Wings Over Scotland

@ 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.

@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?

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. link to heraldscotland.com

This on the other hand wasn’t a good reason for a Referendum and not democracy.link to scotsman.com
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)

@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.

@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.

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.

@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.

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.

@ Andy

My reply is held in moderation…

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”.

link to wingsoverscotland.com

@ 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. 😉

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?

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.

link to wingsoverscotland.com

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.

link to wingsoverscotland.com

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”?

@Geri

your mouth appears to be writing cheques your brain can’t cash.

Come back and quote the supporting evidence for either your or Scott’s pish about just dissolving the union or a personal legal case from any expert in constitutional law, public law, international relations or indeed any relevant discipline and it might be worth engaging.

Time to put up or shut up. We’ll wait……