The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The road ahead from here

Posted on February 17, 2023 by

Can you spot the subtle change between these two National stories, readers?

Now, as they’re both in The National the standard of journalism is obviously completely dreadful, and so neither of them actually explains their headline. Nobody is named or quoted even anonymously, and there’s no elaboration other than that “[a member of] the NEC appeared to halt any proposal to use the next General Election as a proxy constitutional vote”, with no indication of HOW they “appeared” to do that.

But they DO raise the question of where on Earth – whoever becomes its new leader – the SNP goes from the smouldering bomb crater that Nicola Sturgeon has left it in.

And we can only see one credible answer. It’s basically an adaptation of the SNP’s old position from before the devolution era, which takes account of the radically different circumstances of the present.

And before we give you the punchy soundbite and everyone rushes to shoot their mouth off before reading the rest of the article (the voice of bitter experience, there), let’s quickly remind ourselves what those circumstances are.

(1) Famously, the SNP’s policy used to be that securing a majority of Scottish seats in any Westminster election would be treated as an immediate mandate for independence. (A position formed out of necessity, since there was no Scottish Government and therefore no real way of holding a referendum.)

As well as there being no actual way to enact such a mandate, the big flaw with the plan is that a majority of SEATS can easily be achieved from a minority of VOTES, and a minority of votes is simply not a legitimate democratic justification for independence.

But nobody really worried about that, because at the time there was never the slightest possibility of the SNP winning a majority of seats anyway so it was all academic.

(2) After the creating of the Scottish Parliament, SNP policy changed to using a majority of seats to hold a referendum, which is still the ideal route to demonstrating the will of the people on a single subject. The new position quickly bore fruit, as Alex Salmond won the only majority in the history of the Parliament in 2011, and used it to extract a referendum from David Cameron.

But nobody really believes that was a result of the moral legitimacy of the Holyrood majority, which was still won on a minority of votes (47.5% for all indy parties). It happened because support was languishing in the low 30s at best, and Cameron thought granting the referendum would result in a convincing victory for No and put the matter to bed for decades.

(The same thing he thought about the Brexit referendum.)

If the “moral mandate” was a thing, it would equally have applied in 2016, when the SNP’s manifesto explicitly called for another referendum in the event that the UK voted to leave the EU but Scotland voted to stay (which duly happened), and when pro-indy parties won 48.1% of votes cast – MORE than they had in 2011. But it didn’t.

(3) The 2014 referendum was lost, and the Unionist parties – terrified after a much narrower victory than they expected – all resolved never to let it happen again. They had clear electoral mandates to refuse a re-run, and ever since have recited the mantras of “once in a generation” and “now is not the time”.

In reality, we know that they will NEVER think the time is right. They have absolutely nothing to gain from allowing another indyref, and nothing to lose from refusing. None of them needs Scottish seats to form a UK government, and Scotland has nothing to threaten them with.

The idea of a second UK-sanctioned vote is realistically over forever – no matter who rules in London – and the Supreme Court has ruled out any other kind. Referendums are a dead parrot. They’re deceased. They’ve kicked the bucket. They’re pushing up the daisies. They’re pining for the fjords. They’re deader than Scottish Labour.

So what do we do? There’s only one viable answer, and it’s this: from now on, EVERY election contested by the SNP has to be a de facto referendum.

What that means in practice is both simple and unremarkable. Every SNP manifesto has to start with a single line that says “Regardless of all other policies, every vote for the SNP in any election will be regarded as a vote for independence.”

The party has to make that position explicit and consistent. It has to become a clear fundamental principle (which it’s supposed to be anyway under its constitution), which nobody could possibly misunderstand.

(The party’s stance there is easily defensible: “look, we tried everything else but you left us with no legal route to our lawful goal”.)

Should a vote of 50%+1 ever be achieved, the Scottish Government would therefore immediately announce a technical declaration of independence, demand the UK government open negotiations and appeal under the UN Charter to the international community for recognition and support on an uncontestable democratic basis founded in a free and fair election.

(The UK government could of course refuse. But it would have no valid grounds on which to do so, and if you accept the ability of the UK government to simply say no regardless of any circumstances then we may as well give up on independence completely and permanently.)

Other pro-indy parties should be invited to jointly adopt the same policy – any who refused would fall under enormous suspicion. That would also help counteract the slight potential downside whereby some people who currently vote SNP don’t want independence and might be put off. But in reality their numbers are now pretty small, and nowhere near enough to realistically affect the party’s chances of forming the government, given the divided Unionist opposition.

The great merit of the plan is that it enshrines the policy as a mundane everyday fact. Normal business can continue. There becomes no further requirement for anguished constitutional wrangling or grandstanding. The electorate – completely sick of pointless reheated arguments about something that isn’t happening – finally gets some peace.

When there’s an election, everyone knows that if they vote for an indy party they’re voting for independence. If indy parties don’t get 50%, we shut up about the subject, have five years of normal politics and try again next time, just like every other kind of party does with THEIR goals.

(If the Unionists want to keep droning on about it, let them. We just say “Look lads, we’re trying to get on with the normal stuff people care about here. We accept we lost this time, so stop boring everyone – we can talk about the constitution again at the next election”.)

So what we’re suggesting here is neither a radical escalation nor a meek surrender. We’re simply normalising something that’s normal. To win an election all you need is a plurality of votes, but it’s perfectly fair that something like independence has to clear a higher bar – a majority of votes. But since both those things are counted in the same currency – votes – you don’t need separate events.

(It’s like the difference between winning the Six Nations and achieving a Grand Slam. You can be the champions – in this analogy, winning the election and forming the government – even if you fall short of the special prize.)

In reality, this was basically the policy adopted by Alex Salmond’s SNP and discarded by Nicola Sturgeon’s. While he did secure the ideal – a referendum – Salmond’s real strategy was to quietly persuade Scots by demonstrating good everyday governance and showing them we were capable of running our own affairs. (So why, people would think, shouldn’t we run ALL of them?)

It was an approach that won remarkable success and took the SNP from fringe outsiders to the dominant party in the land, while also taking independence support from 30 points behind to neck and neck.

Nicola Sturgeon threw all that away. Her governments put ideology and virtue-signalling and grandstanding ahead of basic competence, with calamitous results for domestic policy and without moving the dial on independence so much as a millimetre despite the most stupendously favourable circumstances imaginable.

We have a chance to start to undo that damage. It’s time to go back, to the future.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

0 to “The road ahead from here”

  1. Cuilean says:

    Excellent. The road is clear. Now let’s see the SNP start digging big holes in that road.

  2. Lenny Hartley says:

    Spot on as long as SNP agree to other Indy Parties votes countingbif they also have samecwording on manifesto.

  3. George says:

    One has “Senior SNP figures” the other has “A senior SNP figure”.
    Who is the ‘senior’ SNP figure who gets to decide these things?

  4. Graham Lamont says:

    I read the whole article and it makes complete sense representing our only real course of action moving forward. God alone knows what state the SNP will be in post leadership contest especially as the Murrells are directing it behind the scenes, but the YES movement can hopefully galvanise itself at ground level and get moving again?

    But what an utter disaster Nickla has been

  5. Monica Worley says:

    My concern comes from not having candidates from other indy-supporting parties in my area yet. This plan would make me think about voting for the SNP again. But that ain’t gonna happen so my vote would be taken as support for the union when it’s really anti-SNP. Hopefully we will see many more Alba and ISP candidates in the future and hope they will adopt this approach (and the SNP don’t, ha!)

  6. ClanDonald says:

    Maybe having the 50+1% independence clause as a bog-standard, routine part of the manifesto might make people pay more attention to the other stuff that’s in there. For example, a bit more scrutiny from journalists and voters on their vague committment to gender reform may have shone a bit more daylight on what it actually meant in practice.

    The last thing we need going forward is another occurrance of people voting for the SNP for indy while unwittingly letting other unpopular and damaging policies sneak through un-noticed. The SNP must be pragmatic in its governance, there can be no more extreme ideology – with the exception of independence, of course.

  7. highlander says:

    UK has a veto at the UN, A waste of time….

  8. Merganser says:

    I get your point. It would put the matter to rest one way or another for a while.

    The point about Alex Salmond showing the way by results is well made. Given the results (failures) of the Nicola Sturgeon led SNP it is not hard to predict the result of your suggested course.

    I do think that a lot of people vote SNP but don’t want independence, because they don’t want to vote for other parties, and feel that this is their only ‘choice’.

    What a shambles she has left us.

  9. 100%Yes says:

    Mr Smith I presume.

  10. Giesabrek says:

    A thoroughly sensible and achievable approach Stu, which therefore means the SNP will almost certainly not adopt it, unless a miracle happens and someone actually pro-indy wins the leadership.

  11. DWARDMAC says:

    So what happens when the “day-to-day” policies are not to our liking? Is our vote for Independence then conditional? Given recent issues, this is a valid concern. Or do we risk suffering 5 years of policies we didn’t want for the sake of voting for Independence as an unconditional matter? I don’t think this simplifies anything, and it certainly won’t stop the Unionist parties going on and on about the SNP having this as an immutable part of its manifesto, upcoming election or not.

  12. Andrew scott says:

    I posted last wednesday that the case of the Melrose butcher might have influenced the demise of mrs murrell
    Well this trans woman has been charged with abduction and sexual assault of an 11 year old
    How was mrs murrell going to deal with this?
    By running away??

  13. Merganser says:

    Now we know why Sturgeon resigned with the news of the rape charge against Miller. She had no choice.

  14. Bob Mack says:

    Such a strategy would put constant pressure on Westminster at each and every election and also in the intervening timeframe. Those elected should also do as we have been demanding for years, and disrupt Westminster at every opportunity. They are far too compliant to the the mechanisms at Westminster.

    We begin again,but we must have belief in the party who represent our wishes.SNP? Dubious.

  15. Natal XY and proud says:

    The SNP could and they should but they wont!. I am putting my money on Alba.

  16. Johnny says:

    I mean, I think this would allow other independence parties to have that same first line and then diverge on policies as they see fit.

    It would mean independence supporters like Monica above could vote for one party which has the line on independence BUT ALSO a set of policies which she can actually support.

    It’d be a step towards a healthy plurality of parties for independence voters to vote for – it’s long past time we stopped pretending that all independence supporters agree on everything and it’s now also past time for alternatives because, without them, it is clear that the SNP will drive more people AWAY from supporting independence because they simply cannot vote for the one “vehicle” that thinks it should get all the votes.

  17. Mac says:

    “…back to the future.”


    Solid plan.

    Making it an absolute certainty to be ignored by the SNP.

    I also don’t trust winner-takes-all referendums anymore after 2014. Far too tempting to cheat…

    With a rolling de facto referendum it means every election is one and they’d have to cheat them all, forever. This makes it much harder for them to cheat.

    It also slaughters any notion that a referendum is a ‘once in a generation’ thing.

    Naw, it is every election at all levels, endlessly. A neverendum.

  18. orri says:

    Even more damnable is that Holyrood is meant to be elected on a PR basis, the PR element of the D’Hondt system is meant to be the list part, and on the list in the last election the SNP, Green, and Alba total was over 50%.

    Leaving aside the question of just how much the Greens can be said to be pro-indy or are just in it for the votes it’s still a fact that there’s already been an election which resulted in a pro-indy total.

    I suppose the SNP could wiggle out of it by refusing to acknowledge or count votes for Alba. Or realistically the Greens could withhold their support for any declaration of independence until their demands, like GRA reform, are met. Not to mention any formal alliance might result in the Electoral Commission treating all parties involved as a single entity for list seat allocations.

    The essential difference is Salmond had the guts to say we have the power to ask the people and would have done so regardless of what Westminster said about it. Sturgeon asked if we had to ask permission. But then again Sturgeon, via the Hate Crime Bill, is quite happy to silence the people of Scotland so having Westminster do it for her isn’t that much of a leap.

  19. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “So what happens when the “day-to-day” policies are not to our liking? Is our vote for Independence then conditional? Given recent issues, this is a valid concern. Or do we risk suffering 5 years of policies we didn’t want for the sake of voting for Independence as an unconditional matter?”

    You make your own mind up which you care about more.

  20. Thomas Box says:

    All very well Stu except the SNP are not interested in i dependence . Plan accordingly . Build Alba forget the SNP

  21. gregor says:

    RobinMcAlpine (17/02/2023): Stop Murrell’s corruption NOW:

    “The election for a new leader of the SNP is being rigged in front of your eyes as a small cabal overturn the party’s constitution. It must be stopped with urgency.

    I had thought that the corruption of the Sturgeon age was over. I was sorely wrong…

    There must be a rebellion or I very seriously fear for the future of the SNP.”:

  22. mark says:

    The idea that 50% plus 1 vote is a viable route to gaining independence is for the birds. You could forget about losers consent. In any event, the so called de facto referendum is a term with no legal status.

    If you go with that it is a guaranteed vote loser.

  23. Ted says:

    “They’re deader than Scottish Labour”. As a Conservative, I fear you may not be right about that, Rev. It seems possible to me that so much damage has been done to the Indy cause by Sturgeon and the SNP that Labour may be about to see a change of fortune in Scotland. Also never underestimate the further damage the SNP under one of the possible candidates being spoke of at the moment will continue to do. If you can split the SNP and fuse with Alba you might keep Labour in their box, but other than that the view from my bit of the UK is that Scots who have given up on Indy will reason, well, we can get rid of the Tories by voting Labour, so let’s do that.

  24. Paul Holbeche says:

    Great to have a clear plan.

    But It could be argued that the in/out Vote every election method should continue no matter the result. EG Divorce then risk of potential Re-Marriage along the line. Especially if Scotland was being run my a group as shambolic as the current SNP.

  25. Daisy Walker says:

    OT – The Britnats could have unleased Polis Scotia at any time re the missing £600,000 – there was no pressure there.

    The child sex charges against the Melrose Butcher, plus the unusual step of the press and police using he/him names would suggest a Britnat emergency evacuation of Nikla, coupled with damage limitation to her CV. She will have to be rewarded by the Britnats for services rendered… too many other wee helpers in the wings who need to be kept incentivised.

    It would also suggest that was why they didn’t immediately pick up on the time limit for appealing the S35 order, and that was tacked on a few days later.

  26. Gregory Beekman says:


    This is a good idea, and its genius lies in its simplicity.

    But I still don’t get your stance on Nicola Sturgeon, highlighted with your “smouldering bomb crater” remark.

    I thought Nicola Sturgeon leading the SNP was supposed to be the worst thing ever? Now, it appears that the only thing worse than Sturgeon leading the SNP is Sturgeon NOT leading the SNP.

    So, I’m confused – is Sturgeon resigning a good or a bad thing?

  27. Ottomanboi says:

    Why isn’t anyone talking about the influence of porn on the trans trend? (17.7 billion hits).
    ScotGov is up to its neck in this,
    Any leadership bidder with links to this toxic ideology is out.

  28. Johnny says:

    Go away Mark.

    A minority cannot be allowed to stymie a majority vote.

    Just piss off.

  29. Johnny says:

    Ted @ 1:59pm:

    Indeed, there seems to be some polling suggesting just that.

    Scottish voters making like those down South who go “uft, I’m annoyed with the main parties…I can’t think what to do….oh back to Lib Dems again as a protest vote and never mind their past failures” is very depressing but I can see the rationale behind the “well, it seems to offer a better chance of getting rid of the Tories” and I think it already happened to some degree at the 2017 GE.

  30. sarah says:

    3 things need to be done by SNP members right now.

    Robin McAlpine says to stop this corrupted election process the members must immediately:

    1. Call an emergency Branch meeting to pass a vote of no confidence in the NEC because of their overturning of the constitution on the Leadership election. This is the essential thing to do.

    2. In addition they could get a legal injunction against the NEC’s action as a constitution is a legal document and must be properly complied with. I’m sure several indy lawyers would help with this stage.

    3. I suggest that meanwhile several ordinary members apply to stand in order to make it more difficult for the election to be “managed”.

  31. robertkknight says:

    What’s not to like?

  32. Scotsrenewables says:

    Fabulous post, simple and to the point. It’s a smouldering bomb crater right enough.

    And well done Stu for answering the ‘other policies’ question at 01.50pm

    ‘You vote for what you care about most’

    Let’s see The Plopper twist this one to show you don’t support indy.

  33. Wee_monsieur says:

    Sounds like a plan. I hope the candidates for FM properly air the pros and cons in the forthcoming debates.

  34. Alex Gallacher says:

    I preferred the 1997 manifesto which was pushed through by Alex and adopted by the entire party, a majority of SNP MPS = Indy with the addition of a confirmatory ref NOT S30 timing and question in our hands not WM,

  35. Big Jock says:

    I have always maintained that devolution was a tool of the Union. It was set up within the confines of the Union to appease Scots, but also to prevent them ever winning a majority.

    It has been proven that their system can be broken. We need to break it again. That’s why the Supermajority is such an important factor in this.

    As Stu has said , every Indy party must have independence at the front of their manifesto.

    If the majority is not won , then the party resumes government for another 5 years. Then grows the support. I am of the opinion that we can win in 2026. If the SNP can demonstrate good governance.

    I am afraid there is no other way at the moment. Sturgeon made sure of that. The previous 9 years have been wasted, and she couldn’t even demonstrate good governance. So she failed on both counts.

  36. Frank Waring says:

    I know that alsmost everywhere in Scotland this can’t be said, or rather won’t be heard, but I’ll say it anywway:
    It would benefit the tenor and practical effectiveness of public life in Scotland, as well as the independence cause, if pro-independence parties/members in Holyrood did as much as they can to make the Scottish Parliament work in the way that Donald Dewar intended. Yes, I know he didn’t call it the Scottish Parliament.

  37. Ian says:

    “Other pro-indy parties should be invited to jointly adopt the same policy”.

    It’s not likely to be other pro-indy parties that would be the stumbling block to this. If the SNP’s current position towards Alba remains the same, which is becoming clearer by the hour that it will almost certainly will be (‘Swinney slates ‘preposterous’ voting plan in SNP leadership row’), expecting them to become constructive with Alba or any other pro-indy party (or even recent former members) is a pipe dream.

    The deputy First Minister, who has ruled himself out of the contest, said it would be “preposterous” to let recent former members rejoin and take part.

    Presumably to him, ignoring the SNP constitution on this matter is “reasonable” then?

  38. John C says:

    I fully expect Angus Robertson sliding himself into Bute House and a continuation of what we’ve got now. The sheer, blind panic, not to mention rage, from Sturgeonites that any MSP who dared even question Sturgeon might become leader and not just dump GRR in the bin where it belongs, but actually make a real and serious push for independence while sorting out the bonfire the SNP have made helping facilitate Tory austerity upon the people of Scotland.

    Sure, the SNP do some things which help but most of these are legacy policies from Salmond or from the early years of Sturgeon before she realised Brexit was a way to turn the SNP into a party that wins elections and maintains power.

    If we’re really to win independence, the SNP have to become a broad church again rather than just the Sturgeonites. It has to become at least a socially democratic party with policies based on raising the poorest up and protecting the most vulnerable and not niche identity politics mixed in with neoliberalism. It actually has to oppose the Tories rather than endlessly talk about it while at the same time working with them.

    We won’t win independence with a declining NP led by a Sturgeon loyalist devoted to devolution and maybe, perhaps, possibly, one day becoming independent but long, long after they’ve retired. We can’t win telling people who support indy but don’t belong to the SNP, or indeed,belong to any party like myself that we’re ‘bigots’, or worse because we’re not anti-intellectual followers happy with their lot. Some of us see we could do better for Scotland now and we could cement that case for independence too.

    If Robertson is elected, you’ll have had your independence. He’ll just carry on the policies of Sturgeon and kick indy as far down the road as possible.

  39. Effijy says:

    This shambolic record should be on a hand out at their conference.

    They are making the Tories look credible overtaking their false promises.

    I was sure I’d stay alive to see us independent.

    Anyone have a phone number for a local Cryogenic freezing company?

  40. Gregory Beekman says:

    Ottomanboi @2:04 pm

    Yikes, that’s some amount of trans stuff. Just had a look. Didn’t know it was that popular!

  41. SusanAHF says:

    Sensible idea Stu, will the SNP go along with it though? Judging by the current crop of deviants and inadequates, no.

  42. Molesworth says:

    Do I get this right? However stupid or potentially harmful a manifesto may be, we are to vote for an independence party because nothing else in this world matters. Nothing.

  43. gregor says:

    BBC (17/02/2023): Abduction accused charged with child sex assault:

    “A 53-year-old man accused of abducting a girl in the Borders has been charged with sexually assaulting a child.

    Andrew Miller, who was making his second appearance, faced further charges when he appeared by video link at Jedburgh Sheriff Court.
    Mr Miller – also known locally as Amy George – was last week charged with abduction and threatening and abusive behaviour.

    He has now also been accused of sexual assault on a young child.
    Mr Miller also now faces charges of sexual exposure, causing a young child to look at a sexual image and possession of indecent images of children.

    Mr Miller, who is from the Scottish Borders, made no plea and was remanded in custody.”:

  44. Geoff Anderson says:

    As said by someone earlier…the SNP are not interested in Independence.
    The Westminster Short Money is their only source of significant income now. All those 16year old “members” don’t pay dues and have no activist experience either.

    SNP will harvest votes for a few years more then they will go the same way as Labour.

    If the suggestion above by Stu is adopted in writing then I will back on critic and may en vote for them (If the TransCult madness is dropped!).
    In the meantime I will stick with Alba, vote ISP if they don’t stand or Independent at Council elections.

    My current SNP MP and SNP MSP are full on TransCult so they will NEVER get my vote.

  45. James Che says:

    “Only one thing we can do”

    The reality is that Wesyminster has Scotland and its people under Colonialism,

    1: If Scotland has no parliament of its own,

    2: There is no Scottish parliament in the treaty of the union.

    3: And Westminster is telling the people of Scotland, You have no right to self-Determination,

    4: And The when and where of elections are decided for you outside of your Country of Scotland

    Then you are not in the a treaty of union. You are a Colony.

    This is backed up by the Westminster Colonial Agriculture and Fisheries board, Scotland Act.”

    This is Also confirmed by Westminster “Colonial Stock, Scotland Act.”

    So not exactly thrilled to hear it being said, “Only one thing we can do” Follow the rigged laws that our Colonisers have prepared for us.


    We are not even in the treaty of the union, The Scottish parliament was extinguished in a pre- nuptial Agreement between the Commissioners, and later Ratified into domestic legislation by both the English and Scottish parliament.

    A little bit of research into Westminsters records reveals the truth of the Faux treaty, and solves the problem.
    The Scottish parliament was not subsumed into the GB parliament in 1707,
    from being a participant of the treaty of the union, prior to the rebranding name to the new Great British parliament by Westminster.

    You can find that information link and boast on the UK parliament site 2023.

    Sorry Stu there is still another way for Scotland, We are not in the Treaty at all, according to Westminster parliament.

  46. Daisy Walker says:

    Anyone have a phone number for a local Cryogenic freezing company?

    No but my house is fairly baltic due to the fuel bills, would that do.

  47. Bob Mack says:


    Think you should read it again.

  48. John C says:

    Ottomanboi says:
    17 February, 2023 at 2:04 pm

    Why isn’t anyone talking about the influence of porn on the trans trend?

    When I peaked in 2018 or so one of the things that pushed me over the edge was how riddled with porn culture the entire Trans movement is. This is a campaign for porn to become normalised, and that includes access to the sort of stuff which should put you in prison, not to mention grooming children to accept adult concepts at an age where they’re too young to grasp them but with adults pushing them upon them (see drag queen story hour) these kids become more pliable.

    For example, the reason you see so many Anime profiles associated with Trans is the way it deals with not just Transhumanism but also how many of the characters look like pre-pubescent kids. It’s a gateway drug to Hentai which is Anime porn, often featuring very, very young-looking characters or just outright sexualisation of children. Scratch the surface of Trans and go deeper and you’ll find somewhere a link to porn.

  49. Astonished says:

    If the nuSNP gerrymander another transcultist into power then they are finished.

    The trans butcher case will see to it.

    If, on the other hand, they elect someone who will expel the transcult then we might get a winning independence strategy. Simply put the ‘old’ SNP have got to put out the ‘nuSNP’ colossal binfires first. And that means expelling the transcult e.g. Shirley Anne Binfire.

    Just can’t see it myself. The public will have to vote them out.

    Anyway, the best way forward is to join Alba or the ISP. They’re democratic, competent and have nothing to do with the transcult.

    Sturgeon has been an absolute disaster for the cause.

  50. Doug says:

    I agree with the Rev’s strategy but I would also like to see something more radical like copying Sinn Fein’s policy of putting up candidates for Westminster elections with no intention of taking their seats. 50%+1 results would still apply and I believe pro-indy voters would also take great delight in sticking up two fingers to the Westminster cesspit in the process, likewise to the inevitable msm outcry.

  51. James Che says:

    If Scotlands 1707 parliament was Extinguished by a pre-nuptial Agreement and Ratified as Such, it cannot be anything other than fiction that there is a union of two parliaments in the treaty of the union,

    Westminster parliament today is Englands old Westminster parliament on its own, with a annexed Wales, it later Joined with Ireland, to form the UK parliament.

    But the Scottish parliament of 1707 was not included as it was ratified in the pre- nupt agreement as Extinguished from the Treaty of union.

  52. Big Jock says:

    Molesworth – Basically yes. Until we are independent Scotland’s ills will never be cured. We are asking to be removed from a joint bank account , where we contribute 40% of the assets and get 10% back. Independence is the only future and must be what we vote for , when we vote on any election.

    Going back to when I was in my 20’s. I voted SNP to get independence. The other stuff was all negotiable.

  53. Livionian says:

    I agree, this is our only realistic route forward.

    The problem is, do we see any candidate standing for the SNP leadership that has a remote chance of endorsing this kind of action? If there was they should receive our support enthusiastically but I fear no one suitable will put there names forward because of a fear that they couldn’t unite the party and couldn’t command enough authority to lead.

  54. Doug says:

    @moleswoth 2:39pm

    Too bloody right.

  55. Gregory Beekman says:

    As I’ve said before, the problem with the SNP is that they turned into boring, ordinary politicians.

    I would love to know the psychological impact on the SNP MSPs when we lost indyref. Did they think, “oh crap, we lost and now I’m stuck in some god awful political job I don’t really want because Holyrood is nothing more than a Westminster straight-jacket”?

    You can forgive them for turning crap if that’s the psychology. God knows how they feel now the Supreme Court has told them they’re trapped forever until a kindly English PM tells them otherwise.

    Maybe Alba is the party that contains the more psychologically stable politicians, the ones that still see a way out? I’m not sure what the route is but I reckon with Alex Salmond back as FM, he’d find it.

    Vote Alba!

  56. Vestas says:

    Realistically the SNP are over & done with as far as independence goes.

    They’ve had the best part of 2 decades and with the exception of 2014 (due to Salmond) have achieved sweet fuck all except enriching their MSPs/MPs/CEO. That and gender politics/strife.

    They’re done and nobody with an IQ over 100 should expect anything other than continued colonial governance (devolution) from them.

    I’m sure a lot of people are in the “denial” phase but that’s where we are. Where we go from there – I haven’t a scooby.

    Forget about independence this side of 2040 without either violence on the scale seen in NI or massive civil disobedience, neither of which I can see happening as either would require leadership, which the independence movement no longer has.

    Game over for anyone my age (same as RevStu) – full independence not going to happen in my lifetime now, not unless I live a bloody long time!

    I’m not giving up & I’ll continue to fund people like RevStu/Craig Murray who actually do something in terms of advancing the cause (as opposed to shitebags who buy houses/extend them/pump out the same “Tories bad so vote SNP” screed year after year) but we’re done in terms of this decade for any indy.

    We’re also done with the SNP.

    Face facts people, they are now the same as SLAB were – “no alternative to the tories so vote for us”. Animal Farm writ large & there’s no redemption/way back now….

  57. Luigi says:

    Great idea Rev, but it sounds far too sensible for the current SNP “leaders” to run with. This would have been the ideal platform for Nicola Sturgeon to build on when she took the reins in 2014, or even just after the Brexit vote. Imagine where we would be by now. If only….. Ah well, water under the bridge, we are where we are. If the SNP still refuse to play ball, then it’s up to the Alba party to rise to the challenge. Alba should contest every election as an independence referendum.

    If the SNP want to start digging holes again, then let them – they will dig their own grave and leave a bigger space for Alba to exploit. It may take some time, it will take some time, but the message will get to ordinary folk through eventually – the SNP are unwilling to fight for Scottish independence, whereas Alba most definitely are. Their choice.

  58. tricia young says:

    I care deeply about independence, I’ve voted for it since 2014. I also care about my rights as a woman. I detest the SNP, NEC, and all politicians who went after Scotland’s women. I simply don’t trust SNP, Greens, Labour and can’t vote for the Tories.
    I will vote Alba or abstain. I will not be a 2nd class citizen in my country. They all seem to be ok with that, bar Alba.

  59. laukat says:

    Its a good article and quite clear way forward. I would suggest two things.

    First this needs to be for Holyrood elections only to allow inclusion of votes for other Indy parties such as Alba and ISP who are less likely to field candidates at Westminster.

    Secondly its too sensible for the SNP and its current infestation. If you can bear it read what Ben MacPherson MSP is proposing

    Essentially his opinion is if we become friends with our colonial masters they might give us some more things to play with. If this is what a no-mark MSP is offering you can bet that some of the more high profile MP’s and MSPs want to go at an even slower pace.

    Only way forward is for the SNP to split and die. Denham, Cherry, MacNeil and whoever is left that joined the SNP to fight for Independence need to leave and either join Alba or start a new entity. What’s left would be as well joining SLAB.

  60. Daisy Walker says:

    Ref the Melrose Butcher.

    The enquiry officers will have been working round the clock to gather all and any evidence.

    When the child was found, first priority will have been her physical and mental wellbeing.

    Thereafter gathering physical evidence (clothes, etc) and obtaining her statement and medical examination. Depending on what happened, she may also have needed time to sleep before much of that could happen.

    For all those reasons, the second charge could not be cited when the accused first appeared at court, as the enquiry would not have the details to clarify the charge at that time.

    All above board and legit.

    The enquiry officers – are not the press officers, and other than the briefest of details will not have carried out, or given any thought to details of the he/him, she/her, media message to the press.

    That is most likely to have been carried out by senior police officers.

    That the press went along with it, so meekly and complied with it… also strange given the times we live in. Co-ordinated almost.

    And unlikely to have been out of consideration for the child victim giving evidence somewhere down the line and being forced to call their accused ‘she/her’ when giving evidence.

    But lets give a wee thought to that possible scene, a child victim of rape, being legally co-erced into calling their assailant female terms after a sex assault. How hard and confusing would that be for a child, say aged 5, or 6, or 7? I mean unbearably difficult on any terms, but to add to it. Wicked, on every level.

  61. Geoff Anderson says:

    “TransWomen”/ Man/ Individual charged with sexual assault

  62. Chic McGregor says:

    Must be 10 years or more, pre indyref1 anyway, that I PM’d you and predicted that, in the end, it would come down to a defacto election referendum.

  63. JimmyKC says:

    So, is the National’s source, ‘some arsehole?’

  64. Mike Fenwick says:

    I don’t post here often, and more frequently than not, most never appear – let’s see this time. It is an extract from a document named the “Declaration of a Sovereign Scot”. Head to other social media for info on what that is about, but for now let me use this extract only, because it will srengthen what is being suggested:

    Currently to becaome a Scottish MP or MSP they have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown. Ignore that many then play games as they do so – it is long past time we treated it as fundamental.

    Here is the suggested alternative as it applies to Holyrood:

    ” … demand that any Oath of Allegiance to be sought from, and given by, a potential Member of the Scottish Parliament recognises the Sovereignty of the Scottish People in the following terms: “By this oath, I acknowledge that IF elected as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, it will be as a result of votes cast by Sovereign Scots, and I do solemnly swear and affirm that my allegiance is, and will remain, to the Sovereign people of Scotland.”

    IF that oath is NOT given – and it is before any prospective candidate is elected – you have a choice of whether they are given your vote.

  65. Breeks says:

    (1) Famously, the SNP’s policy used to be that securing a majority of Scottish seats in any Westminster election would be treated as an immediate mandate for independence…

    THIS! but not this.

    We don’t NEED this mandate to be “THE” mandate for Independence. But a 30 seat majority is adequate mandate for Scotland to act independently from Westminster, to cite Scotland’s Claim of Right, and to start to issue “modest” sovereign edicts which might seem academic or trifling, but actually create a huge existential Constitutional Crisis for the Union.

    Use Westminster’s First Past the Post system against them, because that is the prevailing Westminster system. It IS Democratic by their definition.

    Scotland’s actual democracy is deeply, deeply, compromised by UK propaganda, indoctrination, disinformation, social engineering, gatekeeping, and subjugation. The benchmark of 50%+1 in such a hostile environment is meaningless, and the UK Government has already declared such a Referendum unlawful without it’s prior consent.

    Scotland must use a 30 seat mandate in Westminster to drive forward a Constitutional dispute which throws the UK Government into crisis, (such Scotland’s Brexit subjugation breaking the Claim of Right), and exploit that crisis to expose the perfidious impropriety of the Treaty of Union and Westminster’s despicable unwritten conventions which have rendered the Treaty of Union breached, and when that dispute escalates to an irreconcilable stand-off, then we upgrade our 30 seat Westminster mandate with a full blown ratification plebiscite confirming the Union is breached and at an end, and that plebiscite is held on Scotland’s terms, not Westminster’s.

    Use the Constitutional dispute to educate the Scottish people, the UN and the International Community about the grossly unconstitutional nature of Scotland’s exploitation and colonial style disadvantage, and THEN, once the truth is known, then, we hold our ratification plebiscite confirming the Treaty of Union is breached and at an end.

    IF there was the appetite for it, the current SNP representation in Westminster could choose to interpret the Supreme Court’s adjudication as a material assault upon the Claim of Right, and thus Scotland is immediately confronting Westminster with it’s existential Constitutional Crisis.

    The SNP and Scotland already has the numbers needed to do this. They don’t actually need any “new” or bespoke mandate. What they lack is the will, the courage, and the leadership.

  66. Scotsrenewables says:

    Molesworth says:
    17 February, 2023 at 2:39 pm
    Do I get this right? However stupid or potentially harmful a manifesto may be, we are to vote for an independence party because nothing else in this world matters. Nothing.

    It’s up to you – your choice. Vote for what you believe is most important. Stu already said that.

    If every pro-indy party had the same statement at the start of their manifesto you would in any event hopefully have a choice. In effect you would choose which brand of independence you were voting for.

  67. Breastplate says:

    That’s all perfectly understandable and I agree with every election being a de facto referendum because of what we believe Scotland is or more importantly isn’t, we’ve been so conditioned to believe that we need permission from Westminster, so that stance is quite understandable from that viewpoint where Scotland is a prisoner in a Union.

    From the viewpoint that Scotland is a country and has never ceased being a country, a simple declaration for leaving this Union from our political representatives should suffice.

    Alas, we are in Schrödinger’s Scotland.
    Scotland is both a country and not a country at the same time.

    If we are a country we can break our ties from the Union on our own terms (however that may be, it will be determined by Scotland, it may indeed be with a majority of seats, and why not? There can be no fallout from the international community as Scotland is just carrying out the business of a country, much like but not exactly like the U.K. leaving a Union) or if we are not a country we can leave this Union only on the terms of others (England, who have never countenanced the idea that they ceased to exist as a country).
    There was a report circa 2014 about Scotland ceasing to exist and being subsumed into a greater England, I can’t remember the origin but it was an English viewpoint.

    I understand that there has to be a level of pretence for negotiations but at no time would I argue that Scotland isn’t allowed to do anything without the permission of an abusive other because that abusive, so called partner will never freely give permission for anything leading to escape, it would have to be with their arm thoroughly twisted behind its back.

    Yes, de facto referendums will apply pressure but we should never discount other options, they may not seem optimal now, but circumstances can change.

  68. Breastplate says:

    I forgot to add,
    Are we legally not a country anymore?
    If so, when and how did this happen?
    These are questions I would like answered not by England but by the international community?
    Does entering a Union cede one’s sovereignty forever?

  69. Republicofscotland says:

    There’s not a hope in hell that the current crop of SNP MSPs will take this route, you just have to look at what they done over the past eight years to see that indy is just a carrot. Even if by some miracle Sturgeon and Murrell f*cked off for good, that leaves a whole bunch of SNP MSPs who’ve sat on their hands and did virtually nothing on the indyfront except reinforce the carrot dangling.

    Shutting up for fives years, I doubt the Britnat media will shut up about it, and I’m pretty positive that Westminster won’t stop undermining Scotland at every turn, they’ll never play by the rules, they never have.

    So although the ideas a fairly good one, the current crop of SNP MSPs won’t abide by it, and Westminster certainly won’t stop undermining Scotland in the five year periods.

    Also can the SNP be trusted again, putting Murrell and Sturgeon aside for a moment, we have Swinney, Brown, Forbes Yousaf etc still in office not exactly the kind of people you could trust or put your faith in.

    Then there’s the SNP MSPs that voted for the unamended GRRB could any real indy voter ever vote for them again, never mind any real women, they’d be mad to vote for the SNP.

    I say stick to the game plan, Vote Alba, Join Alba, get the SNP and Greens out.

  70. Patsy Millar says:

    Thanks for another great analysis. Couldn’t get the link for Robin McAlpine’s blog from this site to work but a Google search got me to his blog. His take on Mr. Murrell’s control of the leadership election is well worth a read. (Don’t read it if you have high blood pressure!)

  71. panda paws says:

    50% of the vote a perfectly fine idea

    Just a wee problem though.

    New Scotland polling via @ScotVoting & @YouGov
    (fieldwork 10 – 15 Feb):

    Westminster VI (+/- 23 – 26 Jan):

    SNP – 38% (-4)
    Lab – 36% (+7)
    Tory – 16% (+1)
    LD – 5% (-1)
    Green – 3% (nc)
    Other – 3% (-2)

    Holyrood not looking much better either!

  72. Lorna Campbell says:

    It could work if all of the pro independence parties are up and running in every part of Scotland, have branches set up and a structure and network that could help and advise and campaign. I will never vote SNP again. Never. Under any circumstances. Unless and until there is an alternative independence ally for which to vote and the SNP is a willing part of an alliance (even if it is just a loose one). Many women across Scotland will feel the same, I think. No man would contemplate going into an independent Scotland with no rights. Why would they expect women to do so?

    What the SNP planned to do, and was already doing, to women and children was beyond cruel; it was utterly sadistic and unheeding of anyone but ‘trans’. I know it is an entrenched position, and I have always been open to compromise in the past, but this whole ‘trans’ thing has sickened me to my core. Sturgeon could never have stammered her way through a second interview about this man because she had already stated quite confidently in reference to Isla Bryson that he was a larper and no ‘genuine trans’ would ever do such a thing.

    Except that this man had been ‘trans’ for a number of years. Just what women had been telling the SNP for years. The “non-existent” evidence from other countries is now overwhelming that this lot are dangerous – perhaps not all – but enough to make it foolish in the extreme to push forward with this stuff. The fall of Adern, in New Zealand, was the first domino to topple.

    Strangely, I do not see Angus Robertson going on with this stuff, if he becomes leader. He has gone along with it, but quietly, and I suspect he is not a fan, just keeping his eye on the leadership ball and trying to placate people he himself enabled to take over the NEC. He has always been a staunch ally of Sturgeon, but she is no longer there. Will he break out and be his own man – and Scotland’s? Will he, if he becomes leader, reach out to Alex Salmond, once his mentor? It remains to be seen.

  73. Den says:

    Fuck this SNP cabal they do not speak for me on any level, and never will , question for everyone of the current SNP leadership hopefulIs : Is the individual who allegedly abducted and raped an 11 year old girl a man or a women? I will give you a clue he is a fucking MAN and a danger to all our children. If you cannot testify to that then step down now.

  74. Ebok says:

    Daisy Walker says:
    17 February, 2023 at 3:09 pm

    ‘Ref the Melrose Butcher’

    With political events moving at a rapid pace, reports of these shocking alleged offences must be kept at the forefront of our thoughts. Some things are far more important than the sham manoeuvrings of two-bit politicians. This, certainly, is one of them, a fully justified O/T comment, with many questions yet to be answered.

  75. John C says:

    But lets give a wee thought to that possible scene, a child victim of rape, being legally co-erced into calling their assailant female terms after a sex assault. How hard and confusing would that be for a child, say aged 5, or 6, or 7? I mean unbearably difficult on any terms, but to add to it. Wicked, on every level.

    When this ideology crumbles (and the signs are there it is) we’re going to look back at people who forced the victims of abuse to call their abusers ‘she or her’ while forcing them to accept them in rape crisis centres and prisons as bad as the likes of those who enabled the abuses of men like Savile. Because that’s what Sturgeon, Harvie, Slater, Godley, Cole-Hamilton, Sawar and everyone cheering this on are doing.

    I hope this Melrose Butcher case does not go the way I fear it will for the sake of the poor wee victim and her family & friends, but I think this could be the line in the sand Trans activists draw to defend their beliefs.

    There is one reason, and one reason alone a trans identifying male wants to enter a women’s prison and it isn’t because they think they’ll get an easier term, it is mainly to access women’s spaces and women themself, be it prisoners or guards. They want a state sanctioned way to carry on offending where supposedly ‘kind’ people smile when they hear of a transwoman putting put in a prison that ‘affirms their true self’ but really, these people are going to punish women in prison in a way which is torture.

    Every single person supporting males in prison is an enabler for rapists, abusers and unrepentant men wanting a fresh set of victims to keep them going til they get out of prison.

  76. Dave M says:


    The UK has a veto in the UN Security Council, not the General Assembly. It can’t veto the recognition of sovereign States.

  77. A says:

    Scottish Government should instruct Police Scotland to no longer enforce payment of Vehicle Tax, TV license and other UK taxes in Scotland. Civil disobedience, deprive the Brits of taxes we’re forced to pay while we’re also forcably held in the UK. Scottish Government can just say that in these financially tight times we’ve got to priorotise all public resources, and can’t have cops wasting time enforcing non-devolved laws 😀

  78. Lorna Campbell says:

    Ottomanboi: the fact that women, and several of us on these threads, have made that connection over and over again, seems to have passed you by, reinforcing the knowledge we have that females are rarely listened to at all – which itself is part of the othering – and not even when we write it down. It is still skipped over.

    Women’s organisations and many individual women have been saying for years – literally, years – that porn is a massive influencer. You – and I mean, one – would need to be wilfully blind not to make the connection to sexual paraphilias stoked by the porn industry. I don’t mean to be sarcastic, and it is a lot to take in, but women have been shouting from the rooftops that the porn industry is a baleful influence on the lives of women and children, but also on men, whose lives can be destroyed by this stuff, just like gamblers, drug addicts, alcoholics, et al, by their particular addiction. The collateral damage to families is huge, too. I recommend you read up on ‘trans’ widows and children. It is truly shocking and heartbreaking. Yet, still, Sturgeonite loyalists would happily condemn women and children to this hell in order to get a mythical independence which the SNP/Greens never had the slightest intention of bringing, or even of trying to bring.

  79. Vestas says:

    Lorna Campbell says:
    17 February, 2023 at 3:50 pm
    Strangely, I do not see Angus Robertson going on with this stuff, if he becomes leader. He has gone along with it, but quietly, and I suspect he is not a fan, just keeping his eye on the leadership ball and trying to placate people he himself enabled to take over the NEC. He has always been a staunch ally of Sturgeon, but she is no longer there. Will he break out and be his own man – and Scotland’s? Will he, if he becomes leader, reach out to Alex Salmond, once his mentor? It remains to be seen.

    There’s more chance of Boris Johnson becoming master of the universe than Mr Marmalade & his wife “reaching out” to AS. But of course you KNOW that “Lorna”, don’t you?

  80. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “UK has a veto at the UN, A waste of time….”

    It doesn’t have a veto on other countries recognising us. If you’ve got a better plan let’s hear it, otherwise a period of silence would be welcome.

  81. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    READERS! Can we NOT debate Andrew Miller’s live and subject-to-contempt charge/trial, and the merits or otherwise of porn, in this thread, please? For all sorts of reasons.

  82. Ottomanboi says:

    In the name of a twisted interpretation of «human rights» western governments, their agencies, media etc believe they have the right to keep a check on their citizens for thinking «irregular» thoughts, irregular being defined by them, and correcting/reeducating accordingly.
    Such authoritarianism which the Covid-19 fear machine legitimized is a perversion.
    Start with one perversion, get away with it, soon the addiction demands more of the same.
    Politics has become the preserve of habitual onanists and narcissists.

  83. Republicofscotland says:

    After reading Robin McAlpine’s excellent article on SNP corruption on picking the next leader, I’m all but 100% sure that the SNP are a busted flush and not worth voting for period.

    McAlpine says this is the last hope of stopping the handpicking of the next leader.

    “Another option is (if any of you have money) to raise a legal injunction on this. Constitutions are legally binding and this is a matter of law. A legal action to demand an immediate scrapping of this unconstitutional decision should have a very good chance of preventing it going ahead.”

    Time to put all our energy into Alba.

  84. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “So, I’m confused – is Sturgeon resigning a good or a bad thing?”

    It’s an excellent thing. It had to happen. But the precise timing of her departure seems to have been chosen, by accident or design, to leave the party in the biggest mess possible.

  85. Garrion says:

    Last three paras of the article sum up, to me, the most important issues to consider.

    Is there any way that the current party has the will, the numbers of willing and the grit and selflessness to achieve the reputation of being a party of good governance, clean out the dead meat, corruption and filth, and actually try to be a force multiplier for independence?

  86. gregor says:

    Wicked Tinkers (2015): Hammered: Hammer On the Anvil:

    ( “It’s been said that the beautiful, high tones of Scottish bagpipes can be heard by the gods. Let’s hope we aren’t keeping them up at night…”):

  87. Iain More says:

    If the SNP are not the Party of Scottish Independence first second and last then they are nothing. They had an electoral mandate from teh Scottish electorate to have a referendum and fukc what any English fucking Tory, Red or Blue, says about it and fukc what any unelected English Supreme Court says about it.

    The SNP are finished and I dont see any way back for them. It is obvious that Alba is the only option now for the cause of Scots Indy. I cant hide my anger at the fuckin Wokist Quizzers and the fuckin Time Serving Traitors in the present SNP.

  88. Republicofscotland says:

    Re My 4.14pm comment put your wallets/purses away, McAlpine added this at the end of his article.

    “I’ve been contacted by a lawyer who has been checking the SNP constitution this morning. And here’s the problem – in an earlier round of abandoning SNP democracy the constitution was amended to enable the NEC to rewrite the constitution at will. It is hard to tell from the current mess of constitution what is actually legal or not – but then it doesn’t make much difference because the NEC can just change it until it says what they want it to say. That may mean that legal routes (such as an interdict) will fail, making it even more important there is a mass outcry. And to my many friends in the SNP, understand this – if the NEC of an organisation can rewrite the constitution at will, you don’t have a constitution, you become an entity wholly governed by your NEC. In that world nothing is ever against the rules unless the NEC wants it to be against the rules. It turns out that even I forgot how bad SNP ‘democracy’ had become.”

  89. James Che says:

    The Snp know darn well the Scottish parliament was Extinguished and prevented in 1707 from joining the new British parliament.

    The Snp are also Fully aware that the old Scottish parliament was “Sine Die’d” in Scotland, So why are they running and working a devolved Westminster legislated office parliament in Scotland?

    The Snp will also know that a Extinguished Scottish parliament in England is not in a treaty of parliament unions of Scotland and England,

    They have access to records in Scotland and England.

    I am not to sure they are the idiots they make out to be,
    But we are,
    They have duped us to ensure the faux union looks real, and pretend their hands are tied,

    It is difficult enough for Scots to recognise that have been fooled over the treaty of union that did not happen,
    However the people of Scotland did have had a sound excuse, until recent years Scots did not have access to political records.

    But the Snp do, and have done for a ample number of years.

    They Snp never told you that the Scottish parliament was Extinguished in 1707, not subsumed, did they?
    The Snp never told you that a Extinguished parliament cannot enter a treaty of union, Did they?

    The Snp never explained to you, Why you could have a devolved parliament government from Westminster in Scotland IF you had your own parliament, still in existence within the treaty of union, did they?

    Two parliaments of Scotland?

    The Snp, along with every other political party in the devolved branch office do not want “YOU” asking these question, nor working out the mechanics of the treaty of union.

    So why have the Snp never challenged (all) the recorded history of how the Treaty of union articles
    have been altered and abused, including Scots Law, Burghs, (Boroughs) Treason laws, Open Jury trials, rights of freedom to roam and free speech. Besides trade, Brexit, Etc.
    Perhaps the fact that the Scottish parliament was pre-extinguished from the treaty of union.
    To do or say to much may shine a light on these issues,

    The pretence of the SNP has become obvious, as little more than employees of Westminster and the lack of persistence on these issues plus the carrot dangling, says it all.

    You the SNP are not meant to push to hard or bring up legal contentions under Scots law,
    You are servant managers for the Colony of Scotland,
    And the slaves are not meant to learn above their station, so do not tell them their true position,

    They are free, but ” We ,” ” the governance over Scotland ” need to keep up the pretence for control of their resources and taxes.

    When you genuinely want to be free, you will look at every detail for a way to escape you’re surf dom.
    Meanwhile by all means listen to your branch office overseers, let them keep you focused on them, and not on the small print that you are supposed to read in any contractual agreement.

  90. Wullie B says:

    Off topic, I see the BBC are being transphobic not using Amy George’s name and preferred pronouns in their article over his appearance in court over child sex assault, they are also dead naming him, quite the turnaround compared to the death of the trans girl down south where it’s female name and pronouns, picking and choosing depending on the angle

  91. James Che says:

    Study the contract,

    There are no members of the 1707 Scottish parliament that was extinguished able to enter the English parliament of Westminster new branded GB parliament,

    It is also recommended to study that the Old English parliament did not end in 1707, but simply prorogued its session and reconvened as and under the GB parliament.

    The English parliament never ceased, nor was it extinguished by the pre-nuptial agreement that was later Ratified and given assent by the monarch.

    The 1707 Scottish was.

    There is no treaty of union between the Scottish and English parliament of 1707,

    Perhaps it was not just Scotland that was wary of a union, for it seems that a number of Commissioners and Westminster parliamentarians also ensured a “get out clause” should the union become a problem.

    Its just been over looked by the Scots people, whom have not always had access to the records.

  92. Tommo says:

    Johnny says:
    17 February, 2023 at 2:05 pm
    Go away Mark.

    A minority cannot be allowed to stymie a majority vote.

    Just piss off.”

    Well then it’s job done in 2014 is it not?- more particularly having regard to the Learned Editor’s statistics that since then Yes has trailed No by a significant margin throughout

  93. Alf Baird says:

    “As well as there being no actual way to enact such a mandate, the big flaw with the plan is that a majority of SEATS can easily be achieved from a minority of VOTES, and a minority of votes is simply not a legitimate democratic justification for independence.”

    Could you perhaps indicate from which rule book you got that ‘legitimate democratic justification’ from, Rev?

    Scots are merely bringing to an end a treaty-based agreement and this may be lawfully effected via a majority of elected national representatives, which we might recall is precisely the same lawful way Scotland entered into the union agreement. Scots are already a sovereign people, i.e. independent, thay juist dinnae ken it because thay’ve nivver been telt it.

    Lets also remember here that Scotland’s historic and ongoing rapid demographic and cultural change during the ‘union’ has been markedly influenced and determined by the actions, including force, of the dominant power, and this is the only reason we struggle to get 50% for ‘Yes’ today. Millions of Scots were ‘banished’ or given incentives to get out, combined with an imposed cultural division of labour favouring the dominant ‘partner’ culture/language resulting in an ever increasing settler population and anglophone cultural hegemony. Coupled with the dominant partners brutal cultural assimilation policies, these oppression’s are the only reason our population today is divided 50% Scots and 50% Brits.

    Why must the massively diminished rump of indigenous Scots who remain in Scotland today, succumb and concede our national sovereignty to these imposed demographic and cultural constraints, which are never, ever democratic constraints, but rather the consequence of the colonial oppressors self-interest at ‘our peoples’ expense.

    Here we may begin to understand why the UN-sanctioned franchise in New Caledonia contained ‘secondary criteria’ to mitigate the impacts of imposed demographic and cultural change on the indigenous population. Lets not kid ourselves that our situation is any different.

  94. Colin Alexander says:

    In my opinion, any party that believes in the sovereignty of the people of Scotland should not be putting forward policies for the administration of the UK state.

    They should not be seeking to take part in the WM Imperial or devolution Holyrood colonial parliaments due to the requirement to swear an oath to the UK monarch and the anti-Scottish undemocratic nature of these forums.

    Every election should be fought for a mandate to declare independence.

  95. James Che says:


    If Scotland is not a Country?

    If Scotland is not a Country, and its parliament was extinguised from the treaty of union of two parliaments between Scotland and England in a pre- nupt agreement in 1707,

    Which Country is England in a treaty with?
    Which parliament entered into a treaty with Westminsters English parliament in 1707?

    These questions need answers.

  96. Liz says:

    Re Robin Mcalpine and the NEC.
    Did anyone really expect anything else?

    The party is still holed below the water line.
    Robertson will never get the same adulation and blind faith that Nikla got.

    If the polls are anything to go by, the SNP will lose MPs at the mext election.
    That means, less short money.
    And if anything will put a rocket under their bums, the thought of being off the gravy train will do it.

    The SNP needs taught a major lesson before change will happen.

  97. Maureen says:

    SNP special conference will go ahead later this year

  98. President Xiden says:

    Whatever the policy is, it’s got to be an improvement on their campaign to allow men into women’s toilets and changing rooms.

  99. James Che says:


    The Scottish parliament was not subsumed, it was extinguished, in England,
    This info link is on the Westminster parliament UK site 2023.

    If the Scottish parliament was extinguished in 1707, niether the Scottish parliament nor the Country of Scotland can be said to be in a treaty of union,

  100. SusanAHF says:

    The SNP is dead. Unless a radical shake up occurs, involving a wholesale purge of its NEC and parliamentarians and a return to its founding principles. Hubris and Nemesis. I think we need to accept this and move on.

  101. Wee Chid says:

    “That would also help counteract the slight potential downside whereby some people who currently vote SNP don’t want independence and might be put off. ”

    Then there is also the problem of many just not believing that the SNP actally mean it and just abstaining from voting because “They are all the same”.

  102. James Che says:


    It is about time we used Scots law.
    And stop running like a colonial serf for them to pass a judgement on our behalf.
    Which will never fall in a serfs favour from a Colonial master.

    We have Scots law which was meant to remain separate, however the treaty if there ever was such a thing was broken by Westminster when it changed Scots law ( it )considered obsolete.

  103. Viscount Ennui says:

    I will be in a minority on this site and my views shape by being a direct victim of the corruption that has despoiled this once great nation but I will spew forth nevertheless.
    Just don’t accuse me of being a yoonie.
    The MSM have not yet picked-up on how bad things are here in terms of the weakening of those democratic structures for which Scotland was once renowned, nor the fragility of the private secotr or under-performance of the public sector.
    We are actually in a very bad way.
    Furthermore, the electorate is polarised and independence perceived as a grudge against WM rather than something that can inspire in its own right. The joyous nationalism of the Salmand years has evaproated and has been replaced by grievance and shouty politics.
    There have many great failings over the lasy 8 years and it is easy to point to BiFab, Ferguson, Whitehouse v Lord Advocate, the smelter scandal etc, all of which were acts of commission by the cabal in charge.

    But the greates ‘crimes’ have been the failure to build a national identity on what were rock-solid foundations. A true vision for what Scotland should become, backed by sound governance anda demonstration of competence.

    Whoever succeeds NS must now re-build trust in governance and that is going to take a decade or more. You cannot change the culture of an organisation overnight nor the way that it is perceived by others. Scotland, and I include Holyrood rather than just Bute House, has a reputation of beging more akin to Stirling Albion that Barcelona FC (no offence) and a second or third rate nation in the league table of democracies.

    So, my view is that, whilst the departure of NS is indeed a blessing, it will take at least a decade to repair the damage that she has done.

    A slow-burn revolution.

    Holyrood shenanagins will not do the trick and will certainly not persuade the soft middle-ground.

  104. Lenny Hartley says:

    Wonder if Sturgeon’s snap resignation was due the the alleged charges the Borders Butcher is facing, im sure she would have been told before they were made public. Sturgeon would have received a Tsunami of negative questions of which i have no doubt, as Craig Murray noted she had done her duty for the Empire by closing down the Referendum route to Indy and was now expendable.
    The attack dogs quite rightly would have been let loose.

  105. Peter C says:

    @ and Re: gregor 1:53

    Your link to an archive does not now show the whole article as it currently stands now. Robin wrote an ‘addendum’ to that article on how the SNP NEC gave itself freedom to change the SNP constitution at will.

    The updated article, with the addendum, can be read here:

  106. Garrion says:

    RepublicofScotland @4:37
    Rewiring the constitution of the SNP was one of the first projects of the Murrels. It’s such a mess now that it would be like trying to unbake a cake – possible, but only in the far future and at great expense.

  107. Merganser says:

    Rev.Stuart @ 4.15.

    There is no way that Sturgeon wanted to resign at this time. Something happened to make her do it so quickly. She became aware of something coming down the line which would hole her below the waterline so she jumped while she could salvage something before the news came out.

    There has been speculation that it could be about the missing £600,00. Or the hacked emails.

    For me, it’s something which came out today which she had been tipped off about in advance which made her realise the game was up.

    Then came the big act. The press conference announced for an hour’s time, and the false excuses trotted out, all wholly implausible but she got away with it as far as the press were concerned, and she got the accolades which wouldn’t have been forthcoming if she had delayed.

    It defies belief that she would have deserted the ship like this without a substantial reason that forced her hand, and dumped her Party and her husband in the mire. It was never intended to end like this for her. It would have been a well choreographed event with a thought out plan for ensuring her chosen successor appearing to have been the one that all the Party wanted, champagne, cameras, glitter, moving on to bigger things.

    Instead, a hurried low-key slinking up the stairs to oblivion, doomed by her own folly. There may yet be another torpedo or two heading towards the bad ship Nicola which will cause some scribblers to re-write their effusive views of her time in office.

  108. ABruce says:

    Patsy Millar : 3:48pm
    Voices for Independence in my favourites site- it really is the go to place, and the first I visit every day. All the good bloggers are in there; Rev.Stu, Robin, BB, Iain Lawson,etc. The only fly in the ointment is WGD, but the moronic comments are always good for a laugh.

  109. Mia says:

    “from now on, EVERY election contested by the SNP has to be a de facto referendum”

    This, this, this!!!!

    I would extend this demand to ANY party that claims to be pro-independence.

    I admit that since the aftermath of 2014 I never considered referendums on independence a viable option because the British state and its allies will always find a way to rig it and gerrymander it.

    The referendum in 2014 was a matter for Scotland and Scotland only. Yet, we had England politicians and others sticking their nose in it. We had money raised through England, Wales and NI entering the campaign through the uK gov and Secretary of State and through donnors from outwith Scotland. We also had UK civil servants actively ditching their code of practice and political impartiality to do everything bar campaigning to save the union. That is blatant external interference which should have never been allowed.

    Then of course is the matter of a franchise which was left wide open for abuse, and it was abused.

    Having every election as a de-facto independence referendum solves only part of the problems, but more importantly, it makes the matter of independence a constant that can no longer be brushed under the carpet with party infiltration as it has been done successfully for the last 8 years.

    I think such proposal will exhaust and break apart unionist parties who will have to constantly fight a two-front battle: one in Scotland concentrated on oposing independence and another in England concentrated in England politics.

    I also think this will result in even bigger divergence in politics between Scotland and England. As a result, this will create the need for the branches in Scotland of the colonial parties to separate from their main England parties to be able to cope with the pressure. At that point, we can demand the umbilical cord to be cut and that no monies from England/Wales or NI enter our political campaigns.

    Only when that happens we can start talking about actual Scottish politics, rather than the overlording of England’s political parties over Scotland’s business.

    Having continuous plebiscite elections on independence does not fully solve the problem of interference from external parties (and external entities like the crown) in our political business.

    This interference probably will ramp up, at least at the beginning, but this might led to the English people actually getting fed up of the whole independence thing and backlashing by demanding England’s independence so their parties and broadcasters can concentrate on English matters rather than continuously talking about Scotland’s independence.

    Showing often how much money the Uk treasury is diverting to fight against Scotland’s independence may add fuel to this fire…

    There is only so much encouragement the powers that be can give to get unionist voters from England, Wales or NI to live and vote in Scotland to thwart independence. It will come to a point where the necessary number of imported voters to keep the union on life-support might start affecting outcomes of GE elections in certain parts of England.

    I certainly think there is a case for a public demand in Scotland that only political parties with HQ in Scotland should be allowed to take a seat in our Holyrood parliament and councils, and only money raised from members or donors living in Scotland can be used in Scotland’s elections/referendums no matter which.

    “the Supreme Court has ruled out any other kind”

    I am going to be really annoying, but this only applies if one actually believes and accepts an England court of dubious legitimacy under the treaty of union, has any legitimate right whatsoever to block Scotland’s democratic will.

    I most certainly do not and never will, therefore consider that ruling a farce and the acceptance of such ruling by our political “leaders” an even bigger farce.

    I have zero respect for any so called Scottish political “leader” who dares to give more importance to the ruling of an English court, which represents the crown and is going ultra vires by encroaching on Scotland’s rights under the treaty of union and its own constitutional tradition, than to the voice of the people of Scotland who has been electing majorities, for 7 years now, both in holyrood and Westminster, on a mandate to deliver a referendum.

    It is my settled view that an English court has no right to block Scotland’s legitimate right to unilateraly terminate an international treaty of which Scotland is an equal partner. No English or Scottish judge, or pretend political leader will ever change that view.

    The so called “supreme court” is a byproduct of the union, therefore can never be considered as impartial in a matter about the continuation of the union when the existence of such court itself is fully dependent in the continuation of the union.

    I am aghast and consider an unbelievable dereliction of duty by the Lord Advocate to have overlooked such blatant degree of partiality when actively inviting that court to encroach on Scotland’s political business and worse, quash our democratic rights.

    I also firmly believe it is up to Scotland, and Scotland only, to choose the means by which to determine, freely, if it wishes to unilaterally terminate that treaty or not. I accept no entity other than Scotland has the right to decide that. As soon as I hear the words “permission” or “consent” in regards to Scotland’s constitutional situation, I immediately disconnect, no matter whose mouth those words emanate from.

    It is my view that the only reason why this referendum has not happened, and will not happen with the present devolutionist SNP crop of careerists and charlatans, is because we have UK state or crown puppets, with the uttermost contempt for democracy and their voters, rather than actual leaders, in control of our MSP and MP majorities.

    A referendum could take place tomorrow if the SNP MPs whithdraw from Westminter, temporarily suspend the treaty of union and transfer their powers to Holyrood to hold that referendum, stating that the treaty would not be restablished until that referendum takes place.

    Arguably, in that scenario, one could even reasonably question why suspending the treaty only temporarily when you are a party of independence and can suspend it permanently, which is your raison d’etre.

    A majority of MPs is and has always been sufficient to terminate this union. This is after all a parliamentary democracy and bribing enough MPs to get a majority is all what took the crown to force this union through.

    To demand a majority of the vote besides a majority of the seats to exit the union when this was never a demanded to form this union in the first place, and when the union was fiercely opposed by the people of Scotland is, in my view, an unreasonable, unfair and disproportionate demand.

    The concept of a majority of MPsvs vote being democratic or not is relative. We cast over 50% of our vote for pro-indy parties in 2015. At that point we also sent 56 out of 59 anti-union MPs. That should have signaled the end of the union. Instead, we were forced by Sturgeon and co to endure the union for another 8 years thanks to her novel “a vote for the SNP is not a vote for independence”. Before 2015, a vote for the SNP was always a vote for independence. Who gave that fraud the right to change that?

    62% of those voting in the EU referendum in Scotland did so against brexit. Despite this, despite having a pro-indy majority of seats in Holyrood and WEstminster, despite having cast over 50% of our vote for pro-indy parties in 2015, and despite a majority of our MPs voting against it, brexit was forced on us and this, somewhat, is seen as “democratic” and “acceptable”.

    When you combine the vote of SNP, Greens and Alba on the regional list in 2021, this is over 50%. Yet, the refusal of the referendum, and worse, inviting the encroachement on our democratic rights and rights under international law of the crown through a biased English court and lord Advocate is also seen by many as perfectly democratic and acceptable.

    If we have not had this referendum yet, it is not because of the ruling of an English court nor because the UK gov or UK parliament, both byproducts of the union and therefore subordinated to it, have denied their “permission”

    It is either because the crown itself is oposing to it as it did in 1713 and our “leaders” do not wish to get in the wrong side of the crown (or have been handsomely bribed to remain compliant as many MPs did in 1707), or because the SNP in its present form never wanted to deliver that referendum, never mind independence, in the first place, so it has been frustrating our democratic mandate while hiding like cowards behind the UK gov and England’s political parties.

    Having said that, I enthusiastically agree 100% with having every election as a plebiscite on independence. My preference would be to stop the pusyfooting around and the double speak, so I would like to see a manifesto which clearly states it is a vote to terminate the treaty of union.

    I do not accept Scotland is a region of the Kingdom of England or a region of the fictitious “UK of Great Britain”. I am of the opinion we must threat with continously spoiling our ballots unless EVERY election from now on becomes a plebiscite on the continuation of the union.

    England and the crown have vested interests in the preservation of the treaty of union beyond Scotland’s independence. This is because of the implications for the succession of the crown and 300 years of treaties, international agreements and trade deals of breaking the treaty of union. For this reason, I would not be surprised that, if this plebiscite proposal takes hold and at some point getting a majority of anti-union MPs on a mandate to terminate the union becomes a possibility, even before the election is on the horizon, we receive the “blessing” of Westminter (and the crown) for that referendum to take place. But I have no doubt it would be with the condition that Scotland secedes from an imaginary UK entity, rather than officially terminating the international treaty it entered in as a sovereign state and therefore has every right to terminate at any time of its choosing.

    Once we have moved on from the begging and every election becomes a de facto route to independence, should we accept the diminished offer of a referendum with Westmintser’s (and the crown’s) blessing, or not?

    For me it would depend on what other goodies come in with the offer and, more importantly, the level of interference the British state will be likely to exercise in that referendum.

    But let’s cross that bridge when and if we ever get to it.

  110. mark says:

    @james che

    Give it a rest. Your barrack room lawyering regarding the constitution makes you look ridiculous. Feel free to point out which article of the claim of right supports your argument. And feel free to state what “the people are sovereign” actually means in practice.

  111. Name (required) says:

    the Scottish pessimist turns to his mate and says, ‘it just canny get any worse’

    his mate, an optimists, says ‘ocht dinny be daft, of course it can’

    listen to yerselfs ffs

  112. gregor says:


    “A king or queen.”

    “Having the highest power or being completely independent.”

    “Sovereign power is said to lie with the people in some countries, and with a ruler in others.”

    “We must respect the rights of sovereign states/nations to conduct their own affairs.”

    “Love is a sovereign remedy for unhappiness.”

  113. gregor says:


    “Stupid or unreasonable and deserving to be laughed at.”

    “It’s ridiculous to expect a two-year-old to be able to read!”

  114. Mia says:

    “If indy parties don’t get 50%, we shut up about the subject”

    On this, I have to disagree. The population of Scotland is so small that 50,000 voters can easily change the outcome of the vote.

    The powers that be can easily make arrangements for such number of votes and many more, through military/police personnel, “lords”, civil servants, students, union activists, oil workers, promotion of retirement in Scotland etc, to be transferred to Scotland from elsewhere to thwart a pro-yes vote.

    To me, shutting up about the subject would only be acceptable if the proportion of people seeking independence is really low. But when that percentage has been sustained over 45% for the last 9 years and at certain points it could have even been over 50% without any campaigning, then we have every right to keep demanding it and demanding it as loudly and as often as we possibly can.

    I think we should never, ever shut up about independence and we should constantly demand it until we get it. In fact, we should permanently subordinate Scottish politics to the constitutional matter until it is resolved. Constitution first, rest second.

    When one is hungry and begging for food, lack of success getting food or money with the first passer by, does not result in begging having to stop until the same passer by comes along again. Begging continues until sourcing food or money from whomever passes by is achieved because not getting food will result in death and the first passer by may never come back.

    To me this is the same. Every year that passes by and Scotland does not get its independence, it dies a little. The proportion of its native population decreases, its control over its own resources decreases, its powers decrease, its culture, economy, politics and heritage is more subsumed by a foreign one, its assets are sold if not given away, and its laws re-written for the benefit of somebody else.

    For instance, how much of Scotland has already died over the 8 years Sturgeon wasted us?

  115. gregor says:

    Elon Musk (17/02/2023): Twitter:


  116. gregor says:


    “Government by a small group of very powerful people.”

    “A lot of people in the country were seeing the dangers of oligarchy.”

    “The country had to decide whether it wanted to continue on its path of transition or to follow the path of the rule of oligarchy.”

    “The powerful socio-economic oligarchy tried to preserve its privileged status.”

    “The country is run by a self-selecting oligarchy with little regard for the rules of law and natural justice.”

  117. Alf Baird says:

    “it’s perfectly fair that something like independence has to clear a higher bar – a majority of votes.”

    Rev, you do realise what happens to a countries indigenous native population when a much larger dominant neighbouring imperial power takes control over their borders, culture, languages, governance and their destiny? Why do you think half of Scotland’s population today consider themselves British and automatically vote against the liberation of native Scots?

    I’m not convinced that the injustices and legacies of colonial oppression inflicted on ‘a people’ are even remotely close to being ‘perfectly fair’. This seem more like the ‘values’ of the oppressor than the oppressed.

  118. gregor says:


    “Wanting to do something very much and not allowing anyone or any difficulties to stop you.”

    “I was determined not to give up.”

    “Her dogged determination to uncover the truth about the scandal led to her winning a reporting prize.”

    “I am resolved to do something about the issue.”

    “We must remain resolute in the face of opposition.”

  119. Tenruh says:

    Need to get the Holyrood parliament back to the 4 year session

  120. gregor says:

    Elon Musk (17/02/2023): Twitter:

    “Seriously! And I don’t even follow them.”:

  121. gregor says:

    Dilated Peoples (2016): Expansion Team: Proper Propaganda:

    “We’re coming to you live from the Scottish Rite Temple
    Near the intersection of Crenshaw and Wiltshire
    Where, as you can see in the background
    Military personnel are mobilized and waiting orders
    Despite the quiet and the deceptive calm, tension is still
    Thick in the air after last night’s concert and rebellion…

    We’ll keep you updated with any new developments…”:

  122. gregor says:

    Telegraph (17/02/2023): The SNP bloodletting has only just begun:

    “Shock exits may have become the norm in Westminster, but nobody was prepared for Scotland’s pre-eminent political force to announce her departure from the centre stage…

    Keen political observers will recall that famous warning – “beware the Ides of March” and all it entailed for the Roman Empire…”:

  123. Alf Baird says:

    Mia @ 7:13 pm

    “Every year that passes by and Scotland does not get its independence, it dies a little.”

    This is without doubt the reality of the matter. Scots must be made much more aware of the irreversible consequence and danger of permitting their prolonged colonialism to continue, given that: “The iron law of colonialist capitalism (is) of a society that is not only perishable but already in the process of perishing.” (Aime Cesaire)

    The longer SNP MPs and MSPs sit on their hands, the more Scotland’s fate is sealed. I recall Sturgeon saying she ‘had plenty of time’. Definitely not the case for Scotland. That’s why the opportunity for a definitive indyref-election in Oct 2023 must not be missed.

  124. gregor says:

    Elon Musk (17/02/2023): Twitter:


  125. gregor says:

    greg (17/02/2023): Twitter:

    “Has anyone ever seen them in the same room?”:

  126. Pete Johnson says:

    I know a democratic vote is a democratic vote and each counts as 1 but for me the problem is the amount of apathy or disinterest. Whilst the SNP won the last Holyrood election (just) and with the aid of the Greens were able to form a government, they only received 29% of the Scottish electorate vote. Hardly a ringing endorsement for independence.

  127. Lorna Campbell says:

    Vestas: quite why you put my name in inverted commas is anyone’s guess. It is my real name. I was a real SNP supporter for many years. I was really angry at the GRRB, and I really did leave the SNP. I have little to no real interest now in who is elected leader of a party I have left and cannot ever support again – really not just because of the MSPs, but because of the craven and rather stupid loyalist faction. Really, I will never forgive their gross betrayal of so many hard-working women within the party. Like the Gaul, Vercingetorix, they were really perfectly wiling to sacrifice their womenfolk (and children) for a battle they could not, and/or did not want, to win.

    Yes, I do really know the saga, but you will find that, in politics, alliances shift from day-to-day, and politicians really being a breed apart, real alliances can be formed out of real animus when necessity drives because it makes strange bedfellows out of different factions. Robertson has kept his head down recently. As the Rev says, he might not even stand, but we shall see. Whatever you think, whatever many think, he might yet be the healing factor between two, ostensibly, opposing camps, and he is a man as opposed to another female in the post. After Sturgeon, as after Thatcher, the love affair has soured.

    As for the others, Ash Regan seems a really good candidate, steely, which is necessary, and Kate Forbes, although her diplomatic stance did not come off well. However, as I said, I am really past caring what the SNP does, or the Greens either, for that matter, but, if any of them want to make progress on independence, they are all going to have to eat a wee bit of humble pie and reach out to those they have alienated. Really. Yes, really, “Vestas”. Now, don’t burn yourself up. You really are no match.

  128. Lorna Campbell says:

    tricia young says: “… I care deeply about independence, I’ve voted for it since 2014. I also care about my rights as a woman. I detest the SNP, NEC, and all politicians who went after Scotland’s women. I simply don’t trust SNP, Greens, Labour and can’t vote for the Tories.
    I will vote Alba or abstain. I will not be a 2nd class citizen in my country. They all seem to be ok with that, bar Alba… ”

    Yes, indeed, tricia. I have been quite shocked and deeply hurt by the willingness of mainly men in the SNP to throw women and children under the bus in pursuit of an independence that has never been on the cards since late 2014. It is the sheer, unmitigated stupidity and callous disregard for every woman and child in Scotland, and the whole of the UK, that has disgusted me. I think you may be lenient in your assessment of us all as second-class citizens. I do not believe that we are even visible to them. They do not appear to regard us as in any way important, so many of them – not all, by any means, and females, too, have been equally guilty, though fewer, but far too many for comfort. It has hardened something in me, and other women I have spoken to, feel the same. Something has shifted, and we have learned valuable lessons that will not be forgotten in future when elections come around.

  129. Paul Davies says:

    Amazing convoluted thinking on this site. We were dragged out of the EU by Westminster against our will and yet, we are willing to drag the majority of the population of Scotland who want to remain in the Union out of the Union with the UK against their will. What a bunch of hypocrites you all are.

  130. Paul Davies says:

    Oh dear cancelled for telling the truth – so much for the Rev Stu.- you dont want to hear any contrary views do you

  131. Elizabeth Robertson says:

    You’re nuts. Stuart. There’s no support for a referendum let alone independence.

  132. gregor says:

    Mark Irvine (17/02/2023): Twitter:

    “Whom the Gods wish to destroy…… …..they first turn into figures of fun. I have to say I agree with Andy Nicoll – Nicola Sturgeon’s inability to laugh at herself is renowned along with her pig-headed refusal to accept when she’s wrong.”:

  133. Chris Darroch says:

    Seems that folk imagine Nicola stepping away….is some form of new beginning for the independence movement.

    Rather than a shuffling of the large army of very comfortable politicians.

    With little discernible political competition…the SNP are free to enjoy an extended period of comfort.

    And might only expect a gradual decline in political fortune over a long time.

    The current batch of SNP politicians are not only well used to enjoying the comforts of their positions….but are now practiced in the dark art of reinforcing them.

    It is only ever going to be a slow grinding future of nothing useful happening.

  134. Chris Darroch says:

    Seems that folk imagine Nicola stepping away….is some form of new beginning for the independence movement.

    Rather than a shuffling of the large army of very comfortable politicians.

    With little discernible political competition…the SNP are free to enjoy an extended period of comfort.

    And might only expect a gradual decline in political fortune over a long time.

    The current batch of SNP politicians are not only well used to enjoying the comforts of their positions….but are now practiced in the dark art of reinforcing them.

    It is only ever going to be a slow grinding future of nothing useful happening.

  135. gregor says:


    “A number of things of the same type fastened together or in a close group.”

    “A bunch of flowers/grapes/bananas/keys.”

    “These politicians are just a bunch of crooks.”

    “Using a bunch of bananas, the zoo-keeper persuaded the monkey back into its cage.”

    “We ate a whole bunch of grapes.”

  136. gregor says:

    Pete Wishart (17/02/2023): Twit:

    “If ‘de facto’ is dead we need a new independence strategy in place as soon as possible or it’s going to be a cold, difficult next Westminster election. SNP ‘may be forced to wait until 2026 Holyrood election for de facto referendum’”:

  137. gregor says:


    “To have to have something, or to want something very much.”

    “Someone who is in need of something must or should have it.”

    “They’re in need of help.”

    “We’ll need to check out his story.”

    “I need to get those films processed.”

  138. Lorna Campbell says:

    I agree, Rev, that we have to take the majority with us. No other way. However, establishing our right in international law to leave the Union should have been our first step. That would have put paid to the argument that we have no ‘right’ to leave the Union. We have had a solid, constitutional case for the full 300+ years of the Union, but, for some reason, we deliberately shy away from establishing it. Once we had established that we have the right to leave the Union, then we should have started to establish why, politically, socially, culturally, we need to leave the Union. We have not built the first step of the staircase, so we are doomed to remain at the bottom, staring up at the unattainable goal. We need to start building that staircase, step by step. 300+ wasted years, then another eight/nine, for good measure. While the political is essential, it should never have been the first step. That should have been the constitutional and legal.

  139. gregor says:

    Elon Musk (17/02/2023): Twitter:

    “A big part of the problem is that journalists used to choose their career to pursue truth, but in recent years many have entered journalism to be activists”:

  140. gregor says:


    “The quality of being true.”

    “The real facts about a situation, event, or person.”

    “But was he telling the truth?”

  141. ScottieDog says:

    This is a sensible plan. For one thing, a new FM, handed a party in free-fall will have a considerable amount of firefighting, and a necessary clear out out of the Fred bassets (British assets) will be required. Suddenly the 2026 election won’t seem that far away, given the task in hand.

    Assuming someone decent takes the reigns, the most practical course of action in my opinion would be to address the wishes of conference. Reboot the National energy company, adapt the National investment bank into something which actually benefits the public interest. Add to that a resolution to the ferry fiasco and an inverstigation into the scotwind reverse auction. More than enough to be going on with, yet a chance to win back trust and surely the best way to win back the YES vote.

  142. gregor says:

    FinancialTimes (17/02/2023): Nicola Sturgeon’s departure leaves many question’s in her wake:

    “…The police probe is into £600,000 of funds raised from the SNP’s membership that was supposed to be ringfenced for a second referendum but appear to have been spent elsewhere.

    “That shows a disdain for the membership. If I was running a bowling club and I said I was doing a collection for Mrs McDumpty’s gravestone and spent it on something else, would that be right?” said an SNP detractor.

    Separately, the electoral commission has noted compliance issues with a £107,000 loan to the SNP by Sturgeon’s husband, Peter Murrell, the chief executive of the party, made just after police investigation had begun.

    Elsewhere there is the threat posed by a number of emails recently hacked from the account of Stewart McDonald, the SNP’s shadow defence secretary, which are the subject of fierce speculation within the party…”:

  143. gregor says:

    NationalScot (17/02/2023): Alex Salmond accuses SNP of stitch up in leadership contest:

    “Alex Salmond has accused the SNP’s national executive of attempting an establishment stitch-up, claiming that the five-week contest to find Nicola Sturgeon’s successor will favour the “old stagers” in the race.

    The former first minister has also thrown his weight behind Kate Forbes and Ash Regan…”:

  144. Frazerio says:

    This article is indy in a nutshell. For all the doubters & naysayers above, put a cork in it. If you are an indy party, Indy first, all else second. Its that simple. Always has been, always will be. Put this at the top of your manifesto, all else follows. We’ve been ‘forced’ to use pure democracy, so lets do it. Every 5 years (or less). Bring it on. Indy is inevitable.

  145. Alex says:

    A says:
    17 February, 2023 at 4:04 pm
    Scottish Government should instruct Police Scotland to no longer enforce payment of Vehicle Tax, TV license and other UK taxes in Scotland. Civil disobedience, deprive the Brits of taxes we’re forced to pay while we’re also forcably held in the UK. Scottish Government can just say that in these financially tight times we’ve got to priorotise all public resources, and can’t have cops wasting time enforcing non-devolved laws ?

    Genius! Let’s have people’s car insurance invalidated due to no tax. Is the SGov going to cover all accident bills?
    So any law you don’t like is suddenly unenforceable because it’ll really show down south? What do you do when it’s not a devolved area and no SGov legislation exists?
    This is just as ridiculous as everyone saying “just declare the Union over”. If it was legally possible it would have been done. That includes internationally with recognition. But it’s not.

    Question for the SNP members. Robin said to launch legal action over the shortened election leadership campaign. But does their current constitution / NEC allow “the really important” people set the bylaws etc as they see fit without involving the membership? Or does it need the NEC to act after the membership advises.

  146. Alex says:

    mark says:
    17 February, 2023 at 6:50 pm
    @james che

    Give it a rest. Your barrack room lawyering regarding the constitution makes you look ridiculous. Feel free to point out which article of the claim of right supports your argument. And feel free to state what “the people are sovereign” actually means in practice.

    Mark, come on. This is the secret unlocked! Why didn’t anyone think of this before? The best legal minds in Scotland for hundreds of years, never thought of this. We will be independent by March! James Che can lead us to the promised land.

  147. Jim Walker says:

    Totally agree with the main theme of your commentary but now it is time to play hardball. Scots should now find out what a unionist regime would deliver. No free prescriptions, no free tertiary education, no universal handouts anywhere. All the funds received with the change of policy should be earmarked only for poverty eradication, food bank removal, homeless shelters and drug shelters. By all means give poor kids access to tertiary education and poor people prescription/ consultation access, but not the rest of us. Chase the freeloaders out of Scotland and show the electorate what a unionist vote really means. If Scots still don’t get it (and I am not hopeful) he’ll mend them.

  148. gregor says:

    @Peter C

    Good man (re. better informing Scotland)…

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