The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The real deal

Posted on November 24, 2022 by

18 minutes of your time well spent.

The contrast with Nicola Sturgeon’s platitudinous sloganeering yesterday is stark.

Print Friendly

    101 to “The real deal”

    1. Haud says:

      Can hope be fatal?

    2. Hatuey says:

      Pure class, as always.

    3. Republicofscotland says:

      Do I detect as smidgen of disgust from Bernard Ponsonby at the UKSC ruling, has the UKSC’s ruling angered Ponsonby? and has Sturgeon’s ineptness (I’m being modest) irked him?

      As for Alex Salmond, always the accomplished elder statesman, who makes Sturgeon look positively amateurish, I think he should have stayed on after the 2014 indyref, looking back (hindsight is a wonderful thing) if he was still FM we’d have made the most of Brexit and left the union.

    4. Tommo says:

      This is ludicrous; the learned editor of this website and everyone else knew the law; the legal submission by the Scots ‘Lord Advocate ‘ (Who thought it was bollocks) was simply because Sturgeon told her to do so-knowing that the inevitable rejection of this legal nonsense would further enrage the SNP base-as it has done (See your site below ); nothing in law has changed and it disappoints me to see the editor suggesting that it has
      That is not necessarily to defend the position but it IS the position

    5. Bob Mack says:

      Tommo,

      Nothing has changed?. Really?. It has just been cofirmed that legally the SNP have blown the feet off Independence via a referendum without express Westminster permission.

      Wakey wakey.

    6. Merganser says:

      Alex must have been sorely tempted to rubbish Sturgeon for what she has done, but as usual he made his points without personalising matters. He still has the touch.

      When the truth comes out about what Sturgeon and her mates did to him people will realise he is the key to the way forward.

    7. Liam Garvey says:

      There are very few (any?) examples of a nation achieving its independence from another political entity by referendum. Nations obtain independence by asserting it, and getting recognition from the international community of nations. Scotland needs to do the same, starting by the ways Salmond has suggested here.

    8. velofello says:

      Tommo –

      The law is for the guidance of the wise, and the obedience of fools.

      Lord Keen laid down the challenge to we Scots – are you wise {have now wised up}? Or you fools?

      “Wised up” – to the undemocratic status that Westminster via it’s unwritten, flexible constitution intends to prevail upon Scotland.

    9. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “nothing in law has changed and it disappoints me to see the editor suggesting that it has”

      What is it that you imagine I’m suggesting has changed?

    10. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Well, that’s Bernard Ponsonby off the FM’s Christmas card list, for allowing that excellent interview.

      Wee Eck, proving yet again, how much better a politician and a statesman he is than his successor as FM.

    11. James F. Mcintosh says:

      Yes Alex always competent and clear thinking in the way forward.Indie truck Davy never mentioned on his blogs the fact that if the first minister resigned that it would open things up for a Scottish election/ plebiscite one.

    12. Donald Raymond says:

      A thousand time the better leader, is AS was still FM we would be independent within a year. We’d be independent already! What an utter shame the past 8 years have been.

    13. Shug says:

      Eck is inspirational

      Nicola wants to wait 2 years for a plebisitary election to get 50% of the seats and 50% of the vote to let the SNP into a coalition with labour, should they need it, to get permission for a referendum which may have a super majority requirement

      Yes that is her plan

      Eck welcome back

      SNP get her outed now. She is working against the interest of the snp

    14. Geoff Anderson says:

      More, More, More!

      ….and a lot less Sturgeon pish!

    15. Robert Louis says:

      Aye, Alex Salmond is the real deal. Compare and contrast with the garbled procrastinating nonsense that came from Sturgeon yesterday.

      In addition he talks about disrupting parliamentary procedures at Westminster, and doing it every day. But here’s the problem, ALL the SNP MP’s will turn up as usual next week, and sit like nodding donkeys, all too feart to do a dman thing. And why should they, they are making a small fortune sitting on those green benches, doing nothing for Scotland.

      Alex Salmond is right about one thing, folk are angrier than ever, and with that comes determination. I am more determined than ever to run these lying thieving English colonial barstweards out of Scotland. So, rather than folk giving up, I think this is where we really start to fight, with or without the utterly useless Sturgeon and her SNP nodding donkeys lving it up in London.

      If there is a convention of the estates, then it is abundantly clear it should be chaired by Alex Salmond. Only he has the political guile, experience and skill to push our desire for independence. Sturgeon has had eight years and done sweet f all. Actually, just thinking about it, she really should resign, she really should.

    16. Robert Hughes says:

      ” That is no country for old men. The young
      In one another’s arms, birds in the trees,
      —Those dying generations—at their song,
      The salmon-falls, the mackerel-crowded seas,
      Fish, flesh, or fowl, commend all summer long
      Whatever is begotten, born, and dies.
      Caught in that sensual music all neglect
      Monuments of unageing intellect.

      II

      An aged man is but a paltry thing,
      A tattered coat upon a stick, unless
      Soul clap its hands and sing, and louder sing
      For every tatter in its mortal dress,
      Nor is there singing school but studying
      Monuments of its own magnificence;
      And therefore I have sailed the seas and come
      To the holy city of Byzantium.

    17. StruanBorn says:

      He’s head & shoulders above all mp’s or msp’s anywhere. A true independence revolutionary, we need him now more than ever.

      He looks healthy & well I’m glad of that more than anything.

      A true leader.

    18. David Hannah says:

      Superb stuff from big Eck. STV youtube has has made the link private limiting the options of searching.

      Bernard Ponsonby to his credit, asked all the right questions Scotland needs the alternative voice to be heard.

    19. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Makes you realise how fucking wasted, nae squandered all the political opportunities presented to Scotland over the last 8 years have been and why post IndyRef the establishment connived to have AS ”removed” from any possible return to front line politics on our side!

      Resign Sturgeon, and take all your self serving troughing cunts with you.

      The rest of them need to decide if they want to lead, follow or get out of the way (or shit or get off the pot if you will) and we should make sure they all know that they don’t have until some undetermined time “in the New Year” to choose.

      I think now is the time for the “good guys and girls” we are told exist as SNP MPs and MSPs to stand up and be counted, cross the floor to Alba and put Country and the people of Scotland before self.

      Prove they are part of “the government best suited to our current need” so to speak!

      Time they became part of the solution rather than remaining part of the problem!

    20. Desimond says:

      Very good watch.
      Good questions often with an edge to them and some bait attached and Alex actually listened then actually answered the question in calm, clear and concise return rather than faux anger, fist waving and heavy shrugging.

      This style of conversation is exactly what is always needed from now on ( from both sides of discussion – can we get Bernard as Comms chief?)

      I thought it very interesting with Alex repeatedly laying out the open options for agitation etc…I kept thinking it could help sew the seeds of doubt in folk watching realising that none of those tactics are being considered let alone executed by current SNP representatives or touted by their leadership.

      Highlight of a piss poor week.
      A

    21. Big Jock says:

      My key take on that interview, and it gives Nicolas game away.

      Is why Nicola wants to wait until next year to start the mobilisation. The time to act was right after the hearing. She wants to get a plan for the de facto referendum. Yet she outlined her plan B in June. So why has she not already got it ready to go?

      Because she hasn’t spent one day since June on it. Because she is simply buying more months go pontificate.

      Westminster just told Scotland to fuck off. And her answer is to disappear for a few months, then have a meeting with her chums.

    22. Desimond says:

      Just a silly late night thought, but could there be any Corbyn style scenario of Salmond being elected as SNP leader ( I know I know..) but I was sat wondering if there was any mechanism whereby members would actually get to select the next leader to actually redirect the cart that’s currently just slowly going nowhere or is it now totally a closed shop regards Leadership challenges and naming any proposed standers?

    23. birnie says:

      The False Flag

      The Supreme Court has stated, in the clearest terms, that the UK is not a union of equals. Scotland’s constitutional status is analogous to that of Quebec, a mere province in a federal state. The term “United Kingdom”, implying the union of two sovereign states, is therefore not accurate in terms of the Trades Descriptions Act.

      The “Union Flag” is the symbol of the “UK” and is similarly false. It is a False Flag, signifying only the supremacy of the imperial power.

      Our esteemed First Minister, as leader of the Scottish Government, may feel obliged to respect the judgement of the Supreme Court; we, as citizens, are not.

      We, as citizens, should not tolerate the public display of the False Flag, the symbol of a fictitious union of two countries and we, as citizens, should do all in our power to have the False Flag removed from public display, by fair means or foul.

      I would like to see an effective campaign against the display of the False Flag, starting with a picket by the pole outside Holyrood bearing the offensive banner, followed by elected councillors of the movement petitioning local authorities for the banner’s removal – anything to tarnish further the reputation of the “butcher’s apron”.

      Our First Minister having failed to take any significant action following yesterday’s London judgement, it falls to individual members of the independence movement to take such action as they can to advance the cause.

      Living as I do within a few miles of Athelstaneford in East Lothian, the home of the Saltire, the sight of the False Flag is particularly irksome.

    24. Graeme Hampton says:

      A politician actually answering questions in a thoughtful and considered way, an interviewer asking clever well researched questions. I don’t know if this kind of politics will catch on but by God I wish it would.

    25. PhilM says:

      You always feel with Alex Salmond that he believes in our constitutional tradition of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. Hence his use of the phrase the Scots’ Parliament. I don’t remember any other politician insisting on that usage.
      By her actions I think it’s safe to say that Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t really believe in democracy. For the current SNP ‘administration’ the people are a nuisance.

    26. Big Jock says:

      Des. Unfortunately the MSM and Nicola have destroyed Alex reputation. Of course he would be the best leader, but the mud has stuck.Those not in the know think he is a sex pest.

      He knows that, and why would he put himself back in that disgusting sess pit they call a media.

      Nicola not only split the movement. She took away the one possible leader who could still save this.

    27. Kcor says:

      Big Jock says:
      24 November, 2022 at 11:16 pm

      “The time to act was right after the hearing.”

      The time to really act was the day the Brexit referendum result was announced.

      The rest is history.

    28. Kcor says:

      Big Jock says:
      24 November, 2022 at 11:29 pm

      “She took away the one possible leader who could still save this”

      Many of the independence leaders the British colonialists persecuted the most eventually became the first leaders of their independent nations.

      Think of Alex Salmond as being in the same position as those independence leaders.

      Wings Over Scotland has already been “reconvened”.

      A new push for independence, without the involvement of the tractors within.

    29. Holymacmoses says:

      He’s the ship, the compass and the captain

    30. Rab Davis says:

      I’m sure Ponsonby has always been a supporter of Scottish Independence.

    31. Hatuey says:

      On reflection, interesting and engaging as Salmond is, the most significant thing about this interview is that it went out on STV.

      Can we assume the embargo on Alba and Salmond has been lifted, that they’re no longer being de-platformed? If true, that’s a major development.

      I’m sure I’m not the only one who noticed that the MSM, particularly the Scottish branch offices, had given Sturgeon an easy ride over the last few years. I speculated that they were doing that as a reward for deprioritising independence…

      Has that arrangement come to an end with all this talk of plebiscitary elections? Whether she’s sincere or not doesn’t actually matter much if she is putting dangerous ideas in the minds of the rabble…

    32. Meg Merrilees says:

      I’ve been quiet for too long – This is a brilliant interview. Alex speaks with real clarity and tactical expertise.
      He is arguably one of the most competent politicians in the UK today and it is to our shame as a country that he is no longer our leader but is instead regarded as ‘a chancer who got away with it’ after one of the most outrageous defamations of character ever witnessed by someone who isnae even fit to clean his shoes.
      Welcome to colonial Scotland – England’s last colony with Nicola as the Colonial Administrator.

      Robert Louis – it’s not that Nicola should resign, surely we should be giving her the P45 – game over! SHE has to go!

      So pleased that I looked in on Wings tonight.
      Great to know that Stu is still holding feet to the fire.

    33. Rab Davis says:

      Hatuey 12.46 am

      Sturgeon and Kirsty Wark are besties.

      Says it all really.

    34. Hatuey says:

      I’ve been thinking about the polls and levels of support for both the SNP and independence. In both cases it appears that the polls haven’t moved but I wonder if there’s movement under the surface that hasn’t been detected, like a seemingly calm sea with strong if invisible undercurrents.

      And I wonder if there might possibly be a way to detect and measure those undercurrents, if they exist. Let me explain…

      It is absolutely unfathomable and quite absurd to suggest that Brexit, Boris, the economic situation in the UK, and all the other obnoxious stuff we have witnessed over the last few years, has not resulted in a lot of Scottish people changing their minds on independence, and (by extension) the SNP as the champion of independence.

      For talking sake, let’s assume that say 200 thousand voters changed their minds as a result of all that stuff.

      At the same time, it’s hard to imagine that the SNP and the cause of independence haven’t lost support, for reasons we are all familiar with here; the gender reform stuff, the Salmond stuff, the general attitude of the Sturgeon regime towards the grassroots, failure to pursue and deliver indyref2, Sturgeon’s personal appeal (or lack of it), etc.

      Again, for talking sake, let’s assume a couple of hundred thousand voters abandoned the SNP and independence as a result of all that.

      So, we have a situation where these undercurrents are essentially cancelling each other out resulting in the appearance of calm, and the polls wouldn’t necessarily pick up on all that.

      Those are the premises and here’s the conclusion that logically and natural follows from them: if the SNP changes its leadership and gets rid of the unpopular policies (a fresh start), putting more time and effort into say Independence and ditching the gender stuff, might we not expect a significant surge in support for both the SNP and independence?

      A lot would depend on other factors, of course, like the way that leadership change was handled, the context of that change in terms of how damaging it might be to the party, etc., but, on the face it, I would say there must be a lot of potential or latent support there that isn’t showing in the polls.

      Am I stating the obvious? You all already knew that and didn’t tell me?

    35. Wullie B says:

      That looks more like Alexs garden in Strichen than it does Aberdeen

    36. Hatuey says:

      Indeed, Rab @ 1.11

      Maybe that’s who brokered the deal.

    37. Confused says:

      I hope Salmond is with us for a long time yet (and why not, Biden is 103) because we need him and there is no one really to replace him; there is a skill to professional politics – it looks easy, but journalists know loads of ways to “make you look like a cunt and quite mad”. Most of us would get stitched up, real quick, even with a bit of media training; it’s a bit like doing standup, without the laughter. Better put down those hecklers …

      Journos are total cunts, rarely honestly reporting and always with an agenda, with a real bag of tricks; want to rubbish a cause – grab the ugliest and stupidest supporter, or on the flipside, treat the well groomed and obviously media trained spokesperson as a grass roots supporter. And a million other things.

      It disturbs me that I do not see any “young team” coming through – is there anyone out there?

      Salmond’s “christian” decency is also notable – if someone I once considered a trusted friend tried to stick me in jail – some accounts you just have to settle. He probably knows enough dirt to bury Nikki and her gang and could easily leak it – oh no someone stole an encrypted USB drive (password is password1234) – oh no, if that fell into the wrong hands …

    38. Kenny says:

      I don’t often sit up till after 2.30am to watch an interview on YT, but that was indeed the real-deal. Ponsonby is the gowd.

    39. Kenny says:

      Interesting (and OT) The same Darren McGarvey who issued ‘punch his cnt in’ threat to Stuart Campbell* when Campbell basically said what McGarvey’s saying in this tweet:

      https://twitter.com/lokiscottishrap/status/1595549176112218114?s=20&t=n9E0xVdlRgVVYjkj1Azh0A

      *Yes, McGarvey did apologise, but the fact remains.
      Says a lot, mind you, when McGarvey finally directs his ire where it belongs. WGD next?

    40. Jamie says:

      Westminster must be relieved that Alex Salmond is no longer first minister.

    41. John Main says:

      @Hatuey says:25 November, 2022 at 1:36 am

      Am I stating the obvious? You all already knew that and didn’t tell me?

      Not at all, Hatuey.

      Nobody else worked this out before you did. No way, Jose.

      You’re the first.

    42. John Main says:

      @Confused says:25 November, 2022 at 2:39 am

      It disturbs me that I do not see any “young team” coming through – is there anyone out there?

      That’s the fundamental problem with all the calls for NS to go.

      There’s nobody of any worth or charisma to take her place. Like it or lump it, for a hell of a lot of Scots, NS is the face of Indy. One of the few political faces in Scotland that everybody recognises. Never off the box for every day of the Covid years – the saviour of the nation for millions.

      The movement needs to have a new leader in waiting. That process has to start now, cos it won’t happen overnight.

    43. Stuart MacKay says:

      If the general sentiment really is anger at the high-handed supreme court then the door is open for any MP or MSP to break ranks. This isn’t even party political as anyone can now stand up and tell their constituents that their rights and interests were being trampled on and appeal for general support. If enough or even just a handful did this then the SNP leadership’s grip on the party would be broken. Having said that I’m not holding my breath, “garbled procrastinating nonsense” seems to be the order of the day. (Thanks, Robert Louis).

    44. Rab Davis says:

      Beware!!!

      Dildo Main has his fishing rod out.

    45. Rab Davis says:

      The only reason there is lacklustre support for independence at the moment lies at the door of the lacklustre SNP government.

      The only time Sturgeon talked about Scottish independence over the last eight years is in the lead up to an election.

      After that it was back to business as usual, for proof see the amount of mandates Sturgeon has binned after each election.

      Only to batter on with her Chix with Dix fixation.

    46. stuart mctavish says:

      Sounds positive if it means Alex and Nicola are finally going to kiss and make up.

      Tastiest battle might then become who gets to take the Tudeau mantle (if Christa Frielands testimony/the biden intervention proves insufficient) as Nicola will probably want to be flanked by Patrick and Alex whereas Alex would surely be happier with Nicola and our own Canadian by his side ..objections from the delightful Tasmina notwithstanding

    47. Ruby says:

      https://archive.ph/wzmnx

      Belgium blocks export of nuclear technology to UK

      An export licence, required after Brexit, was seen as a formality before Belgium’s deputy prime minister Georges Gilkinet, who is a member of the green party Ecolo, blocked it due to opposition to nuclear weapons and the arms industry

      Royal Navy says it’s fine nuclear weapons work fine without this technology but still will cancel £600mil order for Belgiun machine guns.

    48. Ottomanboi says:

      Get real O people in self-bandage, «The Law», inevitably, has intrinsic systemic and cultural bias. In the British state it is ownership of land, property etc., what you have you keep, and a notional patriotic Protestantism, what you are you ought to remain, plus more than a residue of socio-cultural exceptionalism comfortable in its arrogant insularity.
      Every state now free of colonialism broke «The Law» and Moses came down from the holy mountain with a new set.
      Currently in Doha a balmy 30 degrees.
      In Scotland the political temperature should be climbing to 50.
      Make that geriatric Ukania uncomfortable!

    49. Ottomanboi says:

      JOHN MAIN 07:38
      The representation of politics everywhere is middle aged to senile.
      «Abstractions» do not interest the young.
      Politicians have denatured independence.
      The idea needs radicale revivification.

    50. Hatuey says:

      John Main @ 7.27

      Dark sarcasm is fine.

      Can you show me anyone else that explained or referred to it?

      Ever?

    51. Ruby says:

      https://archive.ph/j35A6

      Pantomime time at the British colonial government’s branch office in Scotland.

      Scotland is a colony! Oh! No it’s isn’t.

      Oh yes it is!

      Stuart MacDonald demands we all stop talking about Scotland being a colony.

      Sturgeon says he wants to silence Scotland’s voice because he is scared of what Scotland might say. It is quite simple.

      Cole Hamilton wants it all to ‘get in the bin’ and that all Sturgeon needs is’ a wee lie down and a cup of camomile tea. ‘

      Their patter in mingin’. Oh yes it yes!

      Watch out: He’s Behind You!

    52. Iain mhor says:

      On point as ever.
      The phrase ‘de-facto’ was used and which is at odds with the sentiment of Scotland’s Nation status.

      Following my previous posts (and Stu mentioning the ‘Extinguished trope’?)

      Scotland was de-facto extinguished and the English Crown de-facto claims suzerainty over the Scots Crown (because it’s under that aegis UK legislation operates) De-jure is another matter.

      Again, it’s a simple question/s to ask and the tail of this piece touches on it. Just ask the question directly of the Crown in right.

      When the answer comes back there will be no doubt about whether Scotland was extinguished and her Crown subsumed – and a jolly stramash that will be.

      No one will ask it though. The ‘why not’? is perplexing as it is the root of all – is it too dangerous?

      I mean, far less acess via Privy Council the Scottish Parliament can do so directly – it holds the Mace (even the newly commissioned one as presented with supporting speech at the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament)

      Scotland holds the ear of the ‘Crown’ and may ask (or even more correctly ‘instruct’) the Scots Crown to answer – so do it, and we will all know exactly where we stand – not just an opinion, or convention.

    53. Craig P says:

      That was a good interview. One question was sidestepped though, when Ponsonby asked about Westminster opposing the will of the Scottish people. Strictly speaking it is the Supreme Court opposing the Scottish Government, which isn’t quite the same thing. After all when the Scottish people were last asked, they said no. Persuading more people of the need for independence has to be the main priority.

      But Salmond is right that the Supreme Court’s ruling that Scots cannot have self determination is only going to help in that work of persuasion. He’s also right that MPs and MSPs need to get together and form a new National Convention. Salvo.scot is trying to do it, but its not going to work without senior establishment figures and politicians on board.

    54. GMac_Dod says:

      1 mandate I see and would make an absolute point, in some way before anything else and should have happened in 2021.

      Have an early Holyrood GE, as has been pointed out in Wings “Where there isn’t a will”, it can be done.

      Fill as much as possible the 129 seats with Independence MSP’s, then make that as a point to Westminster and even the International Community.

      I think this will been seen as no doubt what Scotland wants and be very hard to dismiss.

    55. Desimond says:

      One other wee interesting point of Alex’s chat was when he said “And that was something I had up my sleeve when negotiating with David Cameron”

      Sadly I don’t think current Leadership has any concept of having something up their sleeve let along actually having something!

    56. Mia says:

      Everything Mr Salmond says oozes strong leadership ability, commitment, conviction and will.

      Every time I hear him speaking I cannot help but wonder why the SNP MPs and MSPs have indulged for 8 years, and forced Scotland to endure for all that time, the most politically incompetent, unconvincing, divisive, reckless, deceiving, procrastinating, morally and ethically corrupt, unwilling, actions vs words incoherent, fake, 2-faced loser Scotland has ever seen.

      Not only this loser has lost us powers, rights and control of assets; handed over our assets for a pittance; wasted our precious time, mandates and majorities; fabricated one thousand and one excuses and vetos which she swiftly handed over to either the Crown or westminster to stop our self-deetermination.

      Now, this sorry excuse for a leader, has just handed over to the crown (represented by an English court and English judges), the opportunity to claim to have usurped Scotland’s sovereignty.

      That is completely unacceptable and unforgivable. History cannot be kind to neither this reckless loser not the reckless enablers in the SNP who allowed her to do this level of damage to Scotland.

      Shame on them all. Because Sturgeon might be a tool of the UK establishment, and her actions cannot be explained otherwise. But by jove the SNP MPs and MSPs could have removed such back stabbing, deceiving loser from the driving seat one million times over by now and stop the damage she is doing.

      They chose not to. They chose to force her damage on us. They chose to let her hand the crown the opportunity to claim they had usurped Scotland’s sovereignty on the back of an international treaty. They chose to let her give the crown the opportunity to claim Scotland is a colony within a political union. They chose that English court to trample over the Treaty of Union for the sake of the crown and to the detriment of the people of Scotland, which they claim to represent. All so the SNP spineless cowards dressed as MPs and MSPs can keep their arses comfortable without lifting a fcking finger to get up their backside and deliver independence.

      So to hell with them all. I hope each and every single SNP MP and MSP lose the seats at the next election. Every one. They do not deserve to claim they represent Scotland a single minute more, when all what they have done is destroy the interests of the people of Scotland to uphold their own and those of the crown.

      I will be damned if I give the hypocrites in the SNP another vote.

      May the fuel of their greed and their betrayal of Scotland burn in hell.

    57. Cuilean says:

      Alex Salmond: Guardian of Scotland

      Thank Christ we have you still.

    58. One_Scot says:

      Rev, is there any possible future set of circumstances where Alex Salmond could return as leader of the SNP?

    59. Politically Homeless says:

      None of you will want to hear this in the special echo chamber you have built for yourselves, but the trouble with Salmond is he really needs to make amends for taking the Kremlin shilling for the 7 years between the beginning of Russian terrorism in the Donbass and the full scale invasion in February. Of course that won’t happen. Therefore Indy politics needs some fresh blood, neither Sturgeonite or Salmondite. But of course that won’t happen either.

    60. Politically Homeless says:

      Where to clarify the above phrase I mean of course, “going on Russia today” – a very disappointing decision.

    61. Cuilean says:

      Politically Homeless:

      RT hosted the show as the Murdoch Empire and Mi5 BBC colonial house-Scots, would never platform Alex Salmond. It’s a matter of record that RT had no editorial input whatsoever into the Alex Salmond Show which hosted guests of all political persuasion.

      If you wish to impugn anyone for links to Russia and Putin, look no further than the Conservative & Unionist Party.

      £2.2million from Lubov Chernukhin since 2012, and £60k of that after Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine.

      £730,000 from Alexander Temerko, including £12,500 since the invasion.

      Former Tory party treasurer Ehud Sheleg was named in an alert by the National Crime Agency re hundreds of thousands to Tory party from his father-in-law, Sergei Kopytov, a business owner in Crimea and Russia.

      Londongrad is awash with dirty Russian money and that is all a matter of undisputed record.

    62. Mia says:

      “but the trouble with Salmond is..”

      The only “trouble” with Mr Salmond is that he is, at present, the only political figure in Scotland with sufficient commitment, persistence, determination, will and strategic vision to deliver independence.

      That is the reason why the self-serving UK establishment, the corrupt civil service and COPFS, the perjurers, the careerists in the SNP and that disloyal and dishonest loser we have had to endure for the last 8 years as a FM have been so desperately trying to destroy his reputation and remove him from politics ever since the EU referendum.

      The only “problem” with Mr Salmond is that should he ever get control of any of the majorities of “allegedly” pro independence MPs under the SNP flag their Sturgeon has mismanaged and wasted, Scotland would become independent in a heartbeat.

      That is why the losers will do anything in their power to stop him getting anywhere near Holyrood or Westminster. That is why we have an embarrassing brigade of mediocre half-baked politicians, PR products and uncommitted coward careerists in control of the SNP.

      You just need to listen to the video above for 2 minutes to realise the extent to which the current corrupt loser leading the SNP has deliberately starved the yes movement of political direction for the last 8 years.

      We do not need another political pretend leader that can be bought, compromised or hijacked by the Uk establishment. We already have a Holyrood parliament and over 50 seats in Westminster full of them.

      Scottish politics is dead. Scottish politics has become a farce. Smoke and mirrors to keep the illusion of democracy alive, but designed to deny democracy.

      Since Sturgeon took over the SNP it has just became a pathetic band of useful idiots whose only mission appears to be pandering to the crown’s needs by sitting on their hands and dangling useless carrots to extend the life of a dying union at the expense of the Scottish people’s needs, Scotland’s assets and Scotland’s dignity.

      For the last 8 years politicians have spectacularly failed Scotland. They have damaged Scotland. They have abused our trust. They have willingly helped our union partner to ransack Scotland and exploit it as a colony. They have demonstrated they do not have the guts, the commitment or the conviction to take the independence cause forward. The only thing they are prepared to do is to side with the UK establishment to make their own life easy while continuing to fool the people of Scotland into believing the Treaty of Union was a take over rather than what it is: an international treaty that can be unilaterally revoked by any of the two partners.

      With a scenario like this, the idea that we are ever going to have a democratic process to move the independence cause forward while relying on politicians most of whom have been deliberately destroying or ignoring our democratic rights for the past 8 years, is ridiculous.

      If they are useless and the only thing they are doing is damaging Scotland and standing in the way, then they are no longer needed and will have to be bypassed. It is as simple as that.

      Unionist politicians have denied Scotland’s right to end this union since 1707. Sturgeon’s labour copy cat operating under the SNP flag have stuck us for the last 8 years in a hamster wheel, and had us running to nowhere.

      The UK establishment and their useful idiots will set the moon on fire if that is what they need to do to stop Mr Salmond getting into any of the two parliaments or Alba getting enough support.

      We therefore need a different route. Salvo needs 100,000 signatures to take things forward. Let’s start by gathering those signatures. Because, quite frankly, at this point, after the loser that calls herself FM and the cowards that call themselves Scottish nationalists have allowed English judges from an English court and acting on behalf of the crown to claim they had usurped Scotland’s sovereignty, what else do we have to lose than the present corrupt, spineless politicians sitting in Holyrood and Westminster and claiming to represent Scotland have not already lost us?

    63. Calum says:

      Ponsonby is not amused with Sturgeon whatsoever, that shines through.

      Quite bloody right as well.

      There’s more class in Salmond’s little finger than the whole of Sturgeon – he’s the politician she can only dream of being.

    64. Breeks says:

      Mia says:
      25 November, 2022 at 4:13 pm

      “but the trouble with Salmond is..”

      The only “trouble” with Mr Salmond is…

      Well said Mia.

      And I would also recommend any NuSNP lurkers to go through every line from both Mia’s above comments about Salmond and find any departure from reason and objectivity.

      Compare that with the gushing “Sturgeon’s playing a blinder” garbage we see elsewhere, which is profoundly delusional and bereft of all objectivity and devoid of critical analysis or situational awareness.

      Sturgeon’s “leadership” has been nothing short of catastrophic for Scottish Independence, an irreconcilable disaster.

    65. Andy Ellis says:

      It won’t matter if Salvo get 1 million signatures if we can’t demonstrate a clear majority in favour of independence.

      The international community won’t pay any more attention to Salvo than they did to the 2 million signatures for the Scottish Convention in the 1950’s….and remind us what concrete results THAT had….?

      As Angus MacNeil has been tweeting today, the SC ruling is interesting because it clearly signposts in paras 74-81 of the judgement that every election going forward can be a plebiscite.

      To quote Angus’ tweet in response to someone who questioned whether the SC decision cast doubt on a plebiscitary election being legitimate”

      No they said a ref could be legal BUT as its consequences would affect the constitution & could end the UK. So thus it was a reserved matter.
      BUT
      Elections happen and the people can vote on any manifesto so thus that vote can’t be stopped & “posses the authority” of democracy

      The SC’s decision on referendums being outwith the competence of a devolved administrations actually HELPS the case for the use of plebiscitary elections.

    66. Muscleguy says:

      Indeed, if Scotgov are not busy explaining the plebiscite election idea to the foreign consuls here so they can inform their govts so they might recognise us then they cleraly have no intention of winning Independence this way.

      Only by being recognised after winning a plebiscite election can oressure be brought to bear on Westminster and Whitehall.

    67. Mia says:

      “It won’t matter if Salvo get 1 million signatures if we can’t demonstrate a clear majority in favour of independence”

      Nonsense. In 1706 there was a clear majority AGAINST the union and yet, a simple majority of MPs, bribed by the crown, dragged Scotland into this political union.

      The only thing that is needed is a simple majority of Scotland’s MPs denying Westminster the legitimacy to continue to call itself “UK of Great Britain” parliament.

      Politicians may want the backing of a majority of the people because they fear the consequences of being seen going against a majority. The history books are very clear about what happened in 1706 and how those treacherous MPs in 1706 who sold their country run for their lives. But that does not mean that a majority in support for independence is needed or worse, that it does not already exist.

      Because how on earth can you ever know if there is a majority when you have a Uk establishment using its entire apparatus (and I include here the Scottish executive and the SNP itself) to stop that majority being formed and pronouncing itself?

      Politics in Scotland is dead since Mr Salmond left the scene in 2014. It is inexistent. What we have is a collection of spineless self-serving cowards helping the crown to keep the appearance of a democracy.

      We are in the middle of a “political” system specifically designed to silence real pro-independence politicians like Mr Salmond to keep the yes movement at bay. I include here the fact that by enacting an overly open franchise in what is a shrinking native population, the UK establishment ensures those settling in Scotland from elsewhere and with allegiance to the union rather than Scotland are always in sufficient numbers to frustrate the natives’ vote for independence.

      We saw it happening in 2014 and will happen again if a referendum under the same circumstances were to take place tomorrow. Even worse now, because due to Sturgeon’s mismanagement of COVID, the number of deaths in the last few years have surpassed the number of births sending the Scottish population into recession. There is a good reason why Sturgeon’s gov stalled the census for a whole year and why is so keen on welcoming refugees into Scotland, which is of course an artificial way of stopping the Scottish population from decreasing and worse, us realising of it.

      So in such toxic context the only possible way Scotland’s natives and those who have settled in Scotland long term and have to demonstrate they want independence is by collecting signatures and a movement like Salvo.

      For as long as Alba continues to be successfully silenced, for as long as Mr Salmond is kept at arms length by a frightened establishment (giving him air time but not a chance of Alba winning seats), and for as long as the SNP and its leadership remain full of careerists seeking to preserve the union rather than ending it, the only route in front of us to independence I can see is Salvo.

    68. Geri says:

      Scotland will never get indy.
      Too many with vested interests in the bastard UK remaining exactly how it is. Unchanged. Little England’s feet under every international table doing deals, vetos, votes, warring & turning blind eyes to human rights abuses – the yappy bulldog with Scotlands wallet strapped to its arse & writing cheques to keep itself in the big boys club.

      Please, someone tell me it’s not true they now think the Devo we voted for was us relinquishing our sovereignty & right to self determination forever?
      That would be the final insult!
      We voted to reconvene the Scottish parly, that’s not at all Scottish, with the back hander of a chunk of our sea for a branch office that’s permanently locked as England’s legal outpost??

      Jeez, I wish I wasn’t working at the moment. I’ve no time to sit & read everything that’s going on.

      Wings, it’d be ace if you did a podcast if yer still up for analysing this shitshow going forward!

      I’ll try get back later to read the comments.

    69. TGC says:

      Tear down all those statues of colonial empire
      We will erect one for this man when we no longer have the pleasure of his presence and the strength of his cause

    70. TGC says:

      A majority of seats in Scotland is enough to evidence the decision to declare in dependence .
      A majority of votes in Scotland that favour Scottish independence is enough evidence that Scottish independence can be declared .

      The problem is that a new Independent Scotland asking Westminster for a negotiated sharing of assets would be met with little if any cooperation we have seen what they did when they left the EU and it was their choice and method when leaving , we witnessed the lying and delaying tactics non cooperation and plenty of threats .
      That is what Scotland would get and worse.

      A negotiated separation is best for Scotland and for England too but Westminster will sacrifice what’s best for England just out of spite it’s what they have always done , just look at every country that ever fought its way to independence from U.K. and you will see the spiteful legacy left upon them by Westminster.

      Having said all that it is a fact that we could declare independence , ask for a negotiated settlement of assets , be refused , continue on our route as an independent country and with no doubt whatsoever I am certain that we would still be better off and a happier nation than we are right now .

    71. Andy Ellis says:

      @Mia

      This is 2022 not 1706. That’s a laughably weak line of argument. You can surely do better than James Che, even if you are prone to prolixity. Mercifully at least you don’t spam BTL like they do.

      As lots of us have been saying (incuding Rev Stu in case you missed it) it’s votes that count not seats. The SNP won 56 of 59 seats on less than 50% of the vote. We need a majority: it’s not rocket science.

      Nobody sane gives a shit about 300 year old treaties. You and the few cranks in here that are hung up on it need to get a grip. In particular, you need to learn not to use 10 words where one would suffice.

      Salvo is an interest group, not the independence movement. There is no legal shortcut or silver bullet, the solution is political. We need a majority. We need to persuade more people to support yes and to vote for us in a referendum or plebiscitary elections. Cunning plans for indy are a chimera.

    72. sarah says:

      @ Politically Homeless: “going on Russia Today”.

      You are confusing being an employee of Russia Today and being an independent production company that has sold its series to a TV company. The Alex Salmond Show is the latter, just like most series nowadays on most TV stations e.g. BBC, STV, Channel 4 etc etc.

    73. Colin McKenna says:

      Alex salmond isn’t only a true leader but a warrior too. Miss him as our first minister!

    74. Mia says:

      @Ellis

      “This is 2022 not 1706”
      Scotland is trapped in this union today because of what happened in 1706. You can only move towards the future when you look into the past, understand the wrongs made then and the interests behind those wrongs, identify the culprits, learn to recognise their modus operandi and put systems in place to avoid those toxic interests and their useful idiots taking Scotland for a fool again.

      In 1706 Scotland unprincipled MPs selfishly sold their country in exchange for privileges from the crown for themselves. They dragged Scotland into this toxic union against the will of the majority of the people. If a majority of the popular vote was not needed then, it is not needed now either. It stands to the obvious. As you say, “it is not rocket science”. It is common sense.

      If all what the crown needed in 1706 for this union to start was a few eloquent propagandists and to bribe enough Scotland MPs to get a majority of the seats in favor of the union by the back door, all what Scotland needs to terminate this union is to block the propaganda and put a majority of anti-union MPs committed to end that union in Scotland’s Westminster seats.

      This is where we have failed. Sturgeon’s SNP Mps are not anti-union, they are as pro-union as labour, as they have demonstrated us continuously for the last 8 years.

      “As lots of us have been saying (incuding Rev Stu in case you missed it) it’s votes that count not seats”

      Just like Sturgeon hides like a coward behind Westminster or the Supreme Court to continuously avoid scrutiny for refusing to deliver independence, you parasitically hide behind the Rev every time you want to deflect scrutiny.

      You appear to be deliberately attempting to fan the flames of criticism against the Rev every time you knowingly walk into a delicate argument you do not know how to come out of other than by managing scrutiny using the Rev as a shield.

      That does not seem a particularly gracious, brave or grateful attitude towards the host of the site that is giving you a platform to express your views, does it, Andy Ellis?

      In fact isn’t that the strategy the powers that be often use to seed division within the opponent ranks while deflecting scrutiny from themselves? Don’t you think the Rev deserves far more respect than that? Because I do.

      The world would be an absolute bore if we all say the same thing and thought exactly the same way. Fortunately, we don’t. To match that lot of you who thinks it is votes rather than seats what counts, there is another lot of us who, acknowledging the UK is a parliamentary democracy and how a majority of MPs is all what took to trap Scotland in this union, considers that what really counts is seats not votes.

      But at all practical effects, votes or seats count for absolutely nothing for as long as they are given to a political party with zero interest in delivering independence and have instead every intention to pander to the interests of the crown and their own career prospects.

      Scotland voted overwhelmingly against brexit. Did that count for anything at all? No

      In 2015 over 50% of the vote was for pro-independence parties.
      Did that count for anything at all? No

      How large was the majority in Scotland who voted for the Iraq’s and Afghanistan’s war?

      “We need a majority: it’s not rocket science”
      What is not rocket science is that it is not just a majority of seats what we need. It is also that the MPs holding those seats are willing and prepared to deliver independence not just pretending they do. That a majority of the vote accompanies that majority of the seats is neither here nor there, as it was proven in 1706, in 2015 or in 2016.

      Demanding a democratic exit from a toxic union which has never been democratic, which is shredding any hint of democracy as we speak to preserve itself and which was born out of bribes and by denying the people of Scotland the opportunity to elect its own MPs, is handing the oppressor the key to the exit door over and over again.

      Until the Supreme Court ruling and after Sturgeon’s phony “gold standard” wore thin, the “majority of the vote” was used by the establishment and the tools of the establishment in the SNP as the gatekeeper of the union.

      The ruling of the supreme court, which together with the Lord Advocate embarrassed themselves by going to the ridiculous lengths of claiming Scotland ceased to exist as a country despite entering voluntarily into a political union through an international treaty, demonstrates the establishment has already realised the “majority of the vote” is no longer a strong enough deterrent to stop Scotland’s independence.

      You can interpret this in two ways: either the establishment fears a majority is possible and are giving themselves time to find a better deterrent, or they realised the number of people in Scotland who has seen past the bullshit of Sturgeon’s referendum and have now realised the route to independence lies with a majority of anti-union MPs willing to revoke the Treaty of Union, has reached or is near to critical mass. I actually think both apply.

      Clearly the establishment still things sufficient people in Scotland can be psychologically blackmailed against this route by claiming it is “UDI”, when in reality it is only Scotland exercising its legitimate right under international law to revoke a treaty it entered voluntarily as a sovereign and independent country, due to a change in circumstances.

      By claiming Westminster usurped Scotland’s sovereignty, the English court is at all effects trying to make the Uk the same as Spain constitutionally an trying to portray Scotland as Catalonia. With this claim they are effectively saying that a majority of the vote for independence has become completely meaningless in the context of the UK, as it is in Spain for Catalonia. This leaves international law and a majority of Scotland MPs voting to terminate the treaty, reconvening Scotland’s convention or parliament and revoking the treaty as the only route to independence.

      Sturgeon rushed to render the SNP toothless in 2015 by claiming a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence precisely because she, and her masters, feared a majority of the vote for the SNP was in the cards. In other words, they rendered that majority of the vote useless before it even happened.

      A majority of the vote is therefore completely meaningless for as long as you don’t have MPs willing to act on it.

      “Nobody sane gives a shit about 300 year old treaties”
      Nobody with a functioning brain cell or without a hidden agenda would ever claim nobody would give a shit about a 300 year old treaty that is still extant, the reason why Scotland or Gibraltar are where they are.

      I invite you to go and ask the Spanish how much sht they give about that 300 year old treaty of Utrech and be prepared to be surprised.

      Now, what do you think would happen to that treaty of Utrech and to Gibraltar if Scotland’s MPs grew some balls and revoked the Treaty of Union? Just give a bit of a thought before making completely absurd blanket assertions.

      “In particular, you need to learn not to use 10 words where one would suffice”
      I do not come here to take writing lessons from you. Thank you very much.

      “Salvo is an interest group, not the independence movement”
      What is in your view the independence movement, Andy Ellis?
      You?

      “There is no legal shortcut or silver bullet”
      I think there is. It is to reconvene Scotland’s old parliament, communicate to our union partner the intention to revoke the treaty, revoke the treaty and seek UN mediation for the divorce process.

      “the solution is political”
      No, it isn’t. The solution is revoking the treaty under international law, not domestic law like Sturgeon and the SNP are using to hide behind and preserve the union.

      “We need a majority”
      What we need is a majority of MPs with the balls and the committment to remove the legitimacy of Westminster by revoking the treaty of union.

      “We need to persuade more people to support yes and to vote for us in a referendum or plebiscitary elections”
      to vote for “us”? Who is “us”, Andy Ellis? Sturgeon’s SNP? The Greens?

      “Cunning plans for indy are a chimera”
      What is in your view a “cunning” plan for indy, Andy Ellis? Anything meaningless that bypasses the useless SNP and sees right through the layers of bullshit the political curtains the UK establishment uses to hides behind, pump on a daily basis to create the illusion this is a democracy and Scotland cannot reconvene its own parliament and unilaterally revoke the treaty of union?

    75. twathater says:

      Mia @ 2.13am , A round of applause, no doubt you will receive the usual moonhowler epithet or other supposed learned posters favoured BPHB denigration from the show us the money crew , the same mindset and mercenary attitude as the scum who sold out Scotland

      I would like to thank Bernard Ponsonby for his real journalistic questions which permitted Alex Salmond to expand on his deep knowledge and appreciation of what SHOULD BE DONE to achieve independence

      I fear for Bernard’s job in the fake STV they have up to now TOTALLY IGNORED Alex Salmond and the ALBA party

    76. Joe says:

      Andy Ellis says:25 November, 2022 at 10:05 pm

      “We need a majority. We need to persuade more people to support yes and to vote for us in a referendum. Cunning plans for Indy are a chimera.”
      ———————————————————-
      Correct , SNP stated it previously. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13877169.snp-want-polls-show-60-support-independence-whole-year-calling-referendum/

      This on the other hand wasn’t a good reason for a Referendum and not democracy.https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/less-than-a-third-want-independence-referendum-next-year-poll-suggests-3684893
      So if anyone thought Sturgeons pretend referendum was a real attempt at trying to get one they are fools. The requirement for a section 30 is also written clearly in the Scotland Act 2016 that both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon both signed and both know is the only way to get a second Referendum when the unbending majority demand it. So get out there are make those irrefutable numbers happen. Sturgeons pretendy ref was only for one reason and that was to make people angry (for no reason) when the Supreme Court read out the law to support the democratic majority because Air miles Robbo’s fake polls don’t really matter much either. Sturgeons pretendy referendum was one reason only and that was to try to keep Herself in a job and the SNP in power after the next General Election (After which Indy will be put back in its box till required to con the Yes movement once more)

    77. Joe says:

      Geri says:25 November, 2022 at 9:38 pm
      “….the yappy bulldog with Scotlands wallet strapped to its arse & writing cheques to keep itself in the big boys club.”

      Yet you have to wonder if that really is the case why then when this information was presented to Her why Sturgeon simply didn’t provide the factual evidence to show why it was wrong. With all the power the SNP has from being in Government they surely must have it , the answer she gave was utterly feeble. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/newly-independent-scotland-would-see-living-standards-decline-for-up-to-60-years-academic-claims/ar-AA14vSG4?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a5da46b3a36849b299d852cd77cb782c

    78. Mia says:

      @Joe
      “SNP stated it previously”

      The SNP’s lack of action despite having enjoyed 3 absolute majorities in Westminster proves the SNP are nothing but charlatans engaged in a time wasting exercise.

      We should no waste even a minute more of our precious time listening to them any more.

      “This on the other hand wasn’t a good reason for a Referendum”

      If the SNP is the democratic party it claims to be it MUST deliver a referendum. When they were elected on a mandate to deliver one, they have a moral obligation to do so if they wish to retain credibility and trust from voters.

      “The requirement for a section 30 is also written clearly in the Scotland Act 2016”

      The Scotland Act, the same of the ruling of an English court of dubious legitimacy under the Treaty of Union and which has just applied English convention to usurpe Scotland’s sovereignty for the crown, are within the context of domestic law.

      It was an international treaty governed by international law what created this union and therefore it is international law what must govern Scotland’s exit from that treaty, not the domestic law Sturgeon and her apparatchiks are hiding behind.

      Wrapping themselves in a piece of ever-changing domestic law specifically designed to keep Scotland chained to this union as their excuse to not deliver the referendum is either a fundamentally flawed strategy or it is the strategy pretend nationalists are using to hide the fact they have never had any intention to deliver independence. When there is a will there is a way.

      “It is the only way to get a second Referendum”
      I do not think this is true. In the article “When there isn’t a will” the Rev has cleverly shown how even using that piece of domestic legislation designed to keep Scotland in chains, a referendum can be delivered if Sturgeon and the SNP really wanted to deliver one.

      Alternatively, if STurgeon and her brigade of fake Scottish nationalists really wanted a referendum, they could have given up their seats in Westminster and transferred their powers to Scotland’s MPs sitting in Holyrood so that referendum could take place.

      Alternatively, the MPs could simply reconvene the old Scottish parliament and pass a bill to that effect.

      During the last 8 years have you seen any attempt to make any of those moves?

      Can you then claim that during the 8 last years Sturgeon or her SNP have made any serious attempt to deliver that referendum?
      I don’t see how.

      “when the unbending majority demand it”
      This comes across as yet another gratuitous veto coming to the rescue of the hopeless leader. The SNP were elected on successive mandates to deliver a referendum. That a majority or not demands it, is academic. The claim that a majority must demand it, just like the now discredited “gold standard”, another petty excuse for not delivering it.

      “So get out there are make those irrefutable numbers happen”
      In other words, let’s put the blinkers on, jump on the hamster wheel again and follow the carrot. No, thank you.

      We are sent to allegedly increase the numbers of supporters of independence while:

      1. Sturgeon and her SNP invest their energy, our majorities and our time in alienating women, actively jeopardising the support for independence

      2. Sturgeon and her SNP invest energy, our majorities and our time in demonising if not persecuting independence supporters who do not tow their line, alienating each passing day more and more yes supporters

      3. Sturgeon and her SNP waste their positions of power in demonstrating superlative incompetence, like with the ferries fiasco, alienating independence supporters

      4. Sturgeon and her SNP have wasted 8 years of opportunities when the support for independence was at its highest. Instead, they kept the yes movement on a leash to stop it progressing

      5. Every year that passes by, the native population of Scotland decreases. Scotland is maintaining its population because of immigration. In other words, every year of the 8 this loser has kept us chained to this union our effort invested in “converting” no voters has been in vain because every year more and more no voters are being imported from elsewhere. Mr Campbell has written beautiful articles showing how the support for independence has flatlined since Sturgeon took over.

      After 8 exhausting years running on a hamster wheel chasing after a rotting carrot, not even the largest blinkers can keep you looking forward and ignore what the SNP is doing around you. This strategy is either flawed or has been designed to stall independence rather than delivering it. So thanks, but no thanks.

      “Sturgeons pretendy ref was only for one reason and that was to make people angry (for no reason) when the Supreme Court”

      I doubt her strategic ability even reaches that deep. Personally I am of the opinion the English court move was a concerted three-prone strategy:

      1. a damage limitation exercise to deflect scrutiny for Sturgeon’s total unwillingness to deliver independence

      2. a strategy to earn some time until whatever it is the establishment is cooking behind doors to stall independence in the longer term is ready to be served

      3. to give the crown the opportunity to present the UK as if it was constitutionally like Spain, so we become more receptive to propaganda claiming Scotland is in the same constitutional position as Catalonia instead of where it really sits: a sovereign nation who entered voluntarily into an international treaty which it can unilaterally revoke at any time of its choosing claiming a change in material circumstances and violation of the fundamental conditions of the treaty by our abusive partner.

    79. Geri says:

      ‘Nobody sane gives a shit about 300 year old treatys’

      Didn’t we just suffer a month of pomp & ceremony & everyone falling over themselves to swear oaths to thier new king? What planet are you on? Of course it matters. The Unionist ram it down our throats.

      & Stop trying to silence ppl with ‘the rev says’ Like he agrees with your view in everything.

      As for seats in parliament/majority of votes – that all sounds great BUT we have a controlled population. Our talent emigrates while we take in Englands pensioners & landlords. The UN has rules on that. Protections in place for natives of small countries from being consumed by a bigger one. The Acts of Union is what got us into this mess & it’ll be what gets us out of it. The House of lord’s & wanna be dictators are busy planning an updated version. They don’t think it’s nonsense.

    80. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “A majority of seats in Scotland is enough to evidence the decision to declare in dependence.”

      No, it really really isn’t.

    81. Andy Ellis says:

      @Mia 2.13 am

      If a majority of the popular vote was not needed then, it is not needed now either. It stands to the obvious. As you say, “it is not rocket science”. It is common sense.

      We don’t judge things now by what happened 300 years go. It’s utterly bonkers. Go and read some of the folk who actually know what they are talking about on these issues. The 2 million signatures for the National Covenant in the 1950’s achieved SFA. 100,000 for Salvo or Liberation Scotland or whichever self appointed interest group floats your boat will achieve the same. The UN isn’t going to accept Scotland as a non-self governing territory because of a petition.

      Just like Sturgeon hides like a coward behind Westminster or the Supreme Court to continuously avoid scrutiny for refusing to deliver independence, you parasitically hide behind the Rev every time you want to deflect scrutiny.

      It’s simply a matter of pointing out that Rev Stu’s instincts are – as generally – usually on the money. He’s right about franchise restriction and he’s right about it being votes that count, not seats. The fact it triggers the unthinking claque and magical thinkers is just a bonus. It’s important to point out that such extremist fringe views don’t represent the movement as a whole.

      I’m far from hiding behind Rev Stu. If I thought he was wrong I’d say so.

      In fact isn’t that the strategy the powers that be often use to seed division within the opponent ranks while deflecting scrutiny from themselves? Don’t you think the Rev deserves far more respect than that? Because I do.

      Doubtless the Rev can speak for himself. I doubt he needs you to interpret his wishes, nor is he famous for tolerating those who try it or attempt to tone-police BTL comments. It didn’t work out well for folk like Ruby in the past when she tried.

      To match that lot of you who thinks it is votes rather than seats what counts, there is another lot of us who, acknowledging the UK is a parliamentary democracy and how a majority of MPs is all what took to trap Scotland in this union, considers that what really counts is seats not votes.

      So what? The point is those of you who believe it are not only factually wrong, but have negligible support for your view. It’s a distraction, the same as franchise restriction. Nobody is saying you’re not entitled to your views, or not entitled to express them here or anywhere else, just as the majority are entitled to point out it’s magical thinking.

      In 2015 over 50% of the vote was for pro-independence parties.
      Did that count for anything at all? No

      2015 wasn’t a plebiscitary vote though, so nobody would ever accept 56 of 59 seats in a FPTP vote as a mandate for independence. Indeed the SNP (which got < 50% of the vote) specifically said that a vote for the SNP wasn't a vote for independence, it was just a vote for the SNP. QED.

      when in reality it is only Scotland exercising its legitimate right under international law to revoke a treaty it entered voluntarily as a sovereign and independent country, due to a change in circumstances.

      It’s not. UDI will only be recognised under certain circumstances, which don’t apply in the current case. UDI declared on the basis of no clear majority simply won’t be recognised. The solution is political, not legal. There is no short cut, however hard true believers in cunning plans wish it were otherwise.

      You can’t even convince the rest of the pro-independence movement that your route is sound, still less the “soft No” voters we need to convert to Yes to demonstrate a clear majority.

      What is in your view the independence movement, Andy Ellis?
      You?

      You can surely do better than that kind of straw-manning Mia? The movement consists of everyone who believes Scotland would be better off as an independent nation. I’m just one individual. The awkward thing for advocates of “cunning plans” is that my views in general – an in particular on this issue – happen to be both more realistic and shared by the vast majority. Your views are just those of a small leavening of fringe cranks with little political or intellectual hinter-ground. yw/hth

      to vote for “us”? Who is “us”, Andy Ellis? Sturgeon’s SNP? The Greens?

      “Us” means the movement as a whole, whether SNP, Green, Alba, ISP or non party pro-Yes people. The beauty of a plebiscitary election is that all votes for pro indy parties who are signed up for plebiscitary elections count. Obviously it’d be preferable for that to be at Holyrood. A majority of votes is all that matters.

      What is in your view a “cunning” plan for indy, Andy Ellis?

      Any magical thinking based non-parliamentary means which don’t demonstrate a popular majority in favour of independence in response to a clear question. Such novel means and/or UDI are solutions available to any people in extremis in response to violence, oppression or “real” colonies.

      The international community however will not recognise the right of unilateral secession for places like Scotland, Catalonia or Quebec. It doesn’t care about the Claim of Right, Declaration or Arbroath or purported breach of the Treaties of Union.

      They are just colourful footnotes of history, all of which will be easily surpassed and put in the shade by the (relatively) simple expedient of 50% + 1 Scots having the balls to put an “X” in the box. We just need a movement with the political nouse to arrange it and a people less tholed to actually get off their arses and do more than tut loudly and disappear down constitutional rabbit holes banging on about how unique Scotland is.

      The international community doesn’t regard us as anything special: we’re a people like any other. We have the same rights and same obligations and will be held to the same standards as any other people seeking self determination.

    82. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Geri

      & Stop trying to silence ppl with ‘the rev says’ Like he agrees with your view in everything.

      Stop using such a facile line of argument. I’m not trying to silence anyone: quite the opposite in fact. I’m simply pointing out (much to the chagrin of those so obviously triggered by it) that on this particular issue, as in some other, the Rev Stu things your arguments are without merit.

      I neither said nor believe that he and I agree on everything. We patently don’t and have crossed swords in the past. Try your feeble straw manning arguments elsewhere: they won’t work here.

      See also:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      26 November, 2022 at 2:35 pm
      “A majority of seats in Scotland is enough to evidence the decision to declare in dependence.”

      No, it really really isn’t.

      Game, set and match I think? 🙂

    83. Dan says:

      Andy Ellis says: at 3:54 pm

      …It’s simply a matter of pointing out that Rev Stu’s instincts are – as generally – usually on the money. He’s right about franchise restriction and he’s right about it being votes that count, not seats. The fact it triggers the unthinking claque and magical thinkers is just a bonus. It’s important to point out that such extremist fringe views don’t represent the movement as a whole….

      Please supply evidence that this is actually the case re the franchise, or it’s just assertion.
      I’ve previously asked a couple of times if Stu would include a question in a poll regarding Scottish folks’ actual views on the voting franchise to garner some much needed evidence and to provide clarity for all that is banded about on the subject.

    84. Andy Ellis says:

      @Dan 5.28 pm

      Please supply evidence that this is actually the case re the franchise, or it’s just assertion.

      What is it you’re disputing Dan? Stu’s made no secret of the fact he thinks franchise restriction is a crap idea.

      See below a copy of the Rev’s twitter thread from July 13th last year which I copied for just such an occasion, knowing that the nativist fringe nutters would never let it go. Read it and weep….

      “If you want to deny 20% of the people who live in Scotland the vote in a referendum because they were born somewhere else, we’re not on the same side. If you want their votes, fucking well persuade them.

      If you can’t, your case is shit.

      And stop whining that by saying this I’m trying to “shut down debate”. I have no power and no desire to stop you debating it. You can debate it all you want. I’m not reporting you to Twitter or the police. I’m just not interested.

      We debated this in 2011 and we came to the right decision. Nothing has happened that justifies abandoning that principle in my view. You can’t just disenfranchise people because you think they’ll vote the wrong way.

      ’As well as being morally wrong, it’s almost certainly self-defeating. The Scotland you’d be trying to sell people under that franchise is a very different place to the one we were advocating in 2014, and very much for the worse.

      That, of course, is true in many ways. If we got a referendum tomorrow I don’t in all honesty know if I could bring myself to campaign in it, because it’d be a *de facto* campaign for Nicola Sturgeon’s vision of a hellish, intolerant, incompetent and corrupt Scotland.

      But that’s not a decision I need to lose sleep over, because we’re not getting a referendum tomorrow, or next year, or the year after that, or the year after that.
      But I’ve officially lost any urge to even think about it, if even the people opposed to that awful vision just have a different kind of awful vision, of a country where only “ethnic Scots” have a say. Bollocks to that.”

    85. Mia says:

      @Andy Ellis

      “We don’t judge things now by what happened 300 years go”
      Speak for yourself, Andy Ellis. I judge the assault the crown, courts, parliament and colonial parties are doing today to Scotland within the context of what they did 300 years ago. Everything is interlinked. Scotland is trapped in this union because the crown was concerned about succession and feared a different monarch in Scotland to that in England. Due to this, it embarked in bribing unprincipled Scotland MPs who chose to sell their country in exchange for the bribes and baubles from the crown and comforts for themselves. I think it is safe to say the same continues to apply today and an over bloated HoL full of political rejects is a testament to this.

      The very first election of MPs in Scotland was done among pro union MPs themselves because they feared the people of Scotland would crush the union before it even started. The exact same thing happens today. The only difference is that instead of stopping us going to elections, the establishment either vetoes which parties we can vote for and which ones not, for example by media blackouts or fabricated criminal cases against the leaders of the offending party, or somewhat infiltrates the party and removes its wheels by getting its operative to claim “a vote for our party is not a vote for independence”.

      In 1706 and even before, the crown hired propagandists like Dafoe to flood Scotland with pro-union propaganda. Today it is not half baked novelists who are flooding us with propaganda, but rather the MSM and political rejects like Gordon Brown or Blair.

      In 1707 the establishment veto non-union supporters from positions of control in Scotland. I think it is safe to say that the same continues to this day.

      Same sht different century.

      “The 2 million signatures for the National Covenant in the 1950’s achieved SFA”

      Well, what have 8 years of SNP majorities and multitude of mandates for a referendum have achieved?
      SFA
      It is time to change tack.

      “100,000 for Salvo or Liberation Scotland or whichever self appointed interest group floats your boat will achieve the same”

      I doubt it. If that was the case we would not have the establishment desperately wheeling out that English court they call the supreme court to claim Scotland does no longer exist because the crown has usurped Scotland’s sovereignty.

      “The UN isn’t going to accept Scotland as a non-self governing territory because of a petition”
      We will not know this until we try.

      “It’s simply a matter of pointing out that Rev Stu’s instincts are”
      The only one in a position to read the Rev’s mind and to know his instincts is himself. To pretend you know better than him what he thinks is incredibly arrogant.

      “He’s right about franchise restriction and he’s right about it being votes that count, not seats”

      I am not convinced. Sorry. While I fully respect Mr Campbell’s opinion and welcome his wisdom and unique incisive articles and rarely wrong prognostics, I respectfully disagree with him on those two points.

      “It’s important to point out that such extremist fringe views don’t represent the movement as a whole”

      “Extremist”. Have you now become a disciple of Gordon Brown’s hyperbole? Have you ever heard of Psychological blackmailing fatigue?

      “I doubt he needs you to interpret his wishes”
      Nor would I ever dare presume to have the ability or indeed the need to do such a thing. He is a very eloquent, clearly spoken man.

      “The point is those of you who believe it are not only factually wrong”
      Where is the proof?

      “but have negligible support for your view”
      where is the proof?

      “It’s a distraction”
      I happen to think the distraction lies in claiming we need a majority of the vote when that was never needed to enter this union in the first place. It is a distraction because it puts the burden on the people rather than where it should have always been: the elected MPs. I have already explained the reason why putting the burden on the people when you have an exceptionally open franchise, a declining native population, a high intake of immigration with allegiance to the union and operating under rules established by our oppressor with a vested interest in preserving the union, is wrong.

      “Nobody is saying you’re not entitled to your views”
      Well, thank you for the clarification. Your continuous attempt to diminish the thoughts and opinion of others by soft ad hominem seem to point towards a different conclusion though.

      “2015 wasn’t a plebiscitary vote though”
      Ha, ha, ha!! There we go again, protecting the useless SNP leader yet again. The only reason why it was not “plebiscitary” is because the fake pro-indy leader in control of the party ensured it wasn’t one by claiming, once the polls were announcing a landslide for the SNP, mind, that “a vote for the SNP would not be a vote for independence, nor even a vote for a referendum”.

      We come back time and time again to the exact same:
      Accountability to exit this union lies squarely with Scotland’s MPs. MPs are simultaneously the key to revoke the Treaty of union and release Scotland from its chains, and the padlock that stops us from doing so. Sturgeon and her labour-like SNP have joined lib dems, tories and labor to become the padlock rather than the key.

      “so nobody would ever accept 56 of 59 seats in a FPTP vote as a mandate for independence”
      Speak for yourself. What I do not accept and never will accept as democratic and ethical, is a majority of seats given to a political party whose first constitutional article is to seek independence, being treated as a mandate to hand over assets and powers to our oppressor and to preserve the union for the benefit of the oppressor. I consider that extremely dishonest an abuse of trust and a direct betrayal.

      “It’s not”
      From where I am sitting, it is

      “UDI will only be recognised under certain circumstances”
      Scotland is in a voluntary bipartite union. Scotland cannot “UDI”. The only thing it can do is to exercise its legitimate right to revoke that treaty and terminate that bipartite union. This is perfectly legitimate under international law.

      What we have seen with the ruling of the English court is the establishment (the crown) is desperately applying its multiuse tool (The English convention of parliamentary sovereignty) to somewhat make believe the political union that is the UK has somewhat become an homogeneous entity that rests on an international treaty, but somewhat has superseded that treaty and became a constitutional entity like Spain. This is of course required to create the illusion that Scotland cannot unilaterally revoke the treaty, so it can only secede. This is, in my personal view, absolute hogwash and clearly is preparing the way for that other new “Act of Union” they are passing through the lords. It is all an attempt to ensure the treaty of union is not revoked so England remains as the continuator state of the UK to avoid the loss of every trade deal, every treaty, every perk that was achieved under the “United kIngdom of Great Britain” entity.
      In other words, Scotland has to be subsumed for the purpose of England retaining its “standing” in the world. Quite selfish, really.

      “You can’t even convince the rest of the pro-independence movement that your route is sound”

      Well. You cannot even convince me that Your route is sound, so I am not sure how you can pretend you can convince the “pro-independence movement”.

      “still less the “soft No” voters”
      Of the two of us, the only one that continues stuck in the past and under the illusion we will ever have a meaningful referendum/plebiscite that is not set to fail so the establishment can claim Devo Max/FFA/FFR is you. I have moved forward several miles away from that position already. There is no way, for as long as we have a tool of the UK establishment in control of the SNP, we will ever have a fair opportunity to vote. The route to end this union, and I mean to end it not just to exit from it, is through the people of Scotland either bending the political will of MPs or bypassing them altogether.

      And once again, no, we do not need a clear majority of the vote. We never did.
      In any case, for as long as the UK establishment continues to control the rules, exercise a blackout on the “offending” parties and impose an exceptionally open franchise, a majority will not be achievable. The ohly thing we have ever needed is a majority of MPs with the balls and the commitment to cut the bullshit, reconvene the Scottish old parliament and revoke the Treaty.

      “The movement consists of everyone who believes Scotland would be better off as an independent nation”
      Excellent. So how on earth could you ever claim you speak for that movement? You certainly do not speak for me and I am most certainly somebody who firmly believes Scotland not just would, but WILL be better off as an independent nation. Even further, actually. I firmly believe the only way Scotland can survive and revert its demographic decline, while growing to its full economic potential is by revoking the treaty of union and ending the union.

      ” my views in general – an in particular on this issue – happen to be both more realistic”
      Under whose perspective? Certainly not mine. I think you are delusional if you think Scotland will be given a chance to a fair vote in the current circumstances.
      At some point you are going to have to wake up to the reality that for the last 8 years it has been Sturgeon and the SNP losers indulging her destructive “strategy” who have frustrated Scotland’s independence, not your perceived lack of a majority of the vote. In 2014, the Scotland’s natives already voted by majority for independence. Should Scotland have the franchise of any other European country instead of this aberration, and that majority would have been more than enough to demonstrate Scotland’s want for independence.

      “Your views are just those of a small leavening of fringe cranks with little political or intellectual hinter-ground”

      Now you show your true colours again. This new intervention renders your previous “Nobody is saying you’re not entitled to your views” completely insincere and vacuous. You clearly think that it is your way, or the highway. Well. I chose in this case to follow neither.

      “Us” means the movement as a whole, whether SNP, Green, Alba, ISP or non party pro-Yes people”

      The SNP and the Greens do not belong in that group. For the last 8 years they have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt they are not real pro-independence parties. Instead of seeking independence, they have sought to frustrate it by creating unnecessary division among the yes ranks by alienating women.

      “The beauty of a plebiscitary election is that all votes for pro indy parties who are signed up for plebiscitary elections count”

      Count for what, Andy Ellis and where?
      For as long as the “leaders” of those parties choose to abide by domestic law, which clearly states that Westminster will not respect the result no matter what, nothing counts. The only thing that counts is having a majority of anti-union MPs with the balls and the commitment to revoke the treaty of union. THAT we don’t have.

      “Obviously it’d be preferable for that to be at Holyrood”
      It makes not an ounce of a difference. For as long as we do not have a majority of MPs or MSPs with the balls and commitment to unilaterally revoke the treaty of union, the whole exercise is pointless.

      “A majority of votes is all that matters”
      Nope. It is a majority of MPs with the balls and the commitment to revoke the treaty of union what matters. Until we have that, we can vote by 80% to independence that it would not be delivered. Unless, of course we find an alternative route that does not rely on bent politicians more concerned about their careers and bank accounts than Scotland’s future. Salvo might well be that route.

      “Any magical thinking based non-parliamentary means”
      Then you should include here your “majority of the vote” as magical thinking as well. Because for as long as you do not have a majority of MPs with the balls and commitment to revoke the treaty of union, the idea that a majority of the vote is going to make the UK gov concede on independence is also non-parliamentary means magical thinking.

      “The international community…”
      It seems in your mind not only the crown and England have a say in our route to independence that now also “the international community” has an even bigger say than Scotland itself. I wonder if some undiscovered life in the universe will be the next tier to have a say in how Scotland pursues its independence. Does in your mind Scotland get at any point in time any say in the matter or is permanently gagged? Because in my mind Scotland is the only party with a say in the matter.

      “however will not recognise the right of unilateral secession for places like Scotland”
      ???? Secession? Scotland entered a political union on the back of an international treaty. If Scotland revokes the treaty, it will not be “seceding” from anything. It will be TERMINATING a political union and reverting to its former status. Circumstances have changed and our partner has violated time and time again the fundamental conditions included in the treaty. Those two situations are recognised in international law as legitimate reasons to terminate a treaty. I see no reason for the international community to not recognise it.

      Scotland is not Catalonia, despite what a biased domestic English court, applying English law principle, acting on behalf of the interests of the crown may say to stop the unilateral revoking of the treaty of union and risking England hopes of remaining as the continuator state of the UK.

      “It doesn’t care about the Claim of Right, Declaration or Arbroath or purported breach of the Treaties of Union”
      But we do. And what matters here is what Scotland cares about and wants, not what the international community, extra-terrestrial life or England with strong vested interests in preserving the union, cares about.

      “They are just colourful footnotes of history”
      Don’t be ridiculous. They are part of Scotland’s constitution.

      “all of which will be easily surpassed and put in the shade by the (relatively) simple expedient of 50% + 1 Scots”
      Absolute bollocks. 62% of those casting their vote in Scotland in 2016 did so against brexit. What difference did it make?
      None

      “We just need a movement with the political nouse to arrange it”
      No, we don’t. What we need is an apolitical movement from the people which bypasses politicians more interested in continuing to keep Scotland trapped in this union than representing her properly.

      “We have the same rights and same obligations”
      Precisely. And that is why I think the route of unilaterally revoking the treaty of union to end this union within the context of international law, rather than domestic law, away from English convention and English courts of dubious legitimacy under the treaty of union and with a vested interest in the preservation of the union, is the one that will lead us to independence.

    86. Mr E says:

      I don’t judge things on what happened 300 years ago. That’s a minority sport for the likes of Orange Order Ultras, or the Klu Klux Clan.

      Can people please stop murdering language with ‘plebiscite election’. Plebiscite is another word for referendum. It would be one or more parties maybe running for election on a single issue (and several parties running for election on much broader manifestos).

      In the unlikely event that more than half of the Scottish electorate vote in a GE for people going ‘cost of living crisis?’: ‘Independence!’, etc, that would provide an impetus for the resulting government to grant another legal referendum. That would require a majority of the electorate in Scotland to be pro-independence, and all of them fully going for something that may well look like someone standing in a council election entirely on the issue of bin collections.

      I think that the SNP have taken over ‘Scottish independence’ as a marketing device for a political party. That involved crushing the Yes movement, and the Yes movement have been complianting in being crushed. And that didn’t really start with Sturgeon – it started before 2014 when the SNP took control of the movement.

      The future? That’s pretty much it – ‘Yes’ is SNP property until the SNP loses an election. It seems to provide a really good cover-all for incompetence and lazyness – that goes for the SNP and the Yes movement who look even more clueless than the SNP whilst embarked on a death-spiral.

    87. Mr E says:

      Mia,

      The English Crown was usurped by the Scpottish Crown in 1604, if anyone cares. Then there was a republican revolution and 120 years of Catcholic / Protestant strife and two civil wars, both fought on Scottish soil, and both unconnected with Scottish independence, if anyone cares. Prior to that, there was a civil war in Scotland about religion.

    88. Dan says:

      Andy Ellis says: at 6:00 pm

      What is it you’re disputing Dan? Stu’s made no secret of the fact he thinks franchise restriction is a crap idea.

      Disputing? I’m asking you to provide evidence that what you and by extension Stu think about using a very open franchise to decide Scotland’s constitutional future is actually inline with the views Scots actually hold on the matter.
      And again that text trail you quote from Stu does not include his comment on another blog saying he had no great issue with tightening up the franchise to deal with temporary residents.
      You yourself are also on record of stating tightening up the voting register is a “no brainer”.

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/remembering-pete-wishart/#comment-2696244

    89. Dan says:

      @ Andy

      My reply is held in moderation…

    90. Dan says:

      @ Andy

      Ah, I see your post was also held in moderation post because you asked (and I quoted you) what was being dispewted…

    91. Dan says:

      Stu, soz, but feel free to delete previous 3 posts caused by moderation issue to tidy thread.

      @ Andy Ellis at 6:00 pm on 26 Nov

      It’s fairly obvious what I said Andy.
      I’m asking you to provide evidence that what you and by extension Stu think about using a very open franchise to decide Scotland’s constitutional future is actually inline with the views Scots hold on the matter.
      And again that text trail you quote from Stu does not include his comment on another blog saying he had no great issue with tightening up the franchise to deal with temporary residents.
      You yourself are also on record of stating tightening up the voting register is a “no brainer”.

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/remembering-pete-wishart/#comment-2696244

    92. Andy Ellis says:

      @Dan

      Neither Stu nor I have said it’s absolute. I happen to agree with Stu and said so at the time that I’d (reluctantly) agree to a 24 month residence criteria, on the basis that there was a precedent for it in a couple of other self determination referendums. I’d still prefer no change though.

      It’s logical to exclude categories that reasonable people might consider flagrantly unfair, like temporary student voters, or people with 2 homes who have votes elsewhere. That’s NOT the same as folk proposing that only native born Scots should be eligible, or that the residence criteria should be 10 years or more as quite a few folk here have done.

      The only slam dunk evidence would be a fully weighted poll of 1000 or more folk. Until such proof then I’m as entitled to say I reckon the line taken by me and Stu is likely to reflect the majority as you are to insist the opposite. Such is life.

      I can’t be arsed finding out why my earlier replies were moderated, sorry.

    93. Dan says:

      @ Andy

      You agreed that he was right about the franchise though, and we just don’t know if that view actually aligns with what Scots think.
      So it is just an assertion until there is proof to prove one way or another.
      And just for clarity, how does a 2 year residency period to exclude temporary residents, and students who could be on a 4 year course with no long term commitment to stay after their course finishes work?

      FYI moderation was triggered due to using a word starting with dis and ending with ing that also contains the leader of the country at war with 404. 😉

    94. Andy Ellis says:

      @Dan 5.37 pm

      Yes, I agree with him. Franchise restriction is a crap idea.

      Yes, it is an assertion that the movement agrees with “us” not “you”. Even we’re wrong and you’re right however, you’re still in the wrong morally. An independence movement that rejects civic nationalism isn’t one I’m interested in being part of.

      Thankfully, much like the chances of indyref2 happening any time soon, I don’t think it’s something we have to worry about imminently.

      Even if you’re right and plans to restrict the franchise poll majority support, it won’t make it happen because none of the pro-indy parties have (to my knowledge) come out in favour of making it happen.

    95. Dan says:

      FFS Andy, so you deflect away from the topic of finding out what Scots actually think on the franchise matter. Then also avoid answering the query about students on 4 year courses from rest of UK having a say on Scotland’s long term constitutional future, even though you said tightening the franchise is a no brainer.
      And instead resort to making up yer usual divisive shite by stating you know (wrongly fyi) what my position is on the franchise.
      You continually talk of and on behalf of “the movement” as if it is a fixed thing that you inherently know what they think. That isn’t the case though, and people will come and go depending on various different influences. EG EU membership.
      As “the movement” if polling is to be believed is currently split around 50 / 50 then something has to alter to move more people to being pro-indy, and it could be that to gain a hypothetical 20% new converts to YES means would mean losing 10% existing YESers to No.
      Would you accept a policy change of position for “the movement” that jettisoned the genderwoowoo support base if it meant gaining a greater number of current small c conservative minded Scottish unionists switching over to YES?

    96. Andy Ellis says:

      @Dan

      Wind your neck in. I have other stuff to do. I’m not at your beck and call. I’m bored with you and other nativists is all. It’s like playing whack a mole. Fuck all of any import is likely to happen in the next few years. The movement is too divided, has no leadership worth the name, and too many are obsessed with magical thinking and bullshit about 300 year old treaties.

      I said it was a no brainer to support obvious irregularities or aberations like students or temporary residents getting a vote, or owners of second homes. Once again for the hard of thinking though…I don’t see it as a priority, and think it should be left as it was. Clear now? If not, tough.

      Your opinions about me, or the issues, just aren’t important enough for me to bother with you any more. You swing wildly between attacking me for being divisive and trying to be matey. I don’t trust you any more than I do the worst of the moonhowlers in here, most of whom you’re happy to pander to.

      Feel free not to reply.

    97. Dan says:

      Ach, I’m currently identifying as a giraffe so nae danger my neck can be wound in at the moment I’m afraid.

      But what the heck, whilst my neck’s oot, mind that time you posted on WINGS that you didn’t think genderwoowoo would be that big a factor in elections or campaigning.
      Aye, there’s jist no way Stu has been banging on and informing us of the subject for years, and yet you’re naive enough to think the MSM wouldn’t weaponise the genderwoowoo as and when they feel the need.

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/cracking-the-code/comment-page-1/#comment-2699793

      And to see the power the MSM have we just need to look back at how these numbers didn’t pan out once the weaponising influence the MSM has is used with purpose.

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-cat-and-all-the-pigeons/

    98. Scott says:

      @ Andy Ellis et al.

      The only glue that binds Scotland to England is Union with England Act 1707.

      It will have to be repealed if/when Scotland & Scots law achieves full independence.

      Who owns it?

      Not WM, as it was created by it. Not Holyrood, as it was created by Westminster. We, the Scots, own it. We, the Scots, can seek its repeal, as a matter of law. UKSC decided that Scotland’s status wasn’t a matter of politics, but one of law. The Court of Session will decide if/when asked to rule. And England can suck the water out my pan in response – it’ll make their tea taste nicer.

    99. Andy Ellis says:

      The only glue that binds Scotland to England is Union with England Act 1707.

      That and the fact that a majority of Scots lack the balls to vote for independence yet.

      Any joy finding someone to tilt at your windmill yet “Scott”?



    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