The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The one we’ve waited for

Posted on January 01, 2019 by

The last two years, particularly 2018, have been a pretty miserable time in the annals of Scottish independence. Not because support has fallen – it hasn’t budged an inch, however much Unionists might try to desperately convince themselves otherwise – but because there hasn’t, in essence, been anything we could usefully do.

Faced with a brick wall of “now is not the time” intransigence from a UK government elected by England and determined to frustrate the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, we could talk all we wanted but had no means to determine our own fate, locked in the boot of a car speeding towards a cliff edge with a lunatic at the wheel.

That age – and it’s felt like an age – is very nearly at an end.

It’s time to get ready.

Because the can Westminster has been kicking since June 2016 is almost out of road. Within the next couple of weeks, the starting gun on the UK’s exit from the EU will finally be fired, one way or the other. (It should in fact have happened in October, but an incompetent government and a useless opposition conspired to drag out the country’s misery for several pointless extra months.)

And then the politics-weary people of Scotland will be forced to confront a decision they’ve been understandably turning a blind eye to ever since 2014.

At the moment, some pundits are still suggesting that by a combination of bribery and terror, Theresa May might still – somehow – manage to get her disastrous withdrawal agreement through Parliament. Most believe it will fail by a large margin. But either outcome would turn public opinion in Scotland from No to Yes.

And that’s with Brexit still only a theory. When it starts to actually happen, when food and medicine start to disappear from shelves and all the other economic and social consequences begin to bite, those numbers are likely to climb.

Ironically, the UK government’s best chance of winning a second indyref would be to hold it next week. If they’d accepted the Scottish Parliament’s demand for a new vote in March 2017, on the condition that it be held within 18 months of that date, they’d very likely have won it and killed the issue decisively. As it’s turned out, from their perspective, then WAS the time. It’s too late for them now, and they know it, which is why they’re in such a screaming panic.

No matter what happens later this month, the Conservative Party is doomed. If the withdrawal agreement – with its Irish backstop – is passed, Theresa May will lose the support of the DUP MPs currently propping up her government, Jeremy Corbyn will finally have his hand forced into a confidence vote and there’ll be a general election.

If it’s defeated, her government’s few remaining tatters of credibility will be ripped into even smaller shreds, Ireland will erupt at the inescapable prospect of a hard border and independence, we learned above, will take a 20-point lead in Scotland. The chaos will be so total that even May might discover her long-suppressed sense of shame and stand down (triggering even more chaos).

Almost anything is still possible (although the chances of a second EU referendum, always remote, shrivel with every passing day), but the one thing that’s certain is that the day of reckoning can no longer be put off by a government that’s never had a clue what it’s doing and has finally run out of stalling time.

By the end of this month, readers, the agonising phoney war of the last two years will be over one way or another. We’re about to find out where we stand and what we’re going to do about it. These are the last few moments of peace, so get some rest now while you still can. A storm’s coming.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 01 01 19 11:56

    The one we’ve waited for | speymouth

480 to “The one we’ve waited for”

  1. Wee Jock poo-pong mcplop says:

    Oh Lordy, I hope you’re right. Bit of a sod for the rest of the “UK”, but we didn’t vote for this lunacy.

  2. William Habib Steele says:

    I wish the Scottish Government would take Craig Murray’s advice before a no deal Brexit actually happens on March 29th. I fear that after then the English government of the UK will make it impossible for the Scottish Government to act.

  3. Malky says:

    Fingers and toes crossed.

  4. Merkin Scot says:

    Speaking with one of the high heid yins in the EU (more properly, his burd) we realised that the EU need do nothing. Still the same this year.

  5. HandandShrimp says:

    2018 has indeed been a year of limbo smeared liberally with incompetence and duplicitous subterfuge. 2019 is the year the pigeons come home to roost.

    I think we are more than ready to welcome our feathered friends. Time to get ready for some real action.

  6. Andrew davies says:

    This is the best column you’ve wrote this year. ?. But in all seriousness totally correct. Bring it on.

  7. Bryan says:

    Bring it on please god bring it on !

  8. Turnbulldrier says:

    Well, I for one welcome the onrushing chaos..

    I’m almost out of ‘proper’ Irn Bru and the stuff that’s left has a use by date of June.

    My plan has always been to gain Indy and then perform a nationalisation of Barrs.

    Oh, on a side note, a working democracy would be nice too.

    Once more unto the breach.

  9. Socrates MacSporran says:

    I have been advocating for some time now, the SNP MPs in the House of Commons really need to start being pro-active on ripping-up the Treaty of Union.

    The political reality is, all the power over Independence rests with Westminster. They merely devolved certain issues to Holyrood, retaining the real power – as Enoch Powell and Tam Dalyell said at the time: “Power devolved is power retained.”

    The SNP will be out-vote on every issue. What I feel they ought to be doing is studying Erskine May (the handbook of Parliamentary prcedure) and causing as much mayhem as they can.

    Force a sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee (the HoC body of all the Scottish MPs) and pass a motion ripping-up the Treaty of Union. Of course, the in-built English majority will immediately vote that motion down, but, if they do that enough times, even the proudest Proud Scots but, would realise what a one-sided union we are tied to.

    Play the constitutional cards as never before – and, who knows, this time next year, we could be FREE at last.

  10. Andrew Morton says:

    Thank God. I’m getting really pissed off with all the doom mongers on Twitter swearing that they’re going to abandon the SNP because they haven’t yet called a referendum.

    None of them have yet explained how this will advance the cause of independence but I’m sure they’ll come up with something soon.

  11. Street Andrew says:

    This diagram helpfully posted by Richard Murphy is Jon Worth’s impression of the Brexit situation now.

    To the casual observer it indicates the tangled complexity of options and as somebody observed, is a graphic representation of a ‘clusterfuck’.

    If you have a screen large enough to follow the lines and consequences it’s very illuminating. It’s a graphic representation of a complete ‘clusterfuck’. Sometimes first impressions can be misleading, but not in this case.

    Scotland needs to be out of this.

  12. Weechid says:

    Thanks for that bit of optimism among all the shite. Badly needed after reading the appaling comments from some Little Englanders on twitter re refugees/asylum seekers. None of those b******s speak for me.

  13. Jamero66 says:

    There is a fair chance the TM’s vote will fail first time around but by a small enough margin for her to try again, thus kicking the can further down an ever reducing road.

  14. X_Sticks says:

    On the nail as always Rev.

    It’s so hard to call right now as there’s so many interdependent threads that could unwind in so many different outcomes.

    The tory brexitshambles has created a Gordian knot of vast proportions.

    I just hope that Nicola knows where Alexander’s sword is. We may well need it.

    All the best to you all for 2019.

    It’s going to be a maelstrom I suspect.

  15. Jim Arnott says:

    Excellent analysis Stuart. You should make sure Prof Curtice reads this.I see he is continuing to say support for Scottish Indepence hasn’t budged (Sunday Post I think). We are certainly not too wee nor too poor but there are certainly still some Scots who think we are too stupid – but thankfully they are getting fewer and fewer with each passing day. I am 80 years young and I WILL see Scottish Independence in my lifetime. Hail Alba gu brath.

  16. Bill Cochrane says:

    Just looking at my ‘leaflet delivering’ bag this morning and hoping it won’t be long before it’s back out there on the streets. Bring it on.

  17. Helena Brown says:

    Socrates, are you speaking to my husband, he has been shouting this forever. We will get nowhere being nice. Play their rules against them.

  18. thingy says:

    Medicines are already starting to disappear. See Dr Amir Khan and others on twitter.

    As Stu articulates above, time is almost up. Be ready, folks.

  19. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    Put this up on the last post but I think there is a serious point – our opposition is failing.

    With no National to enjoy this merning I made the mistake of buying a Herald.

    I now fully understand why it is following the Scotsman to irrelevancy.

    It is dominated by a double page spread coralled by Tom Gordon describing in massive headlines the Nicola Sturgeon’s and the SNP’s “annus horribilis”

    You know – the party that has just become the second largest party in the whole UK,led by a figure that is considered right across the UK as the only coherent voice in the Brexit shambles and whose current poll ratings now puts it about 23 points ahead of its nearest rival with support higher than the support of the other three major parties in Scotland put together. They are obviously allowed an orderly collapse.

    After I had read that – shall we call it “gordonesque” – and laughed out loud I turned for a little sanity perhaps to the readers’ letters.

    Help ma boab as we say. There was six readers’ letters. One from Alex Gallacher, one from David Bone, one from Martin Redfern, one from Alexander McKay and one from Keith Howell. I thought for a moment I had been rendered senseless by New Year festivity and purchased a Daily Express. (There was another from the doughty Ruth Marr. Oh Yes. To provide balance. Ho ho ho)

    Is the laughable readers’ letters an illustrative example of the readers of the Herald? If so that is instead a vivid illustration of how completley irrelevant the Herald now actually is.

    And how little effect it now has on real political dialogue in Scotland.

  20. Eckle Fechan says:

    “Understand, it’s time to get ready for the storm.”

    (SRV, Couldn’t Stand the Weather.)

    HNY all. Cabin doors to manual.

  21. panda paws says:

    I think some folk don’t think Brexit will actually happen and it’s all some bad dream. They will be getting a shock on 29th March and I suspect things will start going tits up very shortly thereafter.

    Not sure it will merely be a storm though more a hurricane of shit.

    My New Years resolution is to stop swearing…

  22. ScottieDog says:

    Thanks stu.
    We were having this discussion into the sma hours lady night.
    Amazed at how many folk I know reckon we wont be independent because we won’t be allowed a referendum.

  23. You’ve stated the facts clearly there Stu and also laid out exactly why Nicola has waited as long as she has.
    The fog is clearing and May has to either walk the plank, jump into the fire or fall on her sword.

    Even if there is a second referendum, which I would expect Remain to win, there will be uproar in parts of the South and chaos plus the EU will not easily welcome England back into the fold.

    Anyone listening to Neil mc Gregor’s new series on BBC R4 in the morning. How Britain is seen in the eyes of English speaking countries which Britain tried to rule by force – India, Egypt, Nigeria, Canada and can’t deme her the 5th one.

    Fascinating and brutally refreshing programme spelling out exactly how low the British reputation has sunk – if it was ever high to start with. Surprised he’s being allowed to broadcast it. Worth a listen.
    Set Phasers to malky – CHECK!

  24. Mike says:

    I think you underestimate the people of Scotlands ignorance of political reality while we continue to allow ourselves to be influenced by the continuous spoon fed state message through an MSM which is still the bulwark of information for most Scots.
    The Yes campaign still hasn’t gotten a handle of the propaganda war mostly because it is overwhelmingly controlled and influenced by the UK state.
    Its a war of perception and we don’t have anywhere near the big guns the UK state can bring to bare.
    What is the distribution figures for the National?
    The ONLY folk who bother to subscribe or even read it are the converted. The ONLY folk who go online to pro Indy sites are the converted or the Yoon trolls who want to disrupt them.
    Its a cold hard fact that the ONLY real converts we can expect this year are the EU citizens living in Scotland we could in fact lose Indy supporters who are convinced that the EU is as corrupt as the UK state.
    When you have fannys like Sillars being given time and space to spew his horseshite you get the idea.
    When you still have the BBC and its powerful influence making up the news as it goes along you get the idea.
    Until we get to grips with the media perception war we aint going to make the progress we need to overwhelmingly overturn a reluctant UK state who could very well ignore anything other than an overwhelming demand for Independence.
    The UK state is not historically known for supporting a marginal call for Independence from its sweaty grip. It has historically only let go when forced to do so.

  25. Macart says:

    Couldn’t agree more with the post.

    Well said.

  26. James Mills says:

    I used to write regularly to The Herald – but it was clear even before 2014 referendum that it was a ‘lost cause’ as far as impartiality was concerned .
    Today it is only of use if one is short of toilet paper – post brexit , of course !

  27. It’s a good start to the NewYear – Andy Murray has won his first match back!

    Congratulations that man.

  28. Returnofthemac says:

    A guid new year to all Independence supporters. It’s getting closer.

  29. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    Daily Record today going big time on a possible Dunblane cover-up and referencing “a prominent Labour politician” benefitting from it. Wonder who that could be.

  30. Andy Anderson says:

    I agree Stu 100% with what you write. I am an active person in trying to convert people to Yes. I know many people who are moving to us due to Brexit. The chaos that keeps giving. I look forward to see what events ensue.

    If a GE is called soon I think the EU will just give up with us. The financial markets will continue to drop and employment levels will start to decline. Sadly a damaged England will not help a free Scotland’s economy but it will be worth it.

  31. Brian Powell says:

    The new ‘Wee Black Book’ in advanced preparation I would guess.

  32. Truth says:

    What role will our ever complicit “Scottish” media play?

    Will they finally do what is right? I somehow doubt it, and that is why winning will still be a major challenge for us.

    But win we will. And when I say we, I mean everyone. Even ardent no voters will quickly see what an independent Scotland will achieve for them and theirs.

    Happy 2019 Wingers. Thank you Stu for all you do and have done.

  33. Ahundredthidiot says:

    Andrew Morton @11:50

    When the ground has been chosen and the defences put in place. Everyone watered and fed, rested. Each has their brief. On the day, as we stand in the rain and watch the opposition filter into our sights there will always be a few who pop open their pouches too early.

    The rest of us will keep our powder dry right until the order is given. There’s enough of us. Trust in NS and the SNP.

    The other side of Indy I am likely to vote for a more conservative party, right now though, it’s all for one and one for all.

    Scots wha hae and roll on 2019

  34. Pogo says:

    Great article.

    Interesting observation about 2017 being the time the unionists were most likely to win IndyRef2.

    They are mad this lot but I suspect they have known all along that yes is likely to win even back then as 45% is a strong base to to build from in a campaign.
    They want to keep Scotland through less democratic means and the dirty tricks will only increase.

    We need to be more resolute than ever now to make Indy happen. No longer play by their rules call an Indy vote regardless, withdraw our MPs from WM, etc…

  35. Mogabee says:

    I’m upferit!

    Itching to do something and nervous about the future in equal measure.

    My daughter talking to me about my numberplate which has yes and a number, she asked if I thought we’d be independent by then and I said yes…

    So by god let’s get going, I have a promise to keep!

  36. Breeks says:

    Socrates MacSporran says:
    1 January, 2019 at 11:50 am

    “….. – as Enoch Powell and Tam Dalyell said at the time: “Power devolved is power retained.”

    Too many people people hear that and dismiss it’s material significance. When you exhort yourselves to fight over devolved issues like the Continuity Bill, or appeal to Westminster for anything, you have already swallowed the pill that Westminster is the superior authority deciding what happens in Scotland.

    It’s a little bit like wearing the kilted uniform which they give you to wear, it’s Scottish by its nature, but it’s “Scottishness” given to you by their discretion…

    When your mind’s eye finally sees the absurdity of a sovereign people blindly asking permission to be just a little bit sovereign, and then add the ludicrous spectacle of the false Sovereign saying “no”, surely, surely, the constitutional Penny has to finally drop. Westminster is not our government, and Holyrood is merely a proxy legislature, proxy legislature that is, until such a time that Holyrood ceases to draw its Parliamentary authority from Westminster and starts “supping it neat” from the absolute sovereign will of the Scottish people.

    We should not fear Westminster “trying” to shut down Holyrood or trying to curtail it’s powers. We should be confronting such unconstitutional disrespect and perfidy like a runaway express train. Bring it on. This is not the Constitutional End Game we have all been fearing,… this is the Constitutional End Game they’ve been fearing.

    For the first time in 300+ years, may the blinkers fall from our eyes and the whole population of Scotland finally see the Union for the study in grubby deception and manipulative exploitation which it always has been. Let us bring it down and free ourselves of this malevolent fallacy.

    Scotland will stay in Europe because Scotland decided that it would. They will still call it Brexit, but when England leaves Europe in 87 days, Scotland will be staying put.

    Time is short Nicola Sturgeon. You have less than 87 days to get our Nation’s Legal Personality sorted, less than 87 days to secure Scotland’s rights as a Sovereign Interlocutor and liaise with Europe to save ourselves from Brexit. With due respect, and the last of my patience, get it done or step aside and get out of the way.

  37. Republicofscotland says:

    A storm is coming hopefully one that Scotland can weather, and break free from the maelstrom into calmer independent waters.

  38. Inspiring post Stu.

    If you were a Unionist resident in Scotland who would you choose to represent the best interests of you and your family?

    The breathtakingly incompetent Tories or the equality incompetent Labour, what a selecion because thats the only real choices for unionists.

    For the first time in my life and I’m getting on, I think no one want to take charge in Westminster. The Tories and Labour haveall

  39. Johnny says:

    Mike @ 12:20pm:

    Genuinely not too sure about that. Not the stuff you mention about the grip of the media; I think that’s a fair observation and it remains an issue. I also agree that online a lot of what you see is from people who are always debating the issue and are converts to one side of the debate or the other.

    Nevertheless, and while acknowledging that my experiences can only ever be anecdotal and may not be general, I have observed some interesting stuff going on in recent times.

    I am aware of people who admit they are ‘not interested in politics and I find it boring’ and ‘prefer to watch Strictly’ who nevertheless want to know ‘when the’s independence referendum going to happen?’ and in fact express impatience.

    Furthermore, I am aware of an implacable No voter from 2014 (whom I had to cease talking politics with such were the arguments at times) who is now stating unprompted (for, as I say, I avoided the topic!) that he sees certain opportunities for an independent Scotland, although he remains skeptical (and really I am not sure he would change his vote).

    In the latter case in particular, I am not highlighting these as ‘comforting No to Yes’ stories per se, but they demonstrate that for some people are least the issue is very definitely ‘live’ and they are not all by any means ‘the converted’.

    Folk ARE thinking out there and I think it would be a mistake to imagine that only those who are commenting on things etc are reading them….and certainly when forced to read up on the issue again in order to make their choice, many people will.

  40. Scots Renewables says:

    Breeks, your last paragraph is a disgrace. Go back and read the article again.

  41. Alistair MacKinnon says:

    This is exactly why Westminster and Whitehall will declare a State of Emergency.
    Their need to control Brand UK will empower them to shut down the Scottish, Welsh and NI governments.
    Any response will be seen as destabilising Brand UK, with their response being military intervention, and our chance of a ‘legal’ referendum lost to the mists of time.

  42. MajorBloodnok says:

    Rest assured I’ll be girding my loins as they’ve never been girded before.

  43. Sorry about that fat fingers

    Tories and Labour have all shit in the chamber and no one wants to clean it up.

    Folks in Scotland must go for independence now as there is no other credible option.

    We must know this, the corrupt regime will use every trick in the book legal and illegal to thwart the will of the Scottish people.

    Hard fight ahead folks, but remember convert one person and you have done your bit.

    Due to the mess Westminster has made of things the last thing they can afford is wealthy Scotland gaining Independence.

    I believe we will be shocked by tactics deployed by the Regime in their attempts to defeat Scotland.

  44. Clydebuilt says:

    So knowing all of the above what is Westmonster going to do. . . . . Nothing, just sit back and let it happen.

    If they can’t hold on to us by democratic means and their army of propagandist’s they’ll try something different!

    They have stopped elections to the Northern Ireland assembly.

    A guid New Year to yin an’aw

  45. Merkin Scot says:

    What will be, will be.

  46. Josef Ó Luain says:

    @ Scottie Dog

    I strongly suspect that the days of “won’t be allowed” are drawing to a close. Too many people are being forced to acknowledge that the King has no-clothes-on and, as such, lacks the legitimate authority to allow or disallow anything. Laid bare, the myth of the British State, despite its well practiced propaganda and Disneyland raza-ma-taz, will be seen to amount to very little in terms of substance.

  47. Big Jock says:

    My prediction. Hard Brexit. Indy Ref 2 consultative in April. We win , WM refuse to recognise. Bullies sent to Holyrood to intimidate us. SNP resign election called in June.SNP win. UDI declared in July.

  48. Bob Mack says:

    Understand this simple fact. We may well have to leave the EU before people truly grasp what it means. There will be no continuity as many hope. We know already what is at stake,whilst others are becoming more and more aware on a daily if not hourly basis.

    RE entry would undoubtedly be quick after a successful indy, but the basic nature of people is to hope that something will still occur to stop the lunacy in their lives.

    A sad fact is that experience is often the only lesson from which they learn for the future.

    It gives us a major platform and something to offer, which is very very important.

  49. Thepnr says:

    Interesting article, I’d put money though on NOT knowing where we are by the end of the month. Just a hunch.

    The agonising phoney war might be dragged out for a bit longer yet.

  50. shiregirl says:

    I’m so ready.
    Bring it on.

  51. galamcennalath says:

    Excellent article. Perfect for the first day of this critical year.

    I suspect the old adage …. no gain without pain … will have particular relevance to the Indy cause and how Brexit relates to it. Some people need to get a taste of just how shite the UK has become to force them off the fence and firmly into YES. TMay and her Tories look like delivering lots of shite on cue.

  52. Malcolm McCandless says:

    Declare UDI before this Brexshit happens.

    The UK government (whoever that may be) will be up to its ears in crap as not to notice that Scotland has left.

    Declare UDI and go for it.

  53. ScotsRenewables says:

    Malcolm McCandless says:
    1 January, 2019 at 1:22 pm
    Declare UDI before this Brexshit happens.

    That would be madness. Why on earth would we declare UDI two weeks before the UK government play straight into our hands?

    I like Big Jock’s prediction. Wait until Brexit is stark staring unavoidable lunacy, then have two referenda – the second one a proxy one via a Holyrood election.

    THEN – and only then – declare independence – with lots of international support by then.

  54. H Scott says:

    I think the chances of a second Brexit referendum are increasing rather than decreasing. If May loses the vote for her deal, the only options will be a no-deal Brexit or no Brexit. A no-deal Brexit will be catastrophic and the attempt to scare MPs and public about it will rebound on May. A second referendum will allow panicking MPs to pass responsibility, one way or the other, on to the people.

  55. ronnie anderson says:

    When all around the Unionist are losing their heads remember folks its the Quickening .

  56. mumsyhugs says:

    At last – the Rev announces our call to arms!!! Happy new year everyone!!! 🙂

  57. starlaw says:

    Scottish complacency is now our biggest enemy, most people think that nothing is going to happen and that we are all being fed scare stories, it will be all right on the night.
    When reality hits home it will hit hard and MSM will try to blame it on the SNP it wont work. Interesting days ahead.

  58. geeo says:

    Do people actually read stuff on here ?

    The impossibility of UDI has been explained literally hundreds of times, yet still it is ‘demanded’ on a daily basis.

    That makes the motive to keep demanding it as questionable.

    Go look up the definition of UDI ffs, then ask, in what way does that apply to Scotland ?

  59. Mike says:


    Every Independent state who took their Independence from Westminster literally did it via UDI. Kind of makes you look like an imbecile eh?

  60. Muscleguy says:

    Remain will also be a possibility. No10 has allowed that in the debate on the deal other options will be allowed to be tabled. IF the SNP/PC/FibDems/Greens table a revocation of Article 50 and Remain on the basis of all other options being economic suicide it might just achieve a majority and dare May to head a govt found in contempt of parliament twice in two months.

    It might not be the end of Independent hopes though as England might well erupt in rioting and thus make continued union with it look even less viable than clusterfuck incompetent government. We could see troops on the street in England in riot gear a la Northern Ireland with no guarantee they are not lethally armed. Will the powers that be dare to use Scottish troops in England?

    We live in potentially Interesting Times.

  61. orri says:

    The use of the term “devolution” in respect to Holyrood is an inaccuracy bordering on propaganda.

    In Scots Law, the only one relevant in Scotland, the people are sovereign. Even if you contend the monarch is bear in mind they are only such as long as we say so. The only hope Westminster has of downplaying that may very well be to “allow” an independence referendum this year rather than attempt to repeat their fucking over of the 8th centennial celebrations of Bannockburn next year with the Declaration of Arbroath.

    Rambling aside. The point is no elected assembly hold sovereignty over Scotland but rather exercise it on behalf of it’s people. The very idea of “devolution” is meaningless in such a scenario. Westminster, Holyrood, local councils and the EU all have reign over various aspects of Scots sovereignty delegated to them by us. And yes, I’m saying the decision of the Supreme Court is incompetent or at best deliberately narrow.

  62. Thepnr says:


    “Every Independent state who took their Independence from Westminster literally did it via UDI. Kind of makes you look like an imbecile eh?”

    With the exceptions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand who didn’t do it via UDI.

  63. Mike says:

    @Johnny 12:57

    I would genuinely love to share your optimism yet I cant get past the fact that support for Independence hasn’t moved in the last year. How bad does it actually have to get? People still don’t see the reality that is literally smacking them in the face because the reality has been smoke screened by a media wilfully spreading confusion disinformation misinformation and deflection.
    People in Scotland are dying because of UK Government policy they have been for years. Can you imagine if every death due to Government imposed legislation made headline news how long that Government would be in power? Its because its not headline news we still have Tory Governments that’s the level of media manipulation we live with.
    Reality itself is not only ignored its rewritten. SUCCESSFULLY.
    Any real journalist worth his salt would have been out in the streets listening to the stories of people forced to visit foodbanks been evicted by force because they cant afford to pay rent the horror of universal credit all of it suppressed. Instead we read about the Royal fucking family and the quarrels of Princesses. How Jeremy Corbyn mouthed stupid women how the EU is being unreasonable how to create a 250,000 pension portfolio.
    Suppression repression denial ignorance deflection this is our media this is our reality.

  64. fillofficer says:

    i suppose if the scotsgov fail to get the budget approved, then a scots GE will solve all our problem & rUK can GTF

  65. T C POTTER says:

    Not long now.

  66. Mike says:


    Yes they actually did. They did not seek nor were granted any agreement regarding their Independence they simply stated their intent and followed it through. You’re conflating armed conflict with UDI.

  67. AndyP says:

    Felt great after reading this. You do get the impression that momentum is building when you speak to people in person but the media is still going to be the greatest challenge. I’m really grateful that we have WOS to spearhead our approach to that problem.

  68. Philip Maughan says:

    Not sure about this analysis. I watched the select committee on Leaving the EU in mid-December. The view of the 4 experts seemed to be that a ‘no-deal’ brexit would not cause a hard border in Ireland as neither the Republic or UK wants it. So we would carry on as at present, though over time changes would be forced, mostly by 3rd. parties aggrieved at the misuse of the non-border. They seemed to suggest that the same would be the case at Dover etc. as it wouldn’t be in anyone’s interests to cause chaos. Matthew Parris (the thinking mans Tory) echoed this in his Times column in late December, saying that rather than chaos, new regulations would probably be introduced over a protracted period and the UK economy would slowly decline (frog in a pan of water). If this happens it will make it much harder to call an IndyRef as there still won’t be clarity about the UKs future trading position.

  69. Lenny Hartley says:

    Breeks I used to read your posts and at one time thought you might know what your talking about however in the last few months they have become nothing more than SNP Baaad
    Who do you think you are? Demanding that our democratically elected leader who has the respect of the vast majority of Indy Supporters stand aside! , your coming across as a delusional fuckwit.

  70. Sarah says:

    @Mike – Scotland is a co-signatory of the Treaty of Union which is completely different to being a colony. Scotland is NOT a non-country as all the countries who had to become independent were. [Though I see why you might think Scotland is only a colony!]

    @ James Mills 12.25 – you used to be a regular correspondent in The National too, I believe. I’ve not spotted your name there for a year or so!

  71. Thepnr says:


    Are you sure? I know that it’s more complicated than the examples I give below but it looks to ma as if all these countries became Independent through the passing of laws in parliament. As I see it at least they sought Independent from Westminster rather than just declare they were Independent. Isn’t that what the USA did?

    New Zealand

    The British Parliament passed the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 to grant the colony’s settlers the right to self-governance, only 12 years (in 1853) after the founding of the colony. New Zealand was therefore to all intents and purposes independent in domestic matters from its earliest days as a British colony.


    Australia became an independent nation on 1 January 1901 when the British Parliament passed legislation allowing the six Australian colonies to govern in their own right as part of the Commonwealth of Australia.


    The Canada Act 1982 (1982 c. 11) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which was passed (as stated in the preamble) at the request of the Parliament of Canada, to “patriate” Canada’s constitution, ending the power of the British Parliament to amend the Constitution of Canada. The act also formally ended the “request and consent” provisions of the Statute of Westminster 1931 in relation to Canada, whereby the British parliament had a general power to pass laws extending to Canada at its own request.

  72. Mike says:

    Phillip Maughan

    Since when has UK politics been functioning in whats in everybodies best interests? Are you this naïve or corrupt? Another reality denier?
    What experts? Experts in what? Leaving the EU? How did they qualify as experts? Is there a course? Training? Qualifications?
    Its an ACTUAL FACT that legislation applied via treaty obligation no longer exists when that treaty is ended. That’s whats going to happen at the end of march 40 plus years of joint legislation built up amended and structured to get us where we are today will cease to apply overnight when the treaty between the UK and EU no longer applies. That leaves us in legal limbo as far as our relationship with our nearest European neighbours is concerned. Travel transportation movement between our states of any kind is no longer controlled or covered by ANY legal legislation. Legally we could jump on a plane with a bag full of heroin and be outside of any law or legal restraint until we tried to sell it or use it. That’s the reality of the situation as far as transporting anything or anybody there will literally be no laws in place to determine what and who can or cannot be transported.


  73. Mike says:


    Wow just wow. See this is what I mean by the suppression and misrepresentation of reality. Here we are being told that Australia Canada and New Zealand were given permission by the UK state to take their Independence based on the FACT that Westminster was FORCED by COMPUCTION to dissolve its OWN LEGISLATION by the FACT that Canada Australia and New Zealand DEMANDED their Independence.
    There was no agreement reached the UK state didn’t in all of its benevolence secede to a request from a representation from Canada Australia and New Zealand to GRANT them through the kindnest of the heart the UK state is renowned for in its colonisation program.
    You just presented a white washed version of the reality where the power and influence over the control of Canada Australia and New Zealand was POLITICALLY fought for and won by NATIONALISTS who FORCED the UK state to ACCEPT THEIR DEMANDS for INDEPENDENCE and there by cancel their legislative treaties.
    Don’t tell me you going to run with the UK state granted them Independence because it wanted to?

  74. Thepnr says:


    Your definition of UDI is obviously different to my definition of UDI.

  75. Mike says:


    Wasn’t the UK state FORCED to sign the same declaration of Independence to the US as they did with the countries you listed?
    The ONLY difference is the level of applied pressure put on the UK state to secede to the demands.
    Every state who took their Independence from Westminster did so through the application of pressure and forced will. NONE of them were granted their Independence before that pressure was applied.
    That’s the very concept of UDI.

  76. Mike says:


    I don’t have my own version of UDI I just see the interpretation of the actual definition in greater detail than you appear to.

  77. orri says:

    It takes a 2/3rd vote to call an early Holyrood election or an inability to elect a First Minister. All the SNP resigning does is leave it in the hands of unionists until the constituency bye elections are held. Assuming new elections are allowed. In all probability a tactical voting campaign will ensure less SNP MSPs are returned. In the meantime Davidson will “reluctantly” assume the post of First Minister and her administration will repeal any independence legislation whilst giving consent to any crippling of Holyrood’s powers including abolishing it in all but name.

    TLDR a unilateral resignation of SNP elected representatives would be a Cupid Stunt, to reference Kenny Everett.

  78. Red squirrel says:

    It seems likely at this point that a desperate gov will try to put off WM vote as long as possible. This does not prevent ScotParl from acting in Jan – the cliff edge is within view now, whatever shenanigans WM tries.

    Medicine shortages are already apparent. I suspect food shortages will become evident by early Feb – most of the Xmas food we’re consuming now has probably been stored but look out for decreasing choices shortly. I’m sure those wretched refugees and migrants risking channel crossing in toy inflatables will be to blame so that’ll deflect for a while.

  79. Dan Huil says:

    Until the time is right [it must be soon] pro-indy politicians must give the troops some red meat to dine on.

  80. Sarah says:

    @Mike – have you read my comment at 2.10? I think you are misunderstanding Scotland’s status. Scotland is NOT a colony that has to seek independence by UDI or other means.

    Scotland is a country and its kingdom formed a union by treaty with another country’s kingdom. Scotland will be dissolving the treaty, and restoring its self-governance.

  81. Thepnr says:


    Political pressure and weight of public opinion forced the the UK into agreeing their Independence.

    The countries mentioned didn’t “Unilaterally Declare Independence” they sought it through political pressure and eventually got it by AGREEMENT with the UK, not by just asserting, fuck you UK we’re Independent now cos I said so.

    Usually the latter leads to bad things happening.

  82. Effijy says:

    Daily Record on full blown SNP Bad to start
    The new year as they finished the old one.

    Letters full of SNP Bad stories from the Unionist Alliance supporters.

    The Dunblane Massacre cover up by Westminster mainly covers up
    The relationship between the suspected paedo Thomas Hamilton and
    Labour’s Lord Hamilton who pushed police to give him a fire arms license.

    It is beloved Gordon Brown also met Hamilton.

    Valuables acquired under the proceeds of Crime
    Must be sold at public auction however Hamilton,
    Who had no money, seems to have purchased a very
    Expensive yacht for Only £5,000 in a private sale?

    It seems that yachts are a favourite tool for paedos
    As kids might like the idea of a boat trip and
    Should kids scream for help at sea there is no one to hear them.

    Threats of being drowned may also assist these horrific monsters in
    Their dirty deeds.

    Tory PM Ted Heath was very fond of his yachts!

    Would you let your kids be watchd by Lord Denning, Cyril Smith,
    or Peter Morrison all leading lights in the Westminster Mafia?

  83. Mike says:


    “Forced into agreement” Wasn’t that the case between the US Ireland and India as well?

  84. Davy says:

    I firmly believe Nicola is holding fire because she doesn’t want to give the unionists a reason to join together.And to use a Scotland independence challenge as their excuse to put their differences aside would suit the red, yellow and blue tories just perfectly right now.

    If Nicola waits until their is no longer anyway the London parties can use Scotland as a getout clause, then she will strike.

    I reckon it has to be soon, but be patient, keep talking and keep working towards independence.

    I have faith in our YES movement and our First Minister.

    I have faith in you.

  85. Thepnr says:


    “Forced into agreement” Wasn’t that the case between the US Ireland and India as well?

    Yeah that’s true and as I said that route doesn’t usually end well. I seem to remember that all three examples you give resulted in war and death.

    How many died in the “Wars of Independence” in Canada, New Zealand or Australia? That’s right, precisely zero because it was done with AGREEMENT and not a UDI.

    You’ve already called someone with a different view on UDI to yours an “imbecile” I think it might be wise to put down that shovel.

  86. Mike says:


    If you don’t initially declare your intent to be Independent do you think it will be granted on a whim or do you think an UNILATERAL declaration of intent is needed first?

  87. handclapping says:

    Wishful thinking; The play’s not over til the fat lady sings, up to 2300 29 Mar this year Treeza can play the rescind Art 50 card. If we are fighting an Indy ‘coz Brexit campaign and there is no Brexit we are going to look a bit foolish. To say nothing about how the cry of ‘no more divisive referendums’ would play.

    However we need to have all the parameters, 16 yr olds, EU nationals, postal votes only to Scottish addresses not more than 1 week prior to the vote, etc. in law prior to the 29th so that Westminster has to overthrow that legislation to prevent indyref2 from happening.

  88. Mike says:


    So you think the definition of UDI relative to magnanimous gifting of Independence is based on the degree of pressure applied before declaration?


  89. Capella says:

    Good song. Upful. Which is how I fee ATM and hope to see the whole country feeling upful as time goes on. Listening to the English pundits on the radio review the year is painful though. I think there is a miasm of depression sinking over London and the south east like a cold smog.

  90. wull2 says:

    The SNP people in WM should walk out just as the WM vote is about to be announced, that is the time when most of the EU and the world will be watching.

    The people of Scotland and the Sottish parliament has spoken, we want to stay in the EU.

  91. Mike says:


    Let me put it in more simpler terms. The UK state has been FORCED into every “Agreement” relative to the “Granting” of Independence through varying degrees of applied pressure and force.
    You define UDI in relative terms to the degree of force applied I don’t. UDI is the declared intent to become Independent made by a UNITARY state to another irrespective of how much force and pressure has to be applied before the agreement is reached.

  92. Mike says:


    And just for the record its not the declaration of UDI that causes war and conflict its the denial of the legitimacy of UDI that causes the war and conflict as all acts of fascism tend to do.

  93. Colin Alexander says:

    “Faced with a brick wall of “now is not the time” intransigence from a UK government elected by England and determined to frustrate the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, we could talk all we wanted but had no means to determine our own fate, locked in the boot of a car speeding towards a cliff edge with a lunatic at the wheel”.

    No dispute from me about that. However, you go on to say:

    “That age – and it’s felt like an age – is very nearly at an end”. Is it? How is it? You fail to explain.

    The highest court of the UK ruled UK Parliament is sovereign. If the decision of UK Parliament continues to be “now is not the time” then what? What’s going to end that?

    Please do tell me Stu, what’s the SNP’s answer gonnae be? Please convince me the SNP have a solution. Are you suggesting the FM and SNP would defy the UK state?

    Nicola Sturgeon leading the rebellion? Nicola Sturgeon has spent all her professional political life administering Tony Blair’s colonial devolution, and the last two years trying to save the UK state from Brexit ruin.

    2019 is the year Nicola becomes a rebel? That would be worth waiting for.

    Wait and see seems to be your only answer. I think that’s probably the best answer anyone can give. Interesting times ahead.

    And, Happy New Year to you.

  94. schrodingers cat says:

    read the article

    support for yes……..hasn’t budged an inch


    however you define udi, unless you have a majority, you dont have a mandate for anything

    the best chance the unionists have of winning indyref2, is to call it now.

    think about this when you next hear folk threaten the snp for delaying indyref2

  95. Thepnr says:


    Bollocks, you really are tying yourself in knots now LOL

  96. Mike says:


    That’s all well and good but don’t go mistaking reality for what goes on in the UK. Westminster doesn’t do reality it does perception of reality and the perception South of the border is that Greater England is the UK and the UK is Greater England. Scotland is simply a region of Greater England. You can transpose the term Britain for England because to them its the exact same thing.
    The treaty of union ceased to have any meaning the day it was signed.
    The perception Westminster has been fostering for over 310 years is the perception of the Unitary state.
    One Kingdom to rule them all,
    One Kingdom to find them,
    One Kingdom to bring them all,
    And in the darkness bind them.
    Independence is more than just a fight to rid ourselves of the Westminster Parliamentary rule its a fight to keep our very identity as a Nation state.
    If your desire is to adopt the English identity then Independence is not for you.

  97. Mike says:


    Well that’s convincing. I guess that’s you given up then.

  98. Mike says:

    @schrodingers cat

    No UK Government has had a Democratic mandate to do anything in living memory. Democratic mandates are ignored in the UK.

  99. Ahundredthidiot says:

    Some of us need a good steak pie in us

    rid of all that tetchiness

  100. David P says:

    Fact check.

    Rhodesia declared UDI from the british empire in 1965. It was the first country to do so since the American colonies.

    The declaration was judged illegal by the U.N. and interational sanctions were put in place.

  101. ScotsRenewables says:

    Mike, just STFU and go have another drink or something. What you are saying is pish.

    Can’t believe Stu posts the most upbeat article in months and all we get is concern troll drivel.

  102. X_Sticks says:

    I’ve been seeing quite a lot of comment across the digital world to the effect that Nicola Sturgeon *must* call it or move aside.

    My question to them would be just who exactly would you replace her with? I can see no obvious replacement that would be as good as she is.

    The timing is absolutely critical. Move too soon and we will lose for sure and that will be it for at least 20 years. Move too late and WM could block all attempts once they don’t have the ECJ looking over their shoulder.

    I wouldn’t want to be in Nicola’s shoes right now with so much resting on such nebulous outcomes.

  103. geeo says:

    ‘Mike’ is new one for the new year it seems…

    ‘Agent coco has been rumbled despite his cunning disguise, better send in a new one’…

    WM can ACT however it likes, but in the real world, the TREATY OF UNION is EXPLICIT in its description of the United Kingdom status.

    And by legal definition, coupled with Sovereignty resting with the People of Scotland, UDI is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Scotland.

    Did all these countries you talk about, declaring UDI from the empire, have LEGALLY EQUAL PARTNER status ?

    Were the PEOPLE of those Empire colonies LEGALLY SOVEREIGN ?

    Calling someone an ‘imbecile’ when you patently have ZERO CLUE what you are on about, hoists your ridiculous stupidity on its own petard.

    Bravo, you are already dumber than coco, who at least knows he is talking shi*e, you actually seem to believe the drivel leaking out yer pie-hole.

    You have fixated on Thepnr, i seem to recall another person used to do that, but the name escapes me, maybe you are the same one huh ?

    Anyhoo, feel free to post mair inane dribbles, this is your one response from me.

    Bye bye.

  104. Breeks says:


    I don’t want a UDI for the simple reason that’s the protocol for creating a new country. I don’t want a new country built on first principles because it has the massive responsibility of creating itself, defining itself, and successfully all disputes and disputed statuses which go hand in hand with a new nation being created. That is why many UDI’s get bogged down and struggle to secure international recognition. The Scotland that a UDI would create would begin Year 1, and might even struggle to wrestle free the very title “Scotland”.

    You would reduce Scotland to being a breakaway secessionist Nation in wanting, a piece of a homogeneous United Kingdom that simply broke off and then had fight for everything from its Continuer State superior. Scotland is no such thing. Scotland is one component in an equal alliance of two. Whenever that relationship ends, we will not cut and run, but stand our ground and take back what is rightfully and lawfully ours. Why would we not???

    I repeat, I do not want a “new” Scotland, because we have the Auld Scotland, with a history and Constitution which has informed and enlightened the world for centuries, with an unbroken line of 400 Kings before the fateful calamity of Alexander III and his granddaughter Margaret, the Maid of Norway… We don’t need to “create” anything. We don’t need to define our borders, define our culture, define our lineage, define our ancestry… it’s all there, inseparable from the story of Scotland…. Auld Scotland.

    I don’t want a Sevco Scotland created from plastic and MDF by a UDI, I want Auld Scotland, the priceless antique, resurrected in all its oak, blood and iron tradition and reputation, and a Nation welcomed by the other nations of the world as a long lost acquaintance which is welcomed back into the international family of Nations.

    Don’t create a new Scotland with a UDI, use our 700 year old Constitution to liberate and rehabilitate the old one, because it was one-of design classic and worth a spectacular amount of prestige and irreplaceable heritage.

    England should hope the end of the Union might end with Scotland’s UDI, because they would profit immensely from such a cheap and easy, ill deserved settlement. Auld Scotland however, hold title over a whole lot more that will cost them dear…

  105. winifred mccartney says:

    Who exactly says the indy vote has not moved, everyone of us knows at least one person who has changed from No to Yes. Do we really believe these polls – unless carried out by snp or wings I would not believe a word spoken by ANY MEDIA OUTLET.

    The media and the msm we currently have will change when even they can see the writing on the wall. It is only money, connections, dirty dealing, and dirty promises that are keeping them on life support.

  106. Bob Mack says:

    Declaring UDI would turn all Unionists against you, even the ones who have come over since the last referendum.

    History tells us that UDI is neverending because the former ? always lays claim to that territory, and their allies back them up.

    Look for yourself at the list of former UDI declarations and see what trouble it brings to the door.It is not the way.

    We are on track to win a democratic vote on the issue. That is the road we travel first. If that fails then who knows, because we would still be acting against the wishes of a majority, if they refuse independence again. .

    There remains many roads to travel in this saga, but some are more appropriate than others.

  107. Cath says:

    I feel more than ready for the storm this time – the Scottish one, anyway. Last time around I had all the mental shifting to do. I went from someone who supported independence, in theory, but in practice felt it would be too hard and divisive and federalism or devo max would be better; to having my eyes opened by the UK and unionists to how that could never happen (and those arguing for it were as derided and abused as indy supporters).I spent endless hours debating to persuade myself as much as anyone else.

    This time around, I need to do no thinking, no debating with myself, and have zero intention of getting into any debates with unionists. If the UK is Brexiting, then unionists are Brexiteers, end of. I have no time for them, and no intention of polite debate. I’ll weather the storm with beer, music and friends and the block button on Twitter.

    And this time around, I have a distinct feeling it will be easier. Last time I honestly had no idea whether many of my friends and acquaintances were yes, no or maybe and it was a topic that was often avoided. This time around I know, and I know how solid support for indy really is, in my group anyway. That in itself will begin to shift many doubters.

    Here’s to 2019!

  108. Dr Jim says:

    Some people want Independence, some people don’t, some people don’t care, some people are too frightened to choose and there are still some people who haven’t a clue what’s going on about anything

    To me that looks like a lot of people in the needing told and convincing bracket, the die hard Yoonatics will do just that die hard because they’re fanatics who believe a lot of stuff that doesn’t exist because they want to

    Our next door neighbours the Republic of Ireland on a small population have a better standard of living than us, more money than us, a higher GDP than us, a higher growth rate than us, a higher state pension than us, spend about £3 billion less on defence than us while we’re forced to fork out monumental sums of money and get nothing in return but the rusting hulks of nuclear submarines that deter nobody, and they’re a damn site happier than us

    The Republic of Ireland’s Christmas tree was laden with a lot more pressies than ours and the EU stands by them and helped put those pressies on their tree while we’re sitting in Scotland wondering if there’s going to be a tree next year at all, and you know what we’ll have to wrap them in crappy newspapers because Christmas paper isn’t even made in the UK anyway

    Neither is most of the lavvy paper

    BTW Scotland now has it’s own very large line up of prominant people ready and willing to speak up for Scotland who didn’t utter a stutter before

    This campaign will be a stoater but we’re going to have to hang on just short of four weeks then BANG! off we go!

    Oooh! BTW anybody seen Prince Phillip the Greek lately, because they might be waiting to pull that one out at the right time, they do like to use the much loved Royal or celebrity demise to flood the airwaves with

  109. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Dr Jim @ 4.20pm wrote:

    “Oooh! BTW anybody seen Prince Phillip the Greek lately, because they might be waiting to pull that one out at the right time, they do like to use the much loved Royal or celebrity demise to flood the airwaves with.”

    I hve been warning of that eventuality for about three weeks now Dr Jim. I would put nothing past the Establishment to get their way on Brexit.

  110. Dr Jim says:

    On a personal note I’ve created 16 NO to YES folk in the last year and not only that joined up SNP members to boot and I’m nobody special so I guess there are loads of us who’ve done the same

    Don’t look at the polls, they’re mince

  111. Shinty says:

    winifred mccartney says:

    “Who exactly says the indy vote has not moved, everyone of us knows at least one person who has changed from No to Yes”

    I know of 7 in total, 2 of which happened the day before the vote (they had already used the postal ballot and were truly sorry they couldn’t change it)

  112. Marcovaldo says:

    I hope the #WeeBlueBook2 is ready to go….

  113. Terence callachan says:

    To Mike….To pnr….

    Interesting debate on UDI.
    I reckon you are both partly correct.
    I don’t think Scotland is similar to Canada Australia New Zealand India etc because of distance, it was very much a different world when those countries decided they did not want to be controlled by a very distant very controlling and bossy England any longer.
    Scotland is much easier to control than any of those other countries especially because of the integration of authorities including media HM Forces and Police.
    We have seen HM Forces and the Police used against people in Scotland in so called industrial disputes and if you remember the miners strike and some of the newspaper media strikes you will recall that the violence used against the people is limitless.
    Think then just how likely it would be that Westminster will use those forces against the people of Scotland even if there is a majority for Scottish independence in holyrood or 50% -60% in referendum votes.
    Many many people in England believe they have a right to a vote on Scottish independence ,really they do ,amazing isn’t it but that is how England looks upon Scotland.
    Mike….you are correct in that respect.
    Nicola Sturgeon I believe has considered all this and has decided that a Scottish independence referendum before Brexit occurs would risk Englands Westminster deflecting English people’s thoughts away from their current enemy the EU to a new insider enemy Scotland which in itself would swamp Scotland with new hatred and persuade some people in Scotland to feel that the SNP have betrayed its neighbour at a time when it needs support.
    Nicola Sturgeon will correctly call a referendum once Brexit occurs and cannot be altered.Once Brexit has happened and there is no way back a Scottish independence referendum will occur and likely be a win for YES.The margin of the win will not be huge because of the 800,000 English people living in Scotland who will mostly vote against Scottish independence , I think ten percent of them will not vote at all and ten percent of them will vote YES but that still leaves 640,000 English NO votes and then the Labour voters who stick rigidly to the dream of socialism for all will not change either nor will the wealthy Tories so a fairly large number of people possibly as many as one million eight hundred thousand intransigent NO voters will be unchangeable.
    That leaves as little as 200 or 250 thousand voters including new first time voters that can possibly be changed from NO to YES giving the YES side a possible victory of 5% or less.
    How will Englands Westminster react to that ?
    How will English people living in England react to that ?
    How will the English people living in Scotland react to that ?
    How will the other NO voting people in Scotland react to that especially those who are MP,s in holyrood and Westminster and those who are councillors in labour Tory and Lib dem councils ?
    It will not be easy to decide the right time to hold the Scottish independence referendum but I am certain Nicola sturgeon and the SNP have it all thought through, how could they not ? having seen and experienced the underhanded and often sneaky behaviour of Westminster to date.
    Onwards and upwards I say.
    Scottish independence is the correct way to go.
    I feel sorry for those who want to remain under the heel of Englands Westminster because it must surely be that they don’t know any better or they have no conscience for their fellow citizens wellbeing as long as their own financial wellbeing is protected.

  114. shiregirl says:


    Do you want independence? – just asking.

  115. yesindyref2 says:

    and independence, we learned above, will take a 20-point lead in Scotland

    I’m going to take issue with this. The actual survey was 46% Independence, 32% No deal Brexit, and that’s a lead of 14% (points)

    Wait for it.

    BUT the don’t knows were 22%, eliminating don’t knows by the same ratio gives that roughly 20 point lead. But I personally think more than the standard ratio are likley to go for Indy, giving a potential lead of up to 36 points – 68% against 32%.

    And that’s fertile ground for us.

  116. Thepnr says:

    @Terence callachan

    Thank for not using paragraph breaks because as a whole it it truly a marvellous monument to utter bullshit.

    TC You will not be deterred and I salute your indefatigably.

  117. wull2 says:

    I would not be surprised if somebody is being kept alive, so they can switch off the power when they feel this is the time.

  118. CameronB Brodie says:

    “Until we get to grips with the media perception war we aint going to make the progress”

    It’s a no-brainer. Some views from Critical Media Studies and Qualitative Social Research perspectives.

    Theoretical Perspectives in Media-Communication Research: From Linear to Discursive Models

    Social Media and the Public Sphere

    Delivering Trust: Impartiality and Objectivity in the Digital Age

  119. Terence callachan says:

    To …the pnr…
    You have an idea of the past but it’s not supported by fact or sensibility.
    Still ,it’s interesting to see how others think of the past.
    England only ever negotiated when it was losing and once it had set a trap to deliver a crucial blow to the opposition, often with the help of insider information, bribery has always been a chief negotiator.
    UDI is and always has been taken ,never given, only a misinformed fool would think otherwise.
    Your basics are interesting .

  120. yesindyref2 says:

    More realistically, having followed the polls closely in 2014, I think the Don’t Knows (DK) were moving to YES by 2 to 1. Right up to the VOW which allowed people to take an excuse not to vote YES and vote NO instead. Without the VOW I think the result would have been the other way around, maybe even more YES.

    2 to 1 on that survey gives 15% of the DK to YES, 7% to NO, for a 61% YES, 39% NO result.

    I could live with that 🙂

  121. wull2 says:

    Most people just read the first few lines and the last few lines unless it is a subject they are interested in, me on the other hand, as soon as I see the name I just scroll by some people.

  122. galamcennalath says:

    A google search just led me to something called John Redwood’s Diary. “Speaking for England”. It looked like satire and I was surprised it could be so blatant. As I began to read I thought, yes satire. A couple of paragraphs later and hadn’t found it funny. Satire should have an element of humour.

    Oh shit, that is for real.

  123. Mike says:

    All forms of National Independence begin with UDI. UDI is the beginning of the journey towards National Independence.
    It begins with the declaration of intent to seek Independence and the progression and direction of that journey is determined by all relevant parties involved.
    The ONLY unilateral part of the whole journey is the declaration the rest of the journey concerns itself with getting to the point of agreement by whatever means it takes to get there.

  124. Terence callachan says:

    To pnr….


    Gee I hate that word, ever since gorgeous Georgious Galloway used it

  125. twathater says:

    Ca Canny bears , there is still a way to go , remember in wastemonster ALL the establishment know the truth regarding who is subsidising who . Treeza and the jerm are bricking it.

    Treeza has to be under eeeeenormous pressure from the old guard and old money to get the fcuk out of the EU before the new TAX laws take effect , yet she has to balance that by knowing if we jocks LEAVE the UK she will lose the finances that enables the uk to survive .

    How then does she explain to the bankrupted and poor people of england , Wales and NI that she had to protect the old rich guard whilst losing Scotland’s vast resources .

    That is why she continues to kick the can down the road ,she is desperate for Nicola to show her hand to enable her to circumvent by ANY means an indy vote

    But I agree wholeheartedly with Breeks , Nicola or the article 50 revocation group should place a motion before the ECJ to solidify the Scottish Governments right to carry out the INSTRUCTIONS of the sovereign peoples of Scotland

  126. Terence callachan says:

    I would love it to be 2 to 1 in favour of independence
    The biggest celebration in Scotland EVER would follow

  127. Mike says:


    Why ask when the answer is as obvious as the fact you know the answer already.

  128. Philip Maughan says:

    Mike says

    ‘Experts, what experts’ Check out ‘Exiting the EU Select Committee, BBC Parliament, 19th. Dec. Bring popcorn, it lasts over 2 hours. Well worth it though.

  129. Thepnr says:

    This link from the Rev’s twitter is an excellent view on what leaving the EU might mean for Independence in Scotland. It is much more than that actually and this journalist at least was switched on coming as it does from 2013.

    Think about that, this was 2013 and in light of subsequent events looks like genius for a journalist. Not many of them about LOL

    This is where Britain’s relationship with Europe is critical. A referendum that took the UK out of the EU would transform the argument in Scotland. Pro-union Scots would think again were England to detach itself from its own continent.

    The whole article is definitely worth reading.

  130. Alex says:

    ALL OF YOU, READ CRAIG MURRAY’S REPORT. It is the most important document and can lead to independence.

  131. William Wallace says:

    @ Breeks 4:04pm

    Nail – Head

    Amen to that.

  132. Mike says:


    Newsflash mate you’ve been promoting UDI on these pages for years. The present campaign for Independence in Scotland began with UDI if Westminster refuses to entertain any democratic means to obtain Independence what do you think will be the normal progression of that campaign? Acceptance? Really?

  133. Graeme says:

    Mike says:
    1 January, 2019 at 1:41 pm


    Every Independent state who took their Independence from Westminster literally did it via UDI. Kind of makes you look like an imbecile eh?


    No Mike it doesan’t make geeo look like an imbecile you just don’t fucking get it do you,

    UDI is for countries who are colonized by another country, we are not a colonized country (even though we may be treated like one) we are an equal partner in a union regardless of what David Mundell says therefore to declare UDI would be to declare and accept we are a colonized country.

    We dissolve the union as is our right as an equal partner in what’s turned out to be a very unequal union

  134. twathater says:

    @ Wull 2 3.07pm I agree wull2 when the treeza shit deal vote is announced it would create an absolute stushie and would be broadcast ALL over the world if Ian Blackford and crew stood up and announced , that due to the overwhelming vote of the sovereign people of Scotland , Scotland will NOT be leaving the EU and walked out en masse.

    The press would HAVE to broadcast it even the bbc and itv, it might even lead to the english people demanding that these uppity subsidised jocks are THROWN out of the wonderful uk

  135. MorvenM says:

    Thanks for the FT article reference, the PNR. Considering it was written in 2013, the author shows extraordinary foresight. I just hope he’s right about Scotland leaving the UK if the UK leaves the EU.

  136. Mike says:


    I think Brexit has removed all doubts and arguments with regards to the equality of the constitutional parts of the UK.
    I said it above there is reality and there is the perception of reality the UK doesn’t do reality.

  137. Had a frustrating conversation with my brother in law on Thursday night , last week.

    He was a NO , Leave voter.

    it started with him asking what I thought of all this Brexit mess.
    I thought , for a second, that he was perhaps beginning to move to Yes as he has hinted that he thinks Scotland probably could survive as an Independent country – but no. He hasn’t budged one inch,.

    In fact, he thought Brexit could be moving along a lot better if Nicola Sturgeon would stop ‘putting her oar’ in every chance she gets and just fall in behind ‘the government’ after all, you have to feel really sorry for Theresa May just now. How can anyone put up with that amount of criticism.

    I did try and explain that maybe the criticism was warranted, that this is the most useless government ever, Nicola is acting in the best interests of Scotland as a whole country, unlike May who is acting on party interests … but got nowhere – so we agreed to differ and wondered how two people experiencing the same situation could have such vastly different opinions of how it is panning out.

    Thankfully his children and their partners are all strongly Pro indy so he is in a minority in his family, but my sister living in East Grinstead cannot understand why Scotland wants to stay in Europe. My other sister is fed up with politics and her husband thinks that the SNP have ruined the fishing industry in Scotland. ( but his 4 children and partners are also strongly Pro-Indy so he’s out numbered too)

    A lot of subtle work needed in this family – but there again, maybe the fast approaching Brexit deadline will force them to think again.

  138. yesindyref2 says:

    OT – RSI
    I’m posting this as a warning to youse all!

    Right, I’m going to be forced to take a break mostly from the keyboard for a week, same as has happened before. In the wee small hours I updated my websites, something I do every year, changing the copyright on every webpage to make it look fresh and looked after, and also turning over card expiry year on order pages, and in the programs (scripts) I generate error pages or acknowledgemsnts. It took 3 hours, and this year unfortunately I kept going and did it in a oner, ignoring for some stupid reason the small aches in fingers and arm.

    So getting up this afternoon, elbow sore as hell, just above the wrist sore and both a bit burny, pinkie and right ring finger a bit numb, plus unusually the middle finger on right hand (I use left for mouse even though right-handed), and hand quite cold.

    I got RSI in around 2000 meaning I had to pack in what I previously did for money, and have learned the warning signs and what to do about it. If you can and notice the symptoms, stop and leave for 24 hours. But if it gets as bad as mine has, stay off the computer, games, piano for a week solid, even if it feels better after a day or two. I nearly lost the use of my pinkie and ring finger, only because I don’t take NO for an answer (Indy style), did I manage to force my way through to a physio before 3 months. I couldn’t even hold a pencil between pinkie and ring finger! That’s the exercise by the way, if you get similar RSI. DON’T favour it and rest the hand. After 24 hours, you need to keep it exercised in moderation.

    I had to do a lot of scrubbing before Xmas, think it strained the writs and arm and weakened it. It’s often a combination that sets it off. Didn;t have heating for a year (couldn’t afford a new boiler at the time), got it in just before Xmas, so with little heat fpor a year in most parts of the house, there was black mould to sterilise and bleach off – and scrubbing!

    Have a Happpy New Year!

  139. Thepnr says:


    It’s a long read but there are so many gems there. This guy knew exactly what he was talking about.

    I think he got it bang on.

    Were England to cut itself off from its own continent the intelligent response of Scots would be to swap union with a diminished England for independent membership of the EU. There lies an irony. Eurosceptics say they are marching in defence of a sovereign UK. Nothing could be more calculated to shatter the union of England with Scotland than Britain’s withdrawal from Europe.

  140. Mike says:

    Philip Maughan

    You didn’t answer the question I posed though so have another go what makes these people experts in the event of the UK leaving the EU? What qualifications and experience to the boast in this subject?

  141. Thepnr says:

    @William Wallace

    You’ve changed your avatar in the last 10 minutes unless I’m mistaken lol. Happy New one to you by the way.

  142. Graeme says:

    Mike says:
    1 January, 2019 at 5:35 pm


    “I think Brexit has removed all doubts and arguments with regards to the equality of the constitutional parts of the UK.”

    I agree 100%

    “I said it above there is reality and there is the perception of reality the UK doesn’t do reality.”

    But UDI only adds weight to the UK’s version of reality we are a sovereign nation it’s time we started thinking like one

  143. Mike says:


    We dissolve the union as is our right as an equal partner in what’s turned out to be a very unequal union

    Well and good but what happens when that right is denied to us? What if the ONLY answer we ever get is “Now is not the time”?

  144. Dr Jim

    Well done with your converting I have managed three in the last year, including a wasp chewer, which I was very pleased about, took ages.

    I have a few others where the seed is planted but more work required.

    I agree with you regarding old Phillip he and Betty should be very worried a decent distraction is urgently required to get people’s attention off the mess which is Tory and Labour Westminster.

    Said it before and wont apologise for repeating myself we all only need to convert one to YES. Just one.

  145. schrodingers cat says:

    the wm gov is holding the hoc to ransom. liam fox has said on record that they wont allow mps to vote on treezas deal if they believe it will get voted down.

    the threat is to continue to do this until 29/03 at which point the uk will fall out of the eu with no deal.

    but just who exactly is treeza threatening? the dup? hardly, they loath the deal and prefer no deal, as do the erg of tories, (mogg etc) so neither of these groups will do anything to change this direction of travel. (see rees mogg fundraising for the dup last night un belfast)

    treeza can do nothing either, if she were to call a ge, she and the other pro remain supporters of her deal, would get deselected as candidates by the rank and file tory party members (most of whom favour no deal)

    thing is, even if treeza convinces the left of her party (anna soubrey etc) to back her deal, that wont be enough to change the present direction of travel.

    the snp/plaid nor the greens will support her deal. 1 libdem has said he will vote for it. but the reality is, enough labour mps need to support treezas deal to overturn the dup/erg vote,

    that is a lot of number crunching for the whips to do but im fairly certain there isnt enough support in the hoc for treeza to pass her deal.

    so the present direction of travel will continue.

    the only way with any real chance of changing direction is if enough tories cross the floor and vote with the opposition in a vonc.

    they would immediately get kicked out of the tory party and treezas deal would also die the death, her replacement would back no deal in the tory manifesto

    time is running out as i believe that after a vonc, 14 days must pass before parlaiment can be dissolved. the minimum time for a ge is 25 working days and 6 week end days

  146. Essexexile says:

    How to get there from here though?
    May really has little left to lose. Between a likely hard Brexit and a threatened no Brexit is some god awful compromise doubtless involving several big hoofs of can kicking that she will probably (and shamelessly) call a success.
    NS, on the other hand, has it all to lose. It’s almost certain there won’t be an obvious moment to strike. Anybody (and unfortunately I’ll have to include the Rev here) who believes there is going to be a sudden moment of clarity in this mess is thinking wishfully not realistically.
    NS is waiting for a moment that will probably never come and she will have to break cover at some point, flushed by threats of wavering support in the SNP ranks from those losing their nerve. At that moment she (and the fate of indy) will be at the mercy of uncontrollable events and the entire indy cause could be thrust forward or swept away at a moment’s notice.
    What is absolutely certain is that indy will not be handed to us on a plate. Sitting back and doing nothing will achieve nothing. But doing something risks everything.
    No wonder we’re all nervous.

  147. Not Convinced says:

    @Mike I’m curious about your rather unusual definition of UDI. To take the example of Austria, can you tell us what form their alleged UDI took, and also what date? To be more precise, did they do it prior to Federation in 1901, prior to the Balfour Declaration of 1926, prior to the Statute of Westminster Act 1931, prior to the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 or prior to the Australia Act 1986?

    I’d also like to learn how you’d square the remarks of the then New Zealand PM George Forbes who said “New Zealand has not, in any great measure, been concerned with the recent development in the constitutional relations between the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. We have felt that at all times within recent years we have had ample scope for our national aspirations and ample freedom to carry out in their entirety such measures as have seemed to us desirable.”. Rather hard to match that up against the idea of NZ taking their independence via unilateral means.

  148. Mike says:


    Who’s this we? The converted already believe and understand the constitutional reality of the UK its those who don’t or wont accept the reality that’s holding us back because they have a perceived reality to hold onto instead one that is promoted as reality daily.

    I feel like Im going around in circles here.

  149. Mike says:

    @Not convinced

    Im not a historian or pupil of Austrian history you might as well ask me what flavour of cheese can be found on the dark side of the moon.

  150. CameronB Brodie says:

    Socrates MacSporran
    The Establishment are split on Brexit. Anti-democratic, populist, majoritarian, Neo-liberals support it, and those likely to lose-out economically oppose it. Simples.

    Parliamentary sovereignty
    A vital reaffirmation of Parliamentary sovereignty

    In a ringing defence of the power of Parliament against the executive, the Supreme Court today held that the decision to trigger the process of leaving the EU cannot be taken by the executive alone. Withdrawal from the EU makes a fundamental change to the UK’s constitutional arrangements, and rights of UK residents will be lost. Such a change can only be effected by Parliament. Moreover, the Court made it clear that it was not enough to consult Parliament: the trigger to leave the EU had to be in statute. Nor did it accept that it was sufficient that ministers were accountable to Parliament for the exercise of such powers: the Crown’s ancient prerogative power cannot be used in a way which removes existing rights of UK citizens.

    One of the most disturbing consequences of the referendum has been the insistence that the Government is entitled to exercise its powers in relation to Brexit without involving Parliament. In a constitution whose central principle is Parliamentary sovereignty, such claims must be viewed with deep suspicion. Human rights are already precarious if left in the hands of a sovereign Parliament without a written constitution, especially where, as in the UK, the legislature is heavily dominated by the executive. Even more so if Parliament can be sidestepped. It is therefore of immense importance that the Supreme Court in Miller stepped in to protect the power of Parliament against the executive.

    A Critical Perspective on Associate EU Citizenship after Brexit


    UK nationals will lose their EU citizenship status as a result of the Brexit referendum. To prevent this, several commentators, including the European Parliament Brexit negotiator, Guy Verhofstadt, proposed the grant of associate EU citizenship to UK nationals to safeguard their rights as EU citizens after Brexit. We make the case against associate EU citizenship, dismissing it on three grounds. First, it violates the letter and the spirit of EU law: the Treaties make the enjoyment of EU citizenship status contingent on the possession of a Member State nationality and require the Union to respect the rule of law as well as the constitutional traditions of the Member States. Second, it violates core EU values amounting to a tool for the EU to pre-empt vital democratic choices at the national level, thus undermining the established division of powers between the Union and the Member States as well as the effet utile of Article 50 TEU. Third, it is against the EU’s interests, as associate EU citizenship fails to respect reciprocity in EU relations with third countries and undermines the coherence of the edifice of EU constitutionalism. Besides being legally unsound he idea of associate EU citizenship thus fails on normative and on pragmatic grounds.

    Keywords: EU citizenship, associate citizenship, brexit, free movement, tyranny

    Preparing Brexit
    How ready is Whitehall?

    Whitehall is grappling with the ‘biggest and most complex task in its peacetime history’. The shape, size and focus of government is changing dramatically as the clock ticks down towards Brexit. Two years on from the European Union (EU) referendum, Whitehall is now changing gear. Negotiations on the future relationship are beginning, the bulk of new legislation is looming and the prospect of ‘no deal’ is fewer than nine months away. This paper looks at the
    progress made to date, the key issues that have affected
    preparations and whether Whitehall will be ready for Brexit.

  151. CameronB Brodie says:

    That’s unkind. I must remember the Establishment aren’t all lizards. 😉

  152. Mike says:

    @Not Convinced

    Im not sure how you square the opinions of one person as a definitive argument? How does that work?

  153. Thepnr says:


    There will always be a “moment of clarity” once the fog has cleared. I’m sure someone else has already stated the same.

  154. Mike says:

    CameronB Brodie

    You seem to be really struggling to understand the concept of what a NO DEAL is.
    Think of it in terms of NO AGREEMENTS ON ANTHING AT ALL that should help.

  155. William Wallace says:

    @ PNR

    Aye – changed it. New Year – New me.

    All the best to you and those you love for 2019. As Stu says it’s about to get very interesting indeed now that the can has ran out of road.

    Cannae wait. Bring it on. Scotland is ready. 🙂

  156. wull says:

    Sorry to hear about your problems yesindyref2. Have a good rest, be prudent, take all the time necessary and get well soon. Welcome back when everything’s OK and you are fit and well again. Awrrrabest …

  157. Breeks says:

    Mike says:
    1 January, 2019 at 5:27 pm

    Newsflash mate you’ve been promoting UDI on these pages for years….

    Sorry Mike, you’re not correct.

    From the outset, I have been advocating Scottish Independence through the Constitutional route whereby Scotland’s Sovereignty is recognised as extant, and Westminster’s Parliamentary Sovereignty discredited as unconstitutional and false.

    That is NOT a UDI creating a new Sovereignty, it is merely securing recognition of our existing sovereignty. That might seem like a small difference, but in truth, the two options are a world apart.

  158. Iain says:

    It’s funny how no matter how new the trolls are, most Wingers just scroll right on by.

  159. Yes indyref2

    I sympathise – take it easy. I had a similar experience about 4 years back when selling my house. I was determined to get the glass oven door clean and spent far too long scrubbing and scraping hard against the glass as I had a deadline to meet.

    Result both thumbs seized up – I couldn’t close my thumbs into my open palm – and I had 6 months of physio to return them to some sort of use. Hugely better now but still a twinge now and again if I overdo things. So rule of thumb for 2019 ( no pun intended) be careful folks and don’t overdo things unless it’s for Indy!

  160. jfngw says:

    I see Mundell is wanting us to compromise in 2019 (I think that is just a euphemism for do as London tells you). I have already compromised, I wanted an independence vote in 2017, but I’ve agreed that 2019 will be fine.

  161. CameronB Brodie says:

    I know what a no deal means, trauma, dislocation and marginalisation, and I’m trying to bring some of the social and democratic consequences to wider attention. This is generally not the intention of our corporate media. Can you put your finger on what you think I struggling with?

  162. Mike says:


    Unless you believe Scotland to be constitutionally Independent now then any and ALL campaigns that advocate the promotion of Independence from a NON Independent constitutional state begins with UDI because if the initial declaration is not unilateral then its a reached agreement in principle Independence has been achieved and no campaign is necessary.
    Is that what you think happened?

  163. Schrodingers cat

    so a VONC in the government on the 7th of February, followed by 14 days grace until Parliament can be dissolved on the 21st Feb , followed by a G. Election on Thursday 28th March is the absolute limit for time schedule.

    That would give the new Govrnment approximately 22 hours to get over to Brussels and cancel or extend Article 50.

    Sounds a bit tight but not impossible.

    Oh well, Cabinet back tomorrow so it will all kick off again shortly.

  164. Mike says:

    CameronB Brodie

    Perhaps is me whos struggling to comprehend why somebody would openly promote the concept of a Brexit where deals are reached through a no deal exit.

  165. Essexexile says:

    Oh Lordy yesindyref2, you’ve really been through it! Rest up and all the best for a speedy recovery.
    I had something similar with tennis elbow years back that got so bad I had to change career.
    Keep warm and take it easy. You’ll be flag waving with the rest of us on indy day!

  166. Thepnr says:

    @William Wallace

    Cheers for the good wishes. I basically love everyone until they give me a reason to think otherwise. People are usually good but not all people are good. It’s my default position though to believe that the majority have good intentions as that’s how I’m made.

    Doesn’t take long though to change that view, as all I need is information and usually on here at least that comes from the posters themselves. I’m pretty sure we all do the same and make our judgements and form our opinion of others views from what they post.

    Good guy, wank, wank, good guy, good guy, wank, wank, wank.

  167. Mike says:

    Does anybody believe that Ireland India South Africa Kenya and the USA began their UDI campaign on a war footing? Or do we believe that it began as a declaration of intent to seek Independence through diplomatic channels?

  168. K1 says:

    62% voted to remain…this support has not diminished…WM cannot reconcile England’s choice with Scotland’s choice. Teresa May is speaking to England when she talks of ‘unity’.

    It doesn’t get any more stark than this, all in the timing now. Middle road for Nic was cu plus sm. That fails Indy2 dead cert.

    Newsflash: that is/will/has failing/fail/failed.

  169. Ken500 says:

    There are people that come and clear cookers & ovens. £30-£50? Saves damage to the physic.

  170. jfngw says:

    I see London Labour mini apparatchik in Scotland, Ms Dugdale, is out and about again. I’ve been reliably informed her New Year resolution is to procure a place on Strictly Come Dancing, were she intends to promote Labour values through the medium of dance.

    Apparently she has imagineered new dances for the series, the food-bank jive, the Holyrood quickstep, the PFI Charleston and many more.

  171. K1 says:

    This latest one is a wee bouncy ball eh? Lol

  172. Ken500 says:

    May the most absolutely, non compromising, dogmatic, zealot person on the planet. Who is determined to get her way to ruin the world economy. Wants other to compromise. Mundell is just the lapdog. Incompetent beyond useless. A liar.

  173. Ken500 says:

    The duck and dive.

  174. Mike says:

    It appears Mundells understanding of the principle of compromise is when the Scottish Government gives ground towards the Conservative position while the Conservatives stay exactly where they are.
    In terms of perceived reality this will be headline news in the UK media presented along the lines of how uncompromising the Scottish Government is being in not shifting.

  175. CameronB Brodie says:

    Me, promote Brexit? There goes your credibility as a critical commentator. Do you have lizard DNA or are you simply following orders?

  176. Mike says:

    CameronB Brodie

    Why would my credibility suffer as a result of your inability to post what you mean?

  177. Ken500 says:

    The Tory/unionists waiting to get their P45’s. They are so scared they want to avoid a Commons vote at all cost. After all the slaving nonsense about taking back control of Democracy. Cowards. Running around in circles trying to avoid it at every opportunity. C’mon with the vote. Everyone is waiting in anticipation. Folk can’t wait to see the Tories taken down. They are so scared of it they won’t hold it.

  178. Ken500 says:

    May couldn’t bribe Nicola. Unlike the DUP. Redman the arch Brexiteer been at it for 40 years. A knighthood. What a joke. It took Thatcher down. Deja Vu.

  179. William Wallace says:

    @ PNR

    I agree to a large extent but, sometimes what people say online can be misinterpreted or misconstrued. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt – at least until I’ve met them in person.

    People on here for example can post utter bollocks when they have had a few and maybe even come across as a bit of a dick but, when encountered in the real world, they are larger than life and the salt of the earth.

    I never rush to judgement. Even when I am playing the fool (or being a drunken one) – I am most observant. I like to watch how people treat others for a better measure of what that person is really all about.

    To that end, I have learned a lot about many of the posters here. By and large it is made up of decent, passionate, creative, intelligent and forward thinking people and even if I don’t contribute often, I do enjoy visiting and learning in this space from many of the excellent contributors (yourself included).

    My sincerest wish for 2019 however – is that this space is no longer required.

    Can Can Can’t 😉

  180. ScotsRenewables says:

    Mike’s a lizard. Now confirmed.

    Scroll on by.

  181. shiregirl says:

    Aye, Right.

  182. shiregirl says:



  183. ScotsRenewables says:

    Running dog lackey of the Yoonwazee

  184. schrodingers cat says:

    Meg merrilees

    the saddest thing about the present situation is that the only people who can realistically alter the present direction of travel are tory mps

  185. mike cassidy says:

    Just in case you were wondering how a company with no ships gets a ferry contract from the Tory Government.

    It helps if you share an address with a law firm who has this guy as a director.

    The old wilderness of mirrors.

  186. Anyone know if Cactus has survived Hogmanay?

  187. yesindyref2 says:

    @Wull Meg Exile
    Thanks. I ignored the warning signs, tingling in fingers, a bit coldness in hand. Stupidity! Pinkie and ring are wrist, middle – elbow apparently. Yet some stupid RSI support number and a southern general “specialist” said back in 2000 there’s no such thing as RSI it’s carpal tunnel or tennis elbow. It took an Indian at Inverclyde to tell it the way it is.

    Well, dicks, for me it’s caused by repetitive actions, it causes a strain and its an injury, and for me, it’s both wrist and elbow, you dicks 🙂

    Got my elbow and wrist supports on now, too late, feels a bit better, don’t like to take painkillers it’s often the body’s way of telling you “take it easy pal”. I intend to 😎 Maybe at last a New Year drink or three …

  188. shiregirl says:

    schrodingers cat says:
    1 January, 2019 at 7:01 pm
    Meg merrilees

    It’s crap isn’t it?? Up here in moray we are stuck with Ross. I bumped into Richard Lochead the other day and his enthusiasim struck me. He is a good guy and does so much up here. So, as I head into a new NHS job in the new year, I’m full of enthusiasism and I know things are changing up here. It’s allgood.

  189. Ken500 says:

    According to Tony Benn Diaries. Phil the Greek supported Scottish Independence in 1968. Most folk in the rest of the UK do not give a damn. If Scotland was Independent they would not be bother at all. It is the Westminster unionists who keep on hanging on. For most folk in the rest of the UK they are not in the least interested. It is the Westminster unionist Parties and the unionist Press who have a problem with it.

  190. Graeme says:

    Mike says:
    1 January, 2019 at 5:49 pm


    We dissolve the union as is our right as an equal partner in what’s turned out to be a very unequal union

    Well and good but what happens when that right is denied to us? What if the ONLY answer we ever get is “Now is not the time”?


    Mike you’re talking like a colonial, they cannot deny us anything, you need to stop thinking that they can, all we need to do is take it but first we need to convince enough of our fellow Scots to join us, we failed to do that in 2014.

    “If a woman was filing for divorce from an abusive husband she doesn’t have to prove or declare she’s an equal human being she only has to say she wants a divorce.

    How many of these countries you talk about that declared UDI signed a treaty of union with England ?”

    Yorkshire could declare UDI are you saying we have the same constitutional status as an English county like Caroline Nokes suggested when she said she wouldn’t grant Scotland any more than she would Lincolnshire County Council

    Theresa May or the British establishment is not in a position to deny us anything our problem is with the 55% of proud Scots who agreed with Caroline Nokes in 2014

  191. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    David P at 3.51

    Yes. But the UDI was to prevent the UK handing power to the native Rhodesians which was in process and that was why it was judged illegal.

    History’s judgement on the white supremacists who called UDI was harsh and well deserved. Instead of remaining in possession of lots of their privilege, power and their lands and farms under moderate native political government they had a civil war and lost the lot and got Mugabe.

  192. Thepnr says:

    @Dave McEwan Hill

    At least in Scotland we had a democratic vote. We’ve got May though as Prime Minister. Lees than 25% voted for her so work that one out. It doesn’t need to be this way, we can be better.

  193. Mike says:


    Understanding how the concept of colonialism works doesn’t make me a colonial it makes me a realist.
    How many times has the UK state denied the democratic mandate of states under its control? States worth far less to it than Scotland. The UK state has had to be forced to let go of every single state its had under its control through various degrees of pressure and resistance to its imposed will.
    Do you honestly think they will treat Scotland different? We had an AGREED referendum in 2014 ONLY because the UK state rightfully believed they would win it we will ONLY get that agreement again IF they believe they have NO CHANCE of losing.
    If the UK state believes it will lose Indyref 2 they will do everything in the power to ever prevent it happening.

    That’s a cold hard fact of reality right there.

  194. shiregirl says:

    Caroline Nokes almost always voted against transferring more powers to the Scottish Parliament.

    Enough said. Another establishment tool.

  195. shiregirl says:

    …she has infact voted against near enough all Scottish devolved votes…i.e. to pay a carers benefit to those under 16 or in gainful employment, or in full time education.

    What utter scum.

    Lets here it for Caroline!!

  196. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    There is I judge a vast difference between 2013 and 2019

    In 2013 it was 30% for independence,50% against independence and 20% don’t know.

    Now it is around 50% for independence, 30% against independence and 20% don’t know.

    It is actually quite difficult to lose from such a position. We only need a few percent of the “don’t knows”.
    A high profile campaign based on national pride,national self respect and vision wins it for us.

    They need the lot of “don’t knows” and more. They know it.

  197. Famous15 says:

    Hello Mike et al.

    Bloody Brexit can bugger off and as our departure from this unequal union approaches ,well!

    REAL POLITiK kicks in.

    And as the sun slowly sinks in the west the comparable nation of Scotland strides confidently back into the normal world.

  198. Graeme says:

    Mike says:
    1 January, 2019 at 7:39 pm


    Understanding how the concept of colonialism works doesn’t make me a colonial it makes me a realist.


    Ok Mike fair enough you win, lets all just accept your version of reality and just give up on the silly notion that Scotland is a nation in it’s own right and get back on our knees where we belong

  199. Thepnr says:


    You’ve made your views pretty well known so far today. Just for me though will you explain how your version of UDI is to work?

    The Scottish Government just sate UDI and then nothing else happens. I’m being daft here eh would be interesting though to hear your view of what might happen after such a declaration.

    I have my own views and they’re not very pretty unless there was a majority in favour of Independence.

    If we ever do get Independence then why would we need UDI if a majority were in favour of it in the first place and simply voting for it would guarantee it?

    Until the majority of Scots want Independence then we will not be Independent. That’s not a difficult concept to get your head around, simply a fact.

    Fuck right off with your fantasy UDI’s ect ect.

    The simple truth is we need the support of the people of Scotland before we will become Independent. The NO voters are the people of Scotland also. Swallow that dose of reality.

    Answer me that.

  200. CameronB Brodie says:

    My argument is unclear? I’m a twat in a flat with no social capital, so I defer to academic insight and institutional credibility. Unfortunately, this approach depends on the cooperation of readers to actually read the material I post. Also, their ability to comprehend and make rational judgements.

    The Establishment is divided over Brexit.

    1. support for Brexit is largely from elite, right-wing, xenophobes and poorly educated ‘left-behind’ who tend to identify strongly as “English only”.

    3. Establishment opposition to Brexit comes largely from the City of London, who are also split over Brexit. Academic opposition is largely ignored by the media, so does not generally reach the public.

    8. the authoritarian English nationalism that Brexit articulates, is a threat to the liberty of English residents, not just Scots.

    eleventysomething. Whitehall and business need more time to prepare for the legal and administrative complexities of Brexit. Our democratic traditions and standard of living will all suffer, regardless.

    Scotland will either allow England’s post-colonial malaise to deal our culture and democracy a crippling blow, or we won’t.

  201. JLT says:

    At long last.

    Our time is almost here.

  202. ronnie anderson says:

    Thepnr that i’ll be the Mike Cassidy who’s been trying to post his Udi shite on Yes pages for month’s & when ma fingers oan the button his shite gets Deleted same with anyone else who tries posting , no preamble no discussion just DELETE .

    Wingers at the risk of my words falling on deef ears , the Britnat Trolls have only one aim on Wings & that is to cause disruption & spread disinformation DONT ENGAGE .

  203. Mike says:


    I don’t have a version of UDI as far as I know there are no versions of UDI just UDI. For Unilateral declaration of Independence read Unilateral Declaration of Intent.
    It explains itself.
    A UDI has been declared in Scotland by a movement that is actively pursuing National Independence through a campaign. so far that campaign has used the Democratic process because a Democratic process is open and available and will be right up to the point where the chance of Independence becomes real then it will disappear leaving the campaign having to seek other avenues to progress the desired outcome.
    Is this process not familiar in anyway say throughout history? Especially involving the UK state?

  204. Mike says:

    Cameron B Brodie

    See that post was much clearer and articulated in a way that it couldn’t be interpreted as denying the concept of what a No deal outcome means. Shame about the previous effort.

  205. Thepnr says:

    @ronnie anderson

    Noted but I don’t give a shite who it is. I’m arguing against his point and not who he is.

    We can declare UDI when it’s proven that the MAJORITY of Scots support Independence and it’s refused by Westminster.

    Fuck them then and it just won’t happen. Meantime our job is to persuade one person at a time, never give up and never give in.

    Get in there with the head down, we’ve a battle to win.

  206. Sarah says:

    Aye, Ronnie – how many times does it need said? The Rev’s guidance is on the “About us” tab at the top of the page in the “Etiquette” section, part 2. “If you think someone is a troll…DON’T ENGAGE”.

    It is tedious to read and to scroll past these comments. If they don’t get a rise we will all be happier.

    On another subject, yesterday I asked about the chances of using the Recall of MPs Act. From the deafening silence, I take it there is no chance?

  207. Thepnr says:

    “read Unilateral Declaration of Intent.”

    Pathetic, change the meaning of UDI to suit you own argument.

  208. David P says:

    Dave McEwan Hill says:
    1 January, 2019 at 7:29 pm

    Thanks for the clarification about Rhodesia… I knew there was some kind of funny business, and in retrospect, I should have remembered this – even though I was only a wee kid in the 1970s, as the ramifications unwinded.

    But is does go to show just how rare Unilateral Declarations of Independence actually are…and the kind of circumstances in which it is called.

    In summary, only under the most extreme cases!

  209. ronnie anderson says:

    Sarah That will be something to be address’d in a Independent Scotland & written into a constitution

  210. orri says:

    The international treatment of Rhodesia’s UDI might be better seen as a lesson to Westminster rather than a warning to Holyrood.

    Specifically it’s about a colonial administration controlling a state against the wishes of the majority. Every time the, mainly Tory, MPs and MSPs state the 2014 result as a reason to ignore the wishes of Scots now they set the scene for the rUK facing international sanctions at a time they can least afford them.

    If it comes to an advisory only referendum being in favour of independence then the unionist minority parties would in effect be imposing their will on the majority with the remnants of one of the largest empires in history backing them. A tactic employed in building that empire in the first place.

    However it might be best to change the question next time to…

    “Should Scotland and her elected representatives withdraw from the 1707 Treaty of Union and resume its previous status as a separate state within the international community?”

  211. Sarah says:

    @Macart: do you think this will appear in the print version of the P&J? It was put online at 00.57 this morning!! Who was looking then? Judging by the fact that there are NO comments, it hasn’t been seen by many folk.

    I’m just amazed that it has appeared at all on P&J site. It would certainly give their readership food for thought – money taken from Badenoch to boost Tory support in London seats. Wow.

  212. Tom Busza says:

    Terence callachan @ 4.56 pm

    The margin of the win will not be huge because of the 800,000 English people living in Scotland who will mostly vote against Scottish independence

    You consistently repeat the figure of 800,000 English people living in Scotland.
    Pray, let us know exactly where you get this statistic from.

    From what I can see, the last Census in 2011 showed that, from a total population of Scotland of 5,295,403, only 459,486 (8.68%) declared England as their place of birth.

    If we go forward to 2014, the total number of voters registered to vote in INDY1 was 4,283,392. By extrapolation, 8.68% of the electorate would give 371,798 registered English voters.

    However, according to the BBC (Aug. 2014) there were 422,386 English people eligible to vote in INDY1(9.81% of the electorate).

    According to the Daily Mail, at about the same time, in one of their usual sensational Unionist rants, there were 477,000 English people in Scotland.

    So, unless there has been a sudden influx of about 340,000 English born people in the last 4 years, your figure of 800,000 does not stand up to scrutiny, never mind credence.

  213. geeo says:

    DMH @7.54pm

    Post of the day imo.

    Its like 2 footie teams with 2 games to go and one is 6 points behind the other, but the team at the top has a better goal difference of say, 25 goals.

    Technically, the team in 2nd can still win the league, but it would require the greatest miracle since biblical times to achieve it.

    Even if indy support is 50 yes, 45 No and 5% DK, No STILL need all the DK’s.

    As you say, game over as that aint going to happen, no matter how much they dream of a miracle.

  214. Thepnr says:

    @Tom Busza

    Anything TC says is best taken with a pinch of salt. He’e been told more times than I have fingers and toes how wrong he is.

    I’ll put money on it though that he’ll still spout the same shite tomorrow. It’s all they have to comfort themselves. Fucking LIES.

  215. Macart says:


    Pretty much. Way I see it, our job, (when we find such gems), is to get them out there on the indyweb and get them noticed to a wider audience.

    Also? Yes. Yes they’ve always been like that. A Tory’s first point of of loyalty is themselves, closely followed by their party. The population comes appears to come some way down their to do list.

    It’s who and what they are. Coming right up to the present. The follow up link I’ve just posted underlines that other side of the fag paper thing in UK politics.

    The party. The practice of politics. The winning. They’ve all taken precedence over service to the populations of the UK. Thing is, they haven’t forgotten what they were for. The parties wilfully work the system for their own ends. We’re just the poor sods who underwrite their idiocies, their atrocities and their venality with our votes.

    Hopefully not for too much longer. 😎

  216. Mike says:


    You’re actually denying the FACT that a Universal Declaration of Independence is a Universal Declaration of Intent?

    I thought it was only yoons who had the need to deny reality.

  217. Sarah says:

    @Ronnie 8.41: the Recall Act already applies to Westminster. I was hoping there might be a way that it could be used to do something very helpful right now!

    @Macart: yes, you’re right about our job being to spread the word.

    The trouble with the standards of ethics in Westminster politics [and in local authorities too] is that the only defence for the voter is if there is some ethical party or person to vote for AND for the truth about the main parties to be made available.

    Journalists nowadays don’t seem to do that job of informing their readers. Even in relatively recent times some papers would go to great lengths to uncover the truth e.g. a Guardian journalist spending ages in the basement of an hotel in Switzerland going through the records to prove that Jonathan Aitken Tory MP was where he was swearing on oath [“taking the simple sword of truth against bent and twisted journalism”] he was NOT. Result: time in gaol for Aitken.

  218. Thepnr says:


    You have lost any credibility you might have had. I’m no longer interested in what you have to say as your arguments are all bullshit, can’t be bothered with those that waste my time.

    You are a time waster for sure and you won’t be wasting mine 🙂

    Have a good New Year by the way.

  219. geeo says:

    So, in case nobody thought to google it….

    Universal Declaration of INTENT (Todays entirely made up renaming of UDI) ONLY returns search results pertaining to Human rights charters and there are zero search results for UDof Intent in relation to independence.

    Imagine my utter surprise at this baffling revelation.

    Seems you can just invent stuff and it becomes true, sooooo….i have decided i am a unicorn called clarence, and dah daaa…i am now a unicorn, come fly over my rainbow ….woohoo…!!!

  220. ronnie anderson says:

    Sarah yes im aware of that but I fail to see how that would help our cause of Independence .

  221. ScotsRenewables says:

    Mike = boak

  222. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    I’ve been recovering today but have continued to dip in.

    I don’t think I have seen so much $h!te posted in so short a time, as been posted today.

    Y’all know who has been postin’ the %h!t€ so why have intercourse with them?

    Happy new year to y’all.

  223. Mike says:


    Ok well how about Unilateral Declaration of Independence is that not the same as a Unilateral Declaration of Intent or does Google tell you its also a Human Right?

  224. Stravaiger says:

    Here’s to the Queen, sir!
    Ye ken wha I mean, sir;
    And to every honest man,
    ?That will do’t again.

    When you hear the trumpet sound
    Tuttie taitie, to the drums;
    Up wi’ swords and down your guns,
    ?An’ to the loons again.

    Make no mistake, this is a war. A war of words, not swords, but a war nonetheless. We must be ready for anything. We are however battle hardened veterans of the last campaign. Older, wiser, wilier. It will be a sair fecht but one we must, and will, win.

    There’s an enigmatic carving on a wall near me. “Nothing on airth enduris bot fame”. This is our moment of fame, our moment to be written in to the history books. To be judged forever after by those who follow us long after we have gone.

    What a time to be alive!

  225. Thepnr says:


    I thought yiu were a wank rather than a good guy and now you have proven it so. LOL.#

    Your link about the “Universal Declaration of Intent (sic)” gives this:

    Unilateral Declaration of Intent to be Bound

    A statement made by one party that expresses intent to enter into legal obligations based on the terms of the statement. The statement is not directed toward another party and does not require acceptance by another party to become legally binding.

    Intent my arse, you need to wake up and get a grip of reality.

  226. geeo says:

    This is worth digestion by everyone on all sides, shouting about UDI.

    UDI definition is clear as day, even a British Nationalist could understand it. No mention of the word ‘intent’ anywhere.

    Unilateral declaration of independence

    A unilateral declaration of independence is a formal process leading to the establishment of a new state by a subnational entity which declares itself independent and sovereign without a formal agreement with the national state from which it is seceding.

    Oops, how inconvenient.

  227. Tom says:

    She ran down the stairs and out of the building. Her head buzzing. Now, now was the time.
    Everyone had thought her an incompetent fool, but that was just a ploy. She had a plan. She knew how to extricate the country from the terrible mess. Many thought that she had created it but it was not her fault. It was the fault of her predecessor, that fool David, he had given into the rabid beer-drinker. He had called for that disastrous vote. She had had to pick up the pieces and now all her plans were ready everything she had planned for the last two years were about to come to fruition.

    She ran out into the courtyard where Javid was waiting. Theresa gave the signal. Javid smiled in reply. She looked over; The Royal mounted flying porcine corps were ready to fly.

  228. geeo says:

    Hold on….A declaration of Intent is MARRIAGE related….not for a divorce..!!!

    Who knew ??? Go Jacob !

  229. Ahundredthidiot says:

    I opt for Whitney Houston

    Wife goes for Dolly Parton

    Rev – I will always love you

  230. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Any SIU moles out there fancy telling us where/when the Burns Night gigs are being held this year?


  231. Phil says:

    Meg merrilees says: 1 January, 2019 at 12:19 pm

    “Anyone listening to Neil McGregor’s new series on BBC R4 in the morning (or evening). How Britain is seen in the eyes of English speaking countries which Britain tried to rule by force – India, Egypt, Nigeria, Canada and can’t deme her the 5th one.

    Fascinating and brutally refreshing programme spelling out exactly how low the British reputation has sunk – if it was ever high to start with. Surprised he’s being allowed to broadcast it. Worth a listen.”

    Agree with much Meg. BUT, both Neil McGregor and his interviewees suffer time and again and again from the LONDON = BRITAIN syndrome. He ought to understand what is / is not Britain. His foreign interlocutors may not. He joins them rather than stopping the tape for a moment to explain. He presents a learned exposition of falsity which reinforces the inequitable impressions we know should be removed.

  232. Thepnr says:

    @Ian Brotherhood

    What the fuck? Have you no get your ticket yet LOL. I hope it’s in the same premises as last year that was a laugh 🙂

  233. Molly says:

    CameronB Brodie

    The ‘establishment’ could also include Jeremy Corbyn, who seems to be saying little on Brexit (although in fairness has spoken about just as serious domestic issues) in the hope there will be enough Brexit chaos to usher in his Labour interpretation of socialism.

    Strange how neither of the 2 big parties at Westminster or media commentators or several thousand experts who get airtime have ever suggested reforming the system at Westminster, given how badly it’s been shown to operate, abused by both political parties and failing to function.

    What we do know is whether blue or red, the establishment are prepared to play the long game to keep the system in place, regardless of the devastation it creates for people.

  234. cynicalHighlander says:

    Just do not give the trolls the respect of responding to them, simples really.

  235. Sarah says:

    Ronnie, I was thinking if key personalities were required to stand down [Gove, Johnson, Davis] and/or several other MPs, it could affect the government’s majority [such as it is] and it might also affect the Tory/Labour stance on all manner of policies. Especially if the ousted MPs were replaced by less toxic versions, possibly from Plaid, Greens or SNP.

    That in itself would be an improvement on where we currently are.

    A new Westminster Government might possibly grow a spine and withdraw Article 50 and we would all stay in Europe. That would go a long way to restoring the damage already done to the economy of the British Isles. That is important – I’d far rather restoring Scotland’s position as a nation state was not achieved as a result of England’s hoodwinked population being damaged financially and socially.

    I take the view that there is already a majority for Scotland to withdraw from the Treaty of Union – but it won’t be published anywhere because, as I think we are all agreed, the MSM are no longer interested in uncovering or publishing the truth. The more disarray in Westminster the more apparent it will be to Scottish voters that we can do better. Also the less energy the Establishment will have to subvert Scotland’s campaign.

    My thinking no doubt has weaknesses but having voters take action against MPs would provide a concrete example of democracy – show that it is NOT MPs who have all the power. Power should lie with us not be taken so that Westminster can do what they like with us [as they do to Windrush people, others who have been here for years and/or are married to British citizens, the disabled, the unemployed – all the numerous types who currently feel they have no voice and cannot make a difference].

    Once people know that they can make a difference they won’t go back to accepting what they are told. And our vote to restore Scotland’s self-governance will be a walk in the park.

  236. Thepnr says:

    I think I aught to explain about the Scotland In Union Burns Supper being a laugh.

    Well that was because a dozen or so “zoomers” from OFF Topic made the point of being there to welcome them. It really was a good laugh, we could wind them up and they did get the police who looked on but eventually left as it was a waste of time watching these old fats and they had more important work to do.

    Hahaha we’re a wee bit smarter than they think and that’s why no one stepped too far out of line, I think we got it just about right. Let’s put it this way, we ripped the piss out of the politicians as they walked in BUT we never abused any of them. Work that one out 🙂

  237. Ian Brotherhood says:

    After reading a great comment from Rev Stu on the WOS feed earlier, just put up this poll on Twitter:

    Do you agree with the following statement or not?
    ‘If those Scots who are (allegedly) pledging to leave Scotland if it becomes independent actually do so, and are replaced by indy-supporting immigrants, Scotland will be a better place to live and work.’

    It’s only been up about 8 minutes and has already had 50 votes, 98% agreeing.

    It’s up until Friday midnight, so please share to other platforms if you can. Thanks.

  238. Robert Peffers says:

    @Scots Renewables says: 1 January, 2019 at 12:58 pm:

    ” … Breeks, your last paragraph is a disgrace. Go back and read the article again.”

    Ah! Yes!, Scots Renewables, You hit that nail smack dab on the head. Breeks is totally illogical in his thinking.

    He states, ” … “Time is short Nicola Sturgeon. You have less than 87 days to get our Nation’s Legal Personality sorted, less than 87 days to secure Scotland’s rights as a Sovereign Interlocutor and liaise with Europe to save ourselves from Brexit. With due respect, and the last of my patience, get it done or step aside and get out of the way.”

    The people of Scotland are legally sovereign and not even Westminster denies that as a fact. They have not, in their own Supreme Court, opposed the Scottish Claim of Right.

    That can only be construed as the Kingdom of England, (that doesn’t even have an elected parliament of its own), and whose Secretary of State for Against Scotland stated in the public domain, ‘The Treaty of Union Extinguished the Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England as the United Kingdom’.

    Plainly their never openly stated views are that the Kingdom of England’s monarch’s sovereignty overrules that of the people of Scotland’s legal sovereignty. However, in order to enter into a Treaty of Union then both Kingdoms must be equally legally sovereign. Otherwise it would not be a legal international treaty to begin with.

    Thus there are no time limits upon the legally sovereign people of Scotland nor van there ever be a limit upon the number of times that there is for them to change their minds. All this time limit and number of chance claptrap is nothing more than Westminster propaganda.

    There is absolutely no doubts that the people of Scotland are both legally and naturally sovereign. As such it will always be the case that whenever the legally sovereign people of Scotland decide the Treaty of Union is over that it will be legally over.

    I find the last wee bit absolutely hilarious where Breeks tells Nicola, “ … step aside and let, (we must presume it to be Breeks), do the job for her.

    As Breeks does not nominate another person then Breeks can only be assumed to be that other person. The hidden agenda is not very well hidden in that particular post.

  239. Iain mhor says:

    Took a tentative look today seeing that technically it’s not a weekend, but still a jakey holiday and “lo” the two-can-dans are still ripped oot their heids and canny post, fantastic! Personally I’ve seen off a good bottle of Russian Voddie and some Krauterlikor being “out country” but I can still focus one eye enough to read a great passionate thread!
    “I don’t recognise your authority”

    So besides that cryptic line I’ll observe that @geeo has been restrained enough to not refer to the obvious mince as “gibbering pish” (a personal favourite of mine) but now I’m sad because one of my posts had that levelled at it and now I must think if some of the dung today didn’t deserve that, then my post must have been some quality pish!
    Love it.
    “I don’t recognise your court or your authority”
    That’s about what it boils down to now for me.
    Having been failed by those I lazily invested it in, it is ultimately only my own individual sovereignty I can now fall back upon.
    So that may not go well for me but… meh, it’s like that just now.
    I know many new readers and possibly old contributors, notice in passing the link to the “Sealand Gazette” there for as long as I can remember and in plain sight.
    Perhaps not getting up to speed on that particular incidence is an error for a few here, but one which distills the ultimate declaration of sovereignty. And no, it was not UDI
    Sealand seceded from no-one.

  240. Capella says:

    @ Phil – I agree. I listened to quite a lot of radio today, including Neil Macgregor’s programme. He corrected himself once from “London” to “Britain” but his interviewees talked about London/England as if that is Britain.

    Same with the news programme at 1pm. They are completely self obsessed ATM and with BREXIT. Quite demented, in fact.
    Imagine, a YES vote in 2014 would have meant we would be free of this madness.

  241. Thepnr says:


    I think you trust me right lol?

    I’m hoping to build support for this radio station, it’s pretty good and the DJ I think anyway is one of us. Give it a try as it’s on now.

  242. @Sarah

    You can`t just recall your MP,

    Recall of MPs ACT 2015,

    The first recall condition is that—
    the MP has, after becoming an MP, been convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence

    The second recall condition is that

    , following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP,

    The third recall condition is that—

    (a)the MP has been convicted of an offence of providing false or misleading information for allowances claims, (Ian Paisley).

  243. CameronB Brodie says:

    New Labour were/are the left wing of the New Right, so at least JC appears to be trying to reclaim some socialist principles. I agree though, he should be viewed as essentially a member of the Establishment. He’s signed an oath to that effect, as leader of the opposition, pledging allegiance to the Queen. He might seek change but it’s change within the confines of the One Nation ideology and steered by populist English nationalism.

  244. Mike says:


    Well theres a classic example of self unawareness.

    “The statement is not directed toward another party and does not require acceptance by another party to become legally binding.”

    Unilateral declaration of Independence is about denying the influence and power of an opposing authority to deny the declaration you howling imbecile.

  245. Robert Peffers says:

    @Clydebuilt says: 1 January, 2019 at 1:05 pm:

    ” … They have stopped elections to the Northern Ireland assembly.”

    Aye! Clydebuilt, but there is one almighty difference. N.I. is the remnant of the old Kingdom of Ireland that passed, “The Crown of Ireland Act”, in 1542. This act placed the Crown of Ireland upon the King of the Kingdom of England’s head.

    In so doing that made all Ireland part of the Kingdom of England where, to this very day, the Monarch of England is legally sovereign in the entire Kingdom of England – but not under intendent Scots law as stated in the Treaty of Union 1706/7.

    In the Kingdom of Scotland’s case the Treaty of Union of 1706/7 plainly states that the United Kingdom is a union of only the two, equally sovereign, kingdoms that signed The Treaty of Union.

    Quite simply, if the legally sovereign people of Scotland declare the Treaty of Union is over then the Parliament of the United Kingdom ends immediately.

    There has been no Parliament of either the kingdom or the country of England since 1 May 1707 but, as there is still a monarch of the Kingdom of England, who is legally sovereign in the Kingdom of England, then the Queen of England does, as English Monarchs have always done since 1688, and summons her choice of leader to her presence and commands that chosen one to form Her Majesty’s Government of her Kingdom of England.

    Note that in times when the Kingdom comes under threat, for example during two World Wars, that is exactly what has happened – the Queen appoints a War Leader who forms a cross-party war cabinet and Westminster shows its true colours – as an Establishment where political parties are window dressing to fool the electorate into the belief that Westminster is a democracy.

  246. Thepnr says:


    According to you geeo is an imbecile, myself another imbecile.

    Hahaha Fuck off you fanny it’s YOU that’s the IMBECILE 🙂

  247. Liam says:

    Malcolm McCandless says:
    1 January, 2019 at 1:22 pm

    Declare UDI before this Brexshit happens.

    The UK government (whoever that may be) will be up to its ears in crap as not to notice that Scotland has left.

    Declare UDI and go for it.

    JUST before the Brexshit happens – do it on the 28th of March with a unilateral revocation of Article 50 following about 25 minutes later.

  248. Sarah says:

    @Scot Finlayson: I knew it was too good to be true! What narrow grounds to recall your MP. Why not include being lied to e.g. Alistair Carmichael, Johnson, Gove, Mundell, Rudd, May…. too many to name.

    The grounds of the Recall Act are petty compared with the abuse of democracy. Typical of Westminster – make a huge fuss about something relatively unimportant but leave the fundamentally undemocratic and worthless UK parliamentary system unreformed.

  249. Breeks says:

    Mike says:
    1 January, 2019 at 6:17 pm

    Unless you believe Scotland to be constitutionally Independent now then any and ALL campaigns that advocate the promotion of Independence from a NON Independent constitutional state begins with UDI because if the initial declaration is not unilateral then its a reached agreement in principle Independence has been achieved and no campaign is necessary.
    Is that what you think happened?

    What we require is not the foundation and establishment of a new Nation, but merely the termination of a false Union which purports to do what it Constitutionally cannot do.

    The Constitutional template of modern Scotland, our “UDI” if you want to see it that way, was established by the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, subsequently given formal recognition by the Pope in 1328 after a Peace Treaty ending the War with England where the dowager Queen Isabella of England recognised the Independent Kingdom of Scotland and relinquished all Claim over it in perpetuity via the 1328 Treaty of Northampton.

    Scottish Independence is not about creating the Nation of Scotland. That already exists and there was never any instrument or ordinance which brought about the extinguishing of Scotland or the removal of sovereignty from the people.

    Terminate or void the bilateral Treaty of Union, and both Scotland and England will default back to their pre-Union status as equal and separate sovereign Kingdoms. That is the task before us.

    Creating a new Nation, or ending a political Union between two Nations are two utterly dissimilar objectives, where only the latter, dissolution of the broken and dysfunctional Union, is necessary for restoring Scotland back to a former state of political independence.

    Our sovereign independence has never been lost, although a contrary narrative has quite wrongly gained predominance and ascendancy after centuries of sophistry, corruption, and wilfull distortion of the truth.

    Do you see the difference Mike? There’s a time and a place for a UDI, but Scotland’s predicament is neither the time, place or occasion for Scotland to invent itself as a nation. A UDI is simply the wrong and wholly inappropriate protocol.

    We do need a campaign, but a campaign to expose and bring down a fallacy and faux UK Constitution, and restore to its rightful preeminence the legitimate constitutional sovereignty of the Scottish people.

  250. Capella says:

    @ Thepnr – sounds good but I will listen again when a bit more awake. All this enjoying myself is exhausting! I like talk radio too. 🙂

  251. Famous15 says:

    Forget process and fine detail for now. These are just diversions from the real road to independence.

    Concentrate on converting No and Don’t Knows. Keep it simple. Remember Independent is the NORMAL state of a country.

    Keep it friendly tempting though it may be to scream about the shambles of Brexit. Just hint the obvious that Scotland could do things better.

  252. Phil,

    I agree with some of your observation but is it a falsity?
    Is it not the case that London/England/ the Empire/the BBC are all interchangeable because that is how the system operated for centuries, and it is how many countries ( outside Europe) still perceive the UK, and if that is how they see it, why should he change it.

    I agree that he repeatedly refers to Britain/London/England in the same breath and it is annoying, but by the same token, listening to his voice you would struggle to believe that he was born in Glasgow! Mc Gregor has spent his life in the system/establishment. I have no idea of his personal politics but he is a very learned guy with a brilliant mind.

    Try to go past the London/ England thing because his programme idea – how do other nations see ‘us’ – is fascinating. This is a programme about the Britian that was that Brexiteers want to recreate. As an Egyptian women commented today ‘just look at the name’ when discussing ‘The Imperial War Museum’. She’s got a point!

    I heard him being interviewed last week about this series where he explained that when he set out to record the programmes he thought Brexit would be signed sealed and almost delivered by now. He had never thought for one moment that it could be still so undecided.

    During the course of recording he was amazed to find out how much other countries know about ‘us’ compared to what little we know about them e.g. when arriving at Immigration in the airport in Nigeria, the officer, noticing his Glasgow birthplace on his passport commented that “ah, you are Scottish . You will have voted Remain”.

    That seriously impressed him because he doubts if many in Britain would be as clued up about elections in Nigeria.

    Personally, I think these interviews are astonishing, whereby the extraordinary truth of how these other countries view England is revealed. They are all without exception describing exactly what it now is – a narrow-minded, greedy, arrogant, grasping, selfish country which has damaged their way of life.

    I don’t think Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland or possibly even the UK have been mentioned once – this is a programme about Great Britain and Empire and how the mighty have fallen.

  253. Capella

    A Yes vote in 2014 would have saved us from a lot of this – but dinna worry. A Yes vote in 2019 (or not long after ) will still save us from all this.

  254. Thepnr says:


    Glad you said that, keep it simple, keep it friendly. We only need to persuade one other and if every YES supporter did the we would have 90% support next time.

    That sound ridiculous but its true! Think about it, absolutely true/ So we’re never going to get the BBC speaking up for us or the papers, guess we must speak up for ourselves.

    That’s the answer by the way, it’s no secret, do you want to win Independence? Then persuade one other person. Even your mum.

  255. Calling Cactus – are you receiving?

  256. Robert Peffers says:

    @Big Jock says: 1 January, 2019 at 1:09 pm:

    ” … UDI declared in July.”

    UDI is internationally seen as an illegal act.

    A legally sovereign people thus cannot declare UDI.

    It is their sovereign legal right so, being sovereign, a majority of the legally sovereign people of Scotland cannot declare UDI.

    The just legally declare their sovereign right of self determination and that is not an illegal act and is not a UDI.

  257. Rock says:

    “We’re about to find out where we stand and what we’re going to do about it.”

    I can say with 100% confidence that Westminster will not grant a Section 30 order for Indyref2.

    I can also say with 100% confidence that Nicola will not dare call one anyway and risk a Catalonia like situation.

    Anyone up for a “Sovereign people’s independence referendum”?

  258. Davie Oga says:


    Interesting post. When I was living in Nigeria and people found out I am Scottish, on more than one ocassion someone remarked that,” You were colonized too”. Also, the common word for all white people is Oyinbo- the Yoruba word for Englishman. It was a great way to get a laugh out of folk by explaining that I’m not an Oyinbo. Incidentally, among the educated Nigerians I know, few could understand our desire to be independent. Since the Brexit vote, few understand why we would not want independence.

  259. Rock says:

    Thepnr says:
    1 January, 2019 at 1:55 pm

    “With the exceptions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand who didn’t do it via UDI.”

    Canada, New Zealand and Australia are nothing more than an extension of the British Empire, all against Scottish independence.

    Who is their Queen, may I ask you?

  260. Thepnr says:


    A Happy New Years greeting to you. I really hope that things work out for you in 2019. Anyway I’ll put on record that you’re wrong and that Nicola Sturgeon will call a second Independence referendum.

    Having 100% confidence in anything as you apparently do is a wee bit stupid, believe me it will come back to bite you on the bum. Better to say 95% or something then you always have a get6 out out clause.

    Probably too late now for you though Rock anyway, you’ve already burnt all your bridges with predictions that will prove to be wrong. Tell me I’m not right LOL

  261. geeo says:

    @iain mhor @10.41pm

    Your (gibbering) pish is always the ‘quality’ kind…lol!

    Todays wac-job has not earned such an insult.

    I hope that makes things better…!

  262. Robert Peffers says:

    @Mike says: 1 January, 2019 at 1:41 pm:

    ” … Every Independent state who took their Independence from Westminster literally did it via UDI. Kind of makes you look like an imbecile eh?”

    No, Mike, You are the one looking like the imbecile and I’ll explain it just for you — again.

    No other state that has ever broken away from Westminster rule, (and that includes the Irish Free State), was an equally sovereign partner Kingdom in the two partner United Kingdom.

    The Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England are equally legal sovereign partners in the Treaty of Union. This must be the case as each had to be equally sovereign in order to have the legal right to negotiate and sign a Treaty of Union.

    In point of fact there are/were two royal seals attached to the Treaty of Union. Even although, in 1706/7 the royal person was the same person the two kingdoms were still independent. Obviously so for the purpose of the treaty was to unify the only two extant kingdoms in the British Isles in 1706/7.

    The United Kingdom is legally a two partner kingdom and, (wait for it), that is why it is called, “The United Kingdom”.

    It is not, and never has legally been, a unified country. Although it does indeed contain four countries – three of which comprise the Kingdom of England, it is a kingdom and not a country.

    Still feel like accusing people of being an imbecile, Mike?

    Only a numptie could call a entity known the World over as, “The United Kingdom”, as a unified country when the whole World knows The United Kingdom contains four countries.

    I’ll put that in terms that even you can understand, Mike.

    The United States, (both the USA and the United States of Mexico), are countries composed of many states.

    The United Kingdom is a political state composed of four countries – or more correctly – three countries and one part of another country.

  263. geeo says:

    I can 100% (or 96% – Thepnr) predict that Rock will post the same repetitive “gibbering pish” (Iain mhor) day after day.

    Anyone prepared to claim otherwise ?

  264. orri says:

    The problem here is that the independence can mean more than one thing and that it’s uncertain which definition of it would apply should the Kingdom of Scotland end it’s relationship with that of England. Moreso given that which applies might change on the circumstance it’s being used in.

    The basic assertion on part of Westminster and Unionists is that the United Kingdom would still exist after the union that formed it is dissolved. Now that might actually be true in name only but in reality it’d be a bit like Oasis breaking up and one of the brothers insisting it still exists. Not entirely as Oasis did exist beforehand.

    Even Scot’s Law doesn’t help as at would probably class it as the same as the Queen calling herself by a historically inaccurate number even when in Scotland. To be honest though I’m not sure if her number is actually used. It’s not the QE2 University Hospital after all.

    However the point is that in this case independence is in the sense of each partner of a marriage being independent of the other after a divorce. If the UK is a marriage then it wouldn’t exist.

    That said it’s not in Scotland’s best interest to give any state governed from Westminster and advantage by allowing it to define what our independence consists of.

    Rather than a UDI which might be interpreted as acknowledging the rUK as the continuance of the UK rather than Scotland and both being co-successors what would be better would be a declaration that Scotland had withdrawn from the 1707 Treaty of union and where necessary cite instances where it had been violated. Not an intent to do so but that it had been done.

    It might be best to call a convention of all Scotland’s elected representatives currently exercising the sovereignty of the parliament that signed that Treaty and formally revoking it. So MPs, MSPs and if relevant MEPs. The HoL will not get a say as the people are sovereign and it would be an affront to democracy if they were allowed to frustrate our will.

  265. Cubby says:

    Geeo @1.39pm

    Spot on comment re use of the term UDI and Scotland.

    Using this term assists Britnat propaganda. Why do people then continue to use it. Ignorance, carelessness or sneaky phoney independence supporter that is a Britnat.

    Give it a rest re UDI.

  266. Thepnr says:


    Right now that was just what I needed a fucking good laugh 🙂

  267. yesindyref2 says:

    Thepnr’s right, you’re wrong! Rock actaully just said this “Anyone up for a “Sovereign people’s independence referendum”?

    which IS one possible route to Independence, there are many.

    Back to lurk mode

  268. Robert Peffers says:

    @Mike says: 1 January, 2019 at 1:55 pm:

    ” … I would genuinely love to share your optimism yet I cant get past the fact that support for Independence hasn’t moved in the last year.”

    Utter pish! On what grounds do you base your opinion?

    There hasn’t been a Scottish Independence referendum since Indyref1. Thus you are basing your claims upon the numerous opinion polls published in the interim period.

    Every individual opinion poll is paid for by an opinionated group who obviously have axes to grind and every opinion poll is weighted by the pollsters and they each use their own weighing system.

    If opinion polls were accurate we wouldn’t need to hold elections or referendums.

  269. Cubby says:

    Terence Callachan

    You accused me of threatening you and swearing at you. I asked you where and when this happened. No reply from Terence – freedom of speech for all but not votes for all – Callachan.

    I have never threatened anyone on Wings and I have never swore at anyone on Wings.

    Well you pompous prick. Are you just another Britnat liar. Britnats lie and they lie all the time about almost everything.

  270. Davie Oga says:

    Not for me to say if UDI would be successful for Scotland, but
    The United States, Greece, Belgium , Republic of Ireland, Indonesia, Albania, Kosovo, Slovenia, and Croatia all successfully declared independence. Legality is strictly based on whether or not other nations recognize it as legitimate. Personally, I still give the FM the benefit of the doubt as far as a second independence referendum goes, but I’m sick to death of hearing about a “peoples vote”. Breeks is spot on. 87 days. Is there any difference in the morality of Labour waiting for the disaster of Brexit to ride to the rescue compared to an SNP waiting for the disaster of Brexit to convince soft no’s? Tired of the political games. I am a Scottish European citizen and I would like someone to defend my rights.

  271. Cubby says:


    A shitty new year to you and your Britnat pals.

  272. Rock says:

    Thepnr says:
    2 January, 2019 at 12:06 am

    “Having 100% confidence in anything as you apparently do is a wee bit stupid, believe me it will come back to bite you on the bum. Better to say 95% or something then you always have a get6 out out clause.”

    Politicians and lawyers make sure they have a get out clause out of anything – it is called “sitting on the fence”.

    I am saying it with conviction. If I am proven wrong, I will be happy to admit it.

    Greetings to you as well.

  273. Robert Peffers says:

    @Mike says: 1 January, 2019 at 1:59 pm:

    ” … Yes they actually did. They did not seek nor were granted any agreement regarding their Independence they simply stated their intent and followed it through.”

    Pish! Not a single one of them was a fully equally sovereign partner kingdom in the United Kingdom. Only the kingdoms of Scotland and England are.

    The United Kingdom only has two, equally sovereign partner kingdoms and either one of them can end the United Kingdom instantly by simply declaring the Treaty of Union has ended.

    Not only that but as the rule of Law of Scotland is based upon the people of Scotland being legally sovereign and because that is a basic tenet of the Treaty of Union only the Kingdom of Scotland partner has the power for the people to declare the union is ended.

    Westminster cannot do so for under English law the Queen of England is legally sovereign so only she can end the union for her Kingdom of England. Note that nothing can become law in England without the signature of Elizabeth Regina but under Scots law the people have the legal right to throw out their current monarch and replace her with someone of their choice.

    You’re conflating armed conflict with UDI.

    Nope! The only person confused here is you. I say it again – not a single Commonwealth Country of the previous British Empire that has become independent were fully equal sovereign partners in the United Kingdom – only the Kingdoms of Scotland and England have that capacity and only either of those two kingdoms can legally declare the United Kingdom disunited.

  274. Rock says:

    yesindyref2 says:
    2 January, 2019 at 12:30 am

    Thepnr’s right, you’re wrong! Rock actaully just said this “Anyone up for a “Sovereign people’s independence referendum”?”

    which IS one possible route to Independence, there are many.”

    Could you give examples of the “many” routes still open?

  275. Cubby says:


    You’ll be missed while you are in lurk mode. Hope your RSI clears up soon. Too many Britnats posting on Wings.

  276. Thepnr says:

    Deary me those that are punting the 87 days left are eh! Should I say mental or just seriously deluded?

    It wasn’t that long ago that the same people were shouting that if there wasn’t a referendum before September 2018 then we’d be fucked and it we might as well give up.

    Hey guess what! We never gave up or collapsed in Sep and I really don’t give a fuck when the next referendum is. I only care about winning one and if that’s next year or 50 fucking years time so fuck.

    Independence is what matters, sure the sooner the better. I’ll say this though, in my opinion there will never be a better chance than now. Brexit will be the deciding factor so see YOU yes I’m on about YOU just persuade your mum or dad or pal. We all do the same then we win.

  277. geeo says:

    Hear, hear, Cubby.

    It is one of the simplest things to comprehend, so once explained to someone, it should never be repeated by them.

    If it is, that red flags, for me,the person doing so.

    On the subject of what’s next, well, Orri mentions a call for a constitutional convention of Scottish representatives to dissolve the Union Treaty.

    Who is to say that is not a live option, if treeza tries to refuse or delay a S.30 order referendum ?

    Or perhaps the ‘Breeks option’ ?

    Or my suggestion, a protective political dissolution motion put to Holyrood (this would be the politically represented will of all Scots) caveated of course with a promise to hold a plebiscite to satisfy and respect the People’s Sovereignty.

    I imagine that plan A will involve TELLING WM the referendum date, and a formal requested section 30 order, quoting the 2012 precedent.

    If that is refused or obfuscated, then the pre- arranged Plan B will kick in.

    Holyrood and Scotsgov has not went to the lengths they have, to protect Scotland, to not have a Plan B.

    Clearly it would be tactically stupid to tell WM what those plans are, which makes anyone demanding to know what those plans are, before they are required, look a bit daft.

    To demand we snatch defeat from the jaws of an ever more obvious and imminent victory, is something only Britnats would do.

    To all those demanding what the SNP/Scotsgov are doing, the answer is obvious.

    When the deal falls, as it surely will (and even if it passes tbh) Scotsgov will announce an indyref, and request a S.30 as per 2012 precedent.

    If WM want to have ANY say in that referendum, they must agree in full to Scotland’s terms (timing etc).

    Every other reaction by WM will end the Treaty of Union, due to some brilliant politicking by the SNP over the last couple of years.

    Not long now, as outlined in the Article.

    Stu always stated early 2019, imagine that, he was right !!

  278. Thepnr says:

    Here’s the truth 99% of Scottish people know fuck all about sovereignty and if you try to tell them then I reckon all you’ll get back is a blank stare.

    There is only one one way to win our Independence and that will be by another referendum. This isn’t fantasy it’s simply a fact. Once you can accept that then we we might make some progress.

    What the fuck am I on about? I’m on about persuading others, you know who I mean, they are your own family or your next door neighbours, that guy you see sometimes in the pub.

    There are no shortcuts. Sovereignty is all well and good but that is exactly what it means, only when enough Sovereign Scots actually say they want Independence will we become Independent.

    Lets imagine there was some kind of route through the courts that meant Scotland could simply end the Union.

    Does anyone really believe that might be done without a vote being given to the population in Scotland?

    No chance whatsoever, I’m a Yes supporter but is I was a No supporter just fucking try telling me that we’re out of the Union. I’d have your balls on a plate, now just imagine what a true Unionist supporter would think!!

    We will win, first we need to win the support of those that are not so sure yet. Get in there and let them know the truth.

  279. Dr Jim says:


    Sovereignty, is that wur new currency, and yes you’re right terms like that mean nothing to lots of folk you have to have a handy horror video to show or the comparison big fat lie stuff
    Too many people don’t get it that there are people in government who would end them if they thought they could get away with it, they don’t trust politicians yet they don’t think they would deliberately do them harm at the same time and they think you’re being a conspiracy theorist because they’ve heard that on the telly

    Conspiracy theorist BBC Definition: someone who is crazy because they don’t trust the government

  280. Robert Peffers says:

    @Mike says: 1 January, 2019 at 5:17 pm:

    ” … All forms of National Independence begin with UDI.”

    No they do not.

    Scotland is an older kingdom/country that is England and Scotland, unlike England was not defeated in war by anyone.

    Roman Britain did not include North Britain which is why the final boundary of the Roman Empire was Hadrian’s Wall and before that the Gask Ridge & Road that was extended across north Britain as the Antonine Wall.

    When the Romans left South Britain the South Britons invited the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic Tribes into South Britain and they gave it the name, “Angle Land”, but it took some time to form a unified English Kingdom for south Britain was composed of many smaller kingdoms.

    Then came the Vikings followed by the Norman Conquest and so began the Feudal system of Government in the south. However there was no Norman Conquest in Scotland even although both Robert Bruce and William Wallace were Norman Knights. The Normans came to Scotland by intermarriage with the existing old Scottish aristocracy and Scotland was a unified Kingdom before England became a unified kingdom.

    So where does that leave your idiotic claim, ” … UDI is the beginning of the journey towards National Independence.”

    Here’s the facts – The old rule of law throughout Christendom was, “The Divine Right of Kings”, – except in Scotland. Under this rule of law a monarch who defeated another monarch claimed fealty from the defeated monarch and thus united the two kingdoms. Under this rule of law a male monarch who married a female monarch assumed ownership of both kingdoms as did a monarch who inherited another kingdom and so kingdoms became fewer but larger.

    But in Scotland, as witnessed by the Declaration of Arbroath, the Monarchy was not legally sovereign and that Declaration of Arbroath was accepted by the then international authority. It declared not only that Scotland was an independent Kingdom but that the people were legally sovereign and the monarchy their protector of their sovereignty. That was in 1320.

    In the Kingdom of England they still had the Divine Right of Kings until their Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which they deposed their rightful monarch and replaced him with William & Mary but they assumed that the Kingdom of England had the right to depose the still independent King of Scots and thus kicked off the Jacobite Rebellions but as you cannot rebel against a monarch not your own and the two kingdoms remaining independent the Jacobites could not rebel against the king of England.

    Which Brings us to the Treaty of Union of 1706/7. Now just why would they need a Treaty of Union if there was a Union of the Crowns in 1603?

    So, Mike, there you have it – the Treaty of Union was a treaty between two still independent kingdoms who were equally sovereign but in Scotland’s case it was the people, not either the monarch or the government, who were, and still are, legally sovereign and thus the Treaty of Union is the Written Constitution of the United Kingdom and it is an agreement between equally sovereign kingdoms.

    Now go and read the English translation of the Treaty of Union.

    You will find an English Translation here:-

    Pay particular attention to Article of Union Number 19(XIX in Roman Numerals).

    The two rules of law are forever independent and not over 311 years has seen that article changed. In point of fact the two rules of law are irreconcilable with each other and thus cannot ever be made as one. Not even the Westminster instigated Supreme court can change that.

    So No UDI in the first place and an agreement of only two kingdoms in the second place. It is thus not legally possible for the people of Scotland to declare a UDI.

    That is because the United Kingdom is a two kingdom agreement between equally sovereign kingdoms and, like every other bipartite agreement, either partner can decide the agreement is over.

    BTW: Westminster is not legally sovereign for Westminster is officially, “Her Majesty’s Government”, but as Her Majesty is NOT sovereign in Scotland Westminster is technically illegal if the people of Scotland decide to leave.

    It begins with the declaration of intent to seek Independence and the progression and direction of that journey is determined by all relevant parties involved.
    The ONLY unilateral part of the whole journey is the declaration the rest of the journey concerns itself with getting to the point of agreement by whatever means it takes to get there.

  281. geeo

    You are right – in the current circumstances any solution to Brexit will end the Union.

    T May’s or any deal with a backstop in N. Ireland breaches the terms of the Union.

    A No-Deal Brexit dragging Scotland out of the EU against her will is an act of colonial dictatorship and is a breach of the terms of the Union and the concept of equal partnership. Such a material change has already given the Scotland the condition that any significant change in circumstances would entitle Scotland to enact the triple mandate it already has from the people, the MSP’s and the MP’s to leave the Union.

    Given everything that has happened recently with WM taking the Scottish Government to court over the Article 50 retraction situation and contesting and ultimately overruling the cross-party Continuity Bill I would suggest that both those legal actions by WM have already broken the terms of the Union.

    Even if Brexit is cancelled/postponed and a second EU ref returns a Remain vote there has possibly been too much water under the bridge at Berwick for things to return to the status quo and Indy is unstoppable.

    Things have changed significantly and Scotland has grown away from England. The FM obviously has something up her sleeve or she would not have focussed on reassuring EU nationals quite so vociferously recently.

    The biggest factor in all this is US – we have to be prepared to stand up for our independence and demand our rights are respected.
    Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on!

    2019 – the Year of Freedom

  282. Terence callachan says:

    Hey cubby…..lay off the sauce

  283. yesindyref2 says:

    I don’t think it’s sauce you are, more like whine vinegar.

  284. schrodingers cat says:

    UK (Northern Ireland), LucidTalk poll:

    Scenario: No Deal

    Irish Unification Referendum

    Remain in the EU by joining the Irish Republic: 57%
    Leave the EU by staying in the UK: 43%

    Field Work: December 2018
    Sample Size: 1,334

  285. Andy Anderson says:

    UDI may be needed but not before the people have had an opinion. We need to take the No voters with us by being democratic. I see the path ahead like this.

    First we need to wait until events in London are clear, no point in starting a formal Indy campaign for a GE to be called in the middle of it. So at the earliest we kick of a campaign in the summer, maybe even early 2020. If and only if we get say 60% Yes, enough to say that we have a clear majority as a sovereign choice by the people do we say to London goodbye.

    If they say No we have a formal election again using the first past the post part of a Scottish parliament election or a Westminster GE. If in one of those a majority of MSP or MP’s are from Indy supporting parties we say goodbye again.

    If they still say No then we declare LDI. A Legal Declaration of Independence is possible for two reasons, firstly we can demonstrate the majority of the people want it and secondly Westminster has on several occasions lately broken the Treaty of Union.

    The Scottish Government has for years now been talking to the UN and many other Governments making them aware of our situation meaning that we are likely to get support internationally for our actions. This is important.

    Finally we must be ready to take non violent disruptive steps across the whole UK if things get a bit nasty. Some of us may need to be locked up. Hopefully they will see sense in London before this is required.

    Patience is needed for a wee while yet.

  286. Andy Anderson says:

    schrodingers cat That is interesting re Ireland poll, thank you

  287. mac says:

    Next time an Englishman tells you that the Scots are subsidy junkies and couldn’t get by without the generosity of the English taxpayers, just tell them that in the not too distant future the Scots will be leaving this stinkin Union for good and thus save the English taxpayers a fortune on said subsidies’.

    It’s a win win all round,,,they save a fortune on subsidies’ and we get out if this stinkin Union.

  288. Graeme McAllan says:

    Some time soon, Nicola should organize an advisory vote for Scottish residents about becoming Independant, without asking Westminster for permission – if that vote is a YES, then she should declare Scotland as Independent then take that vote to the EU – please deal with us directly from now on 😉

  289. schrodingers cat says:


    i forgot to add

    3% dont knows

    interesting is the understatement of the year
    the tories have done in a few months what the ira couldnt do in a 100 years

    now we know why rees mogg spent hogmanay in belfast with the dup.

  290. Ken500 says:

    More Labour lies. Bed blocking supposed £Millions. Out of a Health care budget of £12Billion+ a year. Of necessary care for the elderly. They want people’s grannies throw out into the street in substandard accomodation. Having Labour consented and agreed to UK NHS cuts of £Billions a year and £Billions cut from Welfare. Sanctionig and starving vulnerable people. £Billions of cuts which the SNP has to and did mitigate.

    Labour are habitual liars. They can’t count or read a balances sheet. Imbeciles. Lennon is an habitual liar. It took the Scottish Gov five years to bring in minimum pricing which Labour did not support. Lennon stood up and gave a greeting face speech about her own father’s early death contributed by alcohol abuse. Lennon and the Labour Party vigorously oppose minimum pricing which could/will cut the SNHS bill by £Billions. There are no bigger hypocrites than Labour liars. The state of them. Habitual imbecile liars. Most of them are not fit for public office. The electoral system changed in Scotland to let these lying imbeciles try to ruin the economy. Beyond belief. A Labour 3rd loser (Dr) MSP vigourouly campaigned against minimum pricing which can help save people’s lives and save the NHS/economy £Billions.

    The Labour total hypicrites there are no words to cover it. Habitual liars.

    Thank goodness fir the SNP Gov standing up for the SNHS (extra necessary funding) and standing up for Scotland against the raving imbecile incompetents trying to grab some lying pathetic headlines for some cheap publicity. Ignorant incompetence displayed for all to see. An insult to people’s intellience along with the sycophant Press tanking in every way. There are no lies they would not print. Thank goodness for the internet.

    There will be no UDi because people will not vote for it. Scotland has always gone by the Law through the Ballot Box. Even though the unionists constantly try to change the voting system and illegally gerrymander. They still lose. .The ultimate losers are the general public who have to tolerate their lies and destruction, but liars always get found out. Leaving their destruction behind which always has to be sorted out. Unionist political imbeciles. The shambolic mess they create illegally time after time after time. Up to their eyes in debt. Wasting public money like there is no tomorrow. The biggest wealth gap in the world. Westminster unionist lunatics. On and on it goes.

    In every report from the 70’s/80’s substitute the £Millions quieted for £Billions That is what the equivalent value is in today’s value. To keep it in prospective. £Billions illegally and secretly gone from Scotland to accommodate these Westminster unionist lying imbeciles. Corruption on a vast major scale for years. Still gong on. ‘Politicians’ are being given ‘knighthoods’ for ruining the UK economy for years. Rewarded for failure. The most dishonourable people on the planet. Ruining the world economy. Thatcher’s mates. Habitual liars along with their stinking mates.

  291. Ken500 says:

    Substitute the £Millions quoted for £Billions. That is today’s equivalent value.

  292. Ken500 says:

    The unionists politicans are sending millions to early death. The most destructive people.

  293. Breeks says:

    You can judge for yourself whether Mike is or is not a BritNat troll, if judge you must, but whether he is or is not, the misguided notion of Scotland declaring its independence through a UDI is fairly commonplace, and it’s a proposition which is worthwhile to dispute constructively, if only so more people understand why a UDI is not on the agenda.

    I repeat myself, but a UDI is simply the wrong and inappropriate Constitutional protocol for the circumstances Scotland finds itself to be in.

    Look at Brexit, and UK’s ostensibly sovereign decision to exit the EU. It is a Member State’s voluntary decision to exit a Union. It does not mark the creation of the United Kingdom, that would ridiculous. It is merely the ending of a political union which the United Kingdom signed up to, but there is neither the occasion nor the calling for the UK to declare a UDI. It is simply not the correct protocol to adopt.

    There are much better options, but they are difficult to sum up and define using three letters… such brevity of expression is perhaps the ONLY thing a UDI has got going for it.

  294. Kenlong509 says:

    Labour imbeciles could have stopped May and her mates from this lunacy in Sept 2017 Evel vote. They either voted with the Tories,abstained or just did not turn up. Along with the LibDems. The one’s who do the most complaing. They just do not turn up to vote. This would not be happening now if they had done their elected duty. They illegally evaded their responsibilities yet again, Corbyn is supporting proposals which could see (him?) and his own wife being deported. There can be no more lunacy than that. Lost their way – complete imbeciles. How does anyone deal with the like of that.

    May – Thatcher – Mark Two. A chip off the old block. She wants to caused another world recession again. The hardship it would cause. It seems to be in the DNA. The stinking, sinking Tory+unionist Parties. Not fit for public office.

  295. Kenlong509 says:

    Mike just does not compute facts easily. Fanatastically illogical.

  296. mac says:

    Why does UDI come up in discussions on these pages???

    UDI is a non starter it is a no no,,

    Our route to Independence is through IndyRef2,,,no if no buts.

    Mention UDI to Nicola Sturgeon and she will roll about the floor laughing at you.

    So please drop this nonsense of Scotland gaining her Independence through UDI…it will be won at the ballot box once Nicola announces the date for IndyRef2.

  297. Ken500 says:

    Corbyn is supporting or abstaining from proposals which could see (him?) his own wife deported. How do you deal with that? Beyond stupid.

    May ie Thatcher -Mark Two is trying to cause a world recession, again. Beyond stupid. How can anyone consider that. It must be in their DNA. Psycho bastards.

  298. Ken500 says:

    LibDems politician complain the most and then do not turn up to vote. Reneging on their electoral duties. Having caused the catastrophe in the first place. Reneging on any principle and their parliamentary duty. Habitual liars of the worse kind. Illegal gerrymandering and lies. They would not chose the truth. Two faced psycho bastards.

  299. Ken500 says:

    The Tories at Westminster with Labour and unionist support are facilitating a situation where foreign doctors are being deported (illegally). Then having to re-apply for their own jobs. The necessary staff are having to support themselves in another place for 4 to 6 months. While the vacancy goes empty. Until the same doctor can apply for their own jobs. There are no applicants to fill these posts. How much is this costing the NHS (taxpayers). Absolutely monstrous. Causing hardship, havoc misery, pain and expenses for so many people. This is even outwith the Brexit catastrophe. May and her mates changed migration rules. Costing £Billions.

    Labour did not start this but they will be finished if they do not get up to the job and shoulder their responsibilities.

  300. Giving Goose says:

    As it is a Union, which takes two to tango, is there such a thing as a declaration of divorce from one of the parties?

  301. galamcennalath says:

    The Guardian …. “Benedict Cumberbatch excels as the head of the leave campaign. Brexit might make for great TV – but will it alienate half the audience?”

    Scotland has been subjected to outrageously rampant British Nationalism on TV for longer, and yes, it does alienate half the audience!

  302. orri says:

    Bed blocking was, in the past, partly down to local authorities underfunding social care leaving the NHS to pick up the tab. Partly to paint the SNP/Holyrood in a poor light.

    A similar tactic was employed, blaming the EU, for not granting Scotland’s unified energy services VAT exempt status.

    The aim is to burn holes in Holyrood’s budget.

  303. Ken500 says:

    Boris Johnstone is supporting proposals and intentions which could see him (and his family?) deported. His is a migrant family. He only got British citizenship a couple of years ago giving up his US citizenship. Under these proposals and implications it could easily be rescinded. That is how ignorant these people are? How do you deal with people like that? These proposals will not only apply to others. They will apply to him. Born in NY and brought up in Brussels. His privileged existence was funded by EU money. Total hypocrite. He is a migrant of a migrant family.

    They are already illegally deporting people without any of these proposals going through. Imagine the chaos, cost and hardship they will cause if these proposals are implemented and go through.

  304. Ghillie says:

    Thanks Rev Stu, that fair cheered up and me with toothache too! (think I’ve cracked a filling biting on a hard popcorn kernel!!)

    Favourite line: ‘It’s time to get ready’ 🙂

    Closely followed by: ‘…they are in such a screaming panic’ =)

    Not at all surprised by your analysis and I’m so happy to hear you explain it so clearly =)

    I think we are about to find out that our First Minister and team have been putting the waiting ages of 2018 to very good use 🙂

    Lots of 🙂 🙂 🙂

  305. orri says:

    Technically anyone with an Irish passport would be classes as an EU citizen. Does that mean they’ll have to apply to remain in Northern Ireland post Brexit or will exemptions be made? Will the DUP insist on mass deportation of, mainly (?), nationalists in order for there to be no border in the Irish Sea?

  306. Maria F says:

    Breeks says:
    2 January, 2019 at 7:02 am

    “I repeat myself, but a UDI is simply the wrong and inappropriate Constitutional protocol for the circumstances Scotland finds itself to be in”

    Can you elaborate a little bit more on this please? I am still finding difficult to understand how Scotland dissolving the Treaty of Union as an equal signatory of an international Treaty can be construed as “UDI”. I would understand that UDI is what Catalonia did. But if Scotland dissolving the treaty of Union unilaterally is interpreted as “UDI”, then undoubtedly we must understand that UDI is exactly what the UKgov is currently doing in the way they are withdrawing the UK from the EU. The rest of the EU cannot negate the UK leaving the EU and neither can Westminster negate Scotland its right to unilaterally dissolve the Treaty of Union. But the demand from the EU to dissolve the treaty is that it must be in compliance with the UK’s constitutional requirements. Well, without the consent of one of the 2 only equal signatories of the treaty of union that is the foundation for the UK, can we understand that the UKgov has fulfilled such requirement? In my personal opinion they have not because they have violated Scotland’s claim of right that is upheld by the Treaty of Union and this, in my view, should be contested in an international court of law.

    I understand that dissolving the treaty by our current majority of SNP MPs at Westminster and the share of MSPs in Holyrood may not be the best route (at the moment), but we may not have any choice in the near future if England MPs continue to deny us a referendum and act illegitimately as absolute rulers over Scotland.

    Exploring the options as how it can be done would not be an excess, as it would not be and excess showing the UKgov up internationally for every single breach of the Treaty of Union and breach of the Claim of Right they have done. I think it is simply wrong to let it pass. Every time they breach those and we turn a blind eye is a missed opportunity and more ammunition for them to continue doing it.

    “UK’s ostensibly sovereign decision to exit the EU”
    Actually, that is debatable in my opinion Breeks. Sovereign decision according to whom exactly? The Kingdom of England, perhaps. But certainly not the Kingdom of Scotland, which is the other equal partner in this union. In my view the UK gov and actually the UK parl went ultra vires on this. Scotland never gave consent for A50 to be triggered, nor its electorate, nor its Parliament nor 58 out of 59 of its legitimate representatives in Westminster. What we witnessed is at all effects an abuse of power by which Scotland’s Claim of right was put at one side and England’s will was forced onto Scotland against its own will. I believe the Claim of Right 1689 (upheld by the Treaty of Union) declares illegitimate any attempt to impose on Scotland absolute power. Well, forcing Scotland out of the EU against its expressed democratic will and without Scotland’s consent is at all practical effects acting as an absolute power over Scotland. The same in my view applies to the theft of the 24 powers: those are powers that, in line with the Scotland Act 1998, were devolved and therefore belonged in Holyrood. Let’s not forget here that the Parliament of Scotland was not “a gift” from Westminster. Parliament of Scotland was reconvened because the Sovereign People of Scotland demanded so in 2 plebiscites, one in 1979 and the other in 1997. At all effects, with those referendums the people of Scotland was taking away the legitimacy of Westminster for the powers in offer and putting that legitimacy on Holyrood. It is my opinion therefore that going without the consent of the people of Scotland who claimed those powers to Holyrood and Westminster stealing those powers back, was ultra vires and in my view (I have not legal standing but I certainly have an opinion) illegitimate with regards to the Claim of Right and indirectly with regards to the Treaty of Union. In addition, those powers being devolved was part of the status quo the people of Scotland voted for in 2014. This means that the people of Scotland only gave consent for the Treaty of Union to continue under such status quo, an status quo that was eviscerated actively by the party and power and by indirect consent by the main opposition party.

    “It is a Member State’s voluntary decision to exit a Union”
    As it is the two former sovereign states that signed the Treaty of Union 1707’s voluntary decision to dissolve the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Scotland reconvened its parliament and therefore can pass such act of dissolution. As Robert explained here several times, it is debatable that the Kingdom of England, without a reconvened parliament, can do the same.

    “It does not mark the creation of the United Kingdom”
    If you dissolve the Treaty of Union, you dissolve the political
    Union, that is right. It is then for the people of Scotland to decide if they want to ditch the monarchy altogether or not. But in any case, dissolving the Treaty of Union 1707 will end the legitimacy of England MPs and unelected Lords sticking their nose in Scotland’s business.

    “There are much better options”
    That all depends on the circumstances, Breeks. I think we all know here the enormous economic value that Scotland has for “the UK”, actually, for England and therefore it does not take much to realise just how big a resistance we will find not only to celebrate a referendum but more importantly to celebrate it in a way that is fully democratic, fair and that has not been infested with English establishment interference right, left and centre. We have the example of their enormous interference in every single aspect in 2014. Even the Civil Service was up to its ears on it and the Electoral commission conveniently turned a blind eye to lots of funding from out of Scotland reaching the coffers of the BTogether and of course turning a blind eye to campaigns with HQ in England whose leaders couldn’t even vote in the referendum. Anything of the sort in the EU referendum and the earth would stop spinning of the monumental tantrum from the brexiteers. Needless to say that funding from individuals that are not in the UK electoral registry or campaigns with HQ out of the UK are not accepted in UK GE. So why was it acceptable for individuals not in the electoral registry of Scotland to fund the No campaign? Do you think they will not do it again? They will do it all again and with a vengeance this time because they now have nothing left to lose: if they don’t do it they will almost certainly lose the referendum. So under this circumstances, how can you ever ensure an independence referendum will be fair and democratic for the people of Scotland?

    But coming back to your UDI, I think Mr Pfeffers has repeatedly explained here why Scotland cannot UDI. It does not need to UDI, it simply needs to exercise its right to dissolve an international treaty it entered in 1707.

  307. Mike says:

    For the love of Christ when are folk on here going to understand the reality of the situation. Scotland is going through a constitutional awakening right now. For the first time in over 310 years it is questioning its relationship within the UK at a level that threatens to end the treaty of union and people actually believe it will all end and go away through an amiable divorce based on the grounds that its the right thing to do and the moral legitimate course ignoring the FACT that the UK state has NEVER in its miserable 310 plus year existence ever displayed a willingness to play fair be moral and seek the legitimate path when it comes to constitutional divorce.
    We had a referendum ONLY because the UK state believed it wouldn’t lose we had a referendum on the EU as well ONLY because the Tory leadership under Cameron believed the UK would vote to remain and he could quell the unrest in his own party.
    The UK state doesn’t use Democracy unless it believes it can control or predict the outcome.
    Brexit was a massive mistake which has all but destroyed the Tory party had Labour been a real party of opposition they would have finished off the Tories for decades but Labour are nothing but another Tory party so they are worthless as an opposition.
    How many times have various members of the Tory party get to tell us “NOW IS NOT THE TIME” before people click on to the fact that there will be no Indyref 2 agreement as long as the UK state believes it cant win.
    So that being the case where does the Yes campaign go from there? What does it do in the LIKELY event we cant persuade a Fascist UK state to go along with another referendum?

  308. DerekM says:

    Happy New Year Wingers 🙂

    Yes Rev indeed.

    But the positive is after all these years fighting dirty British state propaganda we are still here.

    And you know that really annoys them.

    They no longer face an idea they face a politically battle hardened people intent on making that idea a reality.

    Like it or not there is only one door we can take and yes its all down to legal bollocks in the act having to actually have been committed.
    You can think about smashing that window but until you actually smash it then it is only an idea.

    This door we chose to try in 2016 was always a long shot but the pieces fell into place and here we stand once more with a chance.

    Two years they have tried to find a way to stop that,their time is running out.

    And for all those getting a bit jumpy out there what do you think Nicola is going to tell you what she has planned so you can blab it all over social media and let the enemy know what is in store haha but keep up the angles guys it really confuses the crap out the yoons 🙂

  309. Mike says:

    Brexit will be an example of UDI whether a deal and agreement is reached or not. Isnt that so?

  310. orri says:

    Anyone else wondering how the Salmond case is going to turn out? I think it’ll be a case of not following the proper procedure and his treatment being deemed unfair due to that. The thing to remember is it’s a bit like the USA where Holyrood is only one part of the whole.
    Suspect the malicious intent was twofold. One, a propaganda exercise of allegations that would never lead to a court case or be strung out as long as possible. Two, if the SNP were to intervene then it’d be portrayed as political interference in the day to day running of the Civil Service in Scotland out of favouritism. It may even be claimed an attempt to frustrate the ends of justice give it’d stop any case reaching court.

  311. yesindyref2 says:

    There SEEMS to be a POSTER who really DOES’NT understand WHAT the LETTERS UDI actually MEAN but INSISTS on trying TO put his OR her MEANING on IT.


  312. Kangaroo says:

    OT zerohedge carries this

    Ukraine shot down MH17 Definitive proof.

    This is a rather long article with links to evidence

  313. Mike says:


    “What we require is not the foundation and establishment of a new Nation, but merely the termination of a false Union which purports to do what it Constitutionally cannot do.”

    Which is irrelevant to the whole debate on UDI. The ending of the constitutional setup of the UK requires either Scotland or England to either UDI or both to agree simultaneously to end the Treaty.
    As far as Im aware England hasnt agreed to end the treaty of union with Scotland so Scotland is going through a process of UDI. We had a referendum to prove the process is happening.
    We want another one. What happens if we’re denied another one? Does the process end or continue?

  314. geeo says:

    Andy Anderson at 5.01am

    That is a contender for a “gibbering pish” award.

    Its a bit like a football player rounding the keeper and is 2 yards from the line, just needing to tap the ball into the open and empty goal, deciding to take the ball back to the halfway line to try beat another 10 players before trying to score.

  315. Mike says:


    Really? From my perspective I see several people on here on don’t seem to understand the reality of the meaning of UDI because they want to believe in the wonderful world of Disney instead.
    We’re dealing with an English blood and soil Nationalist Government that refuses to give a second referendum to its own people in England because its afraid it will lose yet folk on here believe they will grant one to Scotland because its the fair legitimate and right thing to do and you cant see why Im sceptical. Really?

  316. yesindyref2 says:

    It’s quite surprising, in light of the recent ECJ judgement which commented that the Lisbon Treaty was based in parts on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), and their judgement was consistenet with it, plus finding out who has signed it and who has ratified it, that some people or even one specific person or botnik, hasn’t read THIS:

  317. Cactus says:

    Howde Meg how do, all good on this side of the river xx

    Ah somersaulted into ’19 and ahm not long back frae ‘Orkney’ hehe 😉

    Ah’ve been observing this ‘UDI’ debate here all over again…

    SO enthralling.

    It’s time to get ready Scotland.

  318. geeo says:

    Could someone explain the crucial difference to ‘magic mike XXS’, that those who come on here with a misconception of UDI, DO NOT repeat their call once it has been explained why UDI for Scotland is legally impossible.

    Only he does so, and everyone knows why.

    Every time coco ‘disappears’ another new clown appears…coincidence ?

  319. Mike says:


    Im willing to bet that out of the 7 billion odd souls on the planet less than 200 people have read that document and you wont be one of them.

  320. Mike says:


    Why don’t you come up with something that actually refutes anything I say instead?

  321. yesindyref2 says:

    Before I relurk, here’s another one of great interest:

    Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts – Vienna, 8 April 1983

    what’s interesting about this is twofold. First, the ICJ references it. And second, similarly to the CWC, it is used even in cases where the parties haven’t signed and ratified, and also for states that existed BEFORE the Convention, as a guideline not only in RealPolitik terms, but even by the ICJ itself.

    Think of the recent (last 2 or 3 decades) dissolutions, and follow the history. Even the USSR and its components (specially Russia) very largely observed the Succession Convention, in general terms.

  322. yesindyref2 says:

    Give the money to charity instead, I don’t take bets and money from imbeciles.

  323. jfngw says:


    Quit a conundrum here, as the sovereign Scots have already declared by a large margin they want to remain in the EU. If they are taken out then this sovereignty is shown to be no more than a meaningless declaration and the will of another country over-rides it.

    If in the end we end up leaving the EU and nothing happens then all the claim of right votes and talk of sovereignty is just hot air. I really expect some follow up on this by the independence supporting politicians. Possibly I’m just getting too impatient for some resolution but we can’t drag this out forever, there is a lot of fear and anger out there.

  324. Hamish100 says:

    UDI or not UDI

    First Minister call a referendum

    1. Independence
    2. Hard Brexit
    3. May’s Brexit

    1 WINS. We get Independence as the sovereign will of the people.

    Why no UK in EU? Corbyn and May are against it as they believe this is political suicide for them in England. The tories and labour can argue about that one.

  325. Colin Alexander says:

    The SNP cannot count on ANY devolution power such as the ability to legislate for an indyref via the devolution Scottish Parliament. UK Govt has shown they will exercise UK legal sovereignty to slam devolution doors shut. The Continuity Bill was blocked by unelected Lords and the devolution agreement of 30 years broken in the process.

    Plan B could be forcing an election of the Scottish Parliament and seeking a direct democratic mandate for independence – the democratic event, no indyref required. But that would also be via devolution. UK Govt could legislate to delay or even suspend elections to Holyrood and run Scotland via the Scotland Office.

    Is that why the Scotland Office has been beefed up, in preparation for such an event?

  326. Maria F says:

    Mike says:
    2 January, 2019 at 10:08 am

    “The ending of the constitutional setup of the UK requires either Scotland or England to either UDI or both to agree simultaneously to end the Treaty”

    Sorry, Mike but this is getting confusing. The Treaty of Union 1707 is a treaty that gave birth to a bipartite political union. I think we all agree on that. The Kingdom of Scotland is one of the 2 sovereign states that signed that treaty, an equal partner in such union. Considering Scotland is an uni-nation Kingdom and the union is just bipartite, can the Kingdom of Scotland actually UDI at all? Because the way I see it, if the Kingdom of Scotland dissolves the Treaty of Union, it will immediately give independence to the kIngdom of England too, so how is that “UDI”?. If the Kingdom of England had reconvened its own parliament, the same would apply to it, but it hasn’t.

    Then there is the other matter of the connotation of illegitimacy of the term UDI. I associate UDI with what Catalonia has done in legal terms (I am not lawyer so this is of course my personal interpretation of the situation). Catalonia did indeed have its own referendum, and I don’t see anything wrong with that. But constitutionally,it cannot immediately declare itself independent legitimately because:

    a) it is really an integral part of the Spanish state, not by virtue of a treaty of union but by military annexation: in other words, it was absorbed by Spanish state
    b) There is a Spanish Constitution in place that specifically forbids separation of its integral parts. So going against this is unconstitutional. To overcome this there would need to be a vote of the entire Spanish state to change it or to agree to it.

    Therefore for the Catalonian independence to go ahead, in friendly terms, there is a need for the Spanish State to agree to its separation, by direct concession or by celebrating a general referendum in all Spain to see if they agree to the separation of Catalonia. Declaring independence without the Spanish state’s consent is, in this instance, therefore UDI, it does not matter that a referendum in Catalonia has taken place.

    The above does not reflect however my personal views on the matter of Catalonian independence, as I fully accept that it is a matter for the people of Catalonia and Catalonia only to decide.It is not my intention at all to move into the Catalonian case, I am just using it as an example to illustrate the difference of Scotland’s situation and why I think the term UDI does not apply to Scotland.

    By contrast, the kingdom of Scotland was not annexed by the kingdom of England, it was united to by means of an international treaty. An international treaty that is subjected to international law and not to the fancies and the particular interpretation of one of the two partners for its own convenience.
    Secondly, there is not a written constitution, like there is one in Spain, that forbids such separation and that would involve immediately the rest of the UK “having to give consent” to Scotland’s separation. Yet, one has to wonder, considering that Scotland was never annexed, if any constitution of the UK to which the Kingdom of Scotland has not formally accepted or agreed to would ever be legitimate, like is the case of the one in Spain, which by the way was ratified by referendum in 1978.

    These are the reasons why I don’t think Scotland (the kingdom of Scotland) can ever UDI.

    A different matter, in my view, is UDI for England, the nation. England on its own is not the original kingdom that signed the treaty. England is not the “equal partner” to the kingdom of Scotland. the Kingdom of England is. Therefore England could, in theory, UDI not only from the UK but also from the kingdom of England. It is not so clear that it could do that in practice as it has not reconvened its own parliament. On top of that, why would England ever UDI when it is the biggest nation in the Kingdom of England and stands to control everybody else? Why would it ever give up territory and wealth? It would be absurd, so I think it is very, very unlikely to ever happen. More likely would be that England would ditch bits of the kingdom that are no longer useful or have become a nuisance (NI in the not so near future?).

    The term UDI is always interpreted as something negative, and by associating it with the dissolution of the treaty of union (wrongly in my personal view) it does, in my opinion, give the impression that the dissolution of the treaty of union is illegitimate, which is not. Because if dissolving an international treaty was illegitimate, what the UK is doing now leaving the EU is also illegitimate (even if we do not consider the fact that it is really debatable that A50 was triggered according to the constitutional requirements of the UK). I think “UDI” is not the same as dissolving a treaty. I think UDI refers to the declaration of independence of a territory that was annexed by another. They are very different concepts.

    Mr Pfeffers, can I trouble you to throw a bit more light on this, please? I appreciate that you have explained it several times already and you must be fed up of repeating the same, but it is a difficult and very sensitive subject and I do really trust your views on this. Please could you tell us your view again with regards to this and could you put me straight in the matter of UDI and Dissolution of the Treaty?

    Thank you kindly.

  327. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    Was there no National today? None in the shops around here.

  328. yesindyref2 says:

    @Dave McEwan Hill
    Nothing online either. Looks like Scotland’s National paper is observing Scotland’s national holidays!

  329. Hamish100 says:

    Thw Peoples will is sovereign. Westminster will take a hike.

    If as you say the English/ uk parliament tries to suspend Holyrood there would be such an outcry as to assist in the Independence cause.

  330. Dr Jim says:

    I’m not sure that not granting a second referendum on the EU has much to do with whether the result is different or not but more to do with obvious precedent inasmuch as how can you on the one hand grant a referendum on one issue while blocking a referendum on another

    It’s all about Scotland and maintaining the idea that referendums are terrible things so no more of the damn things ever again
    But in saying that they basically admit the result of the EU referendum was wrong but they can’t have another because the damn Scots will use that as the main thrust of their own argument

    I believe that’s how the UK Guv have ended up in this position, if Scotland were already Independent England would have a second EU referendum in a heartbeat to get themselves out of the trouble they caused themselves but in the current situation they’re forced to sacrifice the whole of the UK rather than *lose* Scotland

    The UK Guv knows that Scotland will have an Independence referendum but they’re job is to find a way to deny it and make it unacceptable or illegal and the Scottish government has to find a way to do the opposite because no matter what, the Tories will not hand over a section 30 order to legalise a YES result in Scotland so they’re fighting a rearguard retreat from two realities and the only strategy they have is to play for time

    Nicola Sturgeon does have a problem however because she knows the UK won’t give a section 30 order but she also knows that if she doesn’t have a referendum on Independence the SNP are done for because the faithfull will lose faith and her vote plummets and the SNP are out of office to the Yoon party of the minorities choice and the UK will make sure Scotland has no chance ever again to express its wishes

    The SNP knows they can win the next referendum the problem for them and us is how to manage it using probably international law on a peoples right to Independence as set out in the UN charter, which of course the UK is signatory to while at the same time the UK will be challenging that same law by being outside of the ECJ, hence needing Brexit done and dusted so they can try kicking Scotlands can into the the neverending black hole future

    The UDI thing or anything like it will never happen because in order to make their case for Independence the SNP have to show that it is the desire of the people of Scotland to do that and the only way the rest of the world will accept is a referendum of the people then Scotland can join with other nations in whatever arrangement we decide to come to with them and it’ll all be legal and free from fallout

    The EU can’t say a dicky bird at the moment because the UK is still a member state but you can bet your boots post Brexit the EU will be sweeping the the street and hoovering the red carpet ready for Scotland to come visiting because just like the UK guv Scotland has what they want and in return we get from them what we want

    The big difference between the two entities being Scotland’s ministers negotiate for Scotland just the same as every other normal country does and we get the deals we make not what the UK used to do which was give away everything Scotland had for something that London wanted

  331. Derick fae Yellf says:

    “Dave McEwan Hill says: 01 January, 2019 at 7:54 pm

    Now it is around 50% for independence, 30% against independence and 20% don’t know. It is actually quite difficult to lose from such a position. We only need a few percent of the “don’t knows”.”

    Correct! And the demographic split continues to grind along, low geared but inevitable.

    I remain of the view that things will be a fair bit slower than most of the (genuine) posters on here. If Brexit happens, the Indy wagon will be re-hitched this year. And off to the Supreme Court we may go.

    The 2022 Westminster election is shaping up to be the Scottish Election. Unless there’s a snap one before that.

  332. Cubby says:

    Terence Callachan @2.58am

    I repeat once again. You accused me of threatening you and swearing at you. I challenged you to say where and when. Still waiting for your evidence.

    I have never threatened anyone on Wings. Not even a pompous prick of a lying Britnat like you. Insult lying Britnats – I certainly do that. I have never sworn at anyone on Wings. Insult Terence – freedom of speech for all but not votes for all – Callachan most certainly.

    Britnats like you lie and they lie all the time about almost everything.

  333. orri says:

    There’s nothing in Section 30 about “granting” anything.

    It’s all about agreement to transferring powers or protecting legislation.

    Westminster can only play the “Now is not the time” bullshit for so long before Holyrood go ahead without that agreement.

    As thing stand Westminster are already using pedantry in the rapey interpretation of the act of tabling a Consent Motion granting consent regardless of whether it passes or not. Never mind not holding one for 30 days is also taken as consent.

    Is it any wonder that the SNP are making sure it’s clear we’re being dragged out of EU against our wishes as things currently stand and are giving Westminster every chance at stopping it. The clever part is making it impossible for May to suddenly see the light and cancel or even spring another GE.

  334. Cubby says:

    Is Mike = sensible Dave?

  335. Colin Alexander says:

    Hamish100 said: “The Peoples will is sovereign”.

    That’s not what the highest court of the UK ruled. For as long as Scotland is part of the UK we are legally bound by: “UK Parliament is sovereign.”

    Whether Scotland remains part of that UK Union is a political question. The Supreme Court recognised that distinction between law and politics.

    Politics is when Scotland’s people decide to be part of that UK, where UK Parliament is sovereign, or not be be, so not bound by that law of the UK.

    UK Govt say: “The people voted to remain part of the UK and be bound by UK law, which gives UK Parliament that sovereignty over Scotland.

    As UK Parliament IS sovereign by the law of the UK, if it rules no indyref, then there’s no indyref for as long as the people of Scotland remain ruled by UK Parliament.

    Craig Murray addressed such a scenario before the Supreme Court ruling on the Continuity Bill, which confirmed that UK Parliament will use the law in the UK to block Scottish democracy.

    He suggested a National Convention of all elected representatives that could declare independence.

    After the Supreme Court ruling he again addressed this issue:

    If the SNP are serious about an indyref or exercising The Claim of Right, the issue of whether it would be blocked has to be addressed ASAP. This is a completely different matter from the timing of actually holding an indyref.

  336. Bill McLean says:

    Happy and healthy New Year to all! No National in my area of the West Fife Villages either!

  337. K1 says:

    The guy dishing out the slurs and insults on people’s characters inferring drunkeness and ill educated et al when they challenge his views…complaining when people dish out slurs and insults back at him…has indeed no sense of irony.

    You want it both ways…claiming high ground whilst indulging exactly in what you condemn is never a good look.

  338. Mike says:


    Are you asking if Scotland requires to seek Independence in National terms in order to end the Union? Seriously?
    Scotland requires to make its Parliament Independent once again by ending the treaty of Parliamentary Union in order to progress to this state Scotland requires to UDI from the English Welsh Parliament in order to begin the process towards Parliamentary Independence.
    If you’re asking is Scotland an Independent country relative to England in National terms then yes it is. We are indeed a distinctly separate country from the other members of the UK we do not require Independence in order to distinguish our National identity because the treaty of PARLIAMENTARY UNION never removed it.
    The UK UDI with regards to its EU membership and is seeking a NEGOTIATED DEAL on the terms and conditions of departure.
    It too is seeking to end a Parliamentary union between distinctly separate Independent Countries.
    The EU is not contesting the right of the UK to UDI so there will be no conflict on that regard if England doesn’t contest Scotlands UDI there will be on conflict in that regard also but if it does what then? Is it all over?

  339. Cubby says:

    Reporting Scotland yesterday

    In a short story on infected blood supplies it is reported that newly released files from 2003 showed the Scotgov and minister Malcolm Chisholm knew that they were continuing to be supplied infected even after the system was overhauled.

    Not once did the report say Labour or Libdem MSP/minister or Labour run government. Of course if it was under the watch of the SNP government they would be all over it. SNP gov would have been stated numerous times.

    BBC Scotland continuing its anti independence/ anti SNP into the new year. Business as usual for the Britnats in Propaganda Quay.

  340. K1 says:

    No cubby. SD is out and proud English south east Tory.

    The lecturing and hectoring with a soupscon of insults and driving at ‘one issue’ is very familiar as a ‘technique’ that we’ve all seen before. Plus it’s not so much ‘debating’ more ‘bearating’. Not the first time on here that’s for sure.

  341. winifred mccartney says:

    The National said in Mondays edition it would not be back until Thursday – same as last week.

  342. K1 says:

    The UK did not ‘udi’ from the EU. The UK held a referendum ‘in or out’ on the back pf that reslt an agreed legislative process began. When A50 was triggered. There is no ‘contesting the right of UK to udi’, because there was no udi.

  343. sandy says:

    Mike @10.08am

    You’ve got me confused, or is it yourself that is confused, re your statement.

    As far as I am aware, England cannot agree or disagree to end the Treaty of Union. It doesn’t have a parliament to legislate thus. I believe only the queen of England has that power.

  344. Legerwood says:

    Dr Jim @ 11.19am

    On the question of multiple referenda on single issues, perhaps it is worth remembering that there were 2 referenda on the question of devolution for Scotland and 2 referenda on the question of the UK in Europe – one in1975 and one in 2016.

    Therefore the precedents exist for another referendum on Independence, or any other issue on which a referendum has been held.

  345. galamcennalath says:

    “”New Year is a time to look ahead. 2019 can be the year we put our differences aside and move forward together.”– Theresa May

    Nope. My wish for 2019 is that we in Scotland, and you and your far right hooligans, take quite different roads into the future.

    However, many thanks Theresa for providing the perfect situation for a parting of the ways. Cheers.

  346. Hamish100 says:


    Sovereignty lies with the people. With your maybe the uk parliament will stop elections is just an attempt at undermining the independence debate. It ain’t working.

    The First Minister is now coming close to calling a referendum once the Brexit debacle draws out to it inevitable conclusion– more job losses, less trade, less “british influence” more trump chlorinated chicken type deals.

    Even some of the most hardened labourites will see the only way forward is self-governance as the prospect of more tory government dictated by the little Englander (let immigrant’s drown) type mentality wins down south.

  347. K1 says:

    The trouble with the parliamentary union is that in legal terms the UK is the ‘state’. So Scotland is not therefore internationally recognised as an independent country. Unlike the EU split where the UK ‘is’ recognised as such.

    We will seek S30 and do this through those protocols.

  348. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    Davie Oga at 12.04

    “Oyimbo” (Yoruba) and “Oyibo” (Igbo) have become interchangeable.
    “Oyibo” came from the Igbo “Oya Igbo” which was a satirical laugh at the Igbo guys that sooked up to the white man- rough translation would be “whitie black guy”.

    Both words now describe white men to the southern peoples of Nigeria. In the north it is “bature”.

    Nigeria – a completely false colonial construct – will shortly cross the 200 million population mark expected to reach 400 million before 2030 and the pressures on it to continue to service an exploding population are vast. A progressive and constructive world will have to face a doubling of the population in Africa every two decades. The once forrested Sahara area will have to be re-irrigated.

  349. Cubby says:

    STV news

    Meanwhile on the other Britnat TV Channel they are still doing their best to smear the Scotgov over the closure of Kaiam.

    Headline statement – “fresh calls for an inquiry into the collapse of…….” – of course they do not say who is making the calls for an inquiry. Just more SNP baaaad in collusion with their Britnat pals in the Labour Party.

    The media in Scotland works in collusion with the Britnat parties. People who deny this are idiots or Britnats.

  350. orri says:

    One thing about UDI that probably excites unionist trolls is that it’d be a bit like a spouse leaving a marital home or disgruntled partner quitting a business.

    Rather than a negotiated split of assets here, in the rUK and abroad the newly created Scotland would only have the assets it could hold on to.

    No claim on military hardware or even personel due to their loyalty, if sworn in Scotland, to the Queen and via her to us.

    No insistence on a share of the Bank of England and seats in it’s board of governance. Or that it be valued and we be bought out.

    No account of the value of anything publicly owned in the rUK at the risk of emphasising just who profited most from the UK.

    A highly reduced claim at co-successor status of the UK which would help in future treaty negotiations. Especially now that the EU has mentioned the Vienna Convention.

  351. Cubby says:

    The poster Mike seems intent on taking this stream up the dead end of a debate on UDI. Why?

    It has been explained on numerous occasions by numerous posters, both in this stream and others previously, why UDI is an incorrect term to use for Scotland deciding to terminate the Treaty of Union. It only assists Britnats who then say independence supporters are advocating illegal actions.

    Why does anyone who supports independence want to prattle on about UDI as it only assists the Britnats. Why?

  352. Maria F says:

    Mike says:
    2 January, 2019 at 12:03 pm

    “Are you asking if Scotland requires to seek Independence in National terms in order to end the Union?”

    I am not sure what do you mean exactly by that. Please can you elaborate?
    From where I am standing, Scotland is a nation, it is a country and it is a kingdom. I am not sure how, as today, you can separate them three. In what any other terms can therefore Scotland seek its independence if not as a nation/country/kingdom/equal signatory of the treaty of union, all of them simultaneously?

    “Scotland requires to make its Parliament Independent once again by ending the treaty of Parliamentary Union”

    Scotland needs to make its parliament independent by asserting its sovereignty, and that could for example be simply by voting in majority for a political party that has included in their manifesto a bunch of powers to be recalled PERMANENTLY to Holyrood upon winning the election. If the people of Scotland were to give a mandate to such a political manifesto, then it would be at all effects removing the legitimacy of the UK parliament and the UK government to control those powers on behalf of Scotland. Should the UKgov and UK parliament refuse to give those powers back, and they would be standing in very shaky grounds of legitimacy because they would only be able to refuse those powers by acting as absolute rulers, which is illegitimate under the Claim of Right 1689 that gives legitimacy to the current monarch in Scotland. This is what in my view the people of Scotland did with their vote in 2014: they gave consent for the Treaty of Union to continue on the terms of the status quo of 2014. In my view, you destroy that status quo without the consent of the people of Scotland and you are destroying the legitimacy of such vote. And that is exactly what I think the UK gov has done by stealing those powers, which were part of the status quo in 2014, and also by giving up the UK’s EU membership without Scotland’s consent, as EU membership was also part of that status quo the people of Scotland gave legitimacy to in 2014. In my opinion, by going totally against the will of the people of Scotland and changing the status quo without their consent, the UKgov has truly and thoroughly invalidated the 2014 vote that ratified the Treaty of Union.

    One thing is certain. Holyrood will never get independence from Westminster for as long Scotland remains in the UK. Not because this is not possible, simply because those controlling the Kingdom of Engalnd would never allow us to and they will twist and contort “the UK law” (whatever that is) to make it stick, never mind if that is ultra vires or if it goes totally against the laws that have been upheld by the Treaty of union itself. The way this UKgov has bulldozed over the Sewell convention tell us as much.

    “Again, in order to progress to this state Scotland requires to UDI from the English Welsh Parliament”

    No, MIke. Scotland does not need nor have to “UDI”. Scotland only has to exercise its right as an equal signatory of the Treaty of Union 1707 by DISSOLVING that treaty of union. The circumstances under which such event happens are for the legitimate representatives of the sovereign people of Scotland to decide on behalf of the Scottish people. It is most certainly not for England MPs, who do not hold any mandate from Scotland to decide.

    An independence referendum may be chosen as part of those circumstances and if it is conducted fairly and democratically, perhaps is the best option, but by no means the only one.

    Unilaterally dissolving the treaty of union by Scotland will not be “UDI”, but simply exercising the right of the sovereign people of Scotland to directly remove the legitimacy of the parliament of the UK to rule over Scotland and by doing so, effectively terminating the UK parliament.

    “If you’re asking is Scotland an Independent country relative to England in National terms then yes it is”

    I am not sure what is what you are trying to say here. I think the situation is very simple:
    Scotland is simultaneously a nation, a country, a kingdom, and an equal partner, an equal signatory of the treaty of union.
    England, as a nation and country, it is not. England is part of a kingdom that has 2 other nations. England does not even have its own parliament at the time being.

    “We are indeed a distinctly separate country from the other members of the UK”
    The other memberS? You must mean the other member, surely, as the UK of Great Britain is a bipartite union with only TWO members: The kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England.

    “we do not require Independence in order to distinguish our National identity because the treaty of PARLIAMENTARY UNION never removed it”
    Indeed, as it never removed our sovereignty, nor our right to unilaterally dissolve the treaty.

    “The UK UDI with regards to its EU membership”
    If we can prove that A50 was triggered against the constitutional requirements of the UK because it was triggered without the consent of the kingdom of Scotland, an equal partner and a founder state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, then yes, the England MPs in the UK gov have UDI from the EU because they have not respected its requirements. But we need to prove that in an international court of law. Is there any intention by our representatives in ScotGov or UK parliament to do so?

    “It too is seeking to end a Parliamentary union between distinctly separate Independent Countries”

    Sorry, what countries are you referring to here, the EU countries?

    “The EU is not contesting the right of the UK to UDI”
    Because Scotland is, as far as I know, not contesting it. Should Scotland contest it and we may see a completely different attitude from the EU.

    “if England doesn’t contest Scotlands UDI”
    How exactly can England contest Scotland’s UDI if Scotland will not UDI, but dissolve an international treaty of union which must abide by international law, and more importantly, England does not own Scotland and Scotland is not part of England?

    “there will be on conflict in that regard”
    A conflict of interests for sure. The English establishment will fight tooth and nail to retain control over the cash cow of the “UK”.

    “if it does what then?”
    We fight in international courts.

    “Is it all over?”
    It is not over until it is over. Scotland has been fighting for its independence for over 300 years. Do you seriously think it is going to stop now because of a set back?

  353. Mike says:


    Of course England can end the act of Union through their Parliamentary representation if a democratic mandate is sought and granted. Before Scotland gained its Devolved Parliament the way Scotland could have gained its Independence would have been to elect a majority of Scottish representation within Westminster in favour of Independence elected on a mandate to seek Independence from Westminster in other words put Scotlands UDI to the Westminster Parliament.

    I thought the people on the this site were constitutionally savvy Jesus Christ how wrong was I.

  354. wull2 says:

    What I would like to know, how many times has UDI been mentioned in the last 6 hours, I would rather look at the odd swear word.

    I am ready to say YES again.

  355. Mike says:

    Maria F

    You’re not dealing with reality you’re arguing from a position of what you want reality to be.
    Reality 101 the UK state can abolish the Scottish Devolved Parliament at will. It can remove any and all legislative powers it has on a whim. It can pass legislation through Westminster making it impossible for Scotland to gain Parliamentary autonomy through a Democratic process.
    They can do that because they have the legislative power and authority to do it and the ONLY reason they don’t is because they have a desperate need to appear to the rest of the world to be a Democracy. They need to keep up a façade
    Hells fucking teeth has the last couple of years shown you nothing?
    But what do they have to lose in relation to the UK itself by going openly fascist?
    Its not as if the UK state doesn’t have a track record of resorting to fascism when its constitutional setup is threatened and Scotland threatens it like nobody before it.
    You think we dealing with democrats sitting within a Democratic progressive Parliament. Why on earth would you believe that? What evidence do you have that the UK state is Democratic fair moral and trustworthy?

  356. Mike says:


    If you want to talk about anything else with me then go for it.

  357. Daisy Walker says:

    Happy New Year folks. O/T

    Worth having a wee gander over on Today’s essay has some extremely interesting figures re trade coming in via Dover, etc, and the whole Seaborne ferry debauchle.

    Cheerie the noo. Am awa tae mak soup

  358. Breeks says:

    Maria F says:
    2 January, 2019 at 9:47 am

    Can you elaborate a little bit more on this please? I am still finding difficult to understand how Scotland dissolving the Treaty of Union as an equal signatory of an international Treaty can be construed….

    Because a UDI marks the birth of a Nation. It has to create itself from scratch, except it’s not from scratch, it from territory and Constitutional precedents which are being carved from the flank of whatever nation was formerly sovereign over the territory. In other words, you’re taking something which doesn’t formally belong to you.. it might belong to you, but that remains to be determined, and until it’s determined, you’re skating on thin ice.

    A UDI country has to define its borders and carve them out, because these borders haven’t existed before, and when you’re proposing to create a border that affects somebody else’s constitutional integrity, there is a very real inevitability that the issue will be disputed. International Law can help, but it’s not inter-nation-al until you can establish you are a Nation.

    With a UDI, what do you use for Law? You are creating a new jurisdiction which will be a lawless jurisdiction until you have a judicial process that has recognised authority. What grounds do you have to overturn the previous jurisdiction?

    With a UDI, what do you use as a Government? Existing MP’s elected to office under a different Countries Constitution and sworn allegiances? You have no Constitution to guide you because one has never existed.

    How can you persuade the International Community that your claim to arbitrarily declare yourselves sovereign has greater legitimacy that the prevailing and already recognised sovereignty of the former country you are seceding from?

    What do you do for defence? Policing? Civil Service? Don’t these agencies need to carve out their own individual mini-UDI’s and then explain why they are entitled to keep hold of resources which were bought and paid for by a different country? By what authority do you place yourselves at the head of such organisations? What if they refuse to acknowledge your usurpation of authority over them?

    It sounds bleak and impossible, but when you haven’t got a country, a UDI might be the only way of getting one.

    But Scotland already IS a country. We have undisputed Borders. (I know, I know, but just go with me), we have an acknowledged Nationality. While we existed as a Nation before it, we have the Declaration of Arbroath as a de facto Birth Certificate of our sovereign Nation, which carries the formal stamp of international recognition from both a would-be colonial conqueror and the Catholic Church too.

    I could go on, but the point is, we don’t have to invent Scotland, because Scotland has already been invented a long time ago. Our Constitution is extant. Our Laws are extant. Our Boundaries are extant.

    The only complication to Scotland’s robust and fully faceted existence as a stand-alone Sovereign Nation is a Treaty of Political Union which professes to do things which cannot actually be done.

    We should have torn up this Union centuries ago for its lack of Constitutional competence, but for decade after decade after decade, the Union has pedalled a false and perfidious narrative about what the Union properly is, and has bullied and bribed that deeply flawed version of the narrative into popular acceptance and recognition.

    The same goes for people. If you create a Nation which hasn’t existed before, you create a nationality which hasn’t existed before, and that requires definition and acceptance too.

    A UDI is one simple action from which creates a million consequences must be dealt with. Scotland already has an answer to all of those million questions. We have only one impropriety to reverse, a false and dysfunctional Treaty of Union which neither party can be bothered to respect.

    The only thing preventing Scotland standing on its own sovereign feet is a false ambiguity in the paperwork… a LIE which needs discredited. Don’t reinvent the country from scratch, just sort out the Constitutional admin… that will get the job done.

  359. ScotsRenewables says:

    My my the trolls are getting a feast today

  360. orri says:

    Previous post in moderation so short summary here.

    An S30 is not something Westminster grants to Holyrood.

    It’s an agreement concerning a transfer of powers between the UK and Scottish Governments.

    That includes powers taken from Holyrood either permanently or by adding to the list of protected legislation.

    The Supreme Court seem to have ignored that salient point in their finding.

  361. Dr Jim says:

    @Legerwood 12.19pm

    Yeah but in the UK you’re not allowed to have a long term memory that’s why the UK love their kick the can strategy to everything, after a few years the political assumption is everybody is brain dead and all the circumstances that prevailed before become clouded in the mists of time and are mysteriously irrelevant to the new shiny politics of the day and you can’t bind one government to the decisions of the next and even more blurb besides which will take even more years to decide

    It’s the UK way

    Excepting when it’s to their benefit, then clarity becomes apparent

    This remembering things just won’t do at all

  362. Effijy says:

    Westminsters main propaganda Chanel
    Working hard to suppress the Scots again.

    Rail fares in England increasing by 3.1% today
    and although the more efficient Scottish Rail service
    Have limited their fare increase to 2.8% today, the BBC
    advise Scottish increase is just under 3%?

    If they need to use one tenth a of a percent to describe
    English increases then there is no reason why they would not
    Use the same scale to show Scottish increases almost 10% lower
    Than England’s inferior service.

    It’s what happens when propaganda is you game and not truthful transparent fact
    Based news.

    Tory Ministir, or Monster, Chris Graying complains that the increases are due to rail workers
    Looking for inflationary pay rises?

    Scits be aware that English voters will again impose their Tory Government on you.

  363. Mike says:


    Didn’t Poland UDI from the Soviet Union?

  364. orri says:

    Let’s not confuse the Treaty of Union with the Act of Unions shall we?

    Both acts could be repealed tomorrow, and have been amended from their original form already, whilst leaving the treaty intact.

    Also violation of a treaty doesn’t automatically end it but might result in the injured party seeking recompense or allow them in turn to withdraw without suffering any consequences specified in it.

  365. Dr Jim says:

    If you want UDI to happen then you’ll have to vote for another Independence party who supports that or start your own because with the SNP it’s not now or ever going to happen

    Independence for Scotland is only going to happen with the support of the people of Scotland or it won’t happen

    It doesn’t matter a whole tin of biscuits what anybody else did before, the current Scottish government have made their position 100% clear on this

  366. Cubby says:


    No thanks.

  367. Dan Huil says:

    Westminster laws are there to protect britnat England, often at the expense of Scotland. Westminster, because of its in-built English majority, could pass a law saying all Scots must be branded on the face with an iron in the shape of the butcher’s apron.

    Would Scotland’s politicians and people accept that? And only oppose such a law by using/applying the anti-Scottish laws of Westminster? They’d be fools to do so, wouldn’t they?

  368. Shinty says:

    ScotsRenewables says:
    2 January, 2019 at 1:14 pm
    My my the trolls are getting a feast today

    Couldn’t agree more.

  369. geeo says:

    “I thought the people on the this site were constitutionally savvy Jesus Christ how wrong was I”.

    A poker saying comes to mind here.

    “If you have not figured out the mug player at the table after 5 minutes, its YOU”

    ‘magic mike XXS’ – (It’s YOU).

  370. Maria F says:

    Mike says:
    2 January, 2019 at 12:52 pm

    “Of course England can end the act of Union through their Parliamentary representation if a democratic mandate is sought and granted”

    Well, sorry to be annoying but I am not so sure. I think I need Mr Pfeffers advice on this. During 2014 there was a debate among some Lords and I remember that Carmichael, the Secretary of State of Scotland at the time, mentioned that the two things that gave place to the union were a treaty of union and 2 acts of parliament, one from the Parliament of Scotland and another from the Parliament of England. He claimed that for the union to end, the same at least would be required. If this is the case, unless those England MPs actually reconvene themselves as England’s parliament, such Act could not be passed.

    “in other words put Scotlands UDI to the Westminster Parliament”

    You keep mentioning “UDI”. For “UDI” to happen Scotland has to be an integral part of the Kingdom of England, annexated, which is not. I think what you really mean to say is not “UDI” but Unilateral Dissolution of the Treaty of Union. I think those are different things. UDI implies an annexed part seceding without consent of the “owner”. Scotland does not need consent to dissolve the treaty of union. Scotland is not “owned” by Westminster. The opposite is true: Westminster only has legitimacy over Scotland for as long as Scotland says so. Scotland just needs mandate from its own people to unilaterally dissolve that treaty.

    “I thought the people on the this site were constitutionally savvy Jesus Christ how wrong was I”
    By the look of it, and if you don’t mind me saying, you don’t seem to be particularly savvy yourself either. Not that there is anything wrong with it, mind. Most of us come here to learn what we could never learn in the biased pro-union MSM and broadcasters. Most of us come here looking for an interpretation of the political scene that challenges the distorting and incongruous illusion given to us by MSM and broadcasters. So it is not an offence nor an embarrassment not knowing something and being willing to learn. It is not an embarrassment either to have different opinions, because that adds to the value and diversity of this site. If we all thought the exact same way there would never be instructive debate nor challenge to strengthen our arguments, motivation to seek more evidence to support our assertions or willingness to evaluate alternative explanations to the same issue. Is this diversity of views, knowledge and opinion what makes this site so wonderful and what has made it not only one of the pillars for Scotland’s independence, but also the target of the powers that be. They have tried several times and by different means to have this site closed because they acknowledge the value of it. So are we going to be now so stupid as to do their work for them?

    Surely not. I am certain you are savvy enough to grasp that.

  371. Capella says:

    I’m old enough to remember when UDI was first invented. It refers to the white supremacist minority government in Rhodesia declaring independence without introducing majority rule. That’s why it has a bad reputation.
    It was racist and anti-democratic (or fascist).

    That is probably why some people would like to see the Scottish Gvernment adopt a racist, fascist and discredited course of action. Happily, the SNP is too smart to fall for that tactic.

    A decent reference to the Rhodesia UDI in Wiki:

    People promoting UDI have no credibility.

  372. Dan Huil says:

    @Maria F 1:46pm

    “I think what you really mean to say is not “UDI” but Unilateral Dissolution of the Treaty of Union. I think those are different things. UDI implies an annexed part seceding without consent of the “owner”. Scotland does not need consent to dissolve the treaty of union. Scotland is not “owned” by Westminster. The opposite is true: Westminster only has legitimacy over Scotland for as long as Scotland says so. Scotland just needs mandate from its own people to unilaterally dissolve that treaty.”

    Excellent points.

  373. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Update on the poll on the following:

    Do you agree with the following statement or not?
    ‘If those Scots who are (allegedly) pledging to leave Scotland if it becomes independent actually do so, and are replaced by indy-supporting immigrants, Scotland will be a better place to live and work.’

    Since last night (22.20) it has received 2,116 votes. 96% Agree.

  374. TheItalianJob says:

    The people of Scotland will give a mandate to leave the U.K. and thereby dissolve the Treaty of the Union between the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England.

    This will be done by the fair means through a National vote in whatever way is agreed by the Scottish Parliament. Although the vote for another Independence referendum has already been passed by the Scottish Parliament should this route be chosen.

    We Scots are ready for whatever means are taken for us Sovereign Scots to decide our future.

    The majority of the Scottish people will make this decision collectively.

    It’s called “A democratic right of the Sovereign people of Scotland”.

    Go for it Scotland.

  375. Hamish100 says:

    Ian Brotherhood


    When the English numpty on radio said he had no issue of a boat with immigrants sinking because “.we can’t take them all..” you couldn’t but feel depressed. It then turns out the guy is on benefits and an ex-trucker.
    How I wish he had been challenged if the boat contained a Doctor, Nurse, Physiotherapist etcetera his view would change.

    Of course being an ex-trucker maybe he could drive an ambulance. The brexiter’s main sin is to have stoked up racial hatred and a lack of compassion for their fellow human beings. Contrived and controlled by a right wing news media who only “God” is the $. Corbyn and Co side with that lot!

  376. cirsium says:

    great post, Rev.

    The fact that trolls are trying to mess up the thread, suggests that the permanent state/establishment thinks so as well.

    Hope you’ve got Wee Blue Book 2.0 nearly ready for printing.

    @Graeme McAllan, 5.54am Some time soon, Nicola should organize an advisory vote for Scottish residents about becoming Independant, without asking Westminster for permission – if that vote is a YES, then she should declare Scotland as Independent then take that vote to the EU . Like the sound of that Graeme. The FM would approach the UN not the EU to have our reappearance recognised internationally.

  377. Tom Busza says:

    Mike says:
    2 January, 2019 at 1:16 pm


    Didn’t Poland UDI from the Soviet Union?

    No. Poland was never a Soviet, although it was ruled by a Communist government aligned aligned to USSR.

    The communists lost their control following a partially free vote in 1989, as they did subsequently in the rest of Eastern Europe and the Baltic states.

    Poland is in continuation of its 2nd republic, having gained its independence originally in 1918 following 123 years of non-existence. Unfortunately, the 2nd Polish republic was intereupted by the Nazis (1939-1945) and the Soviets (1945-1989).

  378. Marie Clark says:

    Oh dear god, not this UDI rubbish again. How many more times will this hoary old chestnut be dragged out. It’s been discussed adnauseam ower a wheen o’ years. Gies peace aboot it wid ye.

    I trust Nicola and the SNP to judge the next referendum, or whichever the legal route out of this infernal union will be. I’m as frustrated as anyone else the way things have been dragging out, but it’s the way it has to be for the moment IMHO.

    Steady folks, the time is getting nearer, however hard it is at the moment, we have to hold and keep our powder dry.

    OT to Robert Peffers, happy New Year to you. How are you doing, I hope that your health is improving. It looks as if we have a very big year for Scotland in front of us. As you remind us, you’ve been waiting a lot of years for this, so have I. Since I’ve made the three score and ten last year, I’m hoping that it comes in my lifetime, I want to leave a better Scotland to my children and grandchildren.

  379. Colin Alexander says:

    “The people of Scotland will give a mandate to leave the U.K”

    How do they do that if indyref via the subservient Scottish Parliament is blocked by the sovereign UK Parliament?


    Also, Scotland’s people did not vote for the “status quo”. They gave an opinion to one question only: Should Scotland be an independent country?

    Status quo, EU membership, devolution, devo-max, union of equals etc were never stated on the referendum paper.

    That some who voted NO may have believed they were voting for the status quo or devo-max, a bursting order book for Royal Navy frigates etc is immaterial now.

    Referendums = A vote about a question. Campaigns promise and predict anything. Best liar wins, Winner takes all.

    But, it’s the “gold standard” we’re told.

  380. Maria F says:

    Mike says:
    2 January, 2019 at 1:06 pm
    Maria F

    “You’re not dealing with reality you’re arguing from a position of what you want reality to be”

    I am not sure of that. I am unsure also if you are debating from the position you want to see us in either rather than the real position we are in.

    “the UK state can abolish the Scottish Devolved Parliament at will”
    That depends on your interpretation of “can”.

    First of all, Scotland is the “UK state” as much as the kingdom of England is. You are portraying it as if it was 2 completely separate, independent entities. They are not. Without Scotland there is not “UK state”, that is how dependent the “UK state” is on Scotland constitutionally. I guess what you really mean is the UK gov. The UKgov can abuse its position of power, go ultra vires and abolish Holyrood. But how long do you think such an action would last for? What sort of reaction would such action bring among the Scots? It would be political suicide. Think about it, if the UKgov had any intention of abolishing Holyrood it would never agree to the 1979 or 1997 referendums in the first place. He had to do so because it feared Scotland’s independence.

    Besides abolishing Holyrood would not be seen as legitimate for several reasons. The immediate one that springs to mind is that in both 1979 and 1997 the people of Scotland took legitimacy away from Westminster to put it back in the Parliament of Scotland. Abolishing the Parliament of Scotland would not only be overruling the expressed will of the people of Scotland to put those powers in HOlyrood and therefore going totally against and overruling the right of the people of Scotland to self-determine but would also go against the vote of 2014:
    The people of Scotland voted in 2014 for a particular status quo. A status quo that included a vow where the permanence of Holyrood was established and promises of Devo Max and becoming the most devolved nation in the world.

    Abolishing Holyrood would therefore open another massive can of worms: that of Scotland being really a colony rather than an equal partner in a union. Such a situation would open the door to Scotland for seeking decolonisation under the UN charter. Lets not forget that the UK is a signatory of that charter. Such thing would put Scotland in front of the eyes of the entire will and all the dirty laundry of the UK state would be hanged up to dry. Do you seriously think this is something the UKgov would pursue?

    Devo Max has not been delivered yet, and Scotland is certainly not the most devolved nation in the world either as we were promised in 2014. This means that Westminster as it is, currently is in borrowed time. Any attempt from Westminster to take powers from Holyrood, as it did with the 24 powers recently is illegitimate because it violates the only status quo the people of Scotland gave consent to in 2014 and also overrules the demand from the people of Scotland in both referendums 1979 and 1997 for a parliament of Scotland. Every little helps to build the case for the dissolution of the treaty of union. By stealing those powers from HOlyrood, the uKgov will be simply digging its own grave.

    “It can remove any and all legislative powers it has on a whim”
    It may well remove them, but it does not mean it is legitimate and it does not mean that it will succeed.

    “It can pass legislation through Westminster making it impossible for Scotland to gain Parliamentary autonomy through a Democratic process”
    It can definitely try, that it succeeds or not is a different matter.

    “They can do that because they have the legislative power”
    Only if Scotland chooses to grant them that legislative power.

    “the ONLY reason they don’t is because they have a desperate need to appear to the rest of the world to be a Democracy”
    Oh, come on. Do you think the English establishment gives a toss about what others think? If it does not do it is because it knows it will never get away with it.

    “Hells fucking teeth has the last couple of years shown you nothing?”
    There is not need to become aggressive. If the argument is strong enough it will sell by itself, there is not need for you to drill it onto others.

    “You think we dealing with democrats sitting within a Democratic progressive Parliament”
    No. I don’t think you can talk about democracy when you have an unelected chamber even bigger than the elected one, an unelected chamber that has religious representatives from only one religion on it and an unelected chamber that has more say in Scotland’s matters than the people of Scotland itself or its democratically elected representatives.

    “Why on earth would you believe that?”
    Why indeed.

    “What evidence do you have that the UK state is Democratic fair moral and trustworthy?”
    No much. But I have evidence that the Scottish Government today and the Scottish parliament, as a whole, are democratic, fair and trustworthy, and that is what matters to me.

  381. wull2 says:

    To me any time after the deal vote, raise your guns and prepare fire the starting pistol.

  382. Republicofscotland says:

    Well,the Scottish branch news channel (If you can call it that) BBC Shortbread news, couldn’t help themselves when quoting fair hikes on Scotrail. Instead of telling us the actual price jump of 2.8% they said nearly 3%.

    A New Year but the same old shit from the BBC.

  383. Mike says:

    @Colin Alexander

    “How do they do that if indyref via the subservient Scottish Parliament is blocked by the sovereign UK Parliament?”

    I have been asking that very question for 2 days now.
    Perhaps you’ll have more luck getting an answer.

  384. Mike says:


    My definition of “can” I think you’re just taking the piss now. You’ve wandered off into your own little wishful thinking theme park of called what should be because I want it to be and you’re not going home anytime soon.
    You WANT Scotland to be an equal partner within the UK but if it was there wouldn’t be any need to campaign for Independence now would there? We want Independence because we’re not equal we’re subordinate treated as subordinate ignored as subordinates where the official position from the Government is to shut up and eat your cereal.
    Time you left you pretty little theme park and started living in our real world.

  385. Mike says:

    @Tom Bruza

    Oh my its gotten to the bit where reality itself has to be denied openly and stupidly because it wont fit.

    Apparently Poland didn’t Unilaterally declare Independence from the Soviet Union at all and the Soviets didn’t try to suppress their attempts with military force either.
    History rewritten because some people will not deal with reality and I thought only yoons had this issue.

  386. Craig Fraser says:

    Happy New Year to you all.

    Sometimes I can’t get things/ideas/thoughts out of my head unless I share them.

    Latest thought-

    If Brexit happens and Scotland is dragged out of the EU against the democratic will of the people of Scotland who voted by 62% to remain. Also that the Scottish people are sovereign under the claim of right which was agreed at Westminster this summer. Scotland is/has and will have been put at a commercial, financial and competitive disadvantage with pretty much every country on the planet? Article 4 of the AoU must be broken? Is that correct if so can we not just tell the Westminster government that on 29th March 2019 i.e. Brexit day will also be known as Scottish Independence day? Alba gu brath.

  387. Mike says:


    Theres that self unawareness thingy again.

  388. ronnie anderson says:

    Trolls having a conversation with themselves to draw other people in DONT BE FOOLED WINGERS

  389. sassenach says:

    Oh boy, it’s the mike and coco tag team at work.

    Dionne Warwick springs to mind!

  390. twathater says:

    OT guys but VERY VERY important ,

    If like me you are DISGUSTED at the tax avoidance and evasion of the richest people and companies PLEASE check out this link and sign the petition to get laws THROUGHOUT EUROPE implemented to combat this greed and illegality

  391. wull2 says:

    If Whisky has been in a cask for 3 plus years, another couple of weeks on the back of a van wont make any difference, pity its not only thing that enters your mouth.

  392. Thepnr says:


    Oh deary me, now you have in stitches hahahaha. You’re firing one at Maria F who tells you exactly and in great detail why Scotland couldn’t declare UDI.

    Next you have a pop at Tom Busza who if I remember correctly is Polish and lived under the communist ruling Poland at the time so I guess he should know what he’s talking about.

  393. schrodingers cat says:

    so treeza has had the holidays to have a long hard stare at the can she has been kicking down the road for the last few months.

    she will now realise that no matter what happens, her deal is deal and she will resign. going forward the tory party will back a no deal.

    she must now choose which option is the least damaging to the tory party. to that end, i expect her to bring forward the vote, lose, then resign. a new no deal tory pm will quickly be elected and ge called.

  394. Al Dossary says:

    Just got round to watching the Outlaw King last night. Decent enough movie, but the one thing all the way through that struck a chord with me is that even now, 700 years later we are still struggling against those intent on imposing their (foreign) ways upon us and those who have sworn alegiance to a foreign crown.

    Looking forward the the series when / if Netflix get around to it.

  395. schrodingers cat says:

    Pete Wishart
    Verified account

    Following Following @PeteWishart
    Heading back to London. Just have a sneaking suspicion….. #events

  396. crazycat says:

    OT (very)

    We’ve got 4 days left of our extended Yes East Ayrshire fundraiser:

    If anyone could spread the word, to help us get a little closer to the target, that would be greatly appreciated.

    Do of course also come to see us if you are in Kilmarnock. We aim to be open Monday-Friday, about 10-4.

  397. sassenach says:

    This first post of the new year by the Rev has certainly worked a treat!!
    It has brought out a veritable army of ‘topic distractors’ – it’s almost as if they know the Rev is correct and have been despatched over the hill to attempt to fragment Wingers on their home turf(some hope!!).

    I will not change, but stick to my belief that Nicola will lead us to independence – when she feels the timing is best. You see, like some notable others, I don’t pretend to understand all the nuances of the politcs or constitution better than the FM and her team – so I say trust her.

    This will be our year, the Britnats are tying themselves in knots – PATIENCE, friends!!

  398. Hamish100 says:

    Mike says:
    2 January, 2019 at 2:34 pm
    @Colin Alexander
    “How do they do that if indyref via the subservient Scottish Parliament is blocked by the sovereign UK Parliament?”
    I have been asking that very question for 2 days now.
    Perhaps you’ll have more luck getting an answer.

    Because the SNP has a mandate from the last Scottish Parliamentary election and Scottish people who are sovereign.

    You know that of course.

    How disappointing that you2 cannot go on a wee dook in the Firth of Forth and try and find some dignity.

  399. Dr Jim says:

    If you’re a girl kidnapped and forced into marriage overseas the UK government will happily rescue you for the small charge of £740

    Yes it’s true they say they must recover the expense of doing this wonderful humanitarian work to which the UK are committed to helping all UK citizens

    That sounds lovely doesn’t it

  400. Polscot says:

    Tom Busza says:
    2 January, 2019 at 2:14 pm

    No. Poland was never a Soviet, although it was ruled by a Communist government aligned aligned to USSR.

    The communists lost their control following a partially free vote in 1989, as they did subsequently in the rest of Eastern Europe and the Baltic states.

    Poland is in continuation of its 2nd republic, having gained its independence originally in 1918 following 123 years of non-existence. Unfortunately, the 2nd Polish republic was intereupted by the Nazis (1939-1945) and the Soviets (1945-1989).

    Your are correct, Tom. Poland has never been a constituent part of the Soviet Union and any Polish person will take offence if that scenario is even suggested to them.

  401. frogesque says:

    @ Mike 2.38 :

    Not speaking for anyone else but I want independence because it is right.

    Nothing to do with EExit, Brexit or whether the Union does not treat Scotland as an equal partner. I simply want my Country, (Scotland not the UK) to make Her own decisions for the benefit of Her own people. May seem odd to you but I also want the same for England.

  402. Essexexile says:

    I had a UDI once. A course of antibiotics cleared it up no probs.

  403. geeo says:

    @Al Dossary
    Re:Outlaw King.

    Netflix have said there WILL be a series getting made, running the story from Wallace to The Bruce.

    Outlaw King was top viewed in 163 countries with well over 100 million views.

  404. Dr Jim says:

    The trains don’t run right in Scotland because of the SNP says RMT Union man reading Labour instructions on the STV Scottish news

    Hospitaling is also bad says STV news

    The plague in Scotland was caused by people not rats says STV news ?????? eh? We know this but why are they reporting this without context and why, this is history not news

  405. wull2 says:

    Antibiotics stop working in some people, some on this site proves it.

  406. Tom Busza says:

    I am going O/T here, please bear with me, thanks.

    Mike says:
    2 January, 2019 at 2:42 pm

    @Tom Bruza

    Oh my its gotten to the bit where reality itself has to be denied openly and stupidly because it wont fit.

    Apparently Poland didn’t Unilaterally declare Independence from the Soviet Union at all and the Soviets didn’t try to suppress their attempts with military force either.
    History rewritten because some people will not deal with reality and I thought only yoons had this issue.

    I don’t care who you are or purport to be, but my first reaction is “GET MY NAME CORRECT!”. It is there for all to see in black and white. (I recall that TC made exactly the same mistake a while back).

    Have you ever studied the history of Poland? (Other than what’s reported in the British media).
    Do you have any connection with Poland?
    If the answer to either question, or both, is no then you have no right to question my statements earlier.
    I can answer yes to both questions – a clue is in my surname, it’s Polish. My father was Polish and vehemently anti-communist.
    As for implying that I am openly denying reality and being stupid, then you need to rethink your attitude when dealing with complete strangers, especially those who show a hint of knowaing what they’re talking about.

    I will correct myself on one thing I said earlier. I stated that Poland is a continuation of the 2nd republic. In fact, since 1989, it is currently Poland’s 3rd rebublic.

    Your assertion that the Soviets suppressed the Poles’ attempts at independence by military force is completely and totally incorrect. The USSR was already in serious decline and unwilling to use military force to prop up allies in trouble. Martial law had been imposed by the Polish governing regime between 1981 and 1982 in order to destroy Solidarity.
    Following Glasnost in USSR, and major unresolved economic crises in Poland, the regime was forced into talks with Solidarity, mediated by the Catholic church. The Round Table Agreement of Warsaw, 1989, led to the fall of communism in Poland.

    Poland was free of Soviet influence and not a hint of UDI.

    Maybe you should actually check out the history of Poland before making your wild assumptions. Here’s a good starting point:

    Fellow Wingers, please excuse my going off on a tangent there.

    Oh, nearly forgot. A final couple of words for Mike:

    “Pieprzy? ci?”

  407. sandy says:

    Maria F

    I, amongst surely many others on this site, greatly admire your approach to our ultimate aim with pragmatic facts & opinions.

    Between yourself & Mr Peffers, one being gentle & the other dogmatic in their approach but with the same goal in mind, personifying facts, not fiction, is really enhancing this blog. Long may the pair of you continue.

    How the many trolls must be scratching their heads today.

  408. X_Sticks says:

    President of Peterson Institute for International Economics, Adam Posen (ex BoE board) pulls no punches on how bad brexit is going to be for the UK. This is the edited version:

    Or you can get the full version here:

    It’s long but a worthwhile watch.

  409. Tom Busza says:

    Thepnr 3.03 pm

    Thanks for the support. Just a wee correction…I never lived under communism. My father refused to return to Poland at the end of WW2 hostilities because of his hatred of Stalin, communism and all that went with it.

    Polscot 3.24 pm

    Aye, as you say, try telling a Pole that he’s really a Russian and see how far down the road he kicks you.

  410. Davie Oga says:

    Dave McE Hill 12:24

    I remember you saying you lived in Jos. I’ve never been north of Abeokuta myself. Wife is from South South originally. Will have to try out Oya Igbo on her. It will wind her up no end!

  411. Tony O"neill says:

    Ignore this udi red herring. We should also forget about indyref2. Have we learned nothing?, you don’t play constitutional poker with the the English on their rigged table or with crooked rules, not when Scotland is the prize. We do not have a referendum to join in union in 1707, it was a treaty between two sovereign parliament’s from two sovereign nations. So like any other treaty it can be annulled by either signatory, if the other breaches the rules of said treaty, which has been happening for the last three hundred years and more only with our reconvened sovereign and those within it, do we have a tamper proof method of endings the union. The msp’s only need the courage to release Scotland from its union chains, referendums are no required.

  412. Thepnr says:

    @Tom Busza

    Noted, guess I never remembered totally correctly then 🙂

  413. Maria F says:

    Mike says:
    2 January, 2019 at 2:38 pm

    “My definition of “can” I think you’re just taking the piss now”
    I was not, actually. I was trying you to be more precise, because I consider the matter of discussion of great importance and therefore I feel it has to be honoured by being presented properly. I am trying my best to make this argument as constructive as possible, as I am fully aware there are a lot of people that read these threads searching for answers and some may have similar questions but they don’t feel like asking.

    “You WANT Scotland to be an equal partner within the UK”
    No, sorry, you have misinterpreted me. I already believe Scotland IS an equal partner in this union but not treated as one because the English estate is forcing upon us their own particular interpretation of the Treaty for their own convenience.

    “But if it was there wouldn’t be any need to campaign for Independence now would there?”
    We don’t know that. I personally think that if Scotland’s status of equal partner had been respected and all the promises made by Cameron, Brown and the rest of the English Establishment minions in 2014, including Devo Max and becoming the most devolved nation in the world, quite possibly today there would be less support for independence than there is now. But self-determination is a process that is continuous. It doesn’t just stop. You can see that everywhere. A certain degree of autonomy may be enough today but not tomorrow. If you look at Scotland, that is exactly the trajectory we have been following and it doesn’t show any signs of stopping. We got a bunch of extra powers in 2014 but did that quench the support for independence one bit? No, it didn’t. It did not because the powers we got were not near enough to what the people of Scotland was hoping to get, so the demand for more autonomy continues. This tells you that self-determination of Scotland is a continuous process and the people of Scotland has not reached just yet the level of autonomy for their country they are happy with.

    “We want Independence because we’re not equal we’re subordinate”
    We are not subordinate. We are treated as if we were. Those are very different things and I understand it is only semantics, but we should not mix them. You may want independence because of you feel that we are unfairly treated as subordinate and that is fine. I want independence because I seriously believe that Scotland can only progress economically, socially, politically, culturally constitutionally, diplomatically and democratically as an independent country where the citizens of Scotland take control of their own affairs and their own country. I want independence because I firmly believe the union has reached its sell by date and has nothing else to offer to Scotland. Others here may look at less materialistic things and simply want independence because that is what they perceive as the natural status of Scotland, its default state, and they see this bracket of 300 years as the distortion, not the norm. Different people may have different reasons for wanting independence and none of those reasons are more valid than the others. Every reason is valid.

    “Time you left you pretty little theme park and started living in our real world”
    Believe it or not I am living in the real world, and walk around with my eyes open. But it is also true that I am trying my best to not let my irrational gut feelings running my head. I do not always succeed, but at least I try. At the most difficult times and places, it is really my calm, cool, calculating head what has taken me out of the bad place where I was and not my guts. I firmly believe the same applies to the current political situation: it will be our cool heads and more importantly the cool heads of those in control of our government and not our irrational gut feelings what will take us out of this political nightmare.

  414. Famous15 says:

    The people of Scotland decide to revert to being a normal independent non union state then REAL POLITIK kicks in. We are then gloriously a member of the UN,EU.NATO,ETA,FIFA,WTA,WBA.WGA,planet Earth or whatever else independent normal nations choose to negotiate to be in.

    End of being our ungrateful neighbours cash cow.

    We could be as progressive as we choose. We will not be imperialistic and I trust a lot less jingoistic .

  415. Cubby says:

    BBC Reporting Scotland today

    1. Train fares increasing by almost 3% despite fall in performance levels.

    2. A man dies in Dundee.

    3. A climber dies after falling from a mountain – Ben Nevis – second death in two weeks.

    4. 36 year old man missing for 6 weeks. Police say do not approach this man.

    5. More than £100k spent on vaping kits for prisoners in Scottish jail. It is also bad not to let prisoners smoke proper cigs says guest speaker. (Scotgov baad to spend the money. Scotgov baaad to stop prisoners smoking properly with real cigs. A double whammy for Scotgov.)

    6. Andy Murray loses match in Brisbane.

    There you have it – this is Scotland according to the Britnats in Propaganda Quay.

    What sort of miserable anti Scottish Britnat puts this programme together. Why not just repeat for 15 mins – Scotland is shite and the Scotgov run by the SNP is shite. That is all this show does. What a disgrace.

  416. yesindyref2 says:

    @Tom Busza
    Indeed, I’ve read quite a bit of history since I got a liking for it having hated it in school, and “Mike” is as ignorant about Polish history as HYFUD was about, well, any history, even including English history. I’ve a (in-law) relative is half-Polish, and their kids therefore a quarter by blood.

    Same dogmatic approach as HYFUD, they’re right and the rest of the world are wrong.

  417. Thepnr says:

    @Maria F

    “I want independence because I seriously believe that Scotland can only progress economically, socially, politically, culturally constitutionally, diplomatically and democratically as an independent country where the citizens of Scotland take control of their own affairs and their own country. I want independence because I firmly believe the union has reached its sell by date and has nothing else to offer to Scotland.”

    That was just a snippet of what I think is the best post I have ever read on Wings in more than 5 years of reading them.

  418. geeo says:

    @Tom Busza,

    I google translated Pieprzy? ci?”

    As I suspected, it was pretty much as I expected, then found these examples of it in use, actually hilarious !!!

  419. Essexexile says:

    I’ve noticed this on the BBC main website over the years too.
    Fatal road crash in Scotland? Near the top of the page.
    Violent assault in a Scottish city centre? Near the top of the page.
    These type of stories seem to be much more newsworthy when Scots are involved (according to the BBC).
    HNY btw.

  420. sandy says:

    Tom Busza.

    You will be aware by now that quite a few people on here seem to open their mouths & let their bellies rumble. They tend to live in a mythical world.

  421. Tom Busza says:

    geeo 4.32 pm

    I knew that someone couldn’t resist looking it up!

    LOL. I missed that link. Come to think of it, I’m sure I heard my late father use a couple of them in his day.

  422. yesindyref2 says:

    BBC was as strange during the Cold War (version 1) as it is today. On the one hand you have your ultimate propoganda channel the Russians can only sit back and gasp and admire.

    On the other you have a painstakingly and for the UK, embarassingly blunt and honest part doing mostly documentaries that used, for example, to hold up East Germany as the model of an advanced social health service during that Cold War. The Soviets invested in what they called “satellite” or “sphere of influence” countries, more than they did in the hardcore bound Soviet states like Georgia or even Lithuania.

  423. Cubby says:

    Tom Busza

    Excellent posts.

    Of course, as I am sure you are aware, if Poland and other Eastern European states were part of the Soviet Union why would there have been a need for the Warsaw Pact.

  424. Cubby says:


    I thought you were lurking to save your RSI? Just can’t keep away. LOL ?????

  425. Cubby says:


    I thought you were lurking to save your RSI? Just can’t keep away. LOL ?????

  426. yesindyref2 says:

    Being a night owl I used to have BBC Bitesize revision on the TV during the sma hours, amd the history was frankly brutal towards the UK and Britain. It also matched what I’d found out from non-UK sources having worked “on the continent”.

    Sadly it’s off TV since they cut night programs, just on the website. It used to be good as a background while working, for any subject!

    It shows what a decent broadcaster can do, their Scottish history on the website is almost as brutal and accurate towards the “Precious Union”, though they do miss out a few of the more dirty bits 🙂

  427. schrodingers cat says:

    data sets from NI opinion poll in dec 2018

    under a no deal senario, it shows support for an ui at 58% with the unionist vote collapsing.

    it also shows support for the dup’s position regarding brexit as falling off a cliff.

    polls in scotland also show a similar rise in support for yes under a no deal senario.

    much talk on here about udi etc, but before we can do anything, we need a majority of scots to support yes.

    when it happens, we may not be the only people demanding a s30

  428. Tom Busza says:

    sandy 4.38 pm

    Hi. I certainly am well aware of such people. Normally, I’d ignore them.

    However, a couple of provoke my ire.

    1. Historical facts being twisted or misrepresented. Especially when it involves my own heritage. I’m half Polish half Italian.

    2. Disrespectively misspelling my name. I have lived in England for 56 years before moving to Scotland 14 years ago. I would spell and pronounce my name and still everyone would get it wrong. Since moving to Scotland, I have only had this happen once in 14 years and then I got an apology. (Is this an English trait?)

    As an aside, I remember my Italian mother telling us that when she and I (I was just 6 months old) were travelling by train for 48 hours from Italy to England in 1948 to join up with my father, she was warned by a couple of Scots at the time to beware the English – they are arrogant and racist. (She may have misunderstood them as she didn’t speak English and the Scots’ Italian was very poor.)

  429. Tom Busza says:

    Couple of things provoke my ire.

  430. yesindyref2 says:

    Yeah, I’ve never been able to lurk, anywhere 🙁

    I’ll have to just read the articles for a few days, small order on New Year’s Day to help prove my work on the websites was OK, but a satisfying larger one today, so I’ll have to rest the fingers and arm, it’s a lot of work to do early next week 🙂

  431. yesindyref2 says:

    @Tom Busza
    In defence of that, if you look at Scottish surnames, well, any surnames, you get loads of different spellings because people actually registered them wrong at birth, historically of course few people could read or write. To some extent it’s still true in Scotland, people generally I think are more interested in communication than accuracy. It’s why I don’t like the “grammar police” in forums, people who make snide remarks about someone’s spelling in a posting and ignore the point they’re making. You see a lot of that on forums like the Herald – mostly from Unionists.

    I don’t mean you by that, personal name spelling is important.

  432. sandy says:

    Am being a wee bit pedantic, yesindyref2 but being human, there are certain things that sometimes “get up my nose”. To hear the phrase “has went” or “has came” curdles my insides. You only have to watch Sportscene.

    I was learned as a school bairn til spek an spel proper.

  433. Tom Busza says:

    I appreciate what you’re saying yesindyref2.

    (Seriously OT here now.)

    Probably the worst offenders for misrepresenting names were the immigration officials (mostly Irish) at Ellis Island, USA.

    However, when you spell out a name and pronounce it then, surely, it’s incumbent on the listener to get it right. My surname – only 5 letters BUT there’s a Z there somewhere.
    B-u-s-z-a…think of the Z as H and you have the pronunciation = Busha (close enough).
    That’s what causes the problems hence variants such as Booza, Busher, etc.
    There is no excuase for purposefully misspelling/mispronouncing if not to belittle.

    I must admit that I am a pedant as far as spelling and grammar are concerned, but I do not exercise that pedantry on public forums. I know how they work.

  434. Colin Alexander says:


    I agree the SNP obtained a mandate for indyref2 in the 2016 Scottish Election. Currently it may be within the powers of the Scottish Parliament to deliver that manifesto promise.

    We also know UK Govt is opposed to another indyref. They were also opposed to the Continuity Bill so legislated to block it via the HoL part of UK Parliament.

    Democratic mandate for any manifesto is not the law, it’s a convention, just like the Sewel Convention that the HoL has just ripped up.

    So there is no “legal” right for the SNP to carry out their manifesto commitments such as holding indyref2, so UK Parliament could decide to block it. Unless Scotland exercises sovereignty and says it is no longer ruled by UK Parliament, so no longer subject to UK legal rulings.

    So, I agree, Scotland’s people are ULTIMATELY SOVEREIGN, but can only exercise sovereignty at the point Scotland decides it is NOT part of the UK state and subject to UK law.

    For as long as Scotland IS part of the UK state, we are not sovereign, UK Parliament is, according to UK law, as Scotland has delegated its sovereignty to UK Parliament.

  435. Mike says:

    @Tom Bruza

    Fucking spare me Im from Poland so anything said about Poland by me cannot be wrong shite. Just look at how wrong so many Scots on here are about Scotland.
    Poland was annexed by the Soviet union after it took the territory occupied by Nazi Germany. It took away Polands right to sovereignty home rule and Independence by imposing a puppet regime through rigged elections. For fuck sake Poland was part of the iron curtain. People weren’t free to travel to the West without special SOVIET travel documents. The people of Poland suffered draconian restrictions and were subject to Soviet justice and laws.
    Don’t fucking tell me they didn’t UDI to become free of the Soviet Union because HISTORY tells us it did.

  436. Cubby says:

    The Britnat monsters have come out to play. Pretty ugly people they are.

  437. Thepnr says:


    Your desperation is palpable. Yeh fucking diddy LOL.

  438. Mike says:

    @Colin Alexander

    You contradicted yourself because once again you post crap you want to be reality instead of accepting what reality is.
    If the people of Scotland are sovereign over their Parliament then their Parliament cannot pass on that sovereignty to another Parliament because its not the Parliaments to pass on it still belongs to the people.

    Basic reality 101.

    Its not a question of legality legitimacy or mandates its a question of cold hard political reality and the cold hard reality is the FACT that the UK state doesn’t do Democracy legitimacy legality nor mandates especially when it comes to its own constitutional position. What it indulges itself in is FASCISM. You and others on here will soon come to understand that when “Now is not the time” turns into Fuck off stay in your box and I don’t want to hear another peep from you because I absolutely guarantee that if the UK state believes for 1 nano second it will lose a constitutional referendum that constitutional referendum will not see the light of day.

  439. Mike says:


    And your puerile pathetic immaturity is flashing its testies again.

  440. Thepnr says:


    Sook my plook! Dickhead hahahaha.

  441. Mike says:


    You and I are on the same page the difference between me and some of the other posters on here is that I don’t believe the journey is going to be all fluffy bunnies smiley faces mutual appreciation mutual respect and run along the lines of legitimacy legality democracy and morality. There is going to be a nasty dirty fight to free Scotland from the grasp of the organised crime syndication that runs the UK state because they are an organised crime syndication of self serving self absorbed self entitled patronised and privileged fascists.
    Anybody who believes they can get a fair deal from cunts like these is living in their own bubble of fantasy fables.

  442. Petra says:

    FGS, you go out for 5 minutes (a few hours) and we’ve moved on again, lol. I’ll post this on here anyway.


    I noticed that another (potential) BritNat had taken over the site intent in promoting UDI.

    Knowing, or considering, that they are a BritNat tells you that anything that they suggest … push for … can only be detrimental to our cause, such as UDI ……

    ”A unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) is a formal process leading to the establishment of a new state by a subnational entity which declares itself independent and sovereign without a formal agreement with the national state from which it is seceding.”

    The Kingdom of Scotland a ”subnational entity”? England the National State”?

    Why on earth with the possibility of over 50% of Scots supporting the Union at this time would we contemplate doing something that could lead to a Civil War in Scotland?

    More to the point why on earth would one of the oldest Nations in the World, such as older than England, want to airbrush away our thousands of years of history and consider placing ourselves now amongst the ranks of a ”New State”, FGS?

    ”The Scottish Nation has occupied its national territory throughout its entire history, for there has never been any other occupant of the land since prehistoric times.”….

    ”The Scottish people are one of the most ancient nations in Europe (and one of the oldest monarchies in the world), with one and a half thousand years of shared experience as a political unit, during which time they have lived continuously within the bounds of their present national territory. While recent archaeological research indicates a history going back for thousands of years, the written historical evidence shows that the Scottish kingdom was founded by Fergus Mor around the year 500 AD.

    According to the first record of the formal inauguration of a monarch, Aedan mac Gabhran was consecrated King of Scots by St. Columba in the year 574 AD. The Declaration of Arbroath of the year 1320 states that Scotland had till that date been governed by “an uninterrupted succession of 113 kings, all of our own native and royal stock, without the intervening of any stranger”. Scotland was a united kingdom by the early 9th century, with the union of the Picts and Scots under King Kenneth I, some 200 years before neighbouring England.”…


    As to the Treaty of the Union. It was illegal from the outset as the VAST majority of Sovereign Scots had no say, other than to demonstrate against it. As we all know the Scottish Parliament in days of yore was controlled by the Three Estates (unelected barons, clergy and burgesses). They alone voted on the Treaty of Union of 1707.

    And of course the 1707 Treaty of the Union is not the basis of the title ”United Kingdom”. The title used for the so-called Union at that time was the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was the 1801 Act of Union with Ireland that introduced the title United Kingdom. That Act, as amended in 1922 and 1927, is still on the statute book. That Act would have to be repealed to invalidate the use of the term ”United Kingdom”.

    If we want our Independence, the only way forward now is to prove to the World, through a Referendum, that a MAJORITY of Sovereign Scots want to end the Union with England, with or without a Section 30 Order. It’s as simple as that.

    ANY Scottish independence referendum, whether held with the agreement of Westminster or not, would be an “advisory” political instruction to Scottish and UK lawmakers to act upon. Just as the EU Referendum was ”advisory.”

    Nicola Sturgeon has been doing an amazing job, especially under the circumstances … surrounded by enemies, in particular a biased media, and attempting to deal with ever-changing proceedings.

    The chart posted by Street Andrew at 11:51 am, yesterday, gives us some idea of the complexity of the situation and highlights exactly why Nicola Sturgeon has had to hang fire. It also highlights why people on here, pushing for a referendum over the last two years or so, would have seen us lose and been left at the mercy of a bunch of Nazi’s for God knows how long. As long as it would take to totally decimate Scotland?

    By the 21st of this month, 21/01/2019, we should know if Big T’s deal has been accepted (out of the CU and SM?) or rejected. If rejected it could be followed by an extension of A50, a People’s vote, a General Election or the rescinding of A50. I doubt they’ll rescind A50 so we’ll be left ultimately with (a form of?) Big T’s Deal or No Deal, both of which will see support for Independence rise.

    In other words not long to go now folks. Be patient and have faith that we WILL win this time around.

  443. Mike says:


    Moron the idea is not to promote UDI its to point out the FACT that the UDI journey for Scotland is progressing towards its ultimate conclusion the full Independence of the Scottish Parliament. UDI was declared by the people of Scotland when they elected their first pro Indy Government into power in 2007. 2011 so it progress to the point where the UK state were forced to acknowledge its momentum. 2014 saw the UK states first attempt to subvert it by holding a ONCE in a GENERATION referendum they FIRMLY BELIEVED they would win comfortably.
    They are continuing to subvert the UDI by denying further referendums until they can once again be assured of a result in their favour. Its too close to call right now for them to be sure and when it gets to the point where they know for sure they cant win they will push through legislation to end Devolution and prevent any platforms on which another referendum can be called unless it gets majority of assent via the Westminster Parliament.
    That’s how the UK state rolls. I cant understand why people are taking the time to deny this and promote a Disney version of a Democratic progressive UK state that believes firmly in the principle of democracy and democratic mandates.
    We’re actually dealing with fascism here and its about time some folk woke up to this fact.

  444. Hamish100 says:

    Is pnr under 16?

    never considered it before Mike mentioned the infantile behaviour!!

  445. Essexexile says:

    Look at the ref in Catalonia though. Without state approval there was a concerted push to boycott it making any result pretty meaningless.
    If there’s no S30 and SN holds a ref anyway and even a fraction of Unionist support is seen to actively stay at home, we’ll have a hard time proving a majority of Scots support indy.

  446. Thepnr says:


    13 and a half to be precise. Of course that’s in units you might not normally use to measure time. Work that one out 🙂

  447. geeo says:



    A referendum of Scots is the ultimate expression of Sovereign will.

    Those who boycott, will be counted as ‘dont care, we accept the Sovereign outcome of those who ACTUALLY VOTED’.

    If you have a sovereign voice, and CHOOSE not to speak, then you accept the majority view of those who do.

    I hope tens of thousands CHOOSE to not vote No, as Yes will win by a long way and our Sovereignty will ensure the result is legally valid.

  448. Colin Alexander says:

    Would an indyref require an indyref bill? A bill is not law until it receives Royal Assent.

    If UK Govt opposes it and Royal Assent is withheld, then how can it go ahead anyway?

    If the SNP would not declare indy without an indyref, then why would they act just as rebelliously by holding an indyref that would be breaking the law?

    Also, the Civil Service for the Scot Govt / Scottish Parliament is HM Govt’s Civil Service. Has everybody forgot already: Holyrood is a Westminster branch office. UK Govt Civil Servants would be unlikely to do the indyref work against the instructions of their HM Govt bosses.

    Politicians wouldn’t be the ones doing the indyref work, they just talk a lot and get others to do the real work running things.

  449. Essexexile says:

    That all sounds good right up to the point you want to be recognised as independent by other nations, many of which have separatist movements (to clarify, that’s not how I’m describing the Scottish indy movement) in their countries watching carefully and trade partners who they don’t want to upset.
    To be very clear, it’s pretty irrelevant how we refer to our status as an independent country if nobody else sees it that way.

  450. Tom Busza says:

    mmm…just submitted a comment and it disappeared into the ether.

  451. Petra says:

    @ Mike says at 7:19 pm …… ”Petra … Moron”…

    What a charmer! It’s well seeing that no one on here is listening to you, Moonstruck Mike.

    No need to get your knickers in such a twist. We’ll be out of this Union before you know it … or then again is that what’s upsetting you so much?

  452. Taranaich says:

    I think a lot of people really needed to read this, Rev.

    I’ve seen a number of really pessimistic comments from indy supporters, even SNP members, who seem genuinely concerned that the SNP have lost their nerve, and that they won’t call a second referendum at all. I think this article elucidates the SNP’s apparent indecision quite concisely.

    It’s clear (to me at least) that the UK Establishment were constantly goading the SNP into announcing indyref2 without actually providing the means to deliver it via Section 30. They wanted the SNP to make a mistake, while they bought themselves time through a General Election that solved nothing & that nobody except the DUP really “won.”

    Whether we would have lost an indyref in 2017-2018 is something we cannot know, but as you say, a loss is a definite possibility – especially given the parliamentary arithmetic. However, you are absolutely correct that 2017-2018 was the UK’s last, best chance to win it. From January 2019 onward, the UK will have made independence inevitable, and it’s their own damned fault. Again.

    It’s been the toughest 2 years of my life, and I’m including that time I had a brain hemorrhage, botched lumbar puncture, & loss of motor functions for six months, because I – we – have been forced to watch a criminal, incompetent, & downright evil UK Government kill thousands of their own citizens through ideologically-driven neglect, all while we wait to man the lifeboats.

    But this wait cannot last forever. There will come a time for action, and it will come, sooner than people may think. That the UK have been stretching this out for as long as they could is just another self-destructive policy that will end up wrecking their plans.

  453. Mike says:


    You cant act like a moron and get upset when its noticed.

  454. David Neill says:

    You cant act like a moron and get upset when its noticed.
    Pot, Kettle, Black comes to mind.

    Q. What do you all someone who promotes an argument even though they have had that argument denounced as “pish” numerous times over by numerous people.

    A. Teresa May… or Mike.

  455. Thepnr says:


    Your real name is Gordon, isn’t it dickhead?

  456. Mike says:


    Do you seriously want people to believe you’re unable to successfully argue with a Gordon? Lolz.

    Like I said self unaware to a fault.

  457. Mike says:

    @David Neil

    Where has anything Ive said been successfully refuted?

    You cant actually refute reality you imbecile.

  458. Thepnr says:


    Sook my other plook you total imbecile LOL

  459. Cubby says:


    Nice once. Gordon is a Britnat moron.

  460. yesindyref2 says:

    Royal Assent and the Great Seal of Scotland

    But remember the Continuity Bill as presented was competent apart from Section 17. The precedent is now set, the arguments made and recorded.

  461. yesindyref2 says:

    There’s a lot of false flag troll FUD about as you can see in this thread, and some people are susceptible to it. But there are also others who have their genuine fears and doubts, and that’s not surprising I guess, it takes a lot of discussion such as is on Wings to see the ins and outs of waiting till “Brexit is clear” – or even if it will happen.

    I think some of us who are waiting patiently though, are wary at the same time. Betrayal would exact a heavy price.

  462. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    Davie Oga at 4.01

    No, Dave. I lived for about 15 years in Kano but visited beautiful Jos many times. At about 4000 to 5000 feet up Jos is almost Mediteranean in climate and hugely verdant. Played rugby in Jos on several occasions. There was a signifcant Welsh factor in Jos because of the tin and mineral mines. Had a beer or two at Madame Fulani’s whorehouse. Much used by the Jos rugby club as it was a “loyal house”. Has a photo of the Queen and Price Philip above the main door.

  463. Gary says:

    The outcomes written of are predicated on politicians doing what they say they are going to do. As we know with the Tories trying to rid themselves of May, they say one thing and do another.

    We also fail to forget that politicians do, sometimes, actually cobble deals together at the last minute.

    I predict the unpredictable will happen because life WILL go on. The one thing the majority of Westminster ARE agreed on is that they don’t want us to have our independence. Until we have a lasting polled majority in favour of Indy we will have no chance of getting to the polls, never mind winning it. As for Brexit, they’re determined to drag us down with them, along with all our oil revenue obv!

  464. geeo says:

    Oh please, Gary…that is just rubbish.

    Polls will never show consistently over 50% Yes.

    Polls are not snapshots of public opinion, polls are propaganda to try demoralise the Yes campaign.

    I firmly believe Yes support has been over 50% for quite some time.

    There are hardly any polls published, ever wonder why ?

    Try this.

    The Mail/Express etc commissions an indy poll, which returns as 55% Yes, which of the following things happen next ?

    A) The paper runs with “Indy all but certain after massive Poll boost”


    B) Poll, what poll ?

    As for “I predict the unpredictable will happen”….if you can predict it, it ain’t unpredictable huh ?

  465. geeo says:


    Please explain why ANY country would not recognise the EXPRESSED SOVEREIGN WILL of the LEGALLY SOVEREIGN SCOTS PEOPLE ?

    Next you will be saying WM elections are not legitimate because more people do not vote, than vote for the party that wins government..!

  466. orri says:

    The First Minister is Keeper of the Great Seal. Using it is one way of signing statutes into Scots Law. The other is the old fashioned Royal Assent where the Queen signs in person.

    The first might be prevented by the FM refusing to release it. The second by advising the Queen on the use of the Royal Prerogative of withholding Royal Assent. In theory that might include Westminster legislation affecting devolved areas.

    If RA is ever used or refused contrary to the FMs advice that might invoke the clause in the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath and allow us to replace her. Just as replaced Mary QoS and Charles afterwards.

  467. Taranaich says:

    @yesindyref2: Of course, and I can understand their fears, because intelligent people consider all possibilities, including the ones they don’t want to see. It’s so difficult to explain to people that, despite my fears for the worst, it just doesn’t seem *logical* to me that the SNP would just let Brexit pan out in the direction it’s going, then say “oh well, let’s get a new mandate.”

    What will happen is there will be a crisis at some point this year – either No Deal, or the implementation of May’s Deal in and of itself. This has been a disaster decades in the making, and the momentum is too great to shift now. The Brexit disaster will come to pass, because the two main UK parties are paralysed by the monster of their own making. And as they sit, half shellshocked & terrorised, the other half tearing each other apart, the *only* party in the entire UK that knows exactly what it’s going to do is the same party that knew what it was doing in 2016.

    I really hoped that it wouldn’t take a crisis for this to happen. I hoped that support for independence would rise, but the media’s complicity in the Brexit agenda combined with the UK parties utterly surrendering to the Brexit monster meant stasis at best. When the disaster comes, the SNP simply *have* to step up to the plate – and the SNP have always, consistently done well in disaster situations, where the other parties are sorely and contemptibly lacking.

    Simply put: the SNP know what to do in a crisis. The UK, clearly, do not. If Brexit is going to be a crisis – and we’ll need much better evidence than plaintive “Corbyn’ll fix it” or “People’s Vote’ll fix it” to convince me otherwise – then the SNP will be the only ones who can, or will, offer safety to the people of Scotland.

    I’m not looking forward to it in the slightest, and I still think we should have tried earlier for the sake of our New Scots. But we are where we are.

    It isn’t a matter of hope or confidence anymore. It’s a matter of do or die. Fear if you must, as long as you do something about it.

  468. Mike says:


    The world recognise the right of Catalans to remain out of prison for their beliefs but don’t actually do anything about the fact that they are imprisoned anyway.

    Reality 101.

  469. yesindyref2 says:

    Thing is the manadate hasn’t actually been triggered yet. The mandate is to give Scotland a choice, but it could be that Brexit is cancelled after all this, and we know from the ECJ / Court of Sessions ruling that this is unilaterally possible. All it takes is a letter from May to the EU.

    Or there could be EU Ref 2, or a GE, either of which could radically change the choice for us to make. So, no mandate for IR2 until the leaving Bill is on its way for Royal Assent.

    I think personally, at that stage if Indy Ref 2 is called, it puts a doubt on Article 50 legality “in terms of the member state constitution”, as then the constitution of the UK could go either way. So basically as long as IR2 is called even hours before the actual EU departure time, the fulfilment of Article 50 is not possible and both parties (UK and EU) have to delay it. That keeps us in the EU until the Ref, and only another NO vote means the UK as a whole can then Leave.

    If it’s a YES, then I daresay ScotGov have legal advice, and I’d bet UK Gov has as well. See you in court!

  470. geeo says:

    What is ‘magic mike XXS’ on about now ?

    Anyone got a clue ?

    Nope ?

    Imagine that huh!!

  471. Maria F says:

    Petra says:
    2 January, 2019 at 7:05 pm

    “And of course the 1707 Treaty of the Union is not the basis of the title ”United Kingdom”. The title used for the so-called Union at that time was the Kingdom of Great Britain”

    I am still unconvinced by this interpretation, Petra. It would be interesting to read Mr Pfeffers interpretation as well and that of any others’ with an interest on this matter too.

    While I totally agree the official name of the “United Kingdom” of Scotland and England is “Great Britain” as clearly indicated in the Treaty of Union 1707, if you read through the articles of the treaty, the name “United Kingdom” and even the whole name “United Kingdom of Great Britain” pop up several times, so it is by no means at all, a “de novo” terminology that can be considered original to the acts of union with the kingdom of Ireland.

    I am not sure you should consider the words United Kingdom simply as an adjectival phrase of reference in the treaty of union 1707 because the initials of the two words are capitalised throught the document. If they were only used as reference it would be united kingdom, not United Kingdom.

    I therefore think the root of the name “United Kingdom” and “United Kingdom of Great Britain” actually lies on that same treaty of union 1707 and not on the acts that finalised the political integration of Ireland into the United Kingdom.

    I do think however, that the Act of Ireland changed the emphasis on the name from “The United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN” to “The UNITED KINGDOM of Great Britain (and Ireland)” for obvious reasons, but even so, if I have to be honest, the whole foundations and need at all for name change of this act of union with Ireland totally escape me as the kingdom of Ireland had already been annexed centuries before by the Kingdom of England and it had very little political autonomy left in its parliament by then. This “Act of Union with Ireland” and this “name change”
    seems to me like a political fudge aimed as much to appease Ireland as to undermine Scotland, particularly considering that there was already a first attempt to dissolve the union in 1713 with the introduction of the Malt Tax to Scotland, in breach of Article 14 of the Treaty.

    As a matter of fact,I think it is very telling the difference when while for the union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England (independent sovereign states before the union), the signature by both of a proper treaty of Union was required besides the Acts of each parliament, it seems that in the case of Ireland there was no requirement for a treaty of union, only by a couple of acts. I am sure that fact is of significance.

    Take a look at some of the articles of the Treaty of union 1707 and tell me what you think. I have only included some articles. The name “United Kingdom” is mentioned through the document many times (double inverted commas are included by me for emphasis):

    Article 1:
    ‘That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN: And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said “United Kingdom” be such as Her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land’

    Article 2:
    ‘II. That the Succession to the Monarchy of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” and of the Dominions thereunto belonging after Her Most Sacred Majesty, and in default of Issue of …’

    Article 3:
    ‘That the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” be Represented by one and the same Parliament, to be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain’

    Article 4:
    ‘That the Subjects of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain” shall from and after the Union have full Freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations…’

    Article 6:
    ‘That all parts of the “United Kingdom” for ever from and after the Union shall have the same Allowances, Encouragements and Drawbacks, and be under the same Prohibitions, Restrictions and Regulations of Trade and lyable…’

    Article 7:
    ‘That all parts of the “United Kingdom” be for ever from and after the Union lyable to the same Excises upon all Exciseable Liquors excepting only that the 34 Gallons English Barrel of Beer or Ale amounting to 12 Gallons Scots present measure sold in Scotland…’

    Article 9:
    ‘That whenever the sum of £1,997,763 8s 4d (and one) half penny shall be Enacted by the Parliament of Great Britain to be raised in that part of the “United Kingdom” now called England…’

    Article 24:
    ‘That from and after the Union, there be One Great Seal for the “United Kingdom of Great Britain”, which shall be different from the Great Seal now used in either Kingdom…’

    The words “United Kingdom” are mentioned all over the document and the words “United Kingdom of Great Britain” appear as such in four articles. In my view, the “change of name” by the Ireland Act was only semantics to be honest. It is crystal clear to me from the way the Treaty of Union 1707 was written that the “United Kingdom” wording always referred to the union between the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, besides by that time the kingdom of Ireland had already been annexed by the Kingdom of England, so in practice it was already part of the Kingdom of England with very little political autonomy. It seems to me that the “change of name” is an attempt by the kingdom of England to remove the importance of Scotland in the united kingdom making its status look just like Wales’. Why do I think this? Well, because if Ireland was already annexed by the Kingdom of England before the treaty of union 1707, the name should have not changed at all, the kingdom of Ireland would be already part of the “united kingdom of Great Britain”, the same as Wales. Therefore, the fact that the name changed by Including just Ireland and no sign of Wales and more importantly no sign of Scotland at all, actually makes you think that whoever wrote that act already saw/wanted to see/wanted to portray the Kingdom of England as if it was “Great Britain” and Wales and Scotland were part of that kingdom. But I may just be totally biased, shortsighted and wrong about this, so I very much welcome other interpretations.

    Anybody ever wonders why there has never been any attempt whatsoever to include Wales in the name or in the flag? Why the difference in treatment between Ireland and Wales when both were annexed by the Kingdom of England?

  472. Robert Peffers says:

    @Mike says: 2 January, 2019 at 8:33 pm:

    ” … You cant act like a moron and get upset when its noticed.”

    Well, Mike, no one is better qualified than you to make that claim.

    I must assume you speak from personal experience. You seem rather expert of such matters throwing out accusations in all directions.

    BTW:, the word, “cant”, you used in your comment is defined in the Dictionary thus:-

    cant1 – noun: cant:

    1. hypocritical and sanctimonious talk, typically of a moral, religious, or political nature.

    Example – “he had no time for the cant of the priests about sin”

    synonyms: hypocrisy, sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, humbug, pietism, affected piety, insincerity, sham, lip service, empty talk, pretence; More
    rarePharisaism, Tartufferie

    2. – language specific to a particular group or profession and regarded with disparagement.
    “thieves’ cant”

    synonyms: slang, jargon, idiom, argot, patter, patois, vernacular, speech, terminology, language; More
    informallingo, -speak, -ese.

    verb – (dated) – verb: cant; 3rd person present: cants; past tense: canted; past participle: canted; gerund or present participle: canting:

    1. talk hypocritically and sanctimoniously about something.

    Example: “if they’d stop canting about ‘honest work’ they might get somewhere”

    Did you, perhaps, mean to type can’t – which is a contraction for, “can not”, or, “cannot”.

    Isn’t it time you stopped your juvenile attempts to insult Wingers?

  473. Robert Peffers says:

    @Mike says: 2 January, 2019 at 8:56 pm:

    ” … Where has anything Ive said been successfully refuted?
    You cant actually refute reality you imbecile.”

    Oops! Is the apostrophe key on your machine not working Mike?

    Perhaps English isn’t your first language or are you just grammatically challenged?

  474. Robert Peffers says:

    @ Mike says: 3 January, 2019 at 4:57 am:

    ” … The world recognise the right of Catalans to remain out of prison for their beliefs but don’t actually do anything about the fact that they are imprisoned anyway. “

    On that subject of, “reality”, Mike.

    There is absolutely no comparison between the Catalan situation and that of Scotland. You really are a very ill informed person.

    The United Kingdom, in reality, is exactly as it describes itself – Two only, equally sovereign, independent kingdoms that agreed to unite under a joint, United Kingdom government.

    On the other hand Spain is a unified country composed of many semi-autonomous regions of which Catalonia is but one of many such regions. Who is it that says so? The Government of Spain no less.

    The United Kingdom is thus not now, and never has been, a unified country. It began by a Treaty of Union between two independent and equally sovereign kingdoms and thus the legal reality is that either partner kingdom can simply say the union is over.

    In the case of the three country Kingdom of England this would be by the legally sovereign monarch of The Kingdom of England, proclaiming the treaty ended, (on the advice of her Privy Council as per English Law). In the case of the Kingdom of Scotland by the Scottish Parliament’s First Minister declaring the union ended after getting a majority vote from the legally sovereign people of Scotland.

    There are several ways for that majority vote being derived. A Plebiscite, a referendum or even a Scottish or Westminster parliamentary election that the winning party had made a promise to do so in their pre-election manifesto. Even a privately organised national Scottish Claim of Right would qualify as the will of the people of Scotland if it gained a majority.

    Note that the Westminster Supreme Court has accepted that The People of Scotland are legally sovereign, (they would have a hard job doing otherwise as the Treaty of Union itself states that as being an Article of Union and the European Courts have also accepted that as fact.

    Yet you make claims here of a reality that suggest otherwise. Your claims of, “Reality”, are anything but real. They are factually the propaganda of the Westminster Establishment and your hidden agenda is far from being hidden.

  475. Robert Peffers says:

    @geeo says: 3 January, 2019 at 9:37 am:

    ” … What is ‘magic mike XXS’ on about now ?
    Anyone got a clue ?
    Nope ?
    Imagine that huh!!”

    Oh! But we have geeo. He is promulgating the Westminster Establishment’s versions of Reality which are factually unreal.

    Mike, and he is not alone, imagines that the title, “The United Kingdom”, doesn’t mean The United Kingdom. He thinks it means a a non-existent country called either, “Great Britain”, or even just, “Britain”. He imagines that the Westminster Parliament of Her Majesty’s United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland is actually the whole British Isles with the exception of Northern Ireland but Her Majesty’s personal United Kingdom includes also the independent Crown Dependencies while Her Westminster Parliament is just Great Britain & Northern Ireland.

    Like the Westminster MPs who keep claiming this is, “The Country”, or even, “The Whole Country”, Westminster only governs The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.

    Which is why they claim that the United Kingdom Government’s withdrawal from the EU is Brexit but Britain is a geographic term that includes four non-UK government states.

    Mike is attempting to propagate the Westminster false mantras as the reality which is in fact the unreality and here on Wings all genuine Wingers know that the United Kingdom is a two partner kingdom that is well overdue for a divorce.

  476. Jeff says:

    We will surely end up in international court(s) as Westminster will never willingly recognise a Scottish vote for indy? I seem to recall the AoU being broken by the UK gov before, with the introduction of the ‘Poll Tax’ in Scotland but not in England; when SNP MP’s brought this up the speaker of the house who was at that time Labour MP Betty Boothroyd did her duty, stood up and said something like “it is not for this house to debate the Act of Union” and went on to other business….

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