. Thus if the SNP can gain, as they now have, a majority of the Westminster seats, and they get a clear majority mandate from the legally sovereign people of Scotland,, what is to legally prevent them from, (under English Law), withdrawing from Westminster back to Holyrood as the second chamber of a Scottish Parliament?

      If legal sovereignty can force an English parliament to retain a Monarchy they were rebelling against then it must also hold that it is also legal for the Scots to retain their sovereignty of the people of Scotland.

    239. Scott Borthwick says:

      Nana says:
      22 January, 2016 at 6:33 pm

      “I’m seeing labour councillors moving to the snp”

      I have to say that this makes me a little nervous. Many people I know deride the Labour councillors, MSPs and MPs as careerists, placemen and other forms of self-serving ratbag. I can’t be the only person who’s concerned that this is, for the most part, cynical self-preservation?

    240. jdman says:

      Scott Borthwick @9.04
      that is all.

    241. jdman says:

      My response ended up on a post from 04/01/16 (no idea why)
      take two: grrr

      In my view Scott, people who join us from other parties should be welcomed with open arms but at the same time have it made perfectly clear they will be expected to “join the queue” when it comes to selection for Councillors and MP/s/MSP’s it is not reasonable to push loyal party members to the end of the queue just because a high flyer from another party sees the writing on the wall.

      And breathe

    242. Undeadshaun says:

      Iain More
      To those SNP members here, take my vote for granted and you will pay for it.

      That smacks of people’s front of Judea, Judean people’s front arguments ala monty pythons life of Brian.

      It’s just what westminster wants…. Divide and rule

      If SNP don’t get control of Holyrood there will never be another referendum.

    243. Robert Peffers says:

      @jdman says: 23 January, 2016 at 7:45 am:

      “An you learned at this mans knee eh?

      Well, jdman, not really. I’ll tell you where this all comes from. I’m an incomer to Fife. I came to serve a Dockyard apprenticeship in the early 1950s. Married a Kelty girl, moved to Kelty and have been here permanently since 1962.

      My political influences stem from my Edinburgh primary school teacher, (and his sister who taught history at my secondary school). They were not SNP but both great born teacher with a great love of Scottish history.

      Now back in the late 1940s and the 1950/60s. There was a vibrant Scottish independence movement in Edinburgh. With such as Wendy Wood, Cannon Kenyon Wright, Willie Wolf, Willie McRae and a host of others. Speaker’s Corner at the foot of the Mound was a great Sunday entertainment.

      However, my main mentor was an old Legal Eagle I met by chance in, of all places, Greyfriars Kirkyaird, in Edinburgh.

      I used to spend time in the Old Town trawling round the many second hand shops and many second hand bookshops. I always had my nose in a book and in nice weather would go to Greyfriars Kirkyaird and sit in peace and quiet reading.

      I often saw this old gentleman also sitting reading and on a particularly warm day, with more people than usual in the kirkyaird, we ended sitting on the same bench and got into conversation.

      It turned out he was a well known Edinburgh QC and, like myself, a great one for Scottish history. It was from him I learned the truths of Scotland’s journey into the United Kingdom and the not well known legal facts behind that union.

      As to the SNP in Kelty, when I came to Fife, Kelty was part of the Cowdenbeath Branch of the party. We were very thin on the ground back then. Like your wife the members worked their socks off.

      “Its a source of immense pride to Irene that she (as a child) used to go round the doors in Cardenden with Jimmy handing out SNP leaflets when there was nowhere near the support they have today!”

      You are right to be proud of your good lady for it is due to such hard workers dedication that there is an SNP party today. We all owe them a great debt that we can never repay.

    244. Scott Borthwick says:

      Alan Crerar says:
      22 January, 2016 at 8:49 pm

      “Lets have a referendum every year (not Indy, yet) to keep our hand in. Something important, and cross-party. Any other suggestions?”

      A series of referenda on powers to be repatriated from Westminster? It would properly establish the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign. We could do one a year, and slowly recapture all powers until, like New Zeland, we wake up and find ourselves independent.

      “That useful creature to the geneticist, the fruit fly.”

      Fun fact for the day. The tiny fruit fly, drosophila bifurca, produce the longest sperm of any species. 58mm (2.3in) long.

    245. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi schrodingers cat.

      Re: the council elections.

      Dundee has 8 wards, a mixture of 3 and 4 members. In 2012, the SNP had 2 elected in each ward, giving them 16 councillors out of 29. They took 2 seats from the tories and 1 from the Lib-Dems.

      Maybe Dundee is not a ‘normal’ example?,_2012

    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