The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The restoration of faith

Posted on April 29, 2019 by

We should have known all along, really.

The woman who said she didn’t want to be leader but did, then said she wouldn’t quit as leader but did, then said she had no intention of quitting politics altogether, just did.

Or did she?

Dugdale’s new job is a post at Glasgow University named after former Labour leader John Smith, and her goal is to “restore faith in politics”.

That’s quite an ambition for someone who may be the most extensively-documented liar in Scottish politics, and whose most recent appearance in the press came when she was found to have defamed someone (me, as it happens) with false allegations, but was found not liable to pay damages on the grounds that she was too stupid to know what the allegations she’d made actually meant.

Her reaction to victory was to deny the case had ever been about the thing it had always been about and was obviously about – as noted in the very first paragraphs of the judgement, which deal exclusively with the issue of the definition of homophobia.

She asserted that it had in fact all been about money – a claim the sheriff had also very explicitly rejected in his judgement.

Dugdale also claimed that she didn’t regret the comments.

That was despite the sheriff unequivocally and unambiguously finding that they were entirely false, defamatory and amounted to a serious slur – something that one might imagine a person who wanted to “reassess political discourse, reset the tone of public debate and reject hatred and abuse” would have felt pretty bad about doing.

It’s interesting to speculate on how a politician might “restore faith in politics” by being caught grossly smearing a member of the public with untrue allegations – having spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of Labour members’ money (who got no say in the matter) defending and repeatedly restating the allegations – and then not only refusing to retract or apologise for them when a judge found them to be incorrect but to add more smears and untruths on top.

Readers might be forgiven for thinking that the last person capable of achieving such a restoration of political faith was someone not only so lacking in personal character, but also lacking in political skills.

(In fairness, Labour’s poll ratings are tanking so hard under Richard Leonard that it might not be too long before they again reach the abyssal 14% that Dugdale’s reign took them to.)

Readers may feel that it’s also quite bold to have “lectures and seminars on public service” delivered by a public servant who abandoned her job to appear on a celebrity TV show, and kept almost all of the money – having handily backtracked on a previous commitment to give all extra-Parliamentary earnings to charity.

Having abandoned a pledge to give all such money “on a matter of principle” to Motor Neurone Disease Scotland in order to pocket the proceeds for herself, Dugdale still felt able to weaponise the death from MND of her “best friend” Gordon Aikman when portraying herself as the victim in the court case (rather than the person who’d done something wrong and horrible but gotten away with it on a technicality).

(In her defence she protested that while she was depriving her dead mate’s charity of £65,000 she at least hadn’t had the temerity to also accept her MSP salary for the weeks she was in the jungle, scoffing down ostrich anuses and kangaroo testicles for cash instead of working for her unfortunate constituents.)

It’s always good to know the exact price of someone’s principles.

Still, we don’t want to appear churlish, so let’s see if we can finish on a positive note: Kezia Dugdale is a dreadful human being, a serial liar, a crass hypocrite, an idiot and a useless politician who’s largely responsible for the current Tory government and for Brexit, who will now no longer be funded by Scotland’s taxpayers or have any say in its laws. That’s got to be a huge plus for everyone in the country.

If our court case had any small influence on making it happen (we were told in 2017 by a very well-placed source, but cannot confirm, that Dugdale’s resignation as Scottish leader was a condition imposed by the party in exchange for their funding her defence) then however much it ends up costing we can only regard it as money well spent.

And that, we suppose, is a restoration of faith in something.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

795 to “The restoration of faith”

  1. CameronB Brodie says:

    @Scottish Law Society
    Here’s another one to dispel any lingering doubt as to where your duty of care rests, and hopefully lead your more ‘traditionalist’ members to renounce British nationalism. Scotland’s political identity needs defending dudes, what’s stopping you?

    Hegel on Political Identity: Patriotism, Nationality, Cosmopolitanism
    Reviewed by Jeffrey Church, University of Houston

    G.W.F. Hegel fascinates many political philosophers because he synthesizes political aims long thought to be in conflict with one another – rights and duties, identity and difference, individuality and community. Yet on one issue, namely, the persisting tension between nationalism and cosmopolitanism – a tension that has erupted into political upheaval and violence in Europe in recent months – the nation-state-centric Hegel seems unfortunately to come down squarely on one side.

    In her insightful and timely book, Lydia Moland argues that Hegel rather ought to be understood as a defender of national identity tempered by cosmopolitan ethical principles and institutions. Shifting deftly between textual analysis and contemporary application, Hegel on Political Identity makes a strong case for Hegel’s relevance to contemporary attempts to reconcile patriotism and cosmopolitanism.

    In making her case, Moland challenges the traditional way of reading Hegel’s distinction between “objective spirit” — the sphere of political right and “ethical life” — and “absolute spirit” — the sphere of universal human self-reflection in art, religion, and philosophy. Scholars tend to argue either that absolute spirit has nothing to do with the independently developing objective spirit, or the universal perspective transcends that of the parochial political perspective.

    Instead, Moland brings out the several ways in which these spheres are separable yet interdependent in Hegel’s texts. The “particular” devotion to a national way of life fuels our attachment to abstract “universal” principles instantiated in the modern state and in cosmopolitan norms and institutions. In turn, the modern state and international norms cultivate a reflective citizenry that can shape a national way of life so that it fits with these principles.

  2. IZZIE says:

    Is that Rory the Tory who has replaced Williamson? He reminds me of Michael Forsythe (not Arbroath High School’s favourite son) Thatcher’s all purpose lap dog

  3. Welsh Sion says:

    Petra @ 6.17 pm asks:

    Any honest, competent, non-tractorous Tory politicians left to fill his [Williamson’s] post?

    – Apparently, Penny Mordaunt has taken the plunge, hoping to make a splash. Expect her to make waves, however. [That’s enough maritime jokes, Ed.]

  4. Phronesis says:

    The privatisation of NHS England continues. NHS Scotland will not be immune unless there is control of all policies that impact on the NHS Scotland. The solution is surprisingly straight forward.

    ‘The government is currently attempting – and not for the first time – to privatise the NHS in England on a wholesale basis through the NHS Long Term Plan. The “plan” includes the creation and rollout of Integrated Care Systems (ICSs), and Integrated Care Providers (ICPs), formerly known as Accountable Care Organisations (ACOs), across the entirety of England by over the next few years. There are no guarantees these organisations won’t be made up significantly of private healthcare providers. They won’t be accountable to patients and communities as they aren’t statutory bodies. There has been no vote in Westminster legislating for the creation of these bodies. But they will have the power to decide who does and who does not receive care and how to manage and spend billions of pounds for 44 long-term health care budgets covering entire regions of England. The creation of these organisations will also involve the mass closure of services.

    Consequently, if you support Brexit – or what some are now also calling “Lexit” – then you have to ask yourself the following question, “can I trust the Conservatives not to offer up the NHS on a platter to larger economies such as the US or China in order to strike trade deals?”. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty must admit that they can’t, as Theresa May’s remarks on the issue have made clear. It’s clear from the soundings coming out of the Department for International Trade that they are desperate to take the UK into free trade agreements such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). This free-trade agreement would open huge swathes of the NHS up to private companies, and make drugs more expensive, which leading Brexit experts have warned would be a complete catastrophe for the NHS. It would also prevent any future progressive government from being able to renationalise the NHS; as the agreement would be underpinned by the UK being subject to ‘Investor State Dispute Settlement Mechanisms’

    The choice is very stark. If we meekly adopt the US health care model many will be excluded from health care provision including children. Those that cannot afford their medical bills will be plunged into debt and homelessness.

    ‘The objective of this study was to elucidate the medical causes and consequences of foreclosure. We surveyed 90 households undergoing foreclosure in 2013-2014 in Maricopa County, Arizona on two occasions approximately five months apart. At baseline, median monthly household income was $3,000, and median mortgage payment $1,350. Only 10% of respondents lacked health insurance when surveyed, although 28% had experienced a gap in coverage within the past two years. Fifty-seven percent identified a medical debt or another medical cause of their foreclosure, and 54% had taken on new debt to pay medical bills; 10% had mortgaged their home for this reason. Although 57% of respondents had a chronic condition requiring ongoing care, more than half reported delaying or skipping a needed medical visit. At follow-up, one-third of respondents had been unable to afford food, and 3 respondents reported becoming homeless; 46% said foreclosure had worsened their health; and 63% had already incurred new medical debts. Medical debt and medical problems frequently contribute to foreclosure, even among insured families. Foreclosure compromises access to care and basic necessities like food and shelter, and worsens self-reported health’

    Cutshaw, C. A et al (2016). Medical Causes and Consequences of Home Foreclosures. Int J Health Serv. 46(1), 36-47.

    ‘Routine “well child” doctor and dental visits are free under CHIP. But there may be copayments for other services. Some states charge a monthly premium for CHIP coverage. The costs are different in each state, but you won’t have to pay more than 5% of your family’s income for the year’

    So who to trust? Our own government in Scotland that is committed to supporting Scotland’s citizens, economy, institutions or a WM cartel that has no solutions to combat Beveridge’s 5 giants ‘Want, Ignorance, Disease, Squalor and Idleness’ and has sytematically mis-managed the UK economy, has a deep mistrust of state provision, squandered the possibility of a sovereign wealth fund and would happily push citizens over a cliff edge.

    ‘The LGA calls on the government to “deliver concrete ideas”… Social care and wider council services provide vital support every day to support people in the lives they want to live. But with people living longer and more people with disabilities needing support, increases in costs and decreases in funding, the current system of adult social care is at breaking point, and faces a £3.5 billion funding gap by 2025 just to maintain existing levels of provision’

    ‘While differences in health between housed socioeconomic groups can be described as a ‘slope’, differences in health between housed and homeless people are better understood as a ‘cliff’

    Poverty and rampant inequality is not inevitable in an independent Scotland.

    ‘Health inequalities persist in Scotland, they are unjust but they are not inevitable. Their causes are complex – but we have a good understanding of the range of actions required to reduce them and improve health. For policy makers, knowing where to focus energy and resources to do this is crucial’

  5. Lanarkist says:

    Aye, Rory the Tory, MI5 Cairn erector and a main player in Afghanistan?
    Not a nice chap although his public School persona tries to portray otherwise!

  6. scotrock says:

    Was listening to an out and out British Nationalist and his support for the British Army and hatred for all things SG and SNP Sadly my friend was agreeing with him
    Good point tho was the British nationalised army guy eventually accepted that Scotland would be Independent. Why? Because of the current Westminster disregard of Scotland.

  7. Liz g says:

    Lanarkist @ 7.21
    Not to forget that Rory the Tory promised to fix the prison system or resign…
    This was a commitment he made repeatedly and typical Tory he’s walkin away!!!

  8. Hamish100 says:

    I wonder if the torygraph gave up here man to avoid prosecution?

    They did print britnat state secrets after all.

  9. Ian Anderson says:

    Given we all want Scottish independence, can we move on from this o/t topic which despite my sympathy seems personal and self indulgent.

  10. David says:

    Pete Wishart for Speaker

  11. Liz g says:

    Hamish 100 @ 8.05
    I’m actually wondering if we can prosecute?
    I mean we are the one’s most at risk from a security breach!
    They did want Scotland and her Laws in their Union,didn’t they 🙂 .

  12. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    Bet TMay wouldn’t be too keen on a By-Election.

    Recall Petition to remove the Member of Parliament for South Staffordshire (and former SoS for Defence) anyone?

    Those BritNats don’t like ‘treason’ or ‘betraying the people’ according to the “Hurrah for The Blackshirts” Daily Mail.

    Surely breaching Her Grand Britannic Majesties Official Secrets Act is an offence worthy of recall?

    It’ll be 1 less MP for her to rely on in votes.


  13. Mad Unionist says:

    Liz g. Your mouth is a security breach which disseminates information for the Vaudville stage. We can all sleep safely in our beds due to the likes of Liz g.

  14. galamcennalath says:

    Aljazeera video report focusing on the disintegration of the the Tories in England.

    The problem is, they might be replaced by something which is even worse!

  15. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    It’s simple:

    In the short term, we have to maximise the SNP vote in the Euro election, because it will be reported in the MSM and may make up the minds of waverers who previously felt that “now is not the time”.

    Then, when indyref2 comes along, who knows?

  16. galamcennalath says:

    @Brian Doonthetoon

    Everybody loves a winner. When the SNP look like overwhelming winners it makes an iScotland look like a potential winner. Folks do like to be on the winning popular side.

    There will be a tipping point reached soon where Indy is seen as the norm and the mainstream, and inevitable.

  17. Liz g says:

    Mad Unionist
    And you ain’t seen nuthin yet…..sweet dreams in the last day’s of the Union 🙂

  18. Cubby says:

    Too many people giving too much courtesy to the resident mad Britnat whose ignorance, rudeness and arrogance shines through on every post. The plonker does not deserve any respect at all. Just another Britnat disrupter with absolutely nothing worthwhile to say with no future in a U.K.

    Sorry to say there are going to even more mad Britnats in Scotland pacing the streets at night like the living dead in Game of Thrones as their Britnat identity disappears. Like the living dead in Game of Thrones it’s not really their fault that they are what they are. Just like the Night King Arlene Foster keeps them believing in something that is pretty unsavoury and controls them like puppets.

  19. boris says:

    This article provides a look-back at the unfettered growth of the political Spad, many of whom go on to become career politicians.

    By result the austerity punished taxpayer is lumbered with an additional massive and ever expanding expense in the £billions supporting many hundreds of privileged party animals who, from the time they leave university until retirement age sponge of the state.

    The Spad monstrosity should be discontinued and the Civil Service reinstated.

  20. Liz g says:

    Chubby @ 11.44
    About these British Nationalists,after we’ve done them the service of ending the Union and so as Unionists they’ve faded away,do ye think our great, great, gran weans will ask the archaeologists to test for some sort of deficiencies in these people?
    I hope they don’t try to recreate one in a lab!
    Ah mean show it a Jack and it would get the poor thing agitated, a fotay of a crown would be down right cruel.
    Somethings are no fur entertainment…
    And that’s ma honestly held opinion….

  21. Liz g says:

    CUBBY……And I did it AGAIN I saw the minute I hit send and couldn’t stop it… Sorry!!! 🙂

  22. me thms says:

    came across this BBC Scotland article just now, which can only be described as the disappointment of Audit Scotland, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Labour with how well the Scottish Government is doing with the delivery of its new Social Security system.

    The timescale for putting into effect all of the new powers under the Scotland Act 2016 is a full parliamentary term.

    But then, they already know that.

  23. Cactus says:

    Bring ‘it’ back alive… ladies

    Hey Liz, them things are made of these things xx

    Glasgow, Kelvingrove Park for 1pm (next to the bowling greens)

  24. Liz g says:

    Hey Cactus….
    And who am I to disagree -:)

  25. K1 says:

    The article that Rev retweeted, (top of his feed right now) is a Telegraph article which dealt with the climate of PIE in the 70’s and 80’s and debunks the pish of the so called ‘academics’ who were making claims about paedophilia being ‘normal’ in adult males from those times, this retweeted article was written on the 5th July 2014.

    Without this being mentioned in the retweet, it gave the strong impression that this was a current and/or recent article. It isn’t. It’s context free presentation isn’t a good look for such a factual based site as Wings.

    There aren’t ‘currently’ phoney academics promoting these attitudes in our current academic institutions but yes, there is a warning at the end of said retweeted article that certainly warns against ‘going back to the intellectual climate which allowed them’.

  26. Cactus says:

    Ah guess we’ve all just got tae keep on travelling the world and sail aboot oor seven seas Liz… onwards, upwards and beyond

    Ahm lookin’ for something…

    Ah, there it is

  27. Liz g says:

    K1 @ 2.17
    Agreed that it could have been put in context
    But… and there’s always a but… lol
    It is clear when ye read it that it’s an old article and reading the thing is also the Wings thing 🙂

  28. Liz g says:

    Yip… Keep on Keeping on Cactus xx

  29. Cactus says:

    Aye would imagine oor First Minister’s Questions will be on today

    Tune in on either of the following links for coverage at 12pm

    Register to vote


  30. Cactus says:

    Here’s how you register to vote in our European elections, Scotland

    “If the UK takes part in the European Parliament elections on 23 May, you need to register by 7 May to vote. You do not need to register again if you’ve already registered.”

    YOU have 5 days remaining to register to vote, Generation X

  31. Kangaroo says:

    History lessons

    Try this online history 2nd edition published 1575.

    The History of the Scots from their first origin by Hector Boece of Dundee

  32. Petra says:

    Support Paul Kavanagh as he has steadfastly supported us over many years. Buy the book, folks.

    WGD:- ‘Barking Up The Right Tree – 2019.’

  33. Petra says:

    The latest from Professor John Robertson:-

  34. Nana says:

    Once again the Prime Minister has refused to answer my questions about what meetings Cambridge Analytica and AggregateIQ have been having at the heart of her government

  35. Nana says:

    SNP Westminster Leader @IanBlackfordMP challenged the Tories to match the SNP Scottish Government’s pledge to maintain free EU student fees to 2021, and make a commitment that Scottish university students will have access to 4-year visas but Theresa May refused

    1/ A few clips from this morning’s @CommonsEUexit. Incredible exchange between @joannaccherry and @RuthLeaEcon. Ruth Lea seems to think the port of Calais could ignore EU law to keep trade flowing freely between the EU27 & UK after Brexit under any circumstances

  36. Nana says:

    Should exporters be preparing for a new Scottish currency? One of the questions we put to @NicolaSturgeon, as she launched a ten year plan to boost value of exports to Scotland

    Looking for news pertaining to the work of the Scottish affairs committee, try looking in Shropshire!

  37. Nana says:

    If you missed TM’s appearance at the yesterday’s Liaison committee. Never mind Ian Dunt has a thread

    Julian Lewis MP skewers Theresa May over Huawei & China, and implications for UK 5G network

    This is why there will be no enquiry into the leak, it would lead to all Cameron’s men and Cameron himself

  38. Sinky says:

    Scotland In Union propagandist In house economist Ronald Macdowall rubbishing any currency Scotland might have in Herald letters page.
    While Mark Boyle rubbishing Scottish football in Scotsmanl and not knowing Scotland has highest attendances per population in Europe.

  39. Sinky says:

    prof Macdonald Scotland the only country in Scotland where any currency will be a disaster

  40. Nana says:

    Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions ‘to be net-zero by 2045’

    Mordaunt the liar gets the defence job, a reminder this is the woman who constantly lied about Turkey going the EU. The Tory party aiming even lower

    Voters set to punish UK PM May’s Conservatives over Brexit delay

    Should Brexit take place, there will likely be no Britain, since Scotland and Northern Ireland will depart, but rather an England. This England will not have “exited” anything. English people will continue to negotiate with the EU, from weakness rather than strength.

  41. Dan says:

    Her reaction to victory was to deny the case had ever been about the thing it had always been about and was obviously about

    Yeah but it wasn’t, was it? A defamation action is about proving liability, which you failed to do. People defame each other as a daily fact of life. Proving a statement was defamatory is a necessary but insufficient element of succeeding in litigation, as you should well know by now.

    Also, for someone who regularly speaks truth to power, you have a weirdly fetishised view of the judiciary. Their job is to interpret and apply the law, not to force their opinion on the world at large as you repeatedly imply. Why don’t you quote the portions of the judgement where he describes Dugdale’s comments were logically defensible? Or where he says that his reasoning about the truth quality of the statements would only have impacted the outcome if your lawyers had successfully proved her comments were a statement of fact?

  42. Richard Hunter says:

    In my eyes, her main crime is deep mediocrity.

  43. Ken500 says:

    The Transgender arguments affects .000000000001 % of the population. It is nonsensical to project it as a main stream problem. There have been mixed changing room etc in swimming pools, sports facilities etc for years without any problems. It helps family groups, friend change together if they want. Disable toilets both sexes can and do use. Just relabel them. There has been absolutely no problems, There are no transgender people attacking others (out of relevant low poroportion compared to the norm). Anyone behaviour badly or giving offence would just be chucked out of the premises or facilities. They are trained staff monitoring the facilities/premises.

    The British have such a problem with human bodies, Everyone has one. There is now much more awareness of abuse. More open discussions and warnings.

    Transgender people in sport would make more people watch. To see if they win. It would incease interest in women’s sport. More people would watch it. It would receive more funding, sponsorship and prize monies etc, it would actually promote woman’s sport. Make it more interesting. There are regulations around who can compete physically. Testosterone levels etc, it is not a gender issue.

    Violent/attacks are a gender issue. It is mainly (young) men who (violently) attack others. Males who attack others. Other men are more likely to be attacked than women. 3time more men are attacked than women. Statistically. E.g. There are 500 murders on average. 100 are women 400 are men etc. Running through the numbers. Most murders happen between people who know each other e.g. In the home. A high proportion. Obviously every death is regrettable and should not be happening. Appalling.

    More men than women commit suicide. Men are more inclined to lash out. Get violent. Women internalise get anxiety and depressed. Nature or nurture. Or the structure of society? Testosterone contributes. The human desire/drive to reproduce not regulated properly. Some offensive sexual images. People still like ‘good looking’ people or people that look like themselves. That can be a (unhealthy) attraction. An obsession. That is better projected on to something else with guidance not control.

    No child (person) should ever be subject to sexual abuse that should just not be happening. It should be investigated not covered up by authorities in collusion. Collaboration Law in Scotland should be dropped for abuse/rape crime. By it’s very nature, secretive. There is unlikely to be any witnesses. That is why there are so few complaints or convictions. Less convictions lead to less complaint. .

    The Police in Scotland act on malicious complain. Lock up too many innocent people on ‘charges’ that cannot come to Court . Totally wasting time and public money trying to criminalise the public. When they should have better commitments to equality and diversity training.

    Too many people on the spectrum are locked up in jail. Instead of being given the support they need in the community, 50%. Too many people are in jail instead of being given proper treatment in drink/drug ‘total abstinence’ rehab. Far cheaper and cost effective.

    Unionist councils are not funding essential services. Proper rehab facilities. It used to be more the Health Boards providing. Except Grampian. The only authority in Scotland that would not provide primary care for drink/drug addiction. Instead spending £Million/Billions on groteque monstrosities of no value. No one wants. Instead of open, pedestrianised spaces. A total waste of monies but not funding essential services. Total neglect and delegation of responsibility. Acting illegally. Not funding schools and houses. Using the Gov statutory limit (30) to keep class sizes too high. They are given funding per pupil to keep class sizes lower and properly support additional needs. . The unionists councils cut the funding at every opportunity and waste the monies on meaningless projects of no consequence or value.

    There is a total connection of crime to drink/drug consumption. Major crime is committed under the influence of drink or drugs. MUP will help.

    Iraqi war, Dunblane, Lockerbie kept secret for 100 years under the Offucial Secrets Act. Abuse deliberately hidden by corrupt Westminster unionist Government. A disgrace.

    Judy Murray says tennis/sports facilities in Scotland are totally underfunded. Women’s sport. £60Million is allocated to tennis facilities and support in the UK. Scotland receives £800K. A major shortfall. Pro rata it should be £6Million. Maybe the Scottish Gov could find some funding. Scotland does not receive it’s full share of funding from the Lottery monies. A total deficit.

  44. British Nationalist Andy Coulson proven perjurer gets of scot-free,

    British Nationalist Alistair Carmichael proven liar gets of scot-free,

    British Nationalist Kez Dugdale proven defamer gets of scot-free,

    British Nationalist Scottish Law Society proven prejudiced ,guilty as f@ck.

  45. robertknight says:

    So, another one scurrys off to join some kind of academic, socio-politico body, already home to political types of the Unionist persuasion it would appear.

    Will they be hammering home the mantra of SNP-Bad, Holyrood-Bad, Scotland-Bad to the next generation of wannabe politicians I wonder?

    Or are they simply trying to improve upon their current standard of low-flying Jimmys and Marys that sit and steal the oxygen in the chambers of Holyrood and Westminster at public expense?

    ‘Troughers’ and ‘Roasters’ come to mind.

  46. Abulhaq says:

    Didnt the ex English prisons minister build a pile of stones somewhere on the border to symbolize the union?
    Is it still in situ?
    Can we have the ancient Scottish province of Cumbria back?

  47. Robert Peffers says:

    @galamcennalath says: 1 May, 2019 at 2:42 pm:

    ” … Once the polluted agricultural products and food stuffs are allowed into the system it becomes compromised. Cleaning it up again will be nigh impossible.
    Scotland needs to depart while we still full comply to high EU standards.”

    I could well be wrong but I keep a watch on what goes on within the EU parliament debating channel. The good will towards Scotland’s MEPs is really wonderful to behold. Meanwhile the openly displayed hostility towards such as Farage of the English Brexit faction is just as obvious.

    Thing is we don’t see any of this in the MSM or among the unionist broadcasters. For example I’d warrant almost anyone you speak to in Scotland will tell you that in Scotland becomes independent then they, “will join the back of the long queue”, to get back into the EU and will have to, “adopt the Euro”.

    This is all implanted in their minds by the Westminster Establishment propaganda machine. First of all there is no queue to get into the EU. It simply doesn’t exist. If a country or state applies to join the EU and doesn’t get in it has nothing to do with queues and everything to do with compliance with EU rules and regulations. It did not take long for West Germany to get into the EU.

    There are many myths about the EU fostered by the MSM/British Broadcasters. Have a read at this :-

    It explains away some of the myths. As to the having to, “Join the Euro”, – one third of EU Member states do not use the Euro. The EU are adept at compromise and the truth is that if the EU wants Scotland as a member state, and it does, it will find a way and that way may be to not let Scotland become a non-EU state upon the United Kingdom’s two kingdoms splitting up.

    The fact being that the EU sees the United Kingdom as a two kingdom UK while Westminster thinks of it as a Westminster that is the de facto parliament of the country of England that is sovereign over three dominion countries of England.

    Thing is it is the EU that is legally correct and all they need do to keep Scotland’s great assets in the EU is to rule that as the United Kingdom has split in two and one kingdom wants to stay while the other wants out is to declare the Kingdom of Scotland as the legacy member state and wish the Kingdom of England well as it sails away into the sunset.

  48. galamcennalath says:

    Robert Peffers says:

    if the EU wants Scotland as a member state, and it does, it will find a way and that way may be to not let Scotland become a non-EU state upon the United Kingdom’s two kingdoms splitting up.

    At present the EU spokesperson will say something along the lines of not commenting on the internal affairs of a member state. When the UK ceases to be a member, that changes completely.

    It is my hope, wish, belief even, that the EU will be clear and unambiguous that iScotland will be welcome and as a fully compliant country already, membership will be swiftly processed.

    If we fight IndyRef2 with an offer on the table from the EU should we vote YES, then that could be a game changer IMO.

    All this would involve the EU playing an active part in the dissolution of the UK. And why shouldn’t they? It would be to everyone’s benefit. Dare I suggest it might also be to England’s in the long run.

  49. Nana says:

    At last, an MP brave enough to say: Twitter hates women

    ‘Seldom uses front door’: report reveals how China spies on Muslim minority

    Here is how the Chinese govt is using an app to collect staggering amounts of data about its Uyghur population, and eventually send hundreds of thousands to political reeducation camps.

  50. Breeks says:

    Richard Hunter says:
    2 May, 2019 at 8:09 am
    In my eyes, her main crime is deep mediocrity.

    In mine, she is the patsy promoted well above her talent by the BritNat Establishment, with the express intention to peddle their contrived narrative in the mainstream media and frustrate the more enlightened and progressive debate about Scotland’s options and future as an independent nation.

    The BritNat Establishment can’t even be bothered to recruit a plausible interlocutor to promote a positive or progressive case for the Union, and the best we can hope for is an intellectual flatliner to parrot Establishment propaganda and fool the unwary into believing a false narrative which suits the Unionist agenda.

    Dugdale was the Sooty to Ruth Davidson’s Sweep, and until the SNP came along, nobody disrupted the anodyne equilibrium of the Unionist puppet show, faithfully beamed into every living room by the Good ol’ BBC. You know, auld auntie… yer Dottie auld relative.. not the £3.8 billion annual budget, sophisticated, all pervading state funded Establishment propaganda factory that’s invulnerable to criticism and won’t suffer any competition to exist.

    They can gulp down liquidised Kangaroo genitals or whatever the hell it was, or they can gloat about robbing the disabled of their mobility vehicles, but however disgusting, shameless, crude and inappropriate the conduct, they’ll still get 10/10 on the BBC’s Clap-O-meter and be back next week, rehabilitated by the Establishments media, and their sins or incompetence airbrushed by the Ministry of Truth. Proof positive the BBC can polish a turd, and even make some of us even forget it IS a turd.

    These flunkies don’t know how lucky they are to be living in a tolerant, liberal Scotland that is largely anaesthetised to obscene exploitation of Scotland’s resources and the wanton sophistry and distortion of the truth.

    There’s a degree to which you can empathise with a poor unfortunate unionist who is scared to question the colonial doctrine that the United Kingdom is the safe mothership that’s “home”. It’s not their fault they’ve been indoctrinated to believe the narrative for decades, and it’s not their fault it’s become uncomfortable even to contemplate they’ve been taken for a ride for their entire gullible life. They’re just victims who need help and our patience. They’re not bad people, just victims.

    For the likes of Dugdale and Davidson? They’re beyond gullible. They’re not victims. They ARE the Establishment. They are the stand up mouthpieces for the BritNat horseshit that tells us black is white and up is down… ten-a-Penny gobshites which the Establishment will provide for and reward, just like the 18th Century Lords and “nobles” who sold Scotland down the river, bought and sold for English gold. Here, have a wee bung or a cushy wee job to ease your conscience… England expects every man to do his duty… and aye, you’ve certainly done yours.

    Funny how you’ll get nothing from Scotland. It’s only the Union pats you on the head. Maybe want to think about that.

  51. TD says:

    Dan at 8:00 a.m.

    “A defamation action is about proving liability, which you failed to do.”

    Can’t let you away with that, Dan. Any civil action is about establishing that harm has been done by the defender to the pursuer. The harm must be the direct consequence of the defender’s actions or inactions. If it is established that harm was done and that the defender caused it, a court will then seek to equate the harm done to an amount of money and award damages of that amount. But first and foremost a case is about establishing that harm was done.

    The harm in the Campbell v. Dugdale case was defamation. The Sheriff stated unequivocally that the comments made by Dugdale were defamatory of Campbell so harm was done. That is the core of the case. However, he then went on to state that notwithstanding the defamation, the comments were covered by the “fair comment” exception to the general rule that damages will be awarded if defamation is established.

    The case was about whether or not Dugdale defamed Campbell. The matter of damages is secondary. I don’t believe that Stu went into this case for financial gain, but rather to protect his reputation. He has emerged with his reputation restored so he achieved his objective. The media reporting of the case (i.e. that Dugdale won) is simplistic and disingenuous. It is true that she did not have to pay damages and if that was her objective, then she succeeded. But by any normal standards she lost. She was demonstrated to be ignorant of the subject she was commenting on (homophobia) and any credibility she had was destroyed. She has been publicly humiliated. If that is winning, she is welcome to it.

  52. Just a thing i noticed,

    if the lickspittle hacks of Scottish media are forced to praise anything done by Holyrood they call it the `Scottish Government`,

    most of the other time the hacks are condemning anything done by Holyrood and call it the `SNP Government`.

  53. Willie says:

    There’s Julian Assange banged up on trumped up charges.

    And there’s slime ball Williamson walking away scot free for leaking highest level state security secrets.

    What a rotten and corrupt Jackinory.

  54. Cubby says:

    Liz G @1.30 am

    I’ll have to try and say hello at the Wings stall on Sat to prove I’m not that Chubby or just give up and eat a lot more pork pies. LOL.

    PS no need to say sorry.

  55. mike cassidy says:

    Nana 9.30

    That Chinese app report.

    Does this mean I have to have some sympathy with Gavin Williamson?

    Its a bit early in the day for me to get my head round that.

  56. Frank Gillougley says:

    TD 9.37

    That’s a reasonable summary and how i understood it (for right or wrong).

    Another thing in hindsight that came to mind. To show how easy it is for these ‘political’ shysters to con the public and poison the discourse, there were even a few of us on Wings a few months back who would have welcomed KD into the SNP or Yes movement! And now? I really don’t think so. Zero is the word. Put them in another context and you actually see them for what they are. Re-framing is so important. K McK was spot on.

    Lastly, another thought. If Williamson wasn’t the leak of the source (and wasn’t that the oddest of things for a defence secretary to have sworn – on the death of his children!!!???) then what does that say about all the other cabinet members? They are damned too for not coming forward to say I’m Spartacus!

  57. mike cassidy says:

    And here’s a footnote to yesterday’s discussion of accents Scottish or otherwise.

    Tory Councillor: people with different accents are “scary”

    And does anybody remember Ch4 News dubbing John Major’s voice with a Belfast accent as mentioned by a btl?

  58. Dan says:

    TD @ 9:37 am
    Can’t let you away with that, Dan. Any civil action is about establishing that harm has been done by the defender to the pursuer. The harm must be the direct consequence of the defender’s actions or inactions. If it is established that harm was done and that the defender caused it, a court will then seek to equate the harm done to an amount of money and award damages of that amount.

    …if liability is proved.

    Couching fair comment as “an exception to the rule” is disingenuous; it is not some technicality or loop hole, it is protected speech.

    As I said in my comment above, people defame – to the Scots law standard of the term – each other every day. It is not the purpose of the courts to intervene every time this occurs. If Campbell intended this to be some sort of show trial that paraded his non-homophobia to the world, he should be embarrassed about this, frankly Your claim that the “matter of damages is secondary” might be true in terms of Campbell’s intentions, but as a statement about jurisprudence it is a load of myth-making fluff.

    The sheriff established that Dugdale was entitled to make her comments, defamatory or not and that she arrived at them rational. The sheriff set out the conditions under which someone could make similar comments in the future. If I was worried so concerned about people defaming me, I wouldn’t see that as a victory in the slightest.

  59. RobertTheTruth says:

    Are we agreed we have established we are not ignorant of our own history and no one has been hiding our history from us? The myriad of resources and references is truly good to see. We all understand we do not need someone to give us a version of history when we can find out for ourselves?

    Mr Peffers rightly admits he is a propagandist, putting into print his interpretation of historical events specifically to counter what he sees as propaganda from the other side. Nothing wrong with that, just as long as it is made clear it is his interpretation and if others disagree they are entitled to.

    Let’s take the central tenet of his work that the Scottish people are sovereign so it is simple, from his point of view, to overturn events by remembering that single ‘fact’.

    If that were the case why did the Act of Union come in to being if the people were so against it? Surely then, as now, the people are sovereign? Even after the Act, the people were angry but they could not do anything. But they are sovereign I hear you say.

    An attempt to repeal the Act in 1713 failed because of political will. Nothing to do with sovereignty of the people, just simple politics, not enough people in the place of power wanted it. Is that an opinion worth considering?

    That, I believe, is the crux of the matter, we can march, show our anger at each other BTL in online blogs. We can decry our craven politicians for not doing enough and insult them with unpleasant and truthful remarks but until we have sufficient numbers to achieve a win in a vote either in a referendum or in some other legitimate way we are trapped in this Union.

    Attempting a legal manoeuvre when we do not have the will of the people behind it will not succeed and should not. Yet some of us continue to be whipped up into a frenzy of outrage at perceived sleight of hand tricksiness by Westminster.

    That is politics and it is politics that will eventually get us out of Westminster if we do it properly. The legal arguments have their place to ensure the vote is watertight and were we to vote and get a majority that was not recognised , then the legal route may have value. But Brexit should be a warning, imagine we had won by 52% and were in the stalemate of Brexit trying to leave?

    My quarrel with Mr Peffers, whoever he is, is that he presents his interpretation of events as the only truthful version and that is dishonest. Longevity, prolific posting or even real life knowledge of a person does not convey upon them infallibility.

    On another note, this is an interesting site for dispelling myths about the EU:

  60. Legerwood says:

    RobertTheTruth @ 10.34 am

    Thank you for that excellent post. Completely agree.

  61. TD says:

    Dan at 10:21

    “…if liability is proved.

    Couching fair comment as “an exception to the rule” is disingenuous; it is not some technicality or loop hole, it is protected speech.”

    Liability is proved by demonstrating that harm – in this case defamation – was done. There is normally then a presumption that damages would be due with the amount to be assessed by the court. Fair comment is indeed not a technicality or loop hole, but it is an exception to the presumption that if harm is done, damages are due. Had it not been for the fair comment rule, damages in this case would have been due.

    Dugdale’s statement that the case was not about homophobia is patently ridiculous and it is to the shame of the media that they have publicised this line without challenge. What Dugdale said only qualifies as fair comment because the Sheriff found that she did not understand the term “homophobia”. By implication, if the Sheriff had been satisfied that Dugdale did understand the term, then fair comment would not have applied as she would have been making a statement of fact that was defamatory. In other words, the only reason that she has not had to pay for defaming Stuart is that she is ignorant.

    As I said before, if that is winning then you, and she, are welcome to it.

  62. Legerwood says:

    Nana @ 9.30 am

    High praise for Joanna Cherry in this link that you posted. Worth reading.

    At last, an MP brave enough to say: Twitter hates women

  63. manandboy says:

    Breeks, today at 9:33 am.


  64. manandboy says:

    Robert the Truth @10.34

    “Let’s take the central tenet of his (Robert Peffers) work that the Scottish people are sovereign so it is simple, from his point of view, to overturn events by remembering that single ‘fact’.”

    With respect, this is a misrepresentation, and is in turn merely your interpretation.

    Further, there appears, in your comment, an attempt to dilute the principle of the people of Scotland are sovereign. As such, your piece is in danger of being, effectively, Unionist propaganda.

  65. Cubby says:


    “Are we agreed we have established we are not ignorant of our own history and no one has been hiding our history from us”

    No I do not agree and who are you to speak for the whole of the Scottish people Mr Truth. Who do you think you are Neil Oliver. So is your version of events the truth and nothing but the truth Mr Truth. Your criticism of Peffers applies to yourself.

    Anyone who calls himself The Truth criticising other people for their truth is full of it. That’s my truth Mr Truth and its more than fair comment on your post.

  66. galamcennalath says:

    ” Brexit makes the case for an independent Scotland

    At the whim of the Tory party, Scots have been told to surrender their European identity.

    …. Scots are paying the price of a reckless gamble to make it easier for Mr Cameron to handle the rising English nationalism in the Conservative party. Brexit was an English project.”

    A FT opinion piece by their associate editor and chief political commentator. When the FT run an article like this then you know things are changing.

  67. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    On the Kezia roundabout…
    Kevin McKenna’s piece in yesterdays’s National on her is a keeper. His best yet

  68. Robert Peffers says:

    @RobertTheTruth says: 2 May, 2019 at 10:34 am:

    ” … Are we agreed we have established we are not ignorant of our own history and no one has been hiding our history from us?”


  69. Liz g says:

    Robert the truth @ 10.34
    Firstly … The act of Union came into being despite the people being against it,because the means by which they could express their Sovereignty at that time were closed off to those who were even aware of said sovereignty. Which would have been gye few (nae internet ) but nevertheless the people who were at that time entrusted with Scottish Sovereignty were the same people who signed the Treaty to have our Sovereignty managed from Westminster.

    And secondly
    Sovereignty is no a magical power Robert the T …
    It not only has to rest somewhere,in Scotland’s case it has been caught in this Treaty before it was properly defined to be easily actionable WITHIN the Treaty
    ( E.G. The USA got it right with their, For the People,Of the People,By the People a concept not only enshrined,but crucially,understood by the said “reasonable man”).

    That it has never seen a Court is clearly because up until very recently Sovereignty was enforced by military might, and, that, because of the existence of the Treaty Westminster DARE not Write a Constitution to throw daylight in on the dark arts of the Crown in Parliament!
    This will be their undoing…
    They cannot define English Sovereignty without addressing Ours and so must leave it as a whimsical thing which in turn leaves absolute power in the hands of Westminster…
    And ye do know what they say about Absolute Power don’t ye?

    Scotland is in the process of establishing our Sovereignty to define it in modern accessible Law and we are using The Declaration of Arbroath and The Claim of Right as the Foundations to do so.
    As I said not a magical power,that pretends everything flows from being born from the right womb. We know that to be Disnay thinking, and Scotland disnay, want Disnay, for our people’s anymore!
    We can learn from History Robert the T,but we shouldn’t become bound by it.That would be as stupid as trying to govern ” by habit and repute ” and thinking ye could do it without using an army,don’t ye think?

  70. TD says:

    Robert the Truth at 10.34 a.m.

    “Let’s take the central tenet of his work that the Scottish people are sovereign so it is simple, from his point of view, to overturn events by remembering that single ‘fact’.

    If that were the case why did the Act of Union come in to being if the people were so against it? Surely then, as now, the people are sovereign? Even after the Act, the people were angry but they could not do anything. But they are sovereign I hear you say.”

    The fact that the Scottish people are sovereign does not mean that they necessarily get their way. They should do, but it does not always happen. We just need to look at the Brexit fiasco to see that. The point is whether it is lawful to proceed with Brexit or, back in 1707, whether it was lawful to proceed with the union. Unfortunately, in the real world, what happens is not always lawful.

    I do agree with you when you say “Attempting a legal manoeuvre when we do not have the will of the people behind it will not succeed and should not.” An independent Scotland founded on some technical argument in court if a majority were against independence would be off to the worst possible start. The only acceptable way for Scotland to become independent is for a majority of Scots to support it, probably in a referendum.

    So the priority for all of us is to build that support and get it consistently over the 50% mark. That does mean that we have to make common cause with people who have previously identified as unionists so let’s try to be persuasive rather than abusive. Every unionist is an opportunity – not a problem.

  71. Patrick Roden says:

    @ Breeks,

    “Dugdale was the Sooty to Ruth Davidson’s Sweep, ”

    Brilliant! just brilliant 🙂

  72. galamcennalath says:

    “Dugdale was the Sooty to Ruth Davidson’s Sweep, ”

    But Sooty wis the dug 🙂

  73. Socrates MacSporran says:


    I thought Sweep was the dug.


    After FMQs this afternoon, I reckon Jackass Carsales’ erse will be as red as his face. Nicola gave him a richt guid skelping.

  74. Jeff says:


    “Are we agreed we have established we are not ignorant of our own history and no one has been hiding our history from us”

    Sounds good but unfortunately you are talking bollocks. Scots of my age (mid 50’s) certainly had to teach themselves their own history as it wasn’t mentioned in school. I took History as an ‘O’ Grade subject, were the Stewart Kings or Queen mentioned – no, King Robert The Bruce – no, William Wallace – no chance, the Covenanters – nope. Everything taught was safely post 1707. I taught myself the missing history after I left school as have millions of others.

    Again, to say that our history has been hidden from us and that many are ignorant of it is total, utter bollocks.

  75. Clapper57 says:

    Gavin Williamson bad boy sacked but NOT deemed bad enough that police investigation warranted….so move along.

    So was thinking shurely now IS the time to ask Tank Commander …..What has happened with Scottish Tory internal inquiry on Ross Thomson ? Have I missed something being reported re their findings ? Obvs resolved as he is very much acting as if …politically..not a dead man walking within his party….not suspended..tweeting..out and about in his constituency….still sitting in HOC…so is anyone in media interested is conclusion of inquiry ?

    Shurely not swept under the carpet .

    Miles Briggs inappropriate behaviour re sexual harassment allegations….move along nowt to see here.

    Plus numerous Scottish Tory Councillors reinstated after racist and offensive remarks.

    Then Labour party

    Hugh Gaffney’s racist and homophobic comments…move along nowt to see here.

    Anas Sarwar inquiry re Davie McLachlan’s racist comment…move along nowt to see here.

    Above list not exhaustive in rogue line up of Unionist politicians who seem to break some kind of political or moral conduct yet continue in their role ….redeemed and past sins to be forgotten .

    However……….Nicola Sturgeon/Alex Salmond….full inquiry at Holyrood for public and parliamentary scrutiny….

    My God I am no journalist but even I see a pattern here…it’s do as I say not as I do…shurely !

    Shurely shome mishtake if NO journalists or average voters cannot see double standards applying here….note this posting is rhetorical as poster has NO DOUBTS as to what is really happening but just needed to get it off chest….or rather note one of many observations at the blatant hypocrisy being applied time and time again.

    But hey Better Together .

  76. galamcennalath says:

    Socrates MacSporran says:


    I thought Sweep was the dug.

    Of course he was. I meant the opposite of what I said. 🙁

    I’m not very good at checking what I write. Hammer it in and hit send. If I was on twitter I’d be sure to get into trouble!

  77. galamcennalath says:

    Scottish history in schools. In primary we were issued with a history book. I’m guessing P7 and have no idea what the book was. We probably didn’t cover it all, just specific key events.

    As a youngster I remember reading about the Massacre of Monzievaird, in said book, and being horrified. A church being set on fire to kill or drive out those taking refuge there. Truth is that’s a fairly obscure event but it was in our school book.

  78. Robert Peffers says:

    @TD says: 2 May, 2019 at 11:56 am:

    “ … Let’s take the central tenet of his work that the Scottish people are sovereign so it is simple, from his point of view, to overturn events by remembering that single ‘fact’.”

    Actually, TD, it has little to do with my point of view and everything to do with both law and legality and the , “Law”, is both of the two independent , “Rule of Law”, of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England and their independence being enshrined forever in , “The Treaty of Union”, agreed by both Kingdoms.

    However, there is a further two laws that cannot be ignored. The agreed and signed up to Human Rights Acts signed up to by Westminster, The EU and United Nations. Namely that, “An easily identifiable group of people”, have the human right to self determination.

    The Scots, or North Britons as they were not only named as Scots by the Romans who came and stayed in South Britain for several centuries. Only some time after the Romans left did south Britain become known as , “Angleland”, (England). The Scots have been an easily identifiably people centuries before there even was an, “England”.

    However there is another, natural, law that states – ultimately sovereignty will always belong to the people. In effect what that natural law is stating is that no one can remain sovereign unless by the will of The People. The proof of that particular pudding can be found in, The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and The American War of Independence, (to name but a few).

    Thus the Treaty of Union itself states that Scots & English Law are forever both independent and there is the seat of the current Westminster Establishment problem with Scottish independence.

    Here is why it is the current problem. Under the English rule of law the Monarchy is legally sovereign but, since 1688, the “Crown”, was forced to legally delegate its sovereignty to the parliament of England.

    In Scotland, since at least as far back as The Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, the people, and not the crown, were legally sovereign. It is indeed the main reason the Treaty of Union has both rules of law forever independent.

    The current problem is that since Westminster first sat on 1 May 1707 Westminster thought of itself as the continuing old Parliament of the Kingdom of England instead of what it actually legally was – The brand spanking new Parliament of the brand spanking new United Kingdom Parliament.

    Which parliament then applied the English law, that the Crown had overall sovereignty, and under English law that sovereignty was delegated to the parliament of England but legally Westminster was not in May 1707, and remains not The Parliament of The Kingdom of England.

    There is the illegality – Westminster, since May 1707 was not, and remains not legally the Parliament of England and is hence not sovereign over The Kingdom of Scotland.

    So under severally, the laws of Scotland, England, The EU, The UK, The United Nations and the natural law that ultimately the people of any state are sovereign Westminster is an illegal parliament.

    However there is yet another natural law – sovereignty belongs to whoever can hold and enforce it. Which brings us right back to where we are just now. Westminster is illegally enforcing sovereignty over Scotland and the people of Scotland are about ready to change that forced sovereignty.

    If you doubt me just remember the words of the Secretary of State For Against Scotland.
    “The Treaty of Union Extinguished The Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England as the United Kingdom”

    You must excuse me as I cannot find that stated anywhere in either the Treaty or either Act of Union.

  79. Dan says:

    TD at 10:50:
    Liability is proved by demonstrating that harm – in this case defamation – was done. There is normally then a presumption that damages would be due with the amount to be assessed by the court

    No, it isn’t. That isn’t how liability operates in the Scots law context. Proving a statement is capable of being defamatory is simply proving that there is a delict. You are describing the law as you imagine it to be, not as it actually is. To quote from the judgement:

    [the law of defamation] It recognises that there is significant public interest in allowing people to freely express opinions without fear of legal penalty. Accordingly not every damaging comment about character will result in legal liability for harm or distress

    Your claim that fair defence is an exception to the presumption that “if harm is done, damages are due” is a meaningless statement since proving harm is just one element of a successful action. You could just as accurately say that if Dugdale’s comments were shown to relate to a matter that wasn’t of public interest, this would be an “exception” to the “presumption” that it was fair comment.

    What Dugdale said only qualifies as fair comment because the Sheriff found that she did not understand the term “homophobia”.

    That simply isn’t true. He considered it fair comment because, among other things, he regarded it as a value judgement, not a statement of fact and therefore even if he considered it incorrect, the diversity of perspective on the matter meant that his opinion on the tweet was ultimately of no greater validity than Dugdale’s. I know Stu has been pushing the line that Dugdale won because she was too thick to understand why what she said was defamatory, but that just isn’t what the Sheriff said, nor does it reflect the principle of fair comment. In my opinion he’s just saying it save a bit of face. Why not turn your media-critical eye to Wings Over Scotland from time to time?

  80. Legerwood says:

    galamcennalath @ 11.36 am

    It is not just the FT in which such articles are appearing.

    In yesterday’s Daily Telegraph there was an article by their business correspondent, Jeremy Warner:
    “”Is an Independent Scotland now inevitable? I’m beginning to believe it might be.””

    It is behind a paywall.

    In today’s online Daily Telegraph there is mention of a recent poll which suggests that Brexit makes Irish unity more likely.

  81. Breeks says:

    TD says:
    2 May, 2019 at 11:56 am
    Robert the Truth at 10.34 a.m.

    I do agree with you when you say “Attempting a legal manoeuvre when we do not have the will of the people behind it will not succeed and should not.” An independent Scotland founded on some technical argument in court if a majority were against independence would be off to the worst possible start.

    I absolutely don’t agree with you.

    Sovereignty cuts both ways. Even supposing you lacked faith that Scotland might win its case in a Constitutional Court, you can leave Scottish Constitutional Sovereignty out of your equation and simply challenge Westminster to prove the origin and veracity of their claim to be Sovereign. Sovereignty is an absolute and binary condition. Proving we are Sovereign is no lesser or greater a benchmark than proving they are not.

    As I have argued in the past, I would have taken a more indirect approach, and challenged the ECJ to clarify it’s recent judgement that Article 50 could be revoked as a sovereign prerogative, and sought specific clarity about whether Scotland might use its sovereignty to revoke Article 50 unilaterally. Assuming the ECJ concluded that Scotland could indeed revoke Article 50 unilaterally, the case and any action would remain hypothetical, but the Constitutional principles and benchmarks would be clarified. Scotland would establish the full legitimacy what it could do, but hold the action of doing it in abeyance until the appropriate moment.

    The truth is the issue of UK/ Scottish Constitutional Sovereignty has never been tested in Court, but it has been tested in Westminster and the Claim of Right affirmed. Westminster has already conceded the people of Scotland are Sovereign. If they would now dispute that sovereignty in lieu of their own sovereignty, then them present submit their “alternative” Constitution to forensic scrutiny.

    It’s is an entirely Unionist perspective to maintain that the Union must be valid simply because it has lasted for 300 years and never been overturned. The Union was born from corruption, coercion, sophistry and intimidation, it has been maintained throughout by the same colonial principles, and it is a measure of how all pervasive the Union was that Scotland has been powerless to overturn the corruptions and improprieties. Whether through bribery, coercion, intimidation, indoctrination, or simply the force of a lawyers letter upon the argument of a layman without a lawyer.

    It is academic why former generations of Scots have not been successful in repealing the Union or testing its illegitimacy. Let them and their history account for their own actions, but let us not judge them. Even now, in the 21st Century, we Scots must overturn a monopolised media absolutely determined to indoctrinate our people into supine compliance with the BritNat narrative, and it is only the modern phenomenon of social media which has finally allowed the alternative narrative and true Constitutional arguments to emerge and develop into mainstream arguments. Don’t let’s kid ourselves, no former generation of Scots had anything like this capacity.

    Britishness has only ever rewarded those who bend to their colonial rule, and done all in its power to distort and alter Scotland’s Constitutional truth to suit its own ends, NEVER Scotland’s.

  82. Liz g says:

    Dan @ 1.00pm
    Stu is no pushing a line….
    Dugdale not understanding any definition other than her’s and that it had to be real cause she was gay
    Was her defence in court.
    For her opinion to be “Honestly” held she had to convince the Judge that she really didn’t understand what the Judge understood and he felt she didn’t .
    I personally felt she understands how people get BAFTA’S and that’s the only string to her how but I was sitting at the opposite end of the Court from they Judge and didn’t have to pretend that I needed Twitter explaining to me like I was 5, but still feel able to pronounce on it!!!!

  83. Abulhaq says:

    The Americans are way ahead of the Chinese, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple etc all busy harvesting data for a foreign power. That power is considered ‘friendly’ and most speak English so that’s OK.
    Trump’s tweeting was once considered ‘inappropriate’ now every politician’s at it. Imagine what they might do with 140* Chinese characters? An autobiography perhaps?
    *The Chinese, Koreans and Japanese are character restricted.

  84. CameronB Brodie says:

    IMHO, the Prime-minister is acting unconstitutionally and generations of unborn Scots will suffer the consequences. Scotland needs protesting, so where are Scotland’s constitutional lawyers? Are they all friends of the New Right and authoritarian, (white) British nationalism?

    Between Natural Law and Legal Positivism:
    Dworkin and Hegel on Legal Theory

  85. Jack Murphy says:

    Thanks Legerwood who mentioned at 1:14pm:
    In yesterday’s Daily Telegraph there was an article by their business correspondent, Jeremy Warner:
    ”Is an Independent Scotland now inevitable? I’m beginning to believe it might be.”

    Here’s a link to the The Telegraph.
    Unfortunately it’s protected by The Telegraph’s Paywall.

    Some info about the author:

    ” Jeremy Warner, assistant editor of The Daily Telegraph, is one of Britain’s leading business and economics commentators.

    A serial winner of awards, he has also been honoured for an “outstanding contribution in defence of freedom of the media” by the Society of Editors for his refusal to reveal sources to Government inspectors. ” [from The Telegraph].

  86. galamcennalath says:

    Breeks says

    It is academic why former generations of Scots have not been successful in repealing the Union or testing its illegitimacy. Let them and their history account for their own actions, but let us not judge them.

    I have often wondered about the Scottish Home Rule Bill 1913. Passed second reading but was then abandoned because of WW1.

    Just been reading the discussion at WM then. Forgetting about some long lost opportunity for devolution, but concentrating on the language and arguments used by MPs.

    I am struck by the apparent better understanding standing of the nature of the Union and the relationship of the countries within it. Certainly, a clearer understanding than present day WM politicians have!

    So when did the UK move towards a Greater England model? IMO the pre WW2 National gov, WW2, post war govs with new nationalised industries and centralisation, and broadcasting.

  87. Ghillie says:

    Keep their feet to the fire Cameron B 🙂

    There ARE Yesers within the Law Society and many amongst the legal profession and some do read these comments so your contributions WILL be picked up and will be being discussed!

  88. yesindyref2 says:

    Couple of good debates going in.

    I’m with Dan over the Sheriff’s judgement, the meaning of the word “homophobia”, his decision basically was that she was as entitled to her definition as he was to his, hence it ended up as “fair comment”. If we think about a couple of things that run through Wings, there’s the definition of the words “country” and “nation”, which Wingers have different definitions of, and the way modern language works based on usage rather than a permanently laid down set of rules, that means as long as enough people use a definition, then it is correct, or at least, recognised.

    As for Sovereignty, back in 1707 the People didn’t have the vote, didn’t have any means of voting, only the “estates” were able to vote, and Sovereigny was written in terms of the estates rather than the common people. see for isntance the calim of right 1689. Same basically as the Declaration of Arbroath, with the famous:

    As long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours, that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

    That’s not plebs like you and I, well, me as for all I know you’re not a pleb, it was the barons and earls:

    The Declaration was written in Latin and was sealed by eight earls and about forty barons.

    So such Sovereignty was of the barons, earls, dukes later on, the landed gentry. Not non-landowning plebs, that came way later in history, and by stages with, I think, some land-owning women actually getting the vote before the mass of plebs.

    Not until the last 20 to 30 years has Sovereignty actually rested with us plebs.

  89. yesindyref2 says:

    Perhaps even just the last 7 years, with Sturgeon’s Motion before Holyrood in Jan 2012, and then at the HoC last May/June by the SNP MPs there.

    There might be a counter-argument that full emanciapation, i.e. the pleb vote, translated earlier claims of the gentry itno claims by us peasants, somehow, legally, I think that would be tenuous.

    Anyway, that’s enough for me, carted off in an ambulance on Sunday coughing blood, a lot of blood, never been so frightened personally (i.e. for me not wife or kids) in my life despite a fair few near death stuff, as I was convinced it was the big C, it must be terminal, and I’d die that day. Turns out it was from a long infection I didn’t bother with, xray and scan basically clear of cancer as far as can tell.

    It started while I was working at the unit in the night, out for a fag break which set it off, the irritation. So I’ve given up smoking – the first 80 odd hours were already done by the time I escaped hospital (it said “keen to go home” on my discharge letter), and it’s the first 24 are the worst!

    I’m taking a wee few days off my business, no idea if I’ll feel like the march on Saturday.

  90. CameronB Brodie says:

    @Scottish Law Society
    In what respect can the full-English Brexit be considered compatible with a “RATIONAL” and “IMPARTIAL” application of law? Would you not agree that the full-English Brexit aims to totalise the concept of Britain, in the form of a right-wing little-England? If you can’t bring yourselves to support Scotland’s independence, at least defend Scottish law within the British constitution. Who will if you won’t?

    Legal philosophy as practical philosophy
    2 A general conception of philosophy

    I will adopt the view of the philosophy of law as the “rational and critical totalisation of the phenomenon of law”, as suggested by Manuel Atienza.1 The key to this conception (which was inspired by the Spanish philosopher Gustavo Bueno)2 lies in the distinction between concepts and ideas. Concepts are inherent to the sciences (in a broad sense, including technical fields), while ideas are the very stuff of philosophy. Both —scientific concepts and philosophical ideas— are “critical totalisations” (“criticism” is not exclusive to philosophy) and both encompass universality.

    However, the totalisation and universality of ideas is not the same as, and cannot be reduced to the totalisation of concepts. Philosophical problems abide by their own format: they are neither technical nor scientific problems, but rather emerge directly or spring up at the same time as technical or scientific problems, representing a second degree of reflexivity.

    Philosophy is not an original or “first-degree” body of knowledge. It is independently justified as a unique, substantive body of knowledge and cannot be reduced either to simple “adjectival” knowledge, doomed to be “liquidated” by the sciences; or “genitive” knowledge, confined to a simple logical analysis or encyclopaedic synthesis in relation to scientific knowledge. Nor, obviously, can it be reduced to some kind of “dogmatic” or “metaphysical” knowledge, disconnected from the sciences.

    Without question, the sciences are the most universal exponent of knowledge at our disposal. However, theirs is a universality that is restricted or bound to certain conceptual domains (or “universes of discourse”) which are more or less closed according to objective theories and laws. Following a traditional nomenclature, Bueno called these domains “categories”: the physical, chemical, mathematical, anthropological, sociological, psychological and other categories.

    Scientific concepts (including techniques and technologies) would be universal relative to or within each of these categorical domains, filtering out everything that is conceptually irrelevant, or external to them. However, for this very reason, everything that can be said rationally about each category individually or about all of them together (i.e., on the conceptualisation of the world) would not be exhausted. Thus, at the very least, questions such as the relationships between these diverse categories (how many sciences there are and how they differ among each other), their scope (how far the universality of each science stretches) and their validity (what it means to consider a given scientific knowledge universally grounded) could no longer be resolved from inside the categories themselves, as they do not constitute scientific or technical problems to be analysed using their own conceptual instruments.

    On the contrary, they require a different kind of rational treatment, a totalisation of a different type, one that is also universalist. And this, precisely, is what philosophical discourse is. There would then be another genre of “second-tier” concepts, the universality of which cross-cuts and cannot be reduced to the categorical concepts. These are transcendental concepts in that they “transcend” each of the categories, but not all of them as a whole (just like the three classical ideas of traditional metaphysics laid out by Kant in his first Critique).3

    These concepts could actually be called philosophical ideas, once again following a tradition that begins with Plato and reaches down to Kant and Hegel, although this does not mean that we are required to adhere to the traditional idealist conception of metaphysics. Ideas are neither separated forms, nor a priori units of knowledge, nor figures of an unfolding Spirit; rather, they can be viewed as ideas in an historical-cultural sense, bearing in mind that although associated with “ideologies” in the Marxist sense, they cannot be understood merely as ideological-conjunctural contents either.

    Philosophical theories are therefore nothing other than more or less systematic elaborations and interpretations of these ideas throughout their historical development. They thus reflect problems which have been sparked repeatedly by the concepts of the sciences, yet they resist being equated with or reduced to mere scientific or technical problems. As they involve ideas and not only concepts, philosophical problems truly have their own format. They are not resolved by the sciences or techniques but instead reframed by them (hence their historical persistence).

    A philosophical problem is characterised primarily by the fact that it questions an entire category as a whole, and does so in a particular way, connecting it to others and inquiring into its foundations and validity. This is what happens, for example, with epistemological and ontological questions, which question how categories represent or conceptualise the world and how the world is represented or conceptualised by them. The answer to this requires a kind of totalising reflection which encompasses criticism —that is analysis, comparison, classification, setting limits— of the scientific concepts themselves according to more or less systematic general conceptions which deal with epistemological ideas (a certain theory of science or of knowledge) and ontological ideas (a certain theory of the elements which make up the real)….

  91. Robert Louis says:

    I see some suggesting above, that the fact that the act of union with England was passed by the Scots parliament, despite people protesting outside, is some kind of ‘proof’ that the people of Scotland are not constitutionally sovereign. This is bunkum, dressed up as rational argument.

    In 1707, the old Scots parliament which passed the act of union with England (and thereby agreeing to the articles of union in the treaty), was a wholly undemocratic and unrepresentative place. Most Scots could not vote, and only certain people within society were ‘entitled’ to sit in the parliament, e.g, lawyers or the clergy.

    Because the old Scots parliament was undemocratic, what it did, did not reflect the opinion of most Scots, but rather the wealthy landowners who made up much of its numbers (landwoners who, incidentally had lost vast sums of money with Darien. They were broke, Scotland itself was not).

    Indeed the independence referendum in 2014 was the very first democratic vote in Scotland on the union- more than three hundred years after it was signed.

    Further, the fact that Westminster chooses to ignore the fundamental concept of peoples sovereignty or the constitution within Scotland, is not proof it doesn’t exist, it just proves the arrogance of Westminster. As Robert Peffers and the Lord president, Lord Cooper in the court of session in 1953 pointed out, Westminster, which was the home of the ENGLISH parliament, prior to the treaty of union, just continued post treaty as the ‘United Kingdom’ parliament, assuming ITS constitutional principles (which pertained only to England) were valid. And so we have the nonsense of legislators in Westminster citing Magna Carta, which was a wholly English document, with zero applicability in Scotland.

    Indeed, if you accept that the constitutional principles in England, of parliamentary sovereignty are somehow valid, due to historical laws and precedent set only in England, then why refuse to accept the principle of the people being sovereign from Scotland, derived from past Scots law and precedent – such as the claim of right.

    Their is the inherent bias. Somehow it is suggested England’s constitutional principles are ‘correct’ but oddly, those from Scotland are not. That is NOT what the treaty of union did.

    It seems that too many folks when talking of these issues, still view England or English precedent as somehow superior and ‘valid’, whereas that from Scotland is somehow, rather magically, not.

    Just because Westminster in its arrogance and hatred of Scotland, chooses to ignore Scottish constitutional principles, does not mean they do not exist.

    In short, Rob P is quite correct.

  92. Dan says:

    It seems there are two Dans posting on Wings.
    The Dan posting at 8am today and having the conversation with TD is not me.
    I also noticed another post tucked on the end of a thread a week or so ago by another poster using the name Dan.

    What’s the best way to resolve this situation?
    I’ll put up an avatar image when I get a chance but have a feeling this may still lead to confusion.
    As a relatively recent poster I apologise if I have inadvertently used an existing but non-prolific poster’s name.

    I’ll be travelling through to Glasgow for the AUOB march this Saturday on one of the two coach fulls of Indy supporters from my area, and I’ll try to pop by the Wings stall to say hello.

  93. CameronB Brodie says:

    @Scottish Law Society
    This might help in deliberating whether the morality of contemporary British nationalism and the full English Brexit, is compatible with natural law and moral democracy. This is no time for ambivalence, frankly.



    The aim of the paper is that of discussing some recent antipositivist theses, with specific reference to the arguments that focus on the alleged incapability of legal positivism to understand and explain the complex normative
    structure of constitutional states. One of the central tenets of legal positivism (in its guise of “methodological” or “conceptual” positivism) is the theory of the separation between law and morality.

    On the assumption that in contemporary legal systems, constitutional law represents a point of intersection between law and basic moral values, antipositivists contrast legal positivism with two main arguments. First, on a more general level, the positivist theory of the separation between law and morality is questioned; then, and consequently, the “neutrality thesis” in the juristic study of law is rejected. The author discusses both these antipositivist arguments, and offers a brief defence of methodological positivism.

    KEY WORDS: constitutional states, legal positivism, relations between law and morality

  94. Gary45% says:

    Talking to a chum this afternoon, he said something about a lady from the SNP or Scot Gov on Good Morning Shortbread this morning talking about the health service/raising tax and off-setting funding or something, anyone hear it?

  95. Tatu3 says:

    Is anyone else having a problem with archived articles? I can’t get any of them to open. I get this message

    “This site can’t be reached refused to connect.”

  96. TD says:

    Robert Peffers at 12.55 p.m.

    Just to be clear, the quote at the start of your post was of me quoting RoberttheTruth. Those were not my words.

    My main point is and was that yes, the Scottish people are sovereign but that does not mean that in practice, the Scottish people get to decide what happens in Scotland. I was responding to RoberttheTruth’s point that the people were against the Act of Union so how could it happen. The answer is that what happens is not always right in either a legal or moral sense and just saying that something is unlawful or unconstitutional does not mean that it won’t or didn’t happen.

    Arguably, that is the main problem with the union that we find ourselves in. The most recent and topical example of this is Brexit. The UK government does not recognise Scotland as an entity for these purposes and declares that our right to not be taken out of Europe is no more compelling than London’s. They are wrong of course, but unless a majority of Scottish people are prepared to leave the UK over it, they will in practice be right. Hence my point that whatever the legal and constitutional arguments, the most important thing is to convince a majority that Scottish interests would best be served out of the UK.

  97. CameronB Brodie says:

    I think that’s about all the legal theory I’ve got at the minute. I could take another angle of attack though. 😉

    Theory and practice in the politics of recognition and misrecognition

    In recent years, the idea of the politics of recognition has become an increasingly popular way of thinking about a wide range of political phenomena, from the logic of social struggles to nature of social justice.

    While the provenance of the idea of recognition in social and political theory may be traced to a number of intellectual traditions (Laegaard 2005), the two most prominent contemporary proponents arguably begin their dialogues with the same source (Toppinen 2005). Charles Taylor’s essay on ‘The Politics of Recognition’ (1992) and Axel Honneth’s book Kampf um Anerkennung (1992), both widely regarded as landmark texts on the topic, spend some time engaging with – both appropriating and departing from – Hegel’s philosophical system….

  98. Golfnut says:

    @ Robert Louis.

    Further to your comment regarding Scotland’s Parliament and the Treaty of Union.

    Lord Cooper made a very clear statement regarding Parliamentary Sovereignty.

    ‘ Parliamentary Sovereignty is a purely English principle, and one not recognised in Scots Constitutional law ‘.

    Now his comment referred to another matter, but they rather set the cat among the pigeons.
    In other words, Scotland’s Parliament was not recognised as Sovereign in Scottish Constitutional law.

    Sovereignty rests with the people.

  99. Clapper57 says:

    John Lamont trolling SNP to Theresa May in HOC at PMQ’s re SNP govt should get on with day job….to which she agreed.

    Which makes me wonder…what is Theresa’s day job…well just now it is predominantly trying to stop backbenchers from getting her ousted…..and defense secretaries from leaking information to try and make her look bad and thus giving themselves a shot at leadership contest.

    What is laughable is that the very things she quoted as not being paid attention to by the SNP govt…well in England these very things are in meltdown via her Tory govt under her leadership….pot calling kettle black…do as I say not as I do.

    John Lamont’s timing re stating Scotland better being part of UK is frankly insulting to Scots and obviously driven by desperation …it is almost laughable that he should even have audacity to say this..out loud…as if he is inhabiting an alternate universe and does not understand when to troll and when not to….but also to do on the day when Williamson story broke….delicious timing from John (not winning this time) Lamont.

    God…these Tories just cannot get a break…perhaps they should stop trying to be such smart asses and perhaps consider focusing on the day job at a time when clearly their own party is in crisis, which in turn, has generated a crisis for their beloved (not) UKOK……this was blatant deflecting which would only fool the King of the village idiots….I now await John applauding Chris Grayling while simultaneously criticising Michael Mathieson..he would do it as he has, like all Tories, no shame .

  100. CameronB Brodie says:

    This new line of attack is proving productive already. 🙂

    Hegel, Identity Politics and the Problem of Slavery


    This article examines the relevance of Hegel’s philosophy and political thought, and especially his views on slavery, for contemporary identity politics. It offers an account of Hegel’s metaphysical beliefs and explores the relevance of those beliefs for our understanding of his views on ‘the self’. It is suggested that for Hegel all individual selves are comprised of two component elements, one of which possesses the quality of universality and the other that of particularity. The particular self, or the particular component of an individual self, is a social construction. It is this dimension of the self that provides all individuals with their determinate social identity.

    The article applies this insight to a reading of the well-known ‘master–slave’ section of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, which presents Hegel’s understanding of the role that slavery has for the development of self-consciousness. The article considers two interpretations of Hegel’s views on slavery. One of these considers slavery to be a socio-historical phenomenon, a social institution associated with a particular type of society. The other thinks of ‘slavery’, using the term in a quite different sense, as being a necessary condition for the development of self-consciousness in all societies everywhere.

    As such, slavery is an ahistorical or supra-historical phenomenon that could never be transcended. The article concludes by suggesting that a modified version of this second interpretation of Hegel’s views on slavery in the
    Phenomenology has provided a source of theoretical inspiration for an anarchist critique of social institutions that was developed by a number of French social theorists and philosophers in the twentieth century.

  101. Legerwood says:

    yesindyref2 @ 2.52 pm

    Sorry to hear you are ill. Take care and speedy recovery.
    Re your post at 2.40, agree with every word.

  102. CameronB Brodie says:

    I think I’ve hit the mother-load. 🙂

    Identity, Recognition, Rights or What Can Hegel Teach Us About Human Rights?


    Rights play a crucial role in shaping identity by organizing the recognition of self by others and by legal and social institutions. For Hegel, legal rights lead to an abstract type of recognition based on the universality of the law. The concreteness of the person, alongside the respect bestowed by legal recognition, calls for the acknowledgment of honour and esteem. Human rights move in this direction, by validating both the similarity of claimants with abstract humanity and their difference and uniqueness. But law’s necessary generality cannot meet the demands for the full recognition of the postmodern self with its polymorphous desires and its complex struggles for recognition as a unique individual.

  103. Clapper57 says:

    @ yesindyref2

    Just read your post from earlier…sorry you have been ill…thinking of you …I wish you the best…please take care.

  104. Ken500 says:

    The Tories are just waiting, milking the system till they are voted out. So someone else has to clear up their mess, as usual. The usual Westminster total mess and shambles costing £Billions. They could not make a bigger mess. No one wants the poison chalice. A bunch of total imbeciles.

  105. Shug says:

    You have to laugh at Glasgow uni giving her a job when her unionist pals will not let students have a 4 year visa and the uni will be losing students over the next few years.

    I do hope they explain the visa position to the students before they take their money. It would be surly fraudulent to offer a course and take money when you know they can’t stay till the end

  106. Ken500 says:

    Just re post as Dan not Dan. Or Dan2. Or Dannyboy, Dainty Dan. No problem.

  107. CameronB Brodie says:

    @Scottish Law Society
    I’m not finished with you lot yet. The legal identity of Scotland’s EU citizens needs defending from the Prime-minister’s majoritarian abuse of constitutional power. That means the Scottish public, who are sovereign Scots nationals and EU citizens, or do you countenance SLS members acting on views that are in opposition to the “Claim of Rights”, as legislated by the House of Commons?

    Human Rights and the Excess of Identity: A Legal and Theoretical Inquiry into the Notion of Identity in Strasbourg Case Law


    Identity is a central theme in contemporary politics, but legal academia lacks a rigorous analysis of this concept. The aim of this article is twofold: (i) firstly, it aims to reveal presumptions on identity in human rights law by mapping how the European Court of Human Rights approaches identity and (ii) secondly, it seeks to analyse these presumptions using theoretical insights on identity. By merging legal and theoretical analysis, this article contributes a reading of the Court’s case law which suggests that the tension between the political and apolitical is visible as a common thread in the Court’s use of identity.

    In case law concerning paternity, the Court appears to hold a specific view of what is presented as an unquestionable part of identity. This ostensibly pre-political notion of identity becomes untenable in cases where the nature of an identity feature, such as the headscarf, is contended or a minority has adopted a national identity that conflicts with the majoritarian national identity. The Court’s approach to identity in such cases reflects a paradox that is inherent to identity; identity is personal while simultaneously constituted and shaped by overarching power mechanisms.

    Bhabha, Derrida, European court of human rights, fatherhood, headscarf, identity

  108. Ken500 says:

    The Principal has sone questions to answer regarding this appointment. Being funded with loads public monies. Cronyism and patronage. Supposed to be more impartial and follow a code of professional conduct. Non compliance.

  109. call me dave says:


    Reading just there, that your not to well. You take care!

  110. Robert Peffers says:

    @RobertTheTruth says: 2 May, 2019 at 10:34 am:

    ” … Oh! And by the way, you will have to show me where I admit to being a propagandist, Robert the Mooth?

    You have made several such untrue claims. My only claim is to being a life long independence activist and the definitions of activist and propagandist certainly are not the same thing and that makes you a liar.

    Henceforth you will be ignored by me. I’m not here to pick fights with numpties.

  111. boris says:

    The Scottish National Party recently committed to retaining £ sterling as the currency of an independent Scotland until such time as it is deemed prudent to adopt a replacement, (mirroring the successful policy of the Irish Free State).

    Already the vultures are circling with their portents of a doom claiming the lack of a “Bank of last Resort” will prove to be a weakness which will be seized on by desperate Unionists and used to discredit the policy.

    But it is opportune to know the views of independent thinkers armed with a depth of financial acumen.

  112. Ken500 says:

    Scottish Sovereignty resides with the people as an principle of Law. Scotland has a different Legal system guaranteed by the terms of the Treaty of Union. Forever. Scotland was guaranteed a separate (Protestant) Church with a shared Protestant monarch. Separate Church system led to a separate education system. Originally Church education. Paid by the parish. Until it became public system paid by taxpayers.

    English Law is based on Roman Law.

    Scottish Law is based on Latin Law

    Look it up two different legal systems.

  113. Ken500 says:

    Give up the fags for health sake. More money and profits. 20% and going down.Do something healthy instead. The young folk are giving up so much fags and booze. The older one’s are carrying on until a health scare. Give it up. It’s easy. Fill better breathing.

  114. Capella says:

    @ Robert the Truth – you won’t be surprised to hear that I don’t agree with you either, for reasons amply spelt out by others above.

    You don’t appear to understand what democratic decision making actually involves. No decision taken in Westminster reflects the will of the Scottish people. We are so outnumbered that it is a joke to pretend that Westminster has ever represented the will of the Scottish people.

    My mother was seven when women got the franchise in 1928. Until c 1948 no decision made in Westminster was democratic (voting age was then 21). The last time Scotland voted for a Tory Government was in 1955. There is a “democratic deficit” i.e. no democracy at all. Democracy is when you always get the government you vote for.

    I won’t bother repeating my comment on the suppression of Scottish History as you probably wouldn’t be interested.

  115. Cubby says:


    Bloody hell it must be Scottish pigeons that are deadly. Can someone terminate every pigeon in Scotland – because I for one am sick of Britnats like Jackie Baillie going on about them. I normally like birds in my garden but pigeons you have been warned. Get out of Scotland.

  116. CameronB Brodie says:

    One for the Jackie Baillie, who’s conception of justice appears to need updating.

    From Natural Rights to Human Rights—And Beyond


    The idea of rights is central to our moral vocabulary. Over the past century, however, the concept of rights has changed significantly: the original faculties-based natural rights doctrine is being replaced by a needs-based and dependency-based human rights doctrine. This change is best represented in the sharp contrast between rights claims expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. This shift in theory has and will continue to have broad practical consequences.

    The human rights view, in understanding human beings as needy and dependent rather than as distinctively capable of responsible liberty, leads to the endless proliferation of rights claims, which become self-negating. In a situation where everyone has a right to everything, there can be no justice. If the idea that we possess rights by virtue of our rational nature is to remain viable as the core of our understanding of justice, the identification of those rights must be grounded in a defensible account of our morally distinctive nature and subject to a sound limiting principle.

  117. Capella says:

    @ Dan – the one who disagrees with Stu – I don’t agree with you either. The sheriff was quite clear about the definition of the word “homophobe” and that Stu was not a homophobe, so KD had defamed him.

    However, because KD honestly believed he is a homophobe she is entitled to say so i.e. it is fair comment. This is such a novel way of interpreting defamation I doubt it could withstand an appeal.

    As for damages, it is normal to award c £2,000 for hurt feelings AFAIK. So the lack of damages is also novel.

    I don’t know what circles you mix in but I also don’t agree that people defame each other every day. This is simply not true, in my experience. But KD has a very public platform for her defaming. She has a column in the Daily Record and a berth at Holyrood. She used both to spread her defamation far and wide. That any politician would use their privileged position to defame a private citizen and demand that people boycott his journalism (which is his source of income) is unacceptable.

    She ought to apologise.

  118. Iain mhor says:

    @Tatu3 3:06pm

    One possibility is if you’re using a custom DNS server, specifically Cloudlflare, in your router or within your mobi settings, or an app etc have a long standing policy of bumping anything resolving from Cloudlflare servers (there are a few threads on t’internet about it)

    I had that specific issue before (and still do if I forget to kill my custom DNS in my mobi)
    If you’re just using your default ISP DNS servers its unlikely to be that though. Sometimes it could just be high traffic.

  119. Liz g says:

    Dan @ 3.00
    Why don’t you just add an initial Dan?
    I’m posting as Liz – g – because there’s another Liz who posts and as it turned out we were both from the same area too.
    Either way 🙂 It will be great to meet you on Saturday as it will my “slim” friend Cubby ….
    Fingers crossed all our timings add up…

  120. Robert Peffers says:

    @Cubby says:2 May, 2019 at 4:29 pm@

    ” … pigeons you have been warned. Get out of Scotland.”

    Just by coincidence I found a dead pigeon in my front garden this morning. I’ve been hearing them for quite a wile and seen the occasional one in flight. Now I also noted of recent weeks I had magpies hanging around the garden and magpies are prone to attacking pigeons especially in breeding season.

  121. galamcennalath says:

    Capella says:

    I also don’t agree that people defame each other every day

    I agree. Legally, there’s a big difference between Defamation and Vulgar Abuse.

    “Mere vulgar abuse is an insult that is not necessarily defamatory because it is not intended to be taken literally or believed, or likely to cause real damage to a reputation.”

  122. Liz g says:

    Capella @ 4.49
    I agree…
    What I find astounding is that given her position as “a potential First Minister of Scotland” , ( I know, but that’s where Labour promoted her to ) she had to have had media training and would, or should, have been very well aware of the power of her word’s!
    Yet her position on the tweet was held to be of equal weight to the Revs who has had no such access to these kinds of professional spinners and happened to have had the right interpretation….That’s not balance….

  123. CameronB Brodie says:

    @Scottish Law Society
    Your lack of a solid defense of Scotland’s constitutional identity, in the face of the full-English Brexit, does not impress me one bit. In fact, it scares the shit out of me. How can I trust the Scottish legal system now, not to be a tool of (white) British nationalism and the New Right? Are you rational liberal Scots or authoritarian, xenophobic, British nationalists?

    Identity and Difference:
    Studies in Hegel’s Logic, Philosophy of Spirit, and Politics


    Identity and difference (or sameness and otherness) are contrasting but interrelated terms that have played an explicit role in the development of Western philosophy at least since Plato wrote the Sophist. As Plato pointed out then, and Hegel reiterated more recently in his Science of Logic, the proper comprehension of these terms, and particularly of their interrelation, plays a fundamental role in shaping our conception of philosophical reason itself. The contributors in this book examine Hegel’s treatment of these terms, and the role they play in structuring his philosophical system as a whole and also in shaping his conception of dialectical reasoning.

  124. Tam Fae Somewhere says:

    Dan at 03:00……

    Just add some rubbish at the end of your name like I did.

    Surprisingly there is more than one Tam on this site!

  125. Liz g says:

    Yesindyref2 @ 2.52
    Aw sorry to hear you’ve not been well.
    Hope you feel better soon,there will be other marches.
    Good luck with staying a non smoker 🙂 is a great club to be in,we are all so lovely…. Well we smell better any way 🙂

    I’m going to help by not telling you how wrong you are, for the next wee while, can’t say it’ll last very long,nae will power ye see, but take it while ye can… LOL

  126. Dan Yell says:

    @ Capella 4:49 pm – it is not a remotely novel way of applying defamation law. Read the judgement again: the Sheriff cites precedent from decades ago, including one that is well over a century old. In fact, the application was so straightforward that I cannot conceive of what grounds there could be for appeal and would strongly advise Stuart against attempting it.

    What is your source for the £2000 for hurt feelings? The equivalent concept in Scots law is solatium and it is usually only relevant in personal injury actions where emotional injury has also occurred.

    It doesn’t follow that Dugdale should apologise because the judge ruled that the statement had defamatory character. If that seems counterintuitive, then you lack a fundamental understanding of defamation has been handled by Scottish courts and why the fair comment defence exists. To quote from the judgement again:

    t is common sense that the analysis applied by a heterosexual (a dispassionate application of logic based on the dictionary meaning of words) may be entirely different from the analysis applied by a homosexual person (a dismayed search for justification for an unnecessary joke at the apparent expense of a homosexual man). It is not possible to dismiss the latter as less worthy, or less rational, or less fair, than the former. It is the kind of subjective, rational and honest reading of the tweet, leading to a subjective, rational and honest public comment, which will be protected by the law as fair comment. Accordingly, the comment was fair, because it can be rationally justified from the underlying facts.

    For the record, I’m an indy supporter with at best mild contempt for Dugdale herself. However, the consistent, clear application of Scots law (which I believe can develop yet more progressively if completely uncoupled from London) is more important than seeing Unionists getting a bloody nose courtesy of the judiciary.

  127. CameronB Brodie says:

    @Scottish Law Society
    An individual’s identity is formed through the dialectic interaction between the individual “self” and society. The full-English Brexit takes a dump on the Scottish identity and has annihilated the concept of Britain being a union of equals. Are you comfortable with that and how it impinges on Scotland’s constitutional identity and stuff?

    The Construction Of Identity And ‘Selfhood’:
    Glimpses Of The Relevance Of These Psychodynamics To Work

  128. twathater says:

    Hi yesindyref2 sorry to hear of your probs, if you crave try ecigs i’ve been on them for about 5 years and huvnae geed in yet , keep on going ye might be a contrary bugger at times but we need awe us contrary buggers

  129. Mad Unionist says:

    CameronB Brodie. I do not want to be an EU citizen. Will the Scottish Nationalists enforce this on all the Scottish people?

  130. CameronB Brodie says:

    Take your authoritarian, (white) British/English, nationalism and ram it!



    In this article, the author, after having comparatively analyzed senses and significations of the concept of politic culture, as stated by several renowned authors in the world of science, proceeds to a differentiation of general political culture from those political cultures that are integrated into the lives of contemporary political agents (subcultures, political countercultures, marginal cultures, political cultures of public policy makers etc.) which coexist on the territory of a state.

    Using praxeological and systemic approaches, the author discusses the place and role of contemporary ideologies in their quality as a directional and dynamogenic factor in political practices, as well as political socialization and acculturation as methods of reproducing and developing political culture in accordance with the necessities imposed by the global development of society and by its subsystems.

    The formation of a solid political culture, through education and communication in general, both at individual and at social level, conditions the maturation of democracy, and the launching of public policies likely to solve individual and community issues.

    Keywords: participative political culture, subcultures and countercultures, socialization, acculturation, ideology.

  131. CameronB Brodie says:

    Mad Unionist
    I hate to break this to you dude but you’re already an EU citizen. It is the Tbot who seeks to disposes you of that instrument of EU law, and all the legal rights that go with it. The Prime-minister is not a democrat.

  132. Legerwood says:

    Ken 500 @ 4.20 PM

    Scots Law has absorbed a lot of Roman Law especially from the 15th century onwards and possibly reflects the practice of law students to complete their training on the Continent.

    English Law is largely based on common law, Acts of Parliament etc. It does have some elements of Roman Law within it.

  133. Capella says:

    @ indyref2 – hope you feel better soon. I thought you had gone a bit silent lately.

  134. TD says:

    Dan at 1.00 p.m.

    Sorry to be so long responding – had to go out.

    I think you misunderstand the law. You say “Proving a statement is capable of being defamatory is simply proving that there is a delict.” There are many definitions of “delict” available but they all agree that delict is about compensation for harm done. The default is that compensation is due if harm is done. There are of course many exceptions to this and the fair comment defence is one of them. The Sheriff’s judgement explains why he considered fair comment applies, but it is quite clear that without this defence, damages would have been payable.

    You go on to say “He considered it fair comment because, among other things, he regarded it as a value judgement, not a statement of fact and therefore even if he considered it incorrect, the diversity of perspective on the matter meant that his opinion on the tweet was ultimately of no greater validity than Dugdale’s.” I think this is where you misunderstand the nuance of the judgement. If the Sheriff had considered that Dugdale was well-informed on the matter of homophobia and that she had written comments which were false while knowing what homophobia was, then the defence of fair comment would have failed and damages would have been payable. It could only be an opinion and therefore meeting the test for fair comment if she was literally ignorant of what the term meant.

    As for the Sheriff’s opinion about homophobia he was quite clear. He stated on numerous occasions in the judgement that Dugdale was wrong – he did not state that in his opinion she was wrong. He said she was entitled to express her views, but that her views were wrong. There was no equivocation about this.

    So to sum up, Stuart’s position that Dugdale’s “win” depended on her being stupid is characteristically abrasive but in substantive terms, correct.

  135. Hamish100 says:

    Mad Unionist says:
    2 May, 2019 at 6:30 pm
    CameronB Brodie. I do not want to be an EU citizen. Will the Scottish Nationalists enforce this on all the Scottish people?

    MAD DOG- I thought your in England with yir pal Dame Mrs MONE.

    I am happy to remain as an EU citizen but the minority tories are enforcing this on me so I shall fight for Independence in Europe.

  136. Mad Unionist says:

    Hamish 100.
    Are you the spokesman for CamerB when he is taking tiffin.

  137. dakk says:

    @ yesindyref2

    Get well soon.

    And quit the fags while you’re ahead.

  138. CameronB Brodie says:

    There’s no time for tiffin when your working towards social emancipation. 😉

    Political Socialization and the Making of Citizens

    Abstract and Keywords

    Political socialization describes the process by which citizens crystalize political identities, values and behavior that remain relatively persistent throughout later life. This chapter provides a comprehensive discussion of the scholarly debate on political socialization, posing a number of questions that arise in the study of political socialization and the making of citizens.

    First, what is it about early life experiences that makes them matter for political attitudes, political engagement, and political behavior? Second, what age is crucial in the development of citizens’ political outlook? Third, who and what influences political orientations and behavior in early life, and how are cohorts colored by the nature of time when they come of age? Fourth, how do political preferences and behavior develop after the impressionable years? The chapter further provides an outlook of the challenges and opportunities for the field of political socialization.

    Keywords: Political socialization, impressionable years, socialization agents, generations, stability of political preferences

  139. ben madigan says:

    @ yesindyref2 “who’s not at all well and is worried about whether he’ll feel like the march on Saturday”

    Take all the time you need to get back on your feet and don’t worry about your business or any marches

    They will be there in the future and so will you

    All best wishes for a speedy recovery after a very frightening experience.

  140. Abulhaq says:

    As I understand it Scots Law is a complex hybrid containing elements from the common law of the pre-unification nations, Gaels/Irish, Britons/Welsh, Norse and Anglian plus elements from Norman, Old Roman and Canon law. Later in the 15th century Roman law as practised in the Netherlands exercised considerable formative influence. After the unfortunate Union, English law became influential particularly in commercial matters. Fitting Westminster legislation to Scots Law often required square peg, round hole ‘adjustments’.

  141. CameronB Brodie says:

    I’m sure there’s little I can teach you about doing business, but here’s some advice anyway, from someone who drove himself to a nervous breakdown. You need to listen to your body or else it will simply stop cooperating. Take care and get well soon.

  142. Petra says:

    Bombardier pulling out of NIreland.


    Yeah, get well soon Yesindyref2. And just think when you’re really narky you can blame it on the lack of fags, lol.


    Dirty Money Davidson using her maternity leave as an excuse not to answer questions on STV news earlier. “It would be unfair to say anything when I’ve been away for six months.” Who would have thought it? Wee fly wummin.

  143. Mad Unionist says:

    CameronB Brodie. You are right I need to be emancipated and after 68 years on the planet and not knowing this makes me feel humble.
    Surprised the Scottish government are not supporting the Venezuelan people who are under attack from the USA and CIA.
    Reminds me of the Scottish Rolls Royce workers who supported the Chilian people against the Fascist Pinochet CIA supported regime. Doubt this right wing Tartan Tory regime will support any working class anywhere.

  144. schrodingers cat says:


    get well soon mon ami

  145. jfngw says:

    I saw that Tony Blair wants to unite the UK by scrapping the Scottish/Welsh/NI football leagues. So not only does Labour want Brexit and Scots out of the EU but effectively Scottish teams taken out of European competitions too. At least we wouldn’t need to worry about who the next Scotland manager will be I suppose.

    Get ready to rebrand the Tartan Army to the Union Army all you ex Scotland supporters.

  146. David says:

    Bombardier out of Northern Ireland Debenhams closing stores thousands of jobs going not a protest from any political leader or the public why not

  147. Mad Unionist says:

    jfngw. Tony Blair is about to be given sainthood by the Vatican for services rendered. I doubt he gives a thought about the game of soccer.

  148. Petra says:

    Professor John Robertson:- ‘How Scotland Thrives – May 2019.’

  149. CameronB Brodie says:

    I think this one appropriate given the full-English Brexit is driven by intolerance of difference, to a large extent, and the BCC in Scotland incompetent, at best. Anyone know if the Church of Scotland is still wedded to the xenophobic ideology of contemporary British nationalism? Does the Church of Scotland not care about Scotland’s poor and vulnerable?

    Knowledge and Self-efficacy as Predictors of
    Political Participation and Civic Attitudes:
    with relevance for educational practice


    The results reported in this article are part of a larger study of the political competencies of students in Norwegian upper secondary school. The main focus of this study is how to teach civics in secondary school as a preparation for democratic citizenship.

    In this study, it is argued that self-efficacy and motivation, in addition to knowledge, are key competence variables that should be studied simultaneously. Five similar causal models are constructed to explore the relationship between the competence variables and various forms of political participation, tolerance and involvement. Five structural equation models (SEMs) are then estimated using LISREL.

    The main results for the three mediation variables are as follows: self-efficacy is a stronger predictor of motivation and three aspects of political participation than knowledge. Knowledge, on the other hand, is moderately related to motivation, but is a stronger predictor of civic attitudes than self-efficacy, while motivation is a strong predictor of both future participation and civic attitudes. The results thus confirm that competence other than knowledge is vital to civic participation.

    Finally, the relevance of these results for civic education in upper secondary schools is discussed. It is emphasized that enhancing students’ self-efficacy in the political field (often referred to as ‘internal political efficacy’) may be of equal, if not greater, importance for school education as promoting civic competence.

  150. Legerwood says:

    CameronB Brodie says:
    2 May, 2019 at 8:59 pm
    “”I think this one appropriate given the full-English Brexit is driven by intolerance of difference, to a large extent, and the BCC in Scotland incompetent, at best. Anyone know if the Church of Scotland is still wedded to the xenophobic ideology of contemporary British nationalism? Does the Church of Scotland not care about Scotland’s poor and vulnerable?””

    What a stupid ignorant post. Your ignorance of the Church of Scotland and its history and contribution to Scotland and the people of Scotland and their wellbeing drips from every word and speaks to a darker motive and massive ignorance.

  151. Marie Clark says:

    yesindyref2, sorry to hear that you’re not well. Learn to take things easy, not drive yourself into the ground. I know that it’s not very easy to do when you are in business for yourself, but, aye remember, health comes first. Without it, you’ve got nothing.

    Take care.

  152. dakk says:

    Surprised the Scottish government are not supporting the Venezuelan people who are under attack from the USA and CIA.

  153. CameronB Brodie says:

    Stupid and ignorant? The Church chose a side in 2014 and now appear to be on the wrong side of history. What is their position re. the full-English Brexit? Do they stand with Scotland’s electorate, who voted to remain in the EU, or do they stand with the Tbot and English Tory exceptionalism?

  154. dakk says:

    Mad Unionist said
    ‘Surprised the Scottish government are not supporting the Venezuelan people who are under attack from the USA and CIA.’

    Don’t you worry yer wee british nationalist backside about the people of Venezuela.

    Your thieving warmongering britnat government in Westminster are in full support of the USA in attempting regime change in Venezuela.Foreign policy being reserved to London.

    Stealing and misappropriating the natural resources of other countries is one of their fortes.

    Like your auld grey 68 year ol’arse didn’t know that.

  155. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    SNP now currently predicted to take 4 of Scotlands 6 MEPs on the 23rd May.

    That’s 66% of Scotlands MEPs

    That’s additional to our 62% vote to remain in 2016.

    Now if the Greens also squeak an MEP that would mean 83.3% of Scotlands returned MEPs were both Pro Remain and Pro Indy.

    Also echoing others when I say get well soon @yesindyref2, take the proper amount of time to fully recover.

  156. Cubby says:

    STV News

    STV is just another British Nationalist propaganda unit.

    Truthless Davidson being interviewed following her interview on the BBC the previous night.

    Asked by Colin McKay about Brexit she says “I think it would be pretty bad form to have spent 6 months changing nappies come back and then criticise everybody who has been involved in this while I have been away.”

    Asked by Colin McKay about indepence referendum she then gets stuck in. Her previous excuse re not criticising Brexit because she has been away does not apply to independence.

    Colin McKay meekly complies with this contradiction and does not point it out.

    Every interviewer from the Britnat stations is scared to ask Davidson a difficult question or pull her up about her lies and contradictions. Worried you’ll lose your jobs? Or are you all just grovelling Britnats.

    These political interviews are no more than set piece party political broadcasts that the Britnat politicians get for free from their Britnat media.

  157. CameronB Brodie says:

    Sorry, I need to remember that I’ve already formed an opinion through reading the sort of material I’m attempting to share. I’ve already done the moral maths and come up with an answer.

    What sort of future does Scotland want, tolerant and inclusive, or exclusionary and insular? The EU or Britain? It is that simple.

    Socialization and generational political trajectories: an age, period and cohort analysis of political participation in Britain


    The role of political socialization in explaining disengagement from specific modes of activism beyond voting remains largely unexplored, limited to date by available data and methods. While most previous studies have tended to propose explanations for disengagement linked to specific repertoires of political action, we propose a unified theory based on the different socialization experiences of subsequent generations.

    We test this theory using a new dataset of collated waves of the British Social Attitudes Survey and by applying age-period-cohort models for repeated cross-sectional data and generalized additive models to identify generational effects. We show that generational effects underlie the participatory decline across repertoires. Consistent with our expectations, the results reveal that the generation of “Thatcher’s Children” are much less likely to engage in a range of repertoires of political action than “Wilson/Callaghan’s Children”, who came of age in the more politicized 1960s and 1970s.

    Significantly, and in line with our theoretical expectations, the “Blair’s Babies” generation is the least politically engaged of all. We reflect on these findings and highlight the concerning implications of falling levels of activism for advanced democracies.

  158. Cubby says:


    I think your post re defending the Church of Scotland should be expanded upon and inform people as to why you make your comment. That would be helpful if you want peeps to understand your point of view.

    With regards to your support of the RobertThe Truth in an earlier post I can only say I was very surprised and disappointed.

  159. Lenny Hartley says:

    Yesindy2ref get well soon, all the best mate.

  160. Yes indyref2

    Sorry to hear of your scary experience – just you take time to get really well. You can watch the march on the live streaming since the cameras in George square won’t be switched off!!! ( least ways they should’t be!)

    Take it easy and try not to listen to any speeches from the (t)Ruthless one over the weekend they are seriously bad for anyone’s health.

  161. Meindevon says:

    Hope you’re on the mend yesindyref2. Sounds frightening.

    A policeman friend of mine once told me he once attended a sudden death of a man who had lung cancer and he found him dead in the bathroom having literally coughed up his lungs in the sink. Found his fags in the living room.

    Smoking still seems to be a big problem in Scotland. I love going home but everybody seems to smoke. From the minute you step out the airport you breathe in other folks smoke. Most of the family’s carers come into the home smelling of cigarettes. It definitely seems to be a bigger problem than down here.

    Come on guys you are needed to fight the big fight against the big U.K. not the big C. Give up for Scotland.

    (Sorry moan over)

  162. TD says:

    Breeks at 1:34 p.m.

    Again, apologies for delay in responding.

    I note you don’t agree with me. Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with much of what you say. But I’m afraid I don’t really get what your key point is. I wonder if you are conflating “sovereignty” with “independence”?

    Just to be clear, the Scottish people are currently sovereign as a matter of law. Scotland is not independent as a matter of stark reality.

    You say you disagree with the statement that Scotland should not become independent unless a majority support it. So by implication, you consider that even if a majority of Scottish people want to be part of the UK, if you could find some legal device by which they were taken out of the UK, you would support that. So much for the sovereignty of the Scottish people!

    I really think we should concentrate our efforts on persuading a majority to support independence, rather than looking for technical legal solutions. If a majority support independence, then we will achieve it. Until then, we won’t. It’s really quite simple.

    That’s not to say that recourse to the courts is always inappropriate. It could well be that before we are clear of this union, we have to go to court. So if there was a consistent majority for independence and the UK government tried to block it, then court action could well be an option. But majority support is the foundation on which independent Scotland will be rebuilt – that is where we should focus our energies.

  163. CameronB Brodie says:

    The EU considers “political efficacy” as being important to the healthy political functioning of the EU. That means the the EU considers local political AGENCY to be valuable, unlike Westminster, especially when dealing with Scotland.

    ESS Round 8
    Question Design Template – New Core Items

    Political Efficacy
    These items were developed by researchers at ESS ERIC HQ and Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), drawing on proposals originally put forward by Saris and Torcal (2009).

    To develop new measures of political efficacy for the ESS core questionnaire.

    It is widely acknowledged that political efficacy comprises two distinct dimensions: system responsiveness i.e. as the individual’s belief in the responsiveness of the political system and subjective competence i.e. the perception of the individual ability to understand politics and to act politically.

    The questionnaire for Rounds 1-5 of the ESS included measures of subjective competence but not system responsiveness. The decision was taken to improve the ESS’ measurement of political efficacy by developing items to cover both dimensions of political efficacy.

    Alternative versions of the political efficacy questions were tested in ESS Round 7 before a final selection of items to add to the core questionnaire was made for ESS Round 8.

  164. frogesque says:


    As others have said, a burnt out mind and body serve no one, especially yourself.

    Save yourself for the final push and the biggest hoolie afterwards.

    Also, I’m in my 70s and even as a young kid fags were called coffin nails. Just a thought.

  165. Robert Peffers says:

    @Lenny Hartley says: 2 May, 2019 at 9:50 pm:

    ” … Yesindy2ref get well soon, all the best mate.”

    I’ll add to those best wishes, Yesindref2. Use that health scare to good advantage and pack in the smokes. I stopped, (Cold Turkey), in 1970. I not only smoked Bogie Roll in a pipe but cigars and roll-ups too. Said to myself, “This is a mug’s Game”, threw the lot in the bin and never smoked again.

    The first three weeks are the worst but you do get an occasional notion for a smoke for a while but it soon gets easy to resist.

  166. Mad Unionist says:

    dakk. 9.33pm. The EU supports the overthrow of the elected Venezuelan Government. And the Scottish government supports the EU. Oops Scottish Nationalists support the overthrow of elected governments.

  167. CameronB Brodie says:

    @BBC in Scotland
    I’m not a zoomer, my world view is shaped through science and philosophy and stuff. I consider you as having played a central role in keeping Scotland politically uneducated and lacking political AGENCY. Look to your charter for the source of your nationalism and political bias. That way you might find yourself on a path to ethical creativity.

    Support for Democracy?
    Some Research Based on the Italian Case

    The traditional theory of democracy prescribes an informed citizenry as a crucial element of democratic politics. For this reason, political knowledge is seen as a functional and indispensable element of a viable democracy. In this article I analyse the effects of political knowledge on measures of democratic support by focusing on Italy, a country which is often characterised by low levels of support for democracy.

    Using ITANES survey data and applying structural equation models, I show that political knowledge has an increasing impact on confidence in institutions and on external political efficacy.

    Keywords: political knowledge, Italy, democratic support, confidence, political efficacy, ITANES.

  168. Phronesis says:

    Time for Scotland to de-colonise and determine where its economic assets should be invested.Scotland didn’t vote to be royally screwed by a deluded empire that is starving children on these shores and beyond. Collective autonomy leading to Scotland’s independence is exactly the reboot that the British state deserves.

    ‘When Britain’s formal empire collapsed, it did not entirely disappear. Fourteen small island states decided not to become independent and became instead Britain’s Overseas Territories, with Britain’s Queen as their head of state. It is a status that has been preserved until today. Exactly half of them – Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, and the Turks and Caicos Islands – are tax havens, actively supported and managed from Britain and intimately linked to the City of London. Accompanying these were the Crown Dependencies near the British mainland – Jersey and Guernsey, in the English Channel off the French coast; the Isle of Man, near the Irish republic; as well as a scattering of other territories – Hong Kong as a gateway to China. . .and a variety of ex-colonial oddities in the Pacific and elsewhere’

    Shaxson N (2011) Treasure Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens. St. Martin’s Press, New York. pp87-88

    ‘An estimated 85?000 children aged under five may have starved or died from hunger related disease since Saudi Arabia and its allies began fighting in Yemen in March 2015, according to the charity Save the Children.
    “For every child killed by bombs and bullets, dozens are starving to death and it’s entirely preventable,” said Tamer Kirolos, Save the Children’s country director in Yemen’

    ‘The Government’s most recent poverty figures show that more than 4 million children are growing up in poverty, a rise of 500,000 over five years. The Children’s Future Food Inquiry and the Trussell Trust’s annual food bank report paint a stark picture of what this means for daily life’

    ‘The eminent New York-based human rights lawyer, who is in the final year of his term as the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty, said on Tuesday: “You are really screwing yourselves royally for the future by producing a substandard workforce and children that are malnourished.’

  169. CameronB Brodie says:

    OK, so I think that’s the first two lectures topics sorted for KD, Rawls and Hegel. Perhaps they could lead on to the concept of “political efficacy”?

    How Internal Political Efficacy Translates Political Knowledge
    Into Political Participation


    This study presents evidence for the mediation effect of political knowledge through political self-efficacy (i.e. internal political efficacy) in the prediction of political participation. It employs an action theoretic approach—by and large grounded on the Theory of Planned Behaviour—and uses data from the German Longitudinal Election Study to examine whether political knowledge has distinct direct effects on voting, conventional, and/or unconventional political participation.

    It argues that political knowledge raises internal political efficacy and thereby indirectly increases the chance that a citizen will participate in politics. The results of mediated multiple regression analyses yield evidence that political knowledge indeed translates into internal political efficacy, thus it affects political participation of various kinds indirectly.

    However, internal political efficacy and intentions to participate politically yield simultaneous direct effects only on conventional political participation. Sequentially mediated effects appear for voting and conventional political participation, with political knowledge being mediated by internal political efficacy and subsequently also by behavioural intentions. The mediation patterns for unconventional political participation are less clear though. The discussion accounts for restrictions of this study and points to questions for answer by future research.

    Keywords: action theory, Germany, internal political efficacy, political knowledge, political participation, Theory of Planned Behaviour, voting

  170. Ken500 says:

    @ Breeks 9.33am

    Best Post ever. Brilliant.

  171. Reluctant Nationalist says:

    Imagine getting zinged by Mad Unionist. Well, dakk doesn’t have to imagine.

  172. dakk says:

    The EU has no control over the foreign policy of it’s 28 independent member states and has no executive power to effect regime change.

    Granted,most members including your own UK government seem to favour Guaido,but the EU president Tajani said he wants free and fair elections.Italy,Greece,Cyprus and Slovakia are neutral on Venezuela.

    What stance an independent Scottish government might have,you neither know nor care.

    Anymore than you care for Venezuelans or anything but your british nationalism.

  173. CameronB Brodie says:

    British nationalism is an ideology that supports a particular, “nationalist”, identity. Scottish “patriotism” is an identity that supports a more inclusive tolerance than England. That is not an opinion but a cold, hard, factual observation of another CORE issue. Perhaps a little biased. 🙂

    Scotland’s future must be “civic”, as opposed to the ‘cultural’ route England is taking. Scotland needs immigration.

    Myths and Meanings of Intellectuals in Twentieth-Century British National Identity


    As Stefan Collini remarks in a recent paper comparing twentieth-century French and British intellectuals, the sense that Britain has had no intellectuals has been a significant element in British national identity. Collini rightly observes, “Any discussion in contemporary Britain of the topic of ‘intellectuals’ is sooner or later touched by the cliché that the reality of the phenomenon, like the origins of the term, is located in Continental Europe, and that British society, whether for reasons of history, culture or national psychology, is marked by the absence of ‘intellectuals.’”

    One might add that a closely related assumption has been equally significant: namely, that while the British may have had some intellectuals, they have paid little attention to them. As Denis Brogan once said, in a typical observation on British culture, “We British don’t take our intellectuals too seriously.”

    The purpose of this article is to suggest an explanation for this feature of British national identity. As the recent literature on national identity tells us, a society’s sense of national characteristics is culturally constructed; thus we should be skeptical about any assertions concerning either the absence of intellectuals or the lack of influence by intellectuals in British culture.

  174. Sarah says:

    @yesindyref2 at 2.52: Congratulations on being home again – best possible cure. And well done on stopping smoking. My husband gave up when he was unwell and managed the transition fine. I hope you will find the same.

    I can’t go to the march either – am doing free National delivery and a stall instead…

  175. CameronB Brodie says:

    What can the New Left and the Fabian Society offer Scotland? Immunity from the full-English Brexit or more British nationalism?

    Mass-Observation, Left Intellectuals and the Politics of Everyday Life


    This article examines the careers of a number of left thinkers who broke with the Communist Party of Great Britain in the late 1930s, committing themselves instead to a ‘politics of everyday life’ based on social investigation. Central to this moment was the social research organisation Mass-Observation, the sociologists of which argued that democracy should be built around the vibrancy and irreverence they identified in ordinary culture.

    This ambition gained its fullest application during the 1940s, as a number of former M-O researchers became influential in the social reconstruction effort, in Labour Party policy circles and, later, in post-war academic sociology. By tracing the sociological arguments of unaligned left intellectuals from the 1930s to the 1950s, this article emphasises the rich plurality of influences at play within British progressive thought in the mid-twentieth century -influences which spanned the worlds of far-left activism, literature, art, the social sciences, town planning and parliamentary politics. It also helps us to reassess the genesis of the first ‘New Left’ in 1956.

    This is often hailed as the moment when British socialists first started to appreciate ordinary culture, freed from political dogmatism. In fact, left intellectuals had been engaging with the politics of everyday life for at least two decades previously. Indeed, the nostalgic accent which some New Left writers placed on the traditional working-class group was but one facet of a more heterogeneous political tradition – one concerned to think beyond ‘class’ altogether, and to examine how culture operated at the level of the individual.

  176. uno mas says:

    Re Venezuela it occurs to me that the current and ongoing attempted coup of the democratically elected Venezuelan government will surely provide the Cuban, and other regimes that are regularly critisised for the lack of democracy in their countries, with the perfect opportunity to say “you see where democracy gets you” and with some justification.

  177. Davie Oga says:

    Breeks 9:33am

    Correct that they are lucky to be living in anestatised liberal Scotland. In many countries that have struggled to free themselves from the yoke of Westminster, they would have changed their tune a long time ago. In Scotland they lie with impunity, secure in the knowledge that there is always an English pound to boost their political campaigns and a supine media to gloss over their flawed character. In many countries Davidson’s outburst today would have seen her shot, and dumped in a ditch somewhere. That threat doesn’t exist in Scotland, but a collaborator is still a collaborator and history will not treat her kindly.

  178. Mad Unionist says:

    dakk. 11.22pm. The EU does speak for you and Scottish nationalism. You do not condemn EU and USA interference in Venezuela.Typical Scottish Nationalist Tory who pretends to be something different. The Yankees stole Scottish oil so it is OK too steal as they wish!

  179. Cubby says:

    Scotland Tonight

    In a fuller version of the interview of Colin McKay truthless Davidson repeats the blatant lie that the Edinburgh Agreement contained an agreement for a once in a generation referendum that Cameron and Salmond signed up to. McKay did not correct her. Conveniently ignoring the fact that the infamous VOW broke the agreement anyway.

    McKay also asked her if she was going to stand in an election for PM to replace T.May as PM. What a nonsense question that was only designed to “big up” Davidson. You can only be voted by the conservative party to be PM if you are an MP . Also EVEL means she would have to go to England and win a seat as an MP. What a lot of grovelling nonsense.

    McKay also asked her about Ross Thomson’s behaviour. Nothing to to with me she says Its for the UK party to carry out its disciplinary review. So there’s we have it Ruth Davidson this great big Scottish leader of the Conservatives who in one moment is talking about being FM and not wanting the PM job is not even in charge of the Scottish MPs. She is a total fraud. Never held any government office and is not even in charge of Scottish MPs. Scottish Conservatives are just a branch office of the British party. Davidson and the UK both frauds. Davidson is a media creation – well she did work for the BBC.

  180. CameronB Brodie says:

    Here’s a wee peek in to the cultural backstory that ‘may’ be behind contemporary (white) British nationalism. 😉

    The English Nation: the Great Myth


    The argument of Joness book is complex. Its claims can be summarised under three heads.

    (1) History The great myth of the books title, the idea of an English nation, was invented in the 1530s by Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell. As a result of the Henrician Reformation the English suddenly became insular, and viewed themselves as the elect nation, apart from all others. They became increasingly xenophobic and reluctant to accept that their history, culture or institutions owed anything to anyone else. This contrasted sharply with the medieval world, in which the English saw themselves as part of a wider Christian culture, and happily acknowledged that they were a part of the international papal church.

    (2) Historiography English insularity, thanks to the propagandists of the 1530s, the common lawyers of the early-seventeenth century, and the Whig history invented late in that century by Gilbert Burnet, became embedded in English historiography until the revisionisms of the twentieth century began to reveal the truth. Revisionism was, however, anticipated in the early nineteenth-century by the remarkable work of John Lingard; but Lingards history, like that of contemporary revisionists, failed to have an impact on the great myth, which remained and remains entrenched in the history consumed outside of academe.

    Thus English historiography has been thoroughly Anglocentric, refusing to accept that English history has been part of a broader European history, and deeply influenced by European culture and civilisation. It has consistently failed to understand properly the medieval period, and thus failed to understand the revolutionary character of the Reformation.

    (3) Politics The survival of the great myth continues, at the deepest level, to determine or sustain much of the Eurosceptic English response to the European Union and to plans for further European integration. But the English need to see that 400 or so years ago they were, even in their own eyes, part of Europe.

    Having realised this, and accepted the Europeanness of their nation, they will be able to see the case in the present for full participation in the European Union. Furthermore, just as in the medieval past, the proper basis for European Union must be found in Christian civilisation and its values.

    This is a bald summary of a complex, interlocking argument. My reaction to the book can be put equally baldly: I’m unpersuaded by both its historical argument and its political recommendations; I agree with a good deal of its analysis of English historiographical traditions, but – crucially – find it difficult to accept the theoretical assumptions on which its history of English historiography is founded. I’ll work through these points in the same order that I have summarised Jones’s arguments

  181. Hamish100 says:

    Mad dog.

    Is it a full moon? Why are so many brexiters/unionists so racist against Europeans. Is it something to do with 1066? Lol

  182. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    Results just starting to come in come in from England but a surprisingly very poor start for Labour including losing a NE ward to the LibDems???

  183. CameronB Brodie says:

    Mad Unionist
    Do you really think it wise to spraf moral sophistry with me around? Shall we talk about recent ‘humanitarian efforts’ actually undertaken by Westminster. Hang on a tick while I find some up-to-date body-counts.

  184. CameronB Brodie says:

    Some of the backstory anyway.

    Myth and National Identity in Nineteenth-Century Britain:
    The Legends of King Arthur and Robin Hood

  185. Cubby says:


    All the best. Hope you are fighting fit asap and back to posting with your normal frequency very soon. Even the rugby posts and some of your silly GERS stuff as well.

  186. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    Getting worse for Labour now. This is a bit surprising. I thought the big two would both suffer badly. Early enough I suppose.

  187. Mad Unionist says:

    CameronB Brody. 12.16am. No to your quetion.

  188. North chiel says:

    “ the Ruth Davidson show” back on the road again , ably assisted by her “ media cronies” and “ establishment lackey” journalists. Headline news on the hour every hour tonight on local radio as regards leading the resistance to Indyref2. As the elders in my part of the world used to say “ empty vessels make most noise” . How very appropriate in her case , suitably amplified by the Britnat propaganda outlets . Perhaps May could have done us all up here in Scotland a favour and appointed her to replace GW as defence secretary. She could them have realised her ambition to be a “ real tank commander” , instead of a “ media circus” fraud.

  189. yesindyref2 says:

    Thanks all for the good wishes. Feeling pretty good, a couple of normal coughs (no blood). Maybe a little less tired than before, didn’t have to go to bed after my tea for a change! We downloaded Line of Duty so my wife and me are up to episode 4 before the final on Sunday. No spoilers!

    Yes, no tobacco in the house, no zigags, son took away a big flowerpot full of douts outside the back door when he went back home not long after collecting me from hospital (having done some work for me). Still go out for a break, and just look around as I’d do with a fag in hand. Don’t think I was really addicted to nicotine, just smoking as I was smoking since 7 years old (skipping bus fares) apart from a 7 year cold turkey break.

    Yeah, not sure about Saturday it’d be a day out, and I wouldn’t have been able to make it without the illness thing as I’d have been away on a sales trip. So I’ll see what the weather is. A fair weather Indy supporter, that’s me.

    Gonna go for a bit of a different life style too, maybe even building up to some hill-walking BEFORE Independence, a bit less time sitting around on forums.

    Oh, an unusual one for HYUFD – let us know how you do in the elections. You might be a Toryboy, but your OUR Toryboy 🙂

  190. CameronB Brodie says:

    A review of one I link too earlier.

    Myth and National Identity in Nineteenth-Century Britain: The Legends of King Arthur and Robin Hood

  191. CameronB Brodie says:

    I thought I’d hit the mother-load. 🙂

    National and European identity
    A study of their meanings and interrelationships

    The relevance of nation and national identity in present-day europe

    We are faced with a paradox today : on the one side, at the end of the “long Twentieth century”, the “age of nationalism” (Rejai, 1991) seems to have come to an end. This applies particularly to Europe. After two devastating World Wars, the inclination to war as a means to dissolve international conflicts seems to have disappeared. National sentiments are eroding all over Western Europe (Dogan, 1994).

    As a consequence of the breakdown of the communist system, the ominous antagonism between East and West Europe has faded away. Moreover, economic globalization is undermining the politicaleconomic autonomy of nation states seriously; new international governmental and non-governmental actors are gaining influence (Albrow, 1997). Sociologists have argued that also European integration represents a step toward a wholly new kind of a “cosmopolitan”, tolerant and multicultural political community (Giddens, 1991; Habermas, 1998; Beck and Grande, 2004).

    Yet, other events and trends lead to a less optimistic view about the disappearance of nationalistic, destructive and aggressive forces. First, the events after the dissolution of the communist bloc showed that nationalistic sentiments are still very powerful forces not only in Europe, but also in many other parts of the world (Spohn, 2003). Second, in some West European countries with significant internal economic and cultural subdivisions–such as Belgium– the preservation of state unity is an open question.

    Within these and other internally heterogeneous states (such as Spain, Great Britain and Italy), we can observe persistent conflicts between the dominant and subordinate ethnic-national groups or between central governments and regional movements (Keating, 2004). Third, a massive labour immigration led to the emergence of sizable new minorities in many of the rich West and North European countries. The rise of new right-wing parties in many European countries is partly a reaction to this immigration.

    Thus, the phenomena of ethnic and national revival in East-Europe are not only aftermaths of processes which have occurred in more advanced regions in earlier centuries. Regionalistic and secession movements often are initiated by the highly developed regions (e.g., the more developed states Slovenia and Croatia, Northern Italy, Bask and Catalan provinces, Wales and Scotland); their activists and leaders are well-educated people.

    Seen from a general point of view, it might not be true that there exists a contradiction between the aims connected with national unity and identity, and the issues traditionally central to sociological theorizing and research, such as social inequality and justice. The successful realization of social movements which often aim toward a more equal distribution of rights and opportunities between centers and peripheries, typically presupposes the inclusion of national sentiments and issues (Vogler, 1985; Blomert et al., 1993; Ailon-Souday and Kunda, 2003).

    This may also apply to West Europe. Here, social unrest becomes evident particularly among deprived social groups including a strong ethnic component. The violent uprisings in many French cities in November 2005 were led by young, second- or thirdgeneration immigrants assimilated to French culture, but deprived in terms of access to the labour force and societal inclusion.

    Conceptual and theoretical considerations

    Modernity, the nation-state, and national identity.
    The predominant approach

    National identity is a phenomenon which must be analysed at the three levels : at the level of the individual person, the political system and the ideological level (Haller, 1992,1999; on nationalism in general, see Estel, 2002; Leoussi and Grosby, 2004; Kunze, 2005). Here, we are investigating mainly individual attitudes. A central argument of this paper is, however, that even in analyses at this level the effects of the other two have to be considered carefully….

  192. North chiel says:

    “ yes Indyref2 @1248 pm “ very best wishes for your recovery from myself , not forgetting yourself assisting in a very long joust with our mutual “ friend” Hyufd a little time back . Chill out for a wee while !

  193. yesindyref2 says:

    @North chiel
    Yes, think I’ll go to bed instead of this fascination of watching election programs. If Hyufd was elected and put as much effort into being a councillor and doing real stuff for his constituency / ward, rather than the imaginary stuff he does on Wings, he could be a good one, regardless of party!

    On another matter, what is this “Change UK party”? Are they the ones who successfully campaigned for the Treasury to keep the one pence and two pence pieces in circulation? Well done!

  194. Petra says:

    @ Legerwood at 9:04pm … “(CBB) – What a stupid, ignorant post” .. “Darker motive”….

    Totally agree with you Legerwood and what exactly has the Church of Scotland got to do with research relating to Norwegian secondary schools, CBB? You’re inclined to copy/paste research findings and then try to make them “fit” some of your own “unresearched” opinions, imo. Not a great idea, and more than anything very unscientific. Add to that it’s well known (in scientific circles) that a number of very unsavoury people used that very ploy, that “mix” often, to the detriment of all mankind.

    Not saying that’s what you are deliberately trying to do CBB, rather I’m sure you’re not, just asking you to think about it.


    @ TD at 9:57pm … “(Breeks) I really think we should concentrate our efforts on persuading a majority to support Independence, rather than looking for technical legal solutions. If a majority support Independence, then we will achieve it. Until then we won’t. It’s really that simple.”

    Breeks knows that TD, he’s not daft … FAR from it … and yet he carries on day after day running down the very people, the ONLY people in fact, who are in a position to help us to acquire our Independence.

    All of this gobbledygook, gaslighting on here, about heading off to the Courts, at this time (note at this time), to legally establish our sovereignty is just a red herring. The Queen knows that the Scots are sovereign. Westminster knows that the Scots are sovereign. Key individuals in the EU / UN no doubt know full well too that the Scottish people are Sovereign, more so than many Scots, but can do nought to help us until a MAJORITY of sovereign Scots indicate that they want to leave the Union. It really is that simple right enough and that’s why Unionist politicians / the MSM bleat on about this “majority”, or rather lack of, constantly. They say, day after day, “forget about pushing for IndyRef2 as a majority of people have indicated that they don’t want it.” Key word “majority”, not “sovereignty.”

    Folks like Breeks however are aiding and abetting the Unionists by turning simplicity into complexity in an attempt to confuse people and using his “complex” sovereignty posts as a veil to conceal his abhorrence of Nicola Sturgeon / the SNP with the objective of diminishing our ability to achieve our Independence, imo. You have to ask yourself why. Have to ask yourself why he never, ever complements Nicola Sturgeon / the SNP or makes any comment, at any time, to promote her and her party on here.

    And ask yourself too, what if we went to Court and the judges agreed with us and said “yes the Scottish people are sovereign.” Duh! Then WHAT? Where do we go after that if a majority of sovereign Scots still want to remain in the Union, as is the position right now? Breeks will say of course that 62% of sovereign Scots, a majority, indicated that they wanted to remain in the EU. Well back to that old chestnut. 62% of Scots put a cross in a box that ultimately informed us that they wanted THE UNITED KINGDOM to stay in the EU. The word “SCOTLAND” wasn’t mentioned on the ballot paper at all and I reckon that EU/UN judges may have actually noticed that. And not noted for being numpties would ask themselves what percentage of the sovereign 62% actually want to live in an Independent Scotland. The question that Nicola Sturgeon, not noted for being a numpty either, has to deal with.

    We could go to Court too, as per Breeks but not Joanna Cherry QC SNP MP, and ask for Article 50 to be revoked for the Scottish people only and what would they say? They’d tell us that the UK is the EU member state, one of twenty eight, NOT Scotland. Scotland has never at any time been solely involved in forging International Treaties with the EU. Scotland is not a member state. We don’t count, that is until we can prove that a majority of Scots want out of the Union and it’s at that point that “legalities” will kick in, imo.

  195. CameronB Brodie says:

    “Totally agree with you Legerwood and what exactly has the Church of Scotland got to do with research relating to Norwegian secondary schools, CBB? You’re inclined to copy/paste research findings and then try to make them “fit” some of your own “unresearched” opinions, imo.”

    You’re another who is quick to critisise without having read any of the evidence supplied. There are a lot of ‘armchair experts’ btl, who simply don’t have a clue. Had you even hear of axiology before I showed up, i.e the philosophical study of “value”? Just who do you think you are?

  196. Petra says:

    I smoked for a number of years and tried everything under the sun to stop, to no avail. I couldn’t bear to drop my best friend. I really needed him. He helped me when things got tough. I loved him to bits when I was socialising and then he took over. I couldn’t start my day off without having a cigarette, answer the phone, sit in front of my computer or write a report. My health was being affected big time, I knew it was down to the cigarettes but I reckoned that my life would be a misery without them.

    Then I came across a suggestion for a “visualisation” that really helped me. The lifesaver. A visualisation that I carried out every night in bed (can be carried out anytime) for a week and then that was it for me. The last of my cigarettes went into the bin and I celebrated. I celebrated because I turned this “beloved friend” into my “deadliest enemy” in my mind.

    The visualisation is basic. Just close your eyes and imagine, see, someone at your front door (he or she). He is handsome, charming, intelligent, sexy (if you want) and funny (in light coloured clothing) and you invite him in. He ends up staying in your house and offers you a cigarette. You have great fun together, smoking together. Keep that part very short. Two minutes max.

    Then you notice that he has changed. He’s wearing black, is extremely ugly, opinionated, even violent and nasty. He’s coerced you into smoking. Maybe even see him forcing cigarettes into your mouth when you don’t want them. He’s living in your house rent free, stomping around, taken over and that’s led to you being poorer (plus the cost of cigarettes), feeling ill and less good looking with no energy any more to enjoy yourself. Your marriage, sex life, social life and job is going down the stank. He’s not your friend at all. He’s your worst enemy. Go over this part over and over again. Five minutes approx. If your mind drifts no problem just get back to Mr/Mrs nasty.

    He’s robbing you blind, destroying your health and life in general. He’s trying to KILL you. He’s a demon in disguise.

    You make a decision, open your front door and throw him out followed by the last of your cigarettes.

    He’s gone. The cigarettes are gone. Now visualise your new life. You are richer (work out how much you’ve spent in a year and what you can do with it – holiday abroad etc), fitter, healthier, better looking, sexier, more sociable, more successful and happier. Three minutes minimum. The longer the better.

    Ten minutes roughly once a day for a week or so to change your life.

    This visualisation can also help people dependent on drugs and alcohol.

    It helped me. I hope it helps you.

    Best of luck Yesindyref2 (and others) in getting rid of that demon. Your greatest enemy right out of your life for evermore.

  197. CameronB Brodie says:

    This is what I’m trained in, this is part of my profession. So it really rips my knitting when my credibility is questioned by my own side. If you had read any of my contribution to this thread, or even dipped your toe, you’d have been aware I’ve used legal theory and stuff to do KD’s job and provide an intellectual, “liberal”, justification for Scotland’s independence. I’m not pissing about here.

    Fuzzy Frontiers of Identity: The British Case

  198. Petra says:

    CBB you didn’t provide any evidence for your opinion piece at all. And by the way don’t presume to know what I know.

    “Who do you think you are?” I know who I am. You don’t. You don’t know who I am, what I know, how many degrees I have and the subjects that I have covered.

    “Had you ever heard of axiology before I turned up.” Eh! Before you turned up? You’re beginning to lose the plot. Delusions of grandeur? Anyone, just about anyone on here, can go onto sites and copy and paste research findings. I’ve appreciated what you do, another “approach on here is all, however you seem to have gone beyond that now.

  199. Breeks says:

    Petra says:
    3 May, 2019 at 2:34 am

    We could go to Court too, as per Breeks but not Joanna Cherry QC SNP MP, and ask for Article 50 to be revoked for the Scottish people only and what would they say? They’d tell us that the UK is the EU member state, one of twenty eight, NOT Scotland. Scotland has never at any time been solely involved in forging International Treaties with the EU. Scotland is not a member state. We don’t count, that is until we can prove that a majority of Scots want out of the Union and it’s at that point that “legalities” will kick in, imo.

    Petra there putting forward her considered opinion Scotland is NOT sovereign, and accusing all who dare to disagree as insurgents undermining the SNP cause.

  200. Petra says:

    @ CBB at 4:19am …

    I see you’ve posted further comments. I’m trained too. I’ve read your contributions. Time for you to chill out. I’m off to bed.

  201. Ken500 says:

    Tories going down big time. The LibDem (lying ConDems) who caused Brexit votes are up. Fools rush in. There are no Parties worth voting for in the rest of the UK. Thank goodness for the SNP in Scotland. A Party for whom it is worth voting, Vote SNP/SNP. Vote for Independence,

    The Tories are just milking it. An embarrassment. Waiting to be voted out so someone else can try to clear up their mess, They are ruining the economy. The Brexit total shambles. They could not make a bigger mess. An absolute disgrace. People are illegally dying because of them. A world laughing stock. Westminster full of unionist parasites,

    Another one down, another one gone, another one hits the dust. May is toast now. They will be fighting more than rats in a sack. No more purring like the cat with the cream. Troughing like pigs. Apalling. Off they go. It could not happen to worse people. Davidson on the way out even before the attempted come back. Off they go. Evil policies.

    Bets on how long May will last? She will have to go. With their pockets full of the evil loot. They are despicible.

  202. Ken500 says:

    The moment people have been waiting for coming swiftly down the line. Off the line shortly. Demographics.

  203. Ken500 says:

    Leslie Evans mucks up again. Deleting E-mails? Responsible for STV and D’Hond’t. The unionist corrupt non mandated voting system in Scotland. Illegally mucked up the voting system. 3rd rate losers voters can’t get rid of their vacant coupons. People are sick of the sight of them.

    The Tories Royals celebrating nuclear weapons. Trident the biggest waste of money. How out of touch are the interfering Royals. They are supposed to be impartial. Not sticking their noise in where it is not wanted. Illegal interference. They cause mental health problems. Taking part in illegal wars, and supporting war, to protect their property and privilege. Lying sychophants. A disgrace. Killing people and their mothers. Wasting public money then lecturing them, about climate change. The biggest, greedy consumers on the planet. Despicable. Responsible for WW1 and other conflicts. Millions killed. On of the biggest catastrophes in ever. They should be apologising for what their relatives did. Not celebrating. Total hypocrites. Slim down and keep quiet. Or bow out. Changing the whether climate forever.

    Tories going down big time. Bye, bye. The rotten losers.

  204. CameronB Brodie says:

    Are you trying to irritate or are you simply so far up yourself you do not appreciate when you don’t have a leg to stand on? I’m trained as an ethical rationalist. I have no idea what you are trained as, but you appear to be an irrational, ethical-egotist. Please try not to undermine my contribution any more in future. If you must, please provide evidence supporting your position.

  205. Nana says:

    The SNP’s majority on Dundee City Council was restored on Thursday night when Steven Rome was returned as the new councillor for the North East ward.

    Brexit Job Loss Index: 224,585 Jobs Lost As Of 23 April 2019

    Almost 7,000 Northern Ireland businesses in distress since start of year

  206. Nana says:

    Sterling knocked off kilter as BoE holds rates citing Brexit

    Sacked Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson says he believed the Government was behind the leaked secrets scandal rocking Whitehall.

    Snapped: UK govt docs on Williamson reveal he remains on Privy Council, entrusted to keep secrets

  207. Breeks says:

    I need more time to find it again so I can quote it.

    I was working away yesterday, zoned out doing a menial task, actually listening to the 1984 audio book. The bit I was listening to was somewhere in the middle, but it was random chapter of an audiobook on the iPod. (Hey, a Wee chapter of audiobook breaks up the monotony of music you’ve heard a thousand times).

    It’s easy to remember the headline features about Big Brother an the dystopian existence, and of course the narrative about Winston too, but I’d actually forgotten so much of the layered detail; all about the economy being dependent on an uneducated workforce not building worthwhile things, but expendable throw away things like weapons which sustain production because you never have enough, and you never run out, but the only thing that that regenerates is the need for more weapons and pressure to make them quicker. If you ever produced “enough” your production and economy would collapse.

    I need to read Orwell again. Must be 30 years since I read it. His dystopian fiction was uncannily close to the Tory Britain that is here and now. – Not just in snapshot, I mean Orwell absolutely nailed it.

    The indoctrination, the deprivations, the manipulations, the media control, the labour, the treatment of dissent, everything, right down to the geopolitical relationship of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia…. 1984 wasn’t a warning, but a prophesy.

  208. Ken500 says:

    Thanks for the links Nana. Great as usual.

    It is wonderful the Tories on their way out. A joyous day, A time to celebrate. Let’s get the Party started. Finish over the line. Finish them off completely. Another one gone,another one down, another one hits the dust.

    China 1.3Billion people, Has been invaded many times. Cruelty by Japan, Opium wars etc. Limits their population (disaster). 1 child policy. Tried to aid the planet. Spends $228Billuon on Defence and weaponry, Lower pro rata. Chooses to spend more on the economy and reducing poverty. Successful economy. With growth, China describes UK as ‘a small nation, without Empire or influence’. The Chinese currency the yuan is now accepted as an international trading currency because of it’s stability. To rival the US $Dollar.

    The US receives support for the US $Dollar by being the major international trading currency. Supposed to be stable but now being rivalled by the Euro and the Yuan. US does not approved. Currency threatened, Instigating trade wars which have a negative affect on trade and prices for consumers. Damaging and putting up higher prices.

    US and China have both protectionist markets. Difficult to trade with for others. Putting up Tariffs and restrictions. The EU 500 million people have bigger clout with international trade deals. More collateral of people. More important to import/exports. Growth in the economy with freer trade.

    The Chinese described Scotland as the ‘land of invention and discovery’. The Chinese Premier came to Scotland first, while on a visit to Britain. Met Alex Salmond. He has accounts of these matters. There are now direct flights from China to Scotland. Bring more tourists and students exchange.

    The Chinese are the largest tourist number in London. Now Scotland on the tourist map. Edinburgh (Glasgow/Inverness) is the second most visited City in the world. (Pro rata) Scotland earns £Billions from tourism food bad drink etc. Chinese (foreign) visitors love Burns, history, tartan, whisky, salmon and the castles. Now flying in and out of Scotland. ‘Outlander’ brings in loads of visitors and the disaporia.

    US 320Million pop. Spends $611Billjon on the Defence. 1/3 of worldwide Defence spend. Illegal wars and redundant weaponry ruining the world economy and killing millions of people. The aggressor.

    Assange had better be freed or the Westminster unionists will get the backlash. Scotland could give him safe asylum. Different legal system. Or Australia. Or even Sweden drop the false charges against him. Detained illegally. Against International Law. Westminster unionists once again breaking International Law. Liars.

    Williamson is a criminal, imbecile, waster, Another one gone, another one down, another one bites the dust.

  209. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    Wonder what the English council election vote tells us about the EU vote coming up (if it does!). Started off badly last night for Labour,got worse for the Tories with LibDems making gains along with the Greens.
    Not clear yet if LibDem gains are as a result of big increase in vote or huge drop in Labour/Tory vote. Suspect mainly the latter.

    UK chaos continues. Tories however still have by far the biggest number of councillors in England.
    UKIP thrashed also. Might be significant.
    Brexit to be reversed? NO EU election?

    Northern Ireland should be interesting when their vote comes in. Big result for Sinn Fein?

  210. Effijy says:

    Just seen that the Conservatives GAINED 8 Council Seats in yesterday’s elections?
    FFS. The people there think the Tories are doing a good job?

    Do they have connections to the outside world in Stoke?

    Does Stoke have a plethora of nursing homes for the demented
    And a rabid Tory campaigner visiting with postal voting forms.

    Tory party is totally split they lie they break promises their leader is a half wit
    They fiddle their expenses they are tagged as Tractors, they can’t negotiate and
    Deliver Brexit, they do back door shipping deals with companies with no ships, etc.

    So this Is what the people of Stoke actually vote for?

    This should certainly Stoke the fires of Independace as we have got to get as far away from these people as possible as quickly as possible.

    Should encourage a few thousand more to the AUOB rally in Glasgow tomorrow.
    See you wonderful people at Kelvingrove at 1.30pm.

    Loved the last one and this can only be bigger and better!

  211. Old Pete says:

    Davidson on Sky, usual Tory waffle. MSM in Tory propaganda, no surprise there. “Now is not the time”, baby mentioned at length. Thinks she will win in Scotland, what a Turnip. Sky showing its usual bias.

  212. galamcennalath says:

    BBC say … ” Results so far from local elections in England and Northern Ireland suggest voters are unhappy with the two main parties in Westminster.”

    … true, but a bit of bias here ….

    ” Conservative 1235 -442
    Labour 902 -79 “

    … so far. The story is that the Tories have been hammered to a far greater extent than Labour. However, as seems the case recently, Labour have totally failed to capitalise of Tory misfortune.

  213. Effijy says:

    Fascinated to hear a report this morning that over 80% of Labour Party
    Members voted Remain but Labour Policy is to Beexit?

    The shadow cabinet wants to honour the Tory voters Brexit vote?

    Most of the Labour MPs voted against Jeremy Corbain being leader
    But as the majority of members voted for him, they have to endure to
    Keep their noses in the trough.

    Who in their right mind could vote for Labour or Tory or the parasite party who will
    Work with anyone and say anything for a pretend partnership in politics?

    The big story last night was the number of Independants who gained seats.
    Vast numbers now seeing Westminster parties as useless and unelectable.

  214. Robert Peffers says:

    @TD says:2 May, 2019 at 9:57 pm:

    ” … Just to be clear, the Scottish people are currently sovereign as a matter of law. Scotland is not independent as a matter of stark reality.”

    I think both Breeks and yourself, TD, are missing the whole point I thought was crystal clear. This is that the whole reason for the Westminster claim of overall parliamentary sovereignty is factually a clash of law and thus it is all down to legality and illegality and thus best settled in a court of law. The problem being just what court has authority that is not compromised by conflict of interest?

    Allow me to try and make it clearer what I’m getting at.

    On 1 May 1707 Westminster sat for the first time as the United Kingdom Parliament. Legally the situation it was neither the continuing parliament of England nor the continuing parliament of Scotland and legally it’s sovereignty was neither that of England nor that of Scotland.

    Yet it immediately began, on 1 May 1707, under the rule of law of the Kingdom of England by assuming that, under English law, that only changed in 1688 when the English crown legally delegated their, “Devine Right of Kings”, to the then Parliament of England.

    The obvious point is that Westminster on 1 May 1707 was not either the Parliament of England nor the parliament of Scotland. So sovereignty under either English or Scottish law should not have been automatically applied.

    Under Scots law the crown and thus the parliament cannot be sovereign and so immediately there was a constitutional clash of the laws that the spanking new Treaty of Union stipulated were to be forever independent from each other.

    If they were legally independent of each other the crown/parliament was only sovereign over England but not legally sovereign over Scotland.

    Is there legally a solution to that constitutional clash? Yes there is. Every act or law passed by Westminster could only be applied to both kingdoms by having the legal sovereign of England sign it for England and the Scottish MPs first of all accept it, (this negates the imbalance of numbers biased in favour of the English Kingdom), then the Scottish MPs, representing the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, independently sign it off by the power of Scottish sovereignty.

    Which brings us up to modern times. The legal requirement for the Scots MPs to accept and sign off acts of the Westminster Parliament were devolved to Holyrood but Westminster dictated which powers they devolved and which Westminster retained.

    So there it is – Westminster has always operated as it was the continuing parliament of England regarding itself as, “The Crown”, but that Crown was/is the crown of England as it legally was pre-union.

  215. galamcennalath says:

    Breeks says:

    1984 wasn’t a warning, but a prophesy

    … or … an instructions manual and plan.

  216. Abulhaq says:

    On the subject of unionist subversion, infiltration and political shape-shifting:

  217. stu mac says:

    Mad Unionist says:
    2 May, 2019 at 10:38 pm
    The EU supports the overthrow of the elected Venezuelan Government. And the Scottish government supports the EU. Oops Scottish Nationalists support the overthrow of elected governments.

    No it doesn’t. The EU doesn’t have a foreign policy in the way individual nations do. Everything has to be agreed and voted on in the EU Council. Despite what a few individual EU nations have said about supporting Guaidó against Maduro, the EU council has issued no such declaration as you claim, supporting the overthrow of a government.

    30 April
    EU declaration on the latest events in Venezuela

    The EU issued a declaration reiterating that there can only be a political, peaceful and democratic way out for the multiple crises the country is facing. The EU rejects any form of violence and calls for utmost restraint to avoid the loss of lives and an escalation of tensions.

    More here, scroll down to see where it tells you half of EU countries don’t support Guaido.

    Of course the US claims not to be interfering in Venezuala and pushing for a coup, though everything shows it is, so I’m sure some of long term US allies like the UK and Germany would support the US even if the say they don’t want a coup.

    You really don’t deserve the little bit of effort I put in, as in many other of your posts you are simply a liar, but I thought it worth showing how things are usually done here. I didn’t just jump in and call you a liar, I went and double checked the facts I thought I knew – and showed that you are a liar.

  218. Breeks says:

    Thing about China and Huawei, I can’t figure out whether it’s genuine fear the Chinese might snoop on Western communications, or whether the Chinese based system would make it more difficult for the Western communication companies to snoop on us instead.

    Why is this only an issue now with 5G technology? What happened with Generations 1-4? Are these latest issues anti-Chinese or anti-competition when jockeying for position with American companies to administer a snoopers charter?

    Better the devil we know? Hmm. Feel a wee bit sick after Facebook, Cambridge Analytical and dark money interference in our politics. It murky enough as it is with BritNat propaganda oozing from every pore.

    I need evidence from an independent source to make up my own mind.

    You can always tell when there’s poison around; cyanide smells like bitter almonds, Novichock smells like bull shit.

  219. stu mac says:

    Slip of keyboard, missed posting this link which should be just after “More here”

  220. Patrick Roden says:

    @ boris,

    you said: “The Scottish National Party recently committed to retaining £ sterling as the currency of an independent Scotland until such time as it is deemed prudent to adopt a replacement, (mirroring the successful policy of the Irish Free State).

    Already the vultures are circling with their portents of a doom claiming the lack of a “Bank of last Resort” will prove to be a weakness which will be seized on by desperate Unionists and used to discredit the policy.”

    Yes the vultures are circling, which is fine, because unlike during indyref1, we now have plenty of time to develop our currency proposals and answer any smears, scare stories, or ‘expert opinions’ before indyref2.

  221. jfngw says:

    BBC Scotland top story ‘the return of Ruth’, I was convinced Gavin and Stacey was finished but there you go.

  222. TD says:

    Breeks at 4:21 a.m.

    As I thought (see my post at 9:57 p.m. yesterday) you seem to be confused about independence and sovereignty. First, it is the Scottish people who are sovereign, not Scotland. Second, Scotland is not, as a matter of fact, independent. So talk of revoking Article 50 for Scotland alone will not get us anywhere. Article 50 is part of an international treaty to which Scotland is not a party, other than through our “membership” of the UK. The other 27 countries would simply not engage with us.

    We need to be realistic about what can and cannot be done. There is no point in indulging ourselves with fantasies of how we would like things to be. The only way to make independence a reality is to persuade a majority of the sovereign Scottish people to support it.

    Would you really support legal or constitutional moves to make Scotland independent if a majority of the sovereign Scottish people were against it? If so, how would you reconcile that manoeuvre with the very sovereignty that you seek to uphold?

  223. TD says:

    Robert Peffers at 8:57 a.m.

    “I think both Breeks and yourself, TD, are missing the whole point I thought was crystal clear.”

    Thanks for the oft-repeated explanation of the relationship between the Westminster parliament, the crown and the sovereign Scottish people. You quoted my statement as below:

    “Just to be clear, the Scottish people are currently sovereign as a matter of law. Scotland is not independent as a matter of stark reality.”

    So which part of that is incorrect? What is the crystal clear point that I am missing?

  224. Capella says:

    @ TD – I think the very interesting point that Robert Peffers has added is that laws passed in Westminster aren’t legal in Scotland unless the Scottish MPs ratify them, or the Holyrood MSPs. That’s an angle I hadn’t heard before. It follows from the “who is sovereign” question.

    Otherwise you are both in agreement IMO. Thx for your interesting observations. It’s a debate we need to keep alive.

  225. Just checked Nasdaq for the share price in turd polish,

    seems like someone has been buying up the whole world stock,

    thought it might be the Chinese but turns out it was BBC Scotland,

    for something called `Project Ruth ,the return and glorification`.

  226. Patrick Roden says:

    @ Cameron Brodie,

    To be honest with you, as soon as I see your name I immediately scroll past the drivel you have posted.

    Do you seriously believe copying and pasting academic writings onto wings will help the cause?

    All you do is muddy the waters and your desperation for people to engage with you makes you an easy target for trolls like mad unionist, who you respond to every time (exactly what a troll wants)

    Your responses to petra above, comes across as so pompous and self indulgent, that it makes you look every bit as lacking in self awareness, that we see from Kezia or Ruth Davidson.

    Try going into a pub and speaking in terms of academic writing and look down your nose and sneer at anyone who thinks you are being boring, that way you will quickly get a truer picture of how you come across, than you could ever get on wings.

    If you genuinely support independence, then give your own opinion and stop being a mister know it all, and give up on the academic clap trap.

  227. kapelmeister says:

    New defence chief Penny Mordaunt had the 10th highest MP expenses claim in 2014-2015. Despite her constituency being in Portsmouth, which is hardly a million miles from Westminster.

  228. TD says:

    Capella at 9:43 a.m.

    Thanks for clarifying RP’s point. As with most things to do with the UK’s constitution, it is as clear as mud. But we did achieve some clarity in 2014 when a majority of the sovereign Scottish people voted to remain in the UK. Depressing though it is for those of us who want out of the UK, the Scottish people endorsed the arrangements whereby Westminster has power over Scotland. Note my careful choice of words – Westminster has power over Scotland, not that Westminster is sovereign. Sovereignty cannot be taken away or given away.

    Whether legislation passed at Westminster needs to be approved by Scottish MPs or MSPs as representatives of the sovereign Scottish people is an interesting point, but of little practical importance. Because of the 2014 vote, Westminster can reasonably argue that the Scottish people, exercising their sovereignty, voted to confirm Westminster’s authority. The Tory government has certainly not hesitated to use that authority. The manner in which they have done so bears all the hallmarks of a colonial power – and that is what we need the Scottish people to see.

    So, to go back to my original statement – the Scottish people are sovereign, Scotland is not independent. If we want to change that, we need to persuade a majority to support independence. Simple.

  229. Breeks says:

    @ Robert Peters

    I think I’m pretty clear and unambiguous about the law Robert.

    In my opinion, where we come unstuck is where and how certain people interpret that law, or shy away from what it actually means.

    It is not a rewriting of the law or a revision of the Constitution which I think demands attention, it is the issue of recognition which will deliver the most meaningful progress.

    Make Europe OBLIGED to recognise and accommodate Scottish sovereignty- either by promoting Scottish Sovereignty, (which I accept carries with it the risk we have a sovereign initiative at odds with a democratic majority), OR we alternatively dispute and contest Westminster’s professed Parliamentary Sovereignty. In other words, we fight their Brexit in every way conceivable on Constitutional gounds. Rather than see a Scottish initiative trying to change the law, I would rather see the false contrivance of the Union put under legal scrutiny.

    It isn’t Scottish Sovereignty that needs to be put on trial, but the faux legitimacy of the UK’S Parliamentary Sovereignty. Put Westminster’s perfidious sophistry to forensic examination in a Constitutional Court.

    We don’t use our sovereignty as an offensive weapon, but as a passive defensive against which “UK Sovereignty” comes to grief like a ship hitting rocks.

    If we do it now, the adjudication of the ECJ will oblige the EU to recognise Scotland, and that will achieve two big objectives. Scotland will negotiate it’s own future IN Europe, and via Brexit negotiations with England, I believe the English government will be obliged to recognise the sovereign integrity of Scotland too. They will be obliged to respect the will of Scotland just as the EU will oblige the UK to respect and observe the Good Friday Agreement in Ireland.

  230. HandandShrimp says:

    Tank commander keen for Labour to sacrifice their credibility in assisting Brexit so that her party doesn’t get thumped by the electorate in Scotland and spoil the ever receding fantasy that she could be FM.

  231. ronnie anderson says:

    Everybody likes a bargain .

    Save on the costs of postage Paul Kavangh ( Wee G Dug ) & Paul Colvil ( Indy Poet ) will be at the WoS stall . Paul Ks book is £11.94 save £3.50 on postage .

    Paul Cs book is £9.50 save the same on postage .

    Pete the camera will be doing the Badges for donation’s to Dialysis group Dundee , come & get some of the original badges from 2014.

    All profits from WoS stall will be donated (ie) Foodbanks & other worthy causes to ( pro Indy) will be decided by stall volunteers .

  232. kapelmeister says:

    Penny Morduant’s Portsmouth North constituency has no rural area and merely comprises the northern part of that city. It’s about 80 miles from London.

    So how the he’ll does travelling round her tiny urban constituency, nearer to London than most, justify being in the top 10 of expenses claims in the Commons?

    She’s also reckoned to be a Boris Johnson ally.

  233. call me dave says:


    Adam Tompkins to miss the Tory party conference today because there are no child care facilities.

    Not got a playpen big enough for him obviously 🙁

  234. geeo says:


    Stoke was the highest leave constituency in the entire uk at 79% if i remember from last nights coverage.

    Must be a a real charming place to live..(no thanks)

  235. Nana says:

    Watch the Tory Michelle Ballantyne at the Social Security committee and share it widely

  236. Footsoldier says:

    Colin MacKay gave Ruth a really easy ride on Scotland Tonight last night on STV. Not a single question on whether the Scottish Tories have a single policy – even one and he did not really query any answers she gave. We do need some presenters with forensic interviewing skills.

    Today, as is always the case on the BBC, when Ruth Davidson speaks, HYS comments remain firmly closed. The BBC simply does not know what bias is.

  237. starlaw says:

    Listening to the interview with Ruthie on Radio Shortbread this morning I formed the opinion, that if I knew she was talking guff then so did everyone else who was listening. Perhaps we should hear a lot more of Ruth on MSM, to much publicity can be a bad thing EG. When she claims she will be the next first minister, so outrageous nobody believes her, then they start questioning everything else she says, and how the interviews are being conducted, Ruth may yet prove to be a good recruiting sergeant for Indy.

  238. Breeks says:

    TD says:
    3 MTD says:
    3 May, 2019 at 9:27 am

    Breeks at 4:21 a.m.

    As I thought (see my post at 9:57 p.m. yesterday) you seem to be confused about independence and sovereignty. First, it is the Scottish people who are sovereign, not Scotland. Second, Scotland is not, as a matter of fact, independent. So talk of revoking Article 50 for Scotland alone will not get us anywhere. Article 50 is part of an international treaty to which Scotland is not a partyay, 2019 at 9:27 am

    If you are sovereign, whether by the people or the nation, you cannot be overruled. That is the literal definition of sovereignty :- you have no superior.

    If Scotland is removed from Europe against the will of the people, and the will of the people was clear and emphatic in 2016, then the will of the people will have been overruled. If we choose not to defend our sovereignty, or acquiesce to the will of a body we respect as our superior, we will not be sovereign, but a subject under the reign of your sovereign ruler.

    If you want dance around the issue of sovereignty and obfuscate what it means to be sovereign, then do it on your own time. I am satisfied that Scotland’s sovereignty is extant, lawful and legitimate, albeit masked and distorted my layer upon layer of unionist sophistry.

    Our sovereignty requires no mandate, no enhancement or qualification, no modification or constitutional reinvention to be the ultimate authority in our Nation. All that it requires, all that it is lacking, is international recognition.

    All the heavy lifting was done by forefathers 700 years ago. Why would any self respecting Scotland abandon the undisputed sovereignty they secured for our Nation in perpetuity in lieu of a false sovereignty foisted upon our people by a colonial suppressor, which cannot even commit it’s constitution to writing because the writing of it would betray the extent of the falacy?

    WE ARE SOVEREIGN. It is our sovereign will by emphatic majority to stay in Europe. What authority do YOU respect that you would let our sovereign will be overruled by a UK colonial edict?

    The ECJ ruled that revocation of Article 50 was a sovereign prerogative of the member state. The UK has no sovereign prerogative if the sovereign will of the Scottish people is flouted and overruled. The UK is exercising unlawful colonial subjugation.

    Yes, I would ask the ECJ whether the sovereign will of Scotland is the lesser in a Treaty of Equals, and have them cite their case for Constitutional legitimacy in order to embrace it if it confirms us, or destroy it if it affirms the ascendency of the bogus UK.

    I believe the ECJ, just like Westminster, would be obliged to respect the Claim of Right and sovereignty of the Scottish people, and when the ECJ is obliged to respect it, so is the EU, and Scotland’s Brexit is dead in the water, the UK Withdrawal Agreement is obsolete, and the EU/Westminster need a new Withdrawal Agreement which excludes Scotland, and a Transitional Agreement with Scotland to flesh out its Continuer-type ongoing EU membership.

  239. Socrates MacSporran says:


    On the thankfully few occasions I have been in Stoke, it has always struck me as the epitome of: “Eeh lad, bur’ts grim oop north.”

    This, in spite of the fact it is probably actually in the north midlands of England.

  240. Mike cassidy says:

    I know I shouldn’t ask this

    But then I wasn’t trained as an ethical rationalist like our resident intellectual

    Does anybody know of the fudmeister is now an elected councillor?

  241. geeo says:

    Last nights local elections were quite something then.

    Tories lost over 400 seats, Labour over 80.

    Lib dems/greens/Independents made huge gains.

    So how to analyse that lot ?

    Not as simple as it seems perhaps, as i would suggest that it could INCREASE the chances of a cliff edge no deal brexit.

    If, as suggested, the result was a brexit backlash, then it was a backlash because brexit has not happened yet, which clearly the tories have been hammered for, but labour has also been damaged because people simply do not trust them on brexit, as they have no clear position on it.

    If the libdems think this means they are on a revival they are on plums, as clearly, all those angry over no brexit did not vote lib dem to save brexit for them.

    If the tories think the only way to get those voters back onside is to deliver brexit any way they can, then they may just do that.

    If they cannot get treeza’s deal over the line, which ironically may have been given a better chance, then i would suggest that the chances of a no deal crash out in October is much more likely now.

    Having said that, once the EU elections are out the way, the voters can be ignored for a couple of years, until the 2022 GE, and that will be the election where the Tories will have finally delivered brexit, after another long extention (into late 2020/early 2021) which gets them as close as possible to Holyrood 2021, hoping that the Scotsgov have not pulled the trigger because we still have not been removed against our will.

    Tory goals, save the union, plow dark money into Holyrood election, ‘triumphantly’ (in their minds) leave the EU at last.

    All in time for the 2022 election and full on jingoism, with minimal time left for brexit to take its negative effect.

    Then thats the electorate ignored for another 5 years, no matter how shit life becomes.

    The above is mere speculation as to how the tories/labour may see these results and how to move forward, i certainly do not see the Scotsgov leaving an indyref until as late as the tories may hope for, for example.

    As for a GE …I doubt the tories or labour fancy that now.

  242. Robert Louis says:

    The BBC ‘news’ where you are;

    1. Ruth Davidson, MSP, Scottish Conservative ‘leader’ and soon-to-be First Minister of Scotland/Prime Minister returns.

    2. Ruth Davidson,MSP, Scottish Conservative ‘leader’, and soon-to-be First Minister of Scotland/Prime Minister, now a gay icon, despite taking donations from and supporting, a political party with rabid, virulent, hateful homophobes and homophobic policies.

    3. Ruth Davidson, MSP, Scottish Conservative ‘leader’, and soon-to-be First Minister of Scotland/Prime Minister on why she doesn’t want ‘Sturgeon’ to be allowed another damaging referendum.

    4. Ruth Davidson,MSP, Scottish Conservative ‘leader’, and soon-to-be First Minister of Scotland/Prime Minister, gives damming judgement of ‘Sturgeon’, in her exclusive BBC first full-length interview, following the ‘brave’ birth of her child.

    5. ‘Ruthie talks babies’. New mum, MSP, Scottish Conservative ‘leader’ and soon-to-be First Minister of Scotland/Prime Minister, Ruth Davidson tells of her ‘courage’ having a baby.

    Later, political analysis by our political correspondents paid liars, into just why Ruth Davidson could be the next First Minister of Scotland, President of Venezuela and possible leader of the free world.

    Followed by;

    A new three part documentary following gay icon, and soon -to be Prime Minister or First Minister or both, Ruth Davidson, as she ‘bravely’ has a baby while still being the most successful politician to ever live. Ever.

  243. Socrates MacSporran says:

    This is somewhat off-topic, but, Martin Kettle has a piece of hagiography in the Guardian this morning, on the subject of St Ruth of Buffalo Tanks.

    Trouble is, he gets torn asunder in the below the line comments, by Scots only too ready to put him right on the real Colonel Ruth.

    An own goal if ever I saw one.

  244. Clootie says:

    “With the recovery of the LibDems, we may be returning to three Party politics in the UK”
    It appears that the SNP are not really a Party!

  245. Clootie says:

    It was John Curtice who said above

  246. Frank Gillougley says:

    RL 11.27


    Excoriating satire. Truly, the nearest to truth. She really is Boris in drag.

    Hopefully, that’s fair comment?

  247. Petra says:

    @ call me dave says at 10:43 am …. ”Jings! Adam Tompkins to miss the Tory party conference today because there are no child care facilities. Not got a playpen big enough for him obviously ?”

    And the band played ….

    Isn’t that a strange one? No wife to look after them? No colleagues or friends? No money to employ a nanny for the weekend? Or then again maybe like the rest of us he’s scunnered listening to Tory bullsh*t, plus the penny has dropped that the Tories aren’t exactly child friendly.


    What an embarrassment, lol.

    Wings twitter:-

    ‘Jacob Rees-Mogg is now represented by a Lib-dem councillor.’

  248. yesindyref2 says:

    What sheer and absolute stupidity. An addressed flyer with “AN URGENT MESSAGE FOR” at the top.

    Turns out to be a flyer for the Scottish LibDems.

    How to piss of a potential voter (not that I would anyway right enough), by making you wonder what’s urgent and then finding it’s pp spam.

  249. yesindyref2 says:

    First time I’ve ever said this about anyone, and it’s about John Curtice, the way I felt hearing him gurgle and make some really off-target comments about the English council elections with his hair waggling at all different angles.

    He’s a national embarrassment.

  250. jfngw says:


    If the Scottish people are sovereign then how does Westminster have the competence to remove Scots EU membership/citizenship against the overwhelming wishes of the Scottish people. The people of Scotland voted to remain a member of the UK in 2014, not the removal of their sovereignty.

    There is a difference to Westminster removing us against our wishes and the EU refusing to recognise us.

  251. Robert Peffers says:

    @TD says: 3 May, 2019 at 10:17 am:
    ” … Westminster has power over Scotland, not that Westminster is sovereign. Sovereignty cannot be taken away or given away.”

    Not quite right TD. First there is a distinction between legally sovereign and being sovereign in practice. This ties in with your other statement :- ” … Sovereignty cannot be taken away or given away.”

    You are correct that legally sovereignty cannot be given away but it certainly can be illegally taken away.

    Here are two of the natural laws of sovereignty besides the legal laws of sovereignty. First is that ultimately the people are always sovereign because sovereignty can only be held if the people allow it to be held. Second is that sovereignty belongs to those who can take and hold it.

    Westminster took it illegally on 1 May 1707 and have continued to hold it ever since even although the people of Scotland continue to be legally sovereign under the Rule of law of the Kingdom of England and that is where the natural laws of sovereignty come in.

    We remain legally sovereign and it is up to us, by the natural laws of sovereignty, “That the people are naturally sovereign as no one can hold sovereignty unless by the will of the people”.

    This, of course, is usually done by armed revolution against the illegal enforcer of sovereignty but it need not be so.

    So first we need the will of the people a.k.a. A majority voting for independence and that could be by voting for remaining in the EU or for ending the Treaty of Union and we can, under modern legal conditions, do so via the courts.

    Remember that the United Kingdom, of which we are one partner of two, has signed up to The Geneva Convention, The United Nations and the EU Human Rights Charters. These charters all state that any distinctly recognisable group of people have the human right of self determination. Scotland is a country and a kingdom with its own independent legal system – how more recognisable need we be?

    How can the Westminster Supreme Court rule against a claim of a majority of Scots for self determination when Westminster has signed up to those human right laws? How can the International courts? How can any other state, kingdom or country signed up to those human rights fail to recognise an independent Scotland as an independent Scotland?

    There is the case – but first we need that majority of Scots delegating either a political party or a Holyrood Government, (preferably with that political party in power), to take that majority claim to the courts?

    Whether legislation passed at Westminster needs to be approved by Scottish MPs or MSPs as representatives of the sovereign Scottish people is an interesting point, but of little practical importance. Because of the 2014 vote, Westminster can reasonably argue that the Scottish people, exercising their sovereignty, voted to confirm Westminster’s authority. The Tory government has certainly not hesitated to use that authority. The manner in which they have done so bears all the hallmarks of a colonial power – and that is what we need the Scottish people to see.
    So, to go back to my original statement – the Scottish people are sovereign, Scotland is not independent. If we want to change that, we need to persuade a majority to support independence. Simple.

  252. Hamish100 says:

    Getting worried about the Rev.

    Has he been given an exclusive with Davidson (don’t mention I’ve had a baby – I don’t want praise)
    and is being held hostage?

    I think we should be told.

    ps lovely picture of Davidson and Partner with wee baba on the bbc webpage.

    Ahhhhhhhh. Almost a royalist baby.

  253. Robert Peffers says:

    Oops! Sorry I failed to remove the last parts of TD’s comment I was replying to from my last commet. Sorry about the careless mistake. I’ll slap myself on the leg – twice! ;-))

  254. Petra says:

    Looks as though Tomkins isn’t the only one to stay away.

    Compare and contrast with the turnout for the SNP/Nicola Sturgeon last week.

  255. Petra says:

    Here we go. Next one up!

    ‘Rory Stewart: I’d bring country together as PM.’

    ”New International Development Secretary Rory Stewart has said he intends to stand for the Conservative leadership after Theresa May steps down. He told the BBC’s Political Thinking With Nick Robinson podcast he could “help bring the country together”.


    ‘Rory (the Tory) Stewart – His life to Date – An Update Taking in the Referendum.’

    He can’t even get that right!

    .”Stewart held a strong belief in the colonial system of government stating: “Colonial administrations may have been racist and exploitative, but they did at least work seriously at the business of understanding the people they were governing”.

  256. yesindyref2 says:

    I suspect the answer is that there are more Tories than seats, but the missing ones with the average age of the member are on frequent toilet breaks. Which reminds me …

  257. Petra says:

    ‘Mystery of the disappearing loch in the Cairngorms.’

    …”Charlie Whelan, a local angler, expressed sadness at the drying up of the loch. He said: “Loch Vaa is a unique loch in Scotland because it is gin clear. It is a wonderful fishing loch, especially in evenings.”

    Mr Whelan blames Scottish Water for affecting the spring. He said: “It’s nothing to do with rainfall. It’s completely because Scottish Water, to save money, dug a huge borehole in Aviemore.”

  258. Abulhaq says:

    Whatever its faults or deficiencies, within the context of UK politics the SNP is the only party that possesses the energy to climb out of the, English made, deep rut of political stasis.
    All that energy must be devoted to rising above the Westminster culture and kicking the Union and all its ‘British’ works into history.

  259. Cubby says:

    Scotlands future in the UK is shit. Sadly still plenty of people in Scotland who can only smell roses.

  260. kapelmeister says:

    Rory Stewart. He’d bring Scotland, England and Middleland together in a spirit of unreality if he was PM.

  261. HandandShrimp says:

    May has lost over 600 councillors so far, mostly going to pro EU parties, and the message she hears is that she needs to get on with Brexit. She is not listening to the voters she is listening to the ERG.

    Crazy, crazy stuff.

  262. CameronB Brodie says:

    Patrick Roden
    “Do you seriously believe copying and pasting academic writings onto wings will help the cause?”

    Fine but that suggests you don’t appreciate how education works.

    “If you genuinely support independence, then give your own opinion and stop being a mister know it all, and give up on the academic clap trap.”

    Do you appreciate how idiotic that statement is? Probably not.

  263. Robert Peffers says:

    @Breeks says: 3 May, 2019 at 10:20 am:

    ” … I think I’m pretty clear and unambiguous about the law Robert.”

    Whoa! There! First you claim that you are clear and unambiguous about the law and follow that immediately up with, ” … In my opinion,”, but I’ll let that pass.

    ” … where we come unstuck is where and how certain people interpret that law, or shy away from what it actually means.
    It is not a rewriting of the law or a revision of the Constitution which I think demands attention, it is the issue of recognition which will deliver the most meaningful progress.”

    Well I’m not interpreting the law but before we go any further with this line just which law is it you refer to? The fault is not with, “The Law”, the fault is that we are dealing with two separate, different and independent Rules of Law.

    I’ve mentioned that many, many times but I’ll state it again.

    First, however, it might be prudent to begin by pointing out the different legal interpretations of what the English perceive as, “The Union of The Crowns”. There was no actual Union of the Crowns except for the personal union of the crowns of the monarch himself. ry telling that to the average Englander.

    Anyway that is a digression.
    During the English, “Glorious Revolution”, when the English parliamentary aristocracy rebelled against their rightful monarch and deposed him and then, skipping by all Roman Catholics, invited the first Protestant in line, Mary of Orange, and her husband William, to ascent the throne of England they also changed the law of the Kingdom of England.

    First they made it a condition that the monarchy had to legally delegate their, “Divine Right of Kings”, (a.k.a. sovereignty), to the parliament of England. This made the pre-Union English parliament effectively, “The Crown”, but it was only the crown of England this applied to for both kingdoms were still independent.

    Other legal effects were that by this change in English law it made only the Kingdom of England into a Constitutional Monarchy and also led to what England still calls, “The Jacobite Rebellions”, but as Scotland was still independent the Jacobites could not be rebelling against a king not their own.

    Here we see the preview of how the independent Rule of Law of England was to be applied to Scotland and thus overruling the independent Rule of Law of Scotland.

    Not only does Westminster class the Jacobites as rebels against the English Crown but the real rebels were those who rebelled and deposed their rightful monarch. They also forced upon the Scots the English choice of monarchy and also considered that the still independent Scotland had also become, “A Constitutional Monarchy”, and thus part of the Crown of England, (a.k,a,the English Parliament”.

    So there, in 1688, we already see Westminster and the different Rule of Law of England being illegally applied to Scotland and all before The Treaty of Union was even in negotiation.

    As for Scotland not only did Scotland have an independent rule of law but it had changed that Rule of law in 1320 and made the people sovereign and not either the Scots Parliament or the King of Scots.

    Thus, after forcing the Treaty of Union upon the Scots, Westminster just carried on forcing English law upon Scotland.

    The Treaty of Union was signed and Westminster just carried on illegally enforcing English law upon Scotland. This includes The Magna Carta, Laws made by Henry VIII and the presumption that the English Crown, (parliament), was sovereign over Scotland in spite of the actual Treaty of Union that united the two kingdoms stating otherwise.

    So there is the real problem – not the interpretation of either English or Scottish Law but the illegal enforcement of English law upon Scotland. Need I remind you that Westminster Anglified Wales by forcing English Law upon Wales by the Statute of Rhuddlan and went on to annex Wales?

    Scotland has been made illegally subject to things like The Magna Carta, Henry VIII laws, English law making Westminster, “The Crown”, The Westminster Supreme Court and so on.

    So not a matter of interpretation of, “The Law”, but of an illegal imposition of English Law on Scotland when the Treaty of Union says both legal systems are agreed to be sacrosanct.

  264. North chiel says:

    Jackie Bird has left , has Ruth Davidson now taken over at “ reporting Britnat” . 2nd item behind BM funeral on lunch time “ bulletin “ . Ruth Davidson party conference now . Obviously taking over from the Tories .

  265. CameronB Brodie says:

    Mike cassidy
    I can help being who I am, though “intellectual” is stretching things a bit. I’ve simply had a formal introduction to this stuff and know how all the pieces fit together.

  266. Robert Peffers says:

    @Breeks says: 3 May, 2019 at 11:10 am:

    ” … If you are sovereign, whether by the people or the nation, you cannot be overruled. That is the literal definition of sovereignty :- you have no superior.”

    Try telling that to the Native American Nations in both Canada and the USA. Try telling it to the native Australians or the Native New Zealanders.

  267. CameronB Brodie says:

    …I can’t…doh!

  268. CameronB Brodie says:

    The “mysterious” is only uncertain and unsettling, as it is unknown and misunderstood. That doesn’t mean the knowledge doesn’t exist though.


  269. Cubby says:

    Reporting Scotland BBC this lunchtime.

    Yet again more promoting of the return of the Tory messiah Truthless Davidson. Reporting Scotland are shameless in their promotion of Davidson. They just let her come out with all manner of lies and unbelievable guff without any challenge at all. She states once again the Conservatives are going to be the biggest party in 2 years and she is going to be FM. Taylor is an embarrassment. No challenge or interruption – diddly squat – no asking how she will achieve that as they are going downwards in the polls.

    It’s clear Taylor thinks that if you are a Britnat and used to work in the BBC that is all you need to be FM. Policies – eh what are these. Truthless also says all the SNP did at their conference was bang on about independence. How would a BBC viewer know if that was true or not as they deliberately blanked out any coverage of the SNP conference.

    What a disgusting corrupt organisation the BBC is.

  270. gus1940 says:

    Petra @ 12.39

    Charlie Whelan – that name rings a politcal bell

  271. Petra says:

    Charlie Whelan!

    Yeah strange one Gus. The BBC describe him, if it is him, as being a fisherman. Par for the course for the BBC. Another wee influential plant that the majority of Scots don’t know about. No wonder people are leaving them, the BBC, in droves and hey what will they do then when the money dries up? No expenses for starters. Sad, eh!

  272. RobertTheTruth says:

    We are sovereign in our heads only.

    The modern claim of right, re affirmed recently is a gesture. To date it has no legal status. That can be tested in court like all ‘claims’ mentioned here.

    What ‘law’ says the people of Scotland are sovereign? The claim of right when our representatives took the crown from one idiot (James VII) and gave to another (King Billy)? How were the people given their say then?

    Why has this ‘law’ not been used? Because it does not exist, that is why. Sovereignty lies in the place of power and we give that place its power.

    Throughout our history, people speaking on our behalf have led us up one garden path after another and all the nonsense about us being sovereign is them deceiving us. Until we tell them what we want and stop leaving it for them to tell us what is possible we will remain in a democratic deficit of our own making.

    It is happening now, again, in our parliament, at Westminster and most of all BTL here.

  273. CameronB Brodie says:

    It is true that Scotland’s public needs to be re-connected with their historic sovereignty, but Scots are not sub-human, so we have embodied human rights. Westminster can’t remove these from us but it can do it’s best to ignore them and ride rough-shod over international law and order.

    Brexit is a right-wing coup and the British constitution is being hijacked.



    Human rights in the eighteenth century were regarded as acquired rights within a certain legal context, for a specific legal community. However, during revolutions, such as in France, they have also been seen in the light of ‘universal natural law’. At the same time, constitutional rights may also be seen as further developed civil rights. In that case, however, not much is left over to do for the emancipatory power of human rights when it comes to the inviolable individual, human dignity and the humanization of society.

    Human rights should be placed at the forefront when devising the State’s Governmental apparatus and continue to function in the light of their universal origins. It is, therefore, disappointing that the European Union has taken it upon itself to determine the content and reach of human rights based on the autonomy of the European legal order by refusing to join the European Convention on Human Rights.

    Keywords: EU Law; Human Rights.

    I. The Limits Imposed on Sovereignty by Natural Law

    In contrast to Machiavelli, who shocked Europe with his ‘Bible of realpolitik,’ Grotius emphasized the duty of sovereign states to meet their legal obligations. But what justification can be given for the binding force of law? Grotius explained that it cannot be taken for granted that one party subjects himself to the will of another. It is not the power of the sovereign, but voluntary subjection that leads a free man to lose his freedom by subjecting of his own free will to the authority of another.

    Grotius emphasized that law is binding because it is based on an agreement, and the binding force of an agreement is derived from the insight that it is better to comply with agreements than to break them. In turn, this insight is derived from natural law.13 This natural law, with its rational basis, indicates which actions are in accordance with man’s rational and social nature. Grotius believed that human beings have a natural tendency to live in communities (appetitus societas). People are dependent on the help of others in order to meet their basic needs. It follows that their actions must support this communal life. This is why Grotius argued that keeping one’s word is an essential condition for living together in peace.

    He went on to say that states have a similar duty to comply with international law, since they do not exist in isolation but rather are part of the community of all nations, the links between which are cemented by good faith. Grotius believed that international law does not serve the interests of the individual states so much as the interests of the international community as a whole. Since keeping one’s word is one of the basic tenets of natural law, a crucial requirement for people to live in peace with others, it follows that treaties states make with other states must be honoured (pacta sunt servanda).14

  274. CameronB Brodie says:

    P.S. The Prime-minister is abusing constitutional power in order to drive a bulldozer through the Treaties of Union, which specifies specific legal boundaries for Parliamentary sovereignty. The full-English Brexit annihilates the legal principles of Union.

    Embodied Vulnerability and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

  275. yesindyref2 says:

    Well, we do have this from worldlypedia 2106:

    “Born Theresa Mary Brasier
    1 October 1956 (age 150)
    Eastbourne, Sussex, England
    Political party Conservative
    Spouse(s) Philip May (m. 1980)
    Hubert Brasier
    Zaidee Mary Barnes
    Residence 10 Downing Street (official)
    Maidenhead, Berkshire

    Also known as: Theresa The Great “The revered one” by order
    Current title: Intergarglebaster President (+9,412 others)
    Number of spare clones: 53
    Number of activated clones: unknown
    Number of reincarnations: [redacted]
    Chief Bodyguard and Dishwasher: Gavin Williamson
    Deppity Chief Bodyguard and Carrier of the Loincloth: Gavin Williamson
    Keeper of the Pocket Money: Phil Hammond and the Aliens

  276. Cubby says:

    Don’t know what’s in the truths head but it’s very unlikely to be the truth.

  277. CameronB Brodie says:

    @Scottish Law Society
    Surely you’ve heard of “natural law”? Do you support the principle of universal human rights? Are you rational liberals or friends of the New Right and (white) British nationalism?

    Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (3rd edn)
    3. The Nature of the British Constitution

    Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter outlines the characteristics of the UK constitution, which is not a traditional written constitution and thus is defined as an ‘unwritten’ constitution.

    It is not hierarchically superior to all other law in the country, which means that Acts of Parliament cannot be compared with it by judges and be declared as unconstitutional and invalid. Neither can the UK constitution be enforced against the legislature as a result, nor is it entrenched and protected, because it can always be changed by Act of Parliament. However, it can be legally enforced by the mechanism of judicial review against the executive, meaning that the executive may legally act only within its legal power. The chapter also considers the sources that make up the UK constitution and proposed constitutional reforms.

  278. CameronB Brodie says:

    The British constitution derives its’ “rational legal force” from the natural law. The justificatory moral law principle underpinning the constitution, is that both Scotland and England are EQUAL PARTNERS. As such, no law can be passed that discriminates against either nation. The full-English Brexit is peak discrimination and will destroy Westminster’s moral legal authority over Scotland.


  279. yesindyref2 says:

    There’s no such thing as the British Constitution …

  280. CameronB Brodie says:

    That you slittin’ hairs again? 🙂

  281. yesindyref2 says:

    … absolutely!

  282. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Ah, sweet!

    It’s surprising how much a face-to-face meeting can achieve.


  283. David says:

    People its EU election time if we have one away round the doors and listen to what people tell you try any of the stuff on this site and you will soon be told where to go sharpish

  284. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    David –

    Has anyone told you that your comments on WOS are puhsh?

    They should have.

  285. Ryan Doody says:

    link above is dead. the resource can now be found here:

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