The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The same old tricks

Posted on January 16, 2025 by

Way back in the day, the Lib Dems in particular, but also other parties and the “Better Together” campaign, were infamous for the “dodgy barchart” tactic.

And so degraded is the modern SNP, it’s now scraping the same barrel.

Here’s a graphic the party’s MSPs have been tweeting this week, made up to look like it came from the polling company Survation:

And here’s the tragic reality from Survation’s website:

That’s politics, of course. So far so casually, cynically dishonest. Business as usual. But what’s (very) mildly interesting about it is the way the SNP have bigged up Anas Sarwar in it. Their graphic suggests he’s the second-least-unpopular leader, when in fact he’s even LESS popular than Russell Findlay and Alex Cole-Hamilton.

A Scottish Labour leader being less popular than even the Tories’ would be something you might expect the SNP to want to make a bit of capital out of. Unless, of course, there was some reason they wanted to go easy on Labour.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

247 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Campbell Clansman

Shouldn’t they instead describe Swinney as the “Least Unpopular” leader?

Morag Frame

Stroking Sarwar! SNP already making plans to be in coalition with labour, after the 2026 election? Shame on them.

Hatey McHateface

Naw Morag.

If they’re nice to them, they expect Labour will grant us a referendum in the life of this WM parliament 🙂

Muscleguy

Not to mention Lorna Slater of the Greens doing the same thing.

Hatey McHateface

That graphic, with the party leaders shown side-by-side like that, defo suggests that Swinney has the biggest heid.

By a country mile!

He’s so advanced, modern, and dare I say it, progressive, his photo is in colour too. The others seem stuck in the B&W era.

Nae Need!

Sneaky with the graphic, eh.
For the consummate liars that they clearly are, I’m surprised, and a tad disappointed, that Swinney is still viewed so favourably. Only minus 1.
I fully understand how Harvie/Slater get minus 18 and are viewed the LEAST favourably, but Swinney should, based on his track record, be closer to minus 18. And why is Ash Regan viewed so badly? Weird.
The NuSNP have been sooking up to SLab for ages – nauseating, obsequious-ness – ‘Choose us, choose us, we won’t steal the duvet and hog all the pillows, kiss kiss’.

Mark Beggan

The Nolan sisters. Hands up who was turned on in a very nice way by these Irish beauties. Ok hands down.

Parachute Boy is being groomed.

twathater

It would be interesting to run a survey asking voters if they would prefer having an STD instead of ANY of these fuckwits

What a collection of imbeciles and LIARS

Young Lochinvar

When the sun of politics is low even dwarves cast shadows..

Alibi

I don’t see that bar chart as showing anything of the kind. Clearly Sarwar is far more unpopular than Swinney and Findlay as the bar chart shows. That’s hardly going easy on Sarwar. Not often I disagree with WoS but in this case I do. Maybe if the chart was in black and white it would be clearer…

Owen Mullions

Look again

sarah

It’s the photo that has Sarwar second [the bar chart is correct].

duncanio

I saw this reported elsewhere in a nominally pro-Independence website by a nominally pro-Independence blogger.

I pointed out that all of the leaders/branch managers of parties in Scotland were in negative territory and as such was hardly a ringing endorsement of political discourse in Scotland.

Cue silence.

TenV

Seems as if they have fallen in step with Colonialising England now. Taking turns at being in Gov and then pointing the finger of blame (pretendy) Chuckle Brothers’ From me to you You to me’
Let Labour take stick for a wee while, hoping we forget their betrayals eh?

Vivian O’Blivion

The John Smith Centre introduced its Parliamentary Interns for 2025 this week (they weren’t the worst bunch they’ve produced). One was in her third year at the University of Glasgow doing a degree in Politics & Theatre Studies. After overcoming my initial outrage at such a preposterous course title, on reflection, it makes perfect sense. Actual performance and competency is sooo 1970’s. Perception is the only game in town.

Willie

Labour and the SNP are two cheeks from the same are.

British establishment parties supporting a neo liberal agenda. The SNP now, and indeed for some time habe been fully in the Better Together camp.

And that’s it folks. Game over. Enjoy your fuel poverty, your declining standards, and all wrapped up with the eradication of Scotland as anything more than an English region.

The SNP sold out and soon Swinney, Surgeon and the rest of the sell out brigade wi ride off into the sunset well pensioner up.

100%Yes

People are so fed up with politics and being lied to that the general public don’t know who to trust. For me it has to be said that politics in the last century was a better place to be, so what’s happened? It would have been unthinkable in the last century to be making someone acquaintance by sticking your longest finger into a fellow MP arse or to be looking at porn on a free Ipad with another 649 MP’s watching and not blinking a eyelid.

The funny thing is in the last century we used to look at Westminster as a joke and think at least in Scotland our MSP’s are a bit better you can no longer say that, if anything the SNP has brought our parliament right down to the sewer Its not that Swinney popularity is great its that who do you trust and who do you vote for. John Swinney hasn’t changed the party’s fortunes its that Labour down south is abysmal and the general public are picking up on it. The real test is when there’s a by-election and what the turn out is and here is were the SNP voting number are so low if I was John Swinney I’d be worried but I’m not John Swinney and I’m also not a moron.

I don’t pay attention to polls on any subject as its all down to the question your being asked because if you put the right phrase into the question you’ll get the answer you want every time.

For starters, I don’t under any circumstances call Labour Scottish we should get out of saying that all together there British Labour, end off.

Nae Need!

“For me it has to be said that politics in the last century was a better place to be, so what’s happened?”

I agree.
As to what’s happened, I think a veritable panoply (and this is by no means an exhaustive list) of very cynical thinking/behaviour, rampant greed & self interest, the promotion of deviancy, a gang mentality has ensured what appears to be a frantic race to the bottom.

Our elected representatives are supposed to be the BEST of us.

They now appear to be the WORST of us in increasingly greater numbers.

Last edited 30 days ago by Nae Need!
100%Yes

They have absolutely no interest in Politics or their constituency never mind their Country its all about the free bar, food and the wage and pension and the best of all the french benefits that comes with the JOB its so overwhelming they’ll say and do anything to keep the lifestyle up. This is the reason why Scotland isn’t Independent and why Sturgeon is the Messiah. Look at the clip of Kate Forbes that was posted by Wings the other day she was Window Dressing John Swinney arese and she look as untidy in her appearance. I going to be honest If I had to pick and I only had two options of the next leader between Sturgeon and Forbes trust me it would be a hard choice, Forbes is in it for the money and I would trust her with my Country never mind a rotten party like the SNP.

100%Yes

Anyone for a finger, hold your arse up.

Chocolatefingerssq-458844625
Ross

Eekies for Swinney is actually a pretty good result I’d say given everything.

Definitely get the impression he’s no William Wallace but a safe pair of hands.

Anthem

He didn’t dimiss fracking in Scotland today at FM’s questions.
Safe pair of hands? Yer arse!

Hatey McHateface

“He didn’t dimiss fracking in Scotland”

Seriously?

We’ve a cost of living crisis and an energy shortfall crisis and you’re wanting our politicians to dismiss fracking?

In what is just about the least populated country (in terms of population density) in Europe?

With the war about to enter its third year, and just about all of our energy generating sources dozens or hundreds of miles out to sea and largely un-defendable against any hostile party?

Completely un-defendable, of course, if we’re going it alone in the world, AKA independent.

Get real, why don’t you.

sarah

Safe for whom? Not for those who want good governance nor those wishing Scotland to be out of the Union.

Hatey McHateface

“Not for those who want good governance nor those wishing Scotland to be out of the Union”

What about those Scots who want good governance AND want Scotland out of the Union?

Where do these politically homeless Scots place their votes?

Ross

Long way to go but SNP might actually end up winning again haha.
Labour are awful.
Just show you how things can change.
SNP actually do quite well when Labour are in govt as people can remember how terrible they were.
Polling showing pro indy majority isn’t totally off the cards according to survation

I’d rather see SNP out and rise back from opposition but if they maintain an independence majority again… that would be a turn up

twathater

Ross I see your promoting snp as usual , what I do not understand is how can you seriously believe that anyone within the snp is actually working FOR independence, how can you forgive and forget the BLATANT BETRAYAL of sturgeon,useless and now swinney towards Scotland and Scots

Are you, like them quite happy to accept devolution , how many broken promises , lies and corruption are you willing to accept b4 it registers that they are taking the piss out of you and your fellow apologists ,FFS Pete wishfart OPENLY BOASTS about being 20+ years in WM , to any SANE person a person who was elected to sever ties with WM and gain Scotland’s independence boasting about his 20+ years in the heart of WM must realise that that fuckwit is maybe not trying hard enough or he is really ripping the serious pish

Nae Need!

Every word of this. Total agreement.

ross

I may not vote for the SNP.
Sturgeon did us wrong going to court without plan to carry through the defacto vote.

But.. I think they decided the defacto vote should be played at a more opportune time.

Like it or lump it, I don’t think even all yes supporters were totally up for another vote ..not to mention the rest of the country which would be needed to gain legitimacy.

100%Yes

Sturgeon’s intentions were clear, stop independence. Her favorite colour is red and its betrayal she had in mind and treachery in her heart. Theresa May was weak but she knew how to scare Sturgeon. God, I hope Peter tells all, go on peter shows us all you’re a better man than your ex-wife.

JockMcT

Murrell won’t squeal. He has too many skeletons hidden.

Hatey McHateface

Here you go, th:

Parliamentary career of Pete Wishart:
MP for North Tayside
Elected 1 time
7 June 2001 – 5 May 2005

MP for Perth and North Perthshire
Elected 5 times
5 May 2005 – 30 May 2024

So that’s 6 consecutive election victories, spanning near 25 years.

I’ve no particular axe to grind with or for PW. Maybe what you need to ask yourself is just what it is he does for his constituents that keeps them coming back for more, time after time.

Perhaps it’s them that’s right, and you that’s wrong.

That’s the wonderful, almost magical thing about representative democracy with a secret ballot. The boy or gal who the most voters see as potentially or actually doing the best job is the boy or gal who gets the job.

Simples.

Nae Need!

I’m not sure what website you think you are on, but I can tell you this: you’re on the wrong one if that’s the best you can do.

At least our ‘3 Jokers of the Union’ know full well what shit they’re peddling. And where.

Ross

I’ll give my opinion. You can disagree with it or not.

Nae Need!

True dat.

Andy

Horrible thought, but maybe the policy of deliberating for ever over whether to bring any charges in Op Branchform, is actually working.

Campbell Clansman

Of course the delays in Operation Branchform charges are deliberate, and of course the strategy is “working.”
Governments wanting to cover up their errors, their frauds, their felonies, NEVER push for a speedy investigation and ALWAYS delay things. Witnesses die, memories grow dim, the public’s anger at what happens subsides (as new reasons for anger emerge).
The SNP (and other party) politicians may be inept at actually governing, but they are experts at covering things up.

Muscleguy

Well SLab was nice enough to abstain so the SNP could get their budget through. So a dry run in semi cooperation there.

100%Yes

Asar wanted to keep is JOB that’s the only reason.

Kit Bee

No such thing as SLab only BLab!!

Muscleguy

And Ash Regan is only the party leader at Holyrood by default as she is Alba’s only representative now.

Nae Need!

I was unsure what was going on there. I am clearly running off old data, but last I knew Kenny was interim Leader of Alba . . . so what’s been happening?

duncanio

Ash Regan is only the party leader at Holyrood

Kenny MacAskill is interim party leader … but not in the chamber … as he’s not elected to it.

Nae Need!

Thanks for explaining.

I’m not a party member so don’t get the full bhuna, I only get occasional emails from Alba as someone who has previously donated.

Nae Need!

And just in case Stu is wondering if we are all myopic, yes, the opening bar graph is quite something 🙂
96 season tickets of a difference, and the red bar is almost double in size to the pale blue one.

They’ve got a book out: ‘How to lie in bar graphs for dummies’.

And this would be quite funny if the NuSNP weren’t at it too.

Corrado Mella

That Ash Regan has a worse rating than the “leaders” of the BritNazi Establishment parties is the clincher I needed.
This country is populated by imbeciles and doesn’t deserve independence nor my efforts
To hell with it.
I’m upping sticks.

Nae Need!

Where you going? Can I come too?

Ross

Independence is supported by nearly half the population. It’s just not a priority for many. And the rest.. 20% , bringing it upto 70% or so who would accept a yes vote even if they disagreed with it… aren’t convinced we need one right now.
It’ll come again but will be a good number of years.
The SNP can’t force people to vote one way or the other. It’s into the people.

Nae Need!

Are you Ross Greer? I claim my £10.

Anthem

Damned! You beat me to it.

Andy Anderson

Very defeatist Ross. The last two polls put independence at 54%. The reason the media is not talking about it is because it is they, not the people that have no interest. People are talking about it. Obviously not in your circle of acquaintances. I can understand your views if you are an SNP or unionist supporter.

Hatey McHateface

Seriously?

You’re moving to a different country because you saw an opinion poll?

Ah hae ma doots.

Anyhoo, Spain is out – they want to tax immigrants at 100%.

Germany is out – they want to sling immigrants back where they came from. USA too.

I’m guessing that quite soon, most European countries will follow the German example.

I’m betting you’ll end up in England 🙂

gregor

They are up:

UPSIDEDOWNUP
Cynicus

PICTS!

Where is Alf when you need him!?

Breeks

A thoroughly essential component of Sturgeon’s betrayal of Scotland was her popularity. She couldn’t have done it without us.

I don’t mean you personally Corrado Mella, but what I get dispirited about is how slow people are to recognise the insidious power of the UK Establishment, and in particular, it’s media.

There is no component of UK media that is Scottish, nor even neutral about Scotland the nation. Virtually all dialogue and interaction between the UK Establishment and ordinary Scots takes place via the UK Establishment’s monopolised platform with the UK Establishment dictating the narrative, and it leaves Scotland’s people subdued with a colonised mindset. It has been designed to manipulate us… Indoctrination leaves people indoctrinated. Who knew?

We need to innovate, big time. Prior to TV and social media, defiance might mean daubing a slogan on a wall, or wearing a white cockade. But our world is a screaming chaos of too much information and noise which drowns out intelligent discourse… and it seems, coordinated rebellion.

This is not about Ash Regan. The issue isn’t about cheering “our” gladiator in the Colosseum, it’s getting our leadership out of the Colosseum.

Southernbystander

How many ordinary Scots would side with those who use phrases like ‘BritNazi Establishment parties’ do you think?

Al Harron

Now wait a damned minute. Why is the poll listing Ash Regan as leader when Kenny McAskill is acting interim leader, & was previously Depute Leader? It explicitly says “Scottish party leaders,” not “Holyrood group representatives.”

Nae Need!

I have asked a similar Q, Al, check up thread. I too was puzzled by this.

G m

Point taken about the graphs but how in gods name does Regan, wrongly placed alongside party leaders, rank as low as that? I would be surprised if could form that negative an opinion of Regan given that she doesn’t get much coverage in the press. If they did know about her the punters would almost certainly rate her more highly than that. Unless the trans lobby dominate Survation polling this particular poll doesnae convince

Mia

“this particular poll doesnae convince”

Absolutely. My thoughts exactly.

But I guess it all depends on the pool of people they selected to conduct the poll.

If you look at the comments in “The National”, the hate for Alba among some of the most fervent SNP supporters is visceral and tribalist to the extreme, nothing to do with her abilities or the reasons as to why she left the SNP.

Those people appear incapable to look at Ash, Kenny and Neil beyond their short-sighted perception that they betrayed the SNP instead of the reality that has been facing the rest of us since the political fraud Sturgeon took over: Ash, Neil and Kenny, and actually the entire of Scotland, were deliberately betrayed by a disembowelled SNP which whose leadership has unilaterally surrendered the party’s raison d’etre to become a useless and toothless copy cat of labour and a political vehicle to frustrate, rather than facilitate, Scotland’s independence.

But, to me, the really odd thing about the poll is the ranking of Swinney. Goodness me. The man has all the charms and brings as much inspiration as a bucket of cold sick. So bad that his handlers could’t even afford to expose him to a leadership contest. He was simply parachuted to the post.

It is well known Swinney is at the heart of the suppression of information from the public on industrial scale, so his title “honest John” has been debunked as a total misnomer. In addition to this, his “high” popularity ranking compared with other party “leaders” does not tally at all with the tremendous hammering the SNP got at the last general election when he was at the helm.

So, to be honest, I think the “high” ranking he was given in that poll is even less believable than the low ranking given to Ash and to me, what is completely at odds with public opinion.

My impression is that this poll was conducted among a substantial majority of SNP voters and among those, a large proportion must have been devolutionists and fervent loyalists to the political fraud Sturgeon. I wonder how many of the 500 – 700 thousand pro independence voters who did not cast a vote at the last GE were part of that pool.

Last edited 29 days ago by Mia
Hatey McHateface

“the 500 – 700 thousand pro independence voters who did not cast a vote at the last GE”

If that assertion is true, there’s half a million or more Scots just begging for democratic representation.

Finding out precisely what they want, and then standing plausible and honest candidates on that precise policy platform is surely not in the realms of rocket science.

Plus, it must be a sure-fire cert that if you can please that half-million plus picky Scots, there’s another million or two not-so-choosy Scots who will happily clamber on that bandwagon.

So when does it start?

Alf Baird

Yes Mia, some people seem to forget the SNP were given several nationalist majorities yet still insist on asking permission from our kindly oppressor to liberate the people.

It was the SNP who opted to become a colonial administration and take the people up a blind alley.

And it was the SNP who ruptured the independence movement.

Much as postcolonial theory confirms:

link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com

Aidan

Worth pointing out that the only election which a majority of votes have been cast for pro-independence parties was 2015 and that election was not run on the basis of Indyref2 or UDI. In the 2017 election (which was run on Indyref2) pro independence parties didn’t even get 40% of the vote.

Mia

That election was not “run on the basis of indiref 2 or independence” because the political fraud Sturgeon announced it just a couple of months before the election. But the liar did not change the constitution of the party, so how many people actually knew they were not voting for independence? I bet that it would be less than half of those who cast a vote for the SNP.

The polls released from the end October 2014 were already projecting the mother of all landslides for the SNP and above 50 MPs. Those polls were conducted BEFORE the political fraud Sturgeon announced that a vote for the SNP was no longer a vote for independence. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that those projections were obtained on the basis that those completing the poll thought the SNP would still be the party of independence in the upcoming GE.

What this tells us is that the political fraud Sturgeon actively intervened to remove the teeth of the SNP in April 2-15 to stop the end of the union, which should have happened, if not in 2015, when that political fraud was in control of absolute majorities both in HOlyrood and Westminster, at least in 2016 after the EU ref vote demonstrated England and Scotland were pursuing diametrically opposing and incompatible political paths.

The UK union only remains standing today because the political fraud Sturgeon, Youseless and Mr black pen Swinney abused their positions of power in the SNP to directly betray the yes movement and frustrate its raison d’etre.

And that is why democracy does not exist in the UK and will never exist for as long as the will of Scotland continues to be suppressed. Every political party that has been in power since September 2014 has done so through deception.

Labour got a majority of Scotland’s MP seats with the backing from less than 23% of the Scottish electorate. Compare that paltry figure to that of 41% which is the proportion of the electorate in Scotland who did not cast a vote and which you could interpret as “none of the above”, or a rejection to the current political system. When you actually pay attention to that 41% figure, does that 23% backing labour really sound like “the majority”, never mind a democratic mandate from “Scotland”?

It only does if you ignore democracy.

Aidan

Why would you interpret a choice not to vote as a rejection of the political system? It’s more likely as a result of disinterest or knowledge that the Tories would be booted out regardless. Claiming the “didn’t votes” as a “vote for my point of view” is the classic losers argument.

The other part of your analysis that doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny is this. If you look at all of the public statements SNP politicians were making after the referendum, they were acknowledging that they had lost and were not promising an immediate rerun. I think it’s very clear that a lot of those who voted SNP in 2015 did so because they liked the Salmond government and saw the issue of independence as having been put to bed (and therefore not an issue). In your version of events it’s inexplicable that so many people would desert the SNP between 2015 and 2017, when the SNP explicitly put Indyref2 back on the table for 2017! If a majority of Scottish people wanted independence and saw it as a priority, why would they then abandon the party that was explicitly offering it, in many cases in favour of the Tories!

Anthem

What a load of twaddle! Make it up as you go along why don’t you.

Mia

“Why would you interpret a choice not to vote as a rejection of the political system?”

Choosing not to vote is the result of a combination of factors: illness, indecision, apathy, disenfranchisement and, in the absence of the option “none of the above”, the most obvious option to show your reject for the political system and your intention of not engaging with it.

“It’s more likely as a result of disinterest”

I disagree.The SNP lost over 500,000 voters from 2019 to 2024. 700,000 if you compare 2019 with 2015. Those votes have not gone anywhere. Turnout in GE 2024 for Scotland was 59%. Turnout in GE 2019 was 68.1%. In GE 2015, turnout was 71.1%. That is a drop of almost 10%. That drop is not the result of “disinterest”. It is the result of despair and disenfranchisement.

“In your version of events it’s inexplicable that so many people would desert the SNP between 2015 and 2017, when the SNP explicitly put Indyref2 back on the table for 2017”

It is perfectly explicable, unless you choose to look at it from a myopic perspective:

The political fraud Sturgeon had wasted the previous 2 years of a 56 majority doing absolutely nothing to progress independence. By then, many SNP supporters became disappointed and had realised she was just playing for the gallery.The political fraud Sturgeon is on record claiming in May 2017 that “The SNP would try to form an alliance with other parties to pursue “progressive policies” if the general election results in a hung Parliament”. If what you are after is independence and expect to get a majority, you do not form “alliances” with colonial parties. This put off many people because it indicated that all what she was after is to play Westminter politics. In April 2017 she had claimed “This will be – more than ever before – an election about standing up for Scotland in the face of a rightwing, austerity-obsessed Tory government with no mandate in Scotland but which now thinks it can do whatever it wants and get away with it.” You do not need to be Einstein to realise from those comments and similar ones that her intention was just to play in the system, not pursuing independence.There were several articles published in April 2017 stating: “Last week, the First Minister (Sturgeon) said the election was “not about independence or about another referendum”. For those SNP voters who had been paying attention, these words would bring an uncomfortable deja vu to the political fraud’s words in April 2015. Clearly, she was not putting “indyref” back on the table, just the illusion of it to ensure a electoral victory. Examples of those articles are “SNP denies split over general election’s impact on independence vote”, published by The Guardian on 30 April 2017 and “General Election about backing Scottish parliament, says Alex Salmond”, published by The Herald on 30 April 2017. These articles, and others, attempted to show a disagreement between Sturgeon and Mr Salmond with regards to the progression towards independence. Mr Salmond was showing signs of becoming impatient, just like the rest of us, quite frankly.Her first request for an independence referendum to the uK gov had been rejected. Her 2017 “Strategy” did not include anything other than keep begging for a referendum to the UK government until they caved in (only to happen in her imagination, of course). By then, it was obvious to many that such “strategy” was leading to absolutely nowhere because the UK government would continue to say no forever and there was nothing stopping them doing so. By then, handing over such veto to the UK government was seen as a betrayal to Scotland’s sovereignty.
All the above was reaffirmed when the political fraud almost fell over herself running to use the result of the GE2017 as an excuse to immediately shelf indyref2 and closing the crowdfund. And this despite the fact that the result was still an absolute majority for nationalist MPs.

It was beyond obvious by then that she had colluded with the establishment to use the GE as a tool to halt independence. Some people realised of that AFTER the election. But the drop in turnout from 71% in 2015 to 63% in 2017 suggests many more realised of her intentions well before then.

Last edited 29 days ago by Mia
Andy Anderson

Your analysis is spot on Mia. Sadly many live in. cloud cuckoo land or are simply not paying attention.

Aidan

But again, going back to my earlier point. The 2015 election manifesto did not say that the SNP would use a majority of seats or votes as a mandate for Indyref2, and the public comments from SNP politicians prior to 2015 was that they had lost the referendum and were acknowledging that and working on governing Scotland within the devolution settlement. I can understand that some independence supporters felt frustrated that more progress wasn’t being made despite the huge majority, but ultimately the SNP actions aligned to their pre-election promises. Contrast that with 2017, the SNP were now very clearly promising Indyref2 in the aftermath of the Brexit vote. Both in the media and in their manifesto. I cannot honestly fathom how a thinking person who supported and prioritised independence at that point could decide not to vote SNP that time round and/or vote for a unionist party. You might be cynical about whether the SNP would do enough with a mandate given the opposition from the U.K. government, but the risk/reward calculation still massively favours voting SNP. The fact that people didn’t shows that there was a significant unionist component in the SNP’s vote that wanted an SNP government but not independence, hence the 14% drop in support.

If you think I’m wrong, then answer me this: what better option existed in 2017 for an individual voter to further their support for independence?

Mia

“The 2015 election manifesto did not say that the SNP would use a majority of seats or votes as a mandate for Indyref2”

It did not have to. The political fraud did not change the first article of the constitution of the party which clearly stated what the aim of the party and reason d’etre was: to pursue independence. THAT was my expectation when I cast a vote for the party: to pursue independence through the fastest route. This union started because of the vote of a simple majority of parliamentarians. A vote to end the union by a simple majority of parliamentarians is what was needed to end it. I am sure I wasn’t the only nationalist thinking that way. I certainly voted for the party on the basis of THAT constitution, not to endorse that narcissistic idiot as leader. But then, the thought that all SNP MPs and MSPs were nothing but invertebrate amoebas without the balls to stand up to the political fraud to stop her destroying the party and betraying Scotland had not even crossed my mind.

I questioned at the time and still question today the right of a corrupt and rogue “leader” like Sturgeon to piss all over the constitution of the party in the way she did or to put it on hold for 10 effing years. She should have been expelled from the party immediately. That she wasn’t says very little of MPs and MSPs.

Her aim was and continues to be deception. The deception lies in she (or Yousaf or Sweeney) knowing they have absolutely no intention whatsoever in delivering indyref, never mind independence, but trapping yes voters into continuing to be deceived into believing they will thanks to the serious pro-independence credentials Mr Salmond had built for the party.

Look retrospectively and you quickly spot the deception and the collusion of Sturgeon and the colonial parties. She hardly ever mentioned indyref or independence, but she and her version of the SNP continued to be validated as pro-independence by the colonial parties, which were the (only?) ones actually talking about indyref and independence. It was all a game of deception. That deception continues today.

“the SNP were now very clearly promising Indyref2”

The SNP were not “promising” indyref at all. You either were not paying attention or forgot to read the small print. They were just asking for a mandate “to beg” for an indyref. Those are two completely different concepts. As I said in my previous comment, by then, many had become fed up of waiting and watching her wasting opportunities. Others had realised that “begging” was leading nowhere. Others (me included) were incensed that this idiot saw appropriate to hand over a veto over Scotland’s own sovereignty to a foreign government, which she had no right to do.

“what better option existed in 2017 for an individual voter to further their support for independence?”

In hindsight, much better options would have been to either have spoiled the ballot or not voting at all. I was late in realising of that, but the drop in turnout from 71% to 63% from 2015 to 2017 clearly suggests other independence supporters were much smarter than me at the time. I quickly wised up at the end of January 2020, though, when the political fraud embarrassed us all by delivering her infamous capitulation speech on brexit.

If what you are after is Scotland’s independence, then there is absolutely no point in continuing to cast your vote for a political party that has no intention in delivering it, or is only lukewarm to it, and the only thing it is doing is to deceive you to continue voting for them so they can keep earning big salaries at your expense. The only thing you are doing by endorsing that deception with your vote is to legitimise a political system using deception to suppress democracy and any progress towards independence.

What did we win having Sturgeon, Yousaf or Swinney as SNP leaders from 2014 to today?

NOTHING. Looking retrospectively, we should have crushed the SNP in 2017 already. After wasting 2 years of the mother of all MP majorities, it was obvious they had no intention to take us anywhere. Should we have done that and at least we would have saved ourselves having to wait until 2020 for a serious pro-independence party to emerge.

Last edited 29 days ago by Mia
Aidan

Yes, you are technically right that the manifesto asked for a mandate to hold a second independence referendum, rather than promising directly to hold the referendum. However, let’s not forgot that that strategy had worked in 2012 with David Cameron.

Again this idea that people were “tired of waiting”. A referendum had been held in 2014, which Better Together won (albeit fairly narrowly). The direct opportunity to demand a second referendum (Brexit) only arose in June 2016, with the demand for the referendum only being made a matter of months before the 2017 election. Political commentators, politicians themselves, academics etc. were discussing at great lengths the risks Brexit posed to the union. It was a major and continual topic of discussion dominating the political landscape. Yet you want me to believe, in that context, that Theresa May’s refusal to grant a second referendum meant that large numbers of committed independence supporters decided to throw in the towel at the first hurdle, and at a critical moment, and therefore deprive the SNP of a mandate to hold that second referendum. My prediction is that if 55% of people in Scotland had voted SNP in the 2017 election, with a high turnout, I think it’s more likely than not that Scotland would be an independent country now. That was also very apparent at that time. I say that the Scottish people who stopped that from happening were unionists who had previously supported the SNP as a governing party, but did not want independence, you say they were independence supporters. I think the facts overwhelming support my view. You also admit yourself that you didn’t have these views in 2017. Perhaps you can find any serious evidence from 2017 of this sentiment, which you say was so significant it caused a 14 point drop in SNP support?

What do you think spoiling a ballot or not voting would do? Do you seriously think a U.K. government saying no to a request by the Scottish government for another independence referendum which was in their manifesto, would say yes and relent just because a few people stopped voting or screwed up their ballot paper? Not voting protests are the easiest to ignore.

Mia

that strategy had worked in 2012 with David Cameron”

Actually no. From what I read, Mr Salmond never asked for the S30. He said at the time that he would hold the referendum with or without Westminster’s consent. The tools in Westminster then almost fell over themselves rushing to generate the S30 “to ensure Holyrood had the powers to hold the referendum”. Looking retrospectively, it seems this might have been to stop Mr Salmond becoming “creative” and getting the powers through some other “less conventional” way. If there was something the powers that be knew is that Mr Salmond was an incredibly astute and resourceful politician. Personally, I think they were trying to set a precedent, which, incidentally, was exploited by the political fraud Sturgeon to avoid delivering the referendum.

Now look at the situation in 2012. Mr Salmond commanded a MSP majority in Holyrood. But, for as long as that majority kept abiding by the Scotland Act, Holyrood was a subordinate to Westminster.

Now, how did Westminster look like at the time?

The SNP only had around 6 MPs. There was no chance in hell that a majority of MPs from the colonial parties would ever lift their arses from Westminster voluntarily, heaven forbid on their own accord, and reconvene Scotland’s parliament. So the “incentive” for Cameron to cave in was not coming from Scotland’s MPs. It was coming from Holyrood.

So how on earth did Mr Salmond manage to get Cameron to actually agree and get approval from Scotland’s unionist MPs for the referendum in such circumstances (It is in Hansard that Cameron approached the Scottish MPs and asked them about the referendum)?

Two possibilities spring to mind:

The first is that they probably did not think (they knew?) yes would never be allowed to win.

The second is that they feared what Mr Salmond might have done with that majority in Holyrood if they refused. I favour the second option.

Just think about it for a second. If I remember correctly, Mr Salmond did not have that unelected crown figure “Lord Advocate” sitting in the middle of the cabinet like the political fraud Sturgeon, Yousaf and Swinney did/do. He also had the numbers to pass whatever the hell he wanted in parliament. He could have ditched the Scotland Act, which is the straightjacket restricting Holyrood’s power, and transform Holyrood into a full blown Parliament.

Cameron caved in because the alternative might have looked far, far worse. What this tells us is that Sturgeon is either a complete fake or she has been laughed at for all the years she was in power. The same applies to Yousaf.

“The direct opportunity to demand a second referendum (Brexit) only arose in June 2016”

This is not true. You are only thinking in brexit and completely ignoring the vow and the “breach of contract”, that also represented an opportunity to demand a re-run of the referendum.

People voted no on the assumption that Scotland would get Devo Max. Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland was trashed by Westminster pretty much straight away after the referendum. Again, that is a change in the circumstances of the vote. It was also demonstrated by then that The sewell Convention was worth less than wet toilet paper, therefore the promises were not kept.

“What do you think spoiling a ballot or not voting would do?”

Spoiling the ballot is clearly an act of protest. The vote is counted as being cast but it cannot be allocated to any party in particular – it helps to reduce “the percentage of the vote” of the colonial parties. It does not have much traction yet.

Not casting a vote reduces the turnover therefore reduces the pool of votes that can be divided up between the colonial parties. For as long as the turnover remains high, votes not cast are easy to ignore as you say. But if the turnover falls below 50% in a GE, then they will become far more difficult to ignore.

Look at the current situation in Scotland. In the last GE, turnover was 59%, so you could say that a higher percentage still trust the system. Even so, we already have the laughable situation where more people chose to not cast a vote than those endorsing the party of government who claims “the majority”. We are talking of 41% not voting vs 22%, which is almost half, endorsing the “winner” party. The real majority here is the people who did not vote. The more the vote falls, the more difficult to ignore it becomes and the more undemocratic the result looks.

“Do you seriously think a U.K. government saying no to a request by the Scottish government for another independence referendum which was in their manifesto, would say yes and relent just because a few people stopped voting or screwed up their ballot paper? “

You are forgetting that I do not think the UK gov has any right to deny a referendum for which the people of Scotland, who sits above Westminster, has already given a mandate.
I do not care if the UK gov “gives” permission or not. I do not recognise its authority to deny it. What I do indeed care about is that the useless Scotland representatives keep undermining Scotland’s sovereignty by handing to the UK gov a veto that it does not own.

“Not voting protests are the easiest to ignore”

Are they now? Then we may have to keep mentioning it whenever we have the opportunity to make it more difficult for the powers that be to ignore them.

We could even campaign to increase the number of non-voters so turnover in UK General Elections falls below 50%. At that point, we could start demanding that the option “None of the above” is included in the ballot and that the vote is made mandatory. This might make the non-vote a little bit more difficult to ignore.

Why should we just focus on a way to unglue the arses of Scotland’s MPs from Westminster when we can use several strategies at the same time?

Aidan

I’ll also specifically respond to the point about the demanding a S.30 strategy “going nowhere”. That’s obviously nonsense. Sturgeon had barely made the first request for the S.30 order by the time of the 2017 election. There was a great deal of discussion both in Scotland and the U.K., by serious and influential people, that Brexit would imperil the union. I can’t believe any serious independence would just give up after being told no, once, by the May government, in that context.

Mia

That’s obviously nonsense”

Remind me again what the response from Ms May was to the request?

“Now is not the time”

And what did the useless Sturgeon, who commanded the mother of all anti-union MP majorities in 300 years, who had just achieved the “change in circumstances” that under the Vienna Convention of the law of Treaties gives a reason under international law to terminate a treaty and that had just activated the mandate for a referendum”, replied with?

“I agree with her that now is not the time”.

The political fraud Sturgeon could have ended the union right there and then. Instead, she just pulverised two years of the mother of all majorities achieving the square root of FA. The idea that this was anything other than deliberate is fanciful.

By the way, it may have not been obvious TO YOU that the S30 strategy was going nowhere. Others, far more alert than you, realised of that much, much quicker. Actually, some of us were incensed that she dared to insult Scotland’s sovereignty by even pretending to “beg” for it once. And 10 years of absolute non-progress whatsoever of this deliberately-set-to-fail strategy have proved us right.

There was a great deal of discussion both in Scotland and the U.K.”

Discussion? What discussion? If Scotland is an equal partner in this union there should have never been any discussion, never mind any questioning regarding if a referendum for which the people of Scotland have just given a mandate was granted or not.

Scotland is not England’s property, hence it is not for England MPs or the English crown to decide if Scotland can or cannot have a referendum. It is because of this that the “strategy” of handing over a veto over Scotland’s sovereignty to our neighbour was the entire wrong thing to do and clearly part of the deception, a direct collusion of Sturgeon and the SNP with the British state to frustrate independence at the weakest point of the union ever in 300 years. You have to be incredibly shortsighted to not realise of that.

” that Brexit would imperil the union”
Brexit should have terminated that union, not just “imperil” it. This became obvious the minute you saw the results after the referendum which demonstrated beyond any doubt that England and Scotland were pursuing completely different and incompatible political paths.

This “union” only remains standing because the expressed will of the people of Scotland has been continuously crushed and suppressed since 2014 thanks to the betrayal of the people of Scotland and what looks like collusion of Sturgeon and the SNP with England MPs and the English crown.

“I can’t believe any serious independence would just give up after being told no, once”

This comes across as whataboutery. You are approaching the issue on the entire wrong way. Scotland is an equal partner in this union, therefore it should not have asked for permission EVEN ONCE, to hold a referendum on ending the union.

The UK government and the UK parliament are byproducts of the treaty of union and therefore they are not above it, but below it. The only two parties that are above the treaty of Union are the parliaments of Scotland and England. The authority to recall Scotland’s parliament lies with Scotland. But until then, that authority is represented by Scotland’s MPs. 56 SNP MPs could have just lift up stakes, reconvened that parliament and empower Holyrood to hold that referendum. Sturgeon and the SNP invertebrates chose to protect their salaries instead.

The only entity that is above the parliament of Scotland is the Scottish people.

The fact that the useless Sturgeon and her acolytes in the SNP thought it was necessary to humiliate Scotland by begging permission from an entity subordinated to Scotland to hold a referendum for which the people of Scotland had already given a mandate for, tells you quite clearly that Sturgeon does not recognise Scotland’s sovereignty, therefore she is no nationalist. She is a colonialist.

It also tells you that she never had any intention to pursue independence and that she was just wasting time, turning pro-independence supporters off and increasing disenfranchisement so that uncomfortable anti-union majority, the fruit of Mr Salmond’s hard work and dedication to Scotland had achieved, disappeared from Westminster.

Sturgeon was fooling us from day 1. She is no leader, never mind a pro-independence leader. She is just another crown and colonial tool using deception to preserve the union. The same applies to Yousaf, Swinney and I dare say Forbes too.

Alf Baird

What has any% of the vote got to do with it? We’re only talking about cancelling a single mankit violated treaty that was brought into being through a majority of Scots MPs and can be ended the same way.

James

Well said, Alf!

Aidan

It’s got everything to do with it, because the idea of the U.K. as an entity formed of an international treaty between two sovereign states is complete nonsense, as you well know. It is an idea that isn’t recognised or applied by anyone in authority anywhere.

Alf Baird

How was the union of the English and Scottish kingdoms brought about if not by treaty? Did it just miraculously happen one day in 1707?

Aidan

The Treaty of Union agreed the terms for the union to be entered into, and then the two parliaments both passed acts implementing the terms of the treaty, the effect of which was to merge the Scottish and the English parliaments and the Scottish and the English states into a single state (The United Kingdom) with a single parliament based in Westminster.

Alf Baird

The Treaty of Union agreed the terms for the union to be entered into”

Thank you

Aidan

Yes – and the effect of the treaty being implemented was to dissolve two states and create a new one.

Mia

the effect of the treaty being implemented was to dissolve two states and create a new one”

Actually no. The effect of the treaty was not “to dissolve” anything. It was simply to UNITE two states into one with the main purpose of ensuring the same succession to the crown in both. The statehood of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England was put on hold for the duration of the treaty.

If the treaty is revoked, the states who united into one under the treaty revert to their original status of separate states. And that is all.

If you read the articles of the treaty, you will realise that nowhere in that treaty it says that the states of the kingdom of Scotland or England “would be dissolved” nor that their parliaments “would be eradicated”.

Wording is important to avoid misinformation and misunderstandings.

Both in 1712 and 1713, revoking of the treaty and the restoring of Scotland’s Parliament was considered very seriously in the context of the Hamilton and the Malt Tax affairs, respectively.

Those who considered revoking the treaty and recalling Scotland parliament at those times knew very well if the Kingdom of Scotland state had been “dissolved” or not, as they were the ones sitting in the parliament of Scotland at the time the treaty was ratified and the Act of Union with England was passed.

If the Kingdom of Scotland’s state had ever been “dissolved” as you claim it was, restoring Scotland’s statehood and recalling its parliament would have not even been contemplated in 1712 nor 1713. But it was.

By the way, the reason why the revoking of the treaty did not succeed in any of those two times was because Scotland’s MPs were only looking after their own personal financial interests (by accepting bribes and privileges), rather than the interests of their country. Exactly as we have seen happening since 8 May 2015.

Andy Ellis

The statehood of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England was put on hold for the duration of the treaty.

Evidence? Where does it say that? Who believes it now?

If the treaty is revoked, the states who united into one under the treaty revert to their original status of separate states. And that is all.

No, just plain wrong. All the evidence suggests in the event of Scottish independence the UK will claim to be the “continuator” state, as happened when the USSR collapsed and the Russki Federation assumed all the treaty obligations and liabilities of the former USSR including e.g. the UN Security Council seat and responsibility of debts incurred by the USSR.

Similarly, the Serb/Montenegrin Federation tried and failed to argue it was the continuator state of the former Yugoslavia, but nobody accepted it. In the case of the Velvet Divorce, Czechoslovakia ceased to exist and 2 new states were created: it didn’t end up with 1 new Slovak state and a continuing Czechoslovak state.

The same will happen with the UK: rumpUK consisting of England, Wales and the province of Northern Ireland will be the continuator state post Scottish independence and 1 new state (Scotland) will be created.

By the way, the reason why the revoking of the treaty did not succeed in any of those two times was because Scotland’s MPs were only looking after their own personal financial interests (by accepting bribes and privileges), rather than the interests of their country. Exactly as we have seen happening since 8 May 2015.

Colourful historical detail but like so much of the discussions relating to the Treaties of Union, Conventions of the Estates, salvo etc absolutely irrelevant to the 21st century process of campaigning for and achieving independence and having it recognised by the international community.

They don’t care about our history, just that we can demonstrate a clear majority in favour of independence in response to a clear question in a referendum or a majority voting for parties supporting independence in plebiscitary elections. This isn’t the 18th century, or Civil War era Ireland. Things have moved on.

Mia

Evidence? Where does it say that? Who believes it now?”

The evidence is in the fact that both, in 1712 and 1713, the revocation of the treaty and reconvening Scotland’s parliament was seriously considered. This would have only been possible if Scotland was able to resume its statehood. Please note, those seeking revocation were actually those who had been sitting in Scotland’s parliament in 1706/7 when the treaty was ratified and the Act of Union with England passed. Surely they would know if Scotland could recover its statehood or not, don’t you think?

Where does it say that?
I invite you to read the memoirs and the letters sent/received by those who were sitting as representatives of Scotland in 1711-2 and 1713. That is where I read it.

Who believes it now?
Oh, come on. How is that a determinant?People will believe what is correct when it is shown and explained to them. Information is power. It is not my fault that the context of the union is not taught in schools.

For instance, how many people believed the earth was round before the American continent was discovered? Given the large number of people still believing the earth was flat at the time, does that mean they should have completely abandoned the idea of convincing people of the opposite and keep them in the dark instead?

Andy Anderson

Sorry Aidan, what you say is not correct.
There was no territorial union, there was no legal and judiciary union, there was no educational union, there was two crowns, two constitutions, and one political parliament. In fact if you really look into documents you will find out that the treaty was not ratified in England and that we are actually in a fictitious kingdom and a fraudulent state. Scotland was taken over by force and military power between 1746 and 1810 with military roads and over 430 military bases. So much for a voluntary union.
Regrettably Aidan you believe the myth.

James

But why would ‘Aidan’ believe the opposite of what he’s being paid to post (badly)?

Last edited 27 days ago by James
Mia

the effect of which was to merge the Scottish and the English parliaments and the Scottish and the English states into a single state”

The main aim of the treaty was always to ensure that the succession to the crown of Scotland was the same as the succession to the crown of England.

If you do a little bit of research you immediately realise the treaty was very much a crown affair. Instigated and pursued by the English crown. Both, in 1712 and 1713, it was also the crown that prevented that union from breaking apart after the Hamilton and the Malt tax affairs.

I would not be surprised if at some point in the future we are told that it was the English crown who also intervened in 2014, and has been intervening ever since, to ensure the union does not break.

For instance, I have always wondered who empowered and gave enough clout to Gordon Brown in 2014 to recruit the PM, deputy PM and leader of the opposition (and to get them to sign the vow) when the guy was just a hasbeen who was not even an MP at the time.

Where did he get the power to create and publish “the vow”? The guy acted like a propagandist, just like Daniel Defoe did in 1706. Daniel Defoe was a spy working for the English crown who had been tasked with inflating the benefits of the union to convince the scots. Brown is the one who lied to us and inflated the benefits of voting no. He told us that we would get Devo Max, as close to federalism as we could be and the most powerful devolved parliament in the world, if we voted no. Who empowered this guy to preach that propaganda?

It is also rather telling that the crown office was at the heart of the Salmond affair, it remains at the heart of the protection of perjurers and the vietnam group, it continues to aid the suppression of information from the public, it was at the heart of malicious prosecutions of pro-independence supporters and it is currently at the heart of the stalling of branchform. It seems to be right in the middle of an awful lot of bad things, isn’t it?

It is also quite telling that an unelected representative of the crown, in the form of the figure of “Lord Advocate”, who incidentally also happens to lead that crown office, intervened to stop the Keatings case from providing a clear response regarding Holyrood’s real power under Scots law.

It was also that same unelected crown representative figure (albeit a different person) who blatantly pissed all over democracy and Scotland’s Claim of Right by recruiting an English court and English judges to apply English law convention so the English crown could usurp from the people of Scotland the control over Scotland’s legislative power and to stop the referendum bill entering Holyrood.

So much for a “limited powers monarchy”, huh? Representatives of that English crown appear to be everywhere and sticking their fingers in all pies where they shouldn’t.

But none of the above invalidates the fact that the UK parliament, the UK government and indeed that English court otherwise known as “Supreme Court” are simply by-products of that treaty and therefore subordinated to it. Actually, I am not sure of the legality of that English court otherwise known as “Supreme Court” under the treaty.

If they are not treated like the subordinated entities they are, it is only because our useless Scotland’s representatives keep choosing to hand those subordinated entities a veto over Scotland’s sovereignty, executive and legislative power rather than putting their spines back on, standing upright and acting on the people of Scotland’s mandates and interests.

Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh

In support of Mia’s train of thought, here are two deeply relevant contributions by Aidan O’Neill QC (second link to follow in separate post).

Firstly, this 2017 Law Society of Scotland article by Aidan O’Neill QC is worth reading for constitutional insights:

Miller, Brexit and BreUK-up

Extracts:

« In asserting in absolute terms the doctrine of UK parliamentary sovereignty, the Supreme Court has left us with constitutional paradoxes and a decision that will exacerbate political tensions with the devolved nations »

« […] It cannot be correct to say that “parliamentary sovereignty” was established in these statutes, as if pre-Union Scottish and English Parliaments could simply bootstrap themselves (or their successor, the post-1707 UK Parliament) into sovereignty. The Bill of Rights 1688-89 and the Scottish Claim of Right 1689 are certainly predicated on the primacy of the pre-Union English Parliament and the pre-Union Scottish Parliament over the English and Scottish Crowns respectively; but these two enactments are premised, if anything, on claims of popular sovereignty in their claims to justify the deposition of the monarch. And the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707 contain provisions which are “expressly declared to be a fundamental and essential Condition of the said Treaty of Union in all time coming”, which, on its face, suggests that the 1707 Parliament of Great Britain created by this Union was intended to be born in chains rather than be a creature of untrammelled sovereignty. »

« […] On the Supreme Court’s analysis the United Kingdom’s constitution exists in a perpetual present. It has no past, and no future. Ultimately the United Kingdom constitution can, for the Supreme Court, be nothing more than a description of whatever the UK Parliament does, or allows for, on any particular day. »

« […] Instead the Supreme Court’s reasoning proceeds on the assumption that the 19th century English constitutional tradition as formulated/invented by Dicey – the mythistory of England, as it may be termed – is the fount and only source for the contemporary United Kingdom constitution. »

Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh

Secondly, for detailed analysis of the contrasts between Scottish and English constitution heritages, Aidan O’Neill QC is excellent here, clarifying that the religion-related enactments were proxies for political issues (Please note that the PDF link on webpage is defunct): 

UK Supreme Court: Article 50 ‘Brexit’ Appeal –

WRITTEN INTERVENTION FOR THE INDEPENDENT WORKERS UNION OF GREAT BRITAIN (IWGB) [2016]

« 2.2 Answering that question shines a spotlight on just what the UK constitution is. But UK constitutional law has been the law that dare not speak its name. This is because the 1707 Parliamentary union between England and Scotland undoubtedly created a new State, but it did not create one Nation. Various schemes for a wholly incorporating ‘perfect’ Union of Scotland and England had, unsuccessfully, been proposed to the English Parliament by James VI, King of Scots, after he had acceded to the English throne in 1603. The 1707 Union differed from these earlier schemes in that, while ensuring the depoliticisation of Scotland, it put into place measures intended to protect – and indeed to strengthen – other aspects of Scotland’s distinctive continuing nationhood. Conrad Russell put it thus [505] (internal footnote added):

“That the Scots found a perfect union politically unacceptable, and the English an imperfect union intellectually incomprehensible, provides the basis for the odd mixture of the two which was set up in 1707. The English got the unitary sovereign power which they wanted, and got it in the form based upon the existing English Parliament, with an English majority in it. The Scots got their recognition as a separate sovereign state, both from the form of the Union of 1707 as an international treaty, and from the survival of Scots law and the Scottish church. It is that claim that Scotland is a sovereign nation state which is reasserted whenever the English forget that 1707 was not a ‘perfect union’ and has recently been repeated in the Claim of Right. Scotland in accepting the Union in 1707 remained a nation and as a result any sovereignty in the British parliament could not be national sovereignty. This has always been hard for the English to understand.” »

« 3.8 In this early modern period, models of constitutional government are expressed in the terms of political theology. The religious is political precisely because in defining the terms of the Church settlement in a territory you define the source and extent of power of the State.19 So in Scotland at least, the term “Papist” translates into a believer in absolutist government; “Episcopalian” into a supporter of constitutionally limited Monarchy; while “Presbyterians” hold to a democratic model in which the Elect(ors) delegate defined and limited powers to those whom they appoint to hold office. »

« 3.9 The whole point about the 1707 Union is that it constitutionally entrenched the distinct Scottish and English constitutional traditions as embodied in the two nations’ separate ecclesiastical settlements. Thus, the “securing of the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government within the Kingdom of Scotland” was expressly declared to be “a fundamental and essential Condition of the said Treaty or Union in all times coming.” And it was similarly declared by the English Parliament that the preservation of the Anglican settlement in England also be made “a Fundamental and Essential part of any Treaty of Union” with Scotland. And this is not simple antiquarianism or misplaced originalism. The accession oath which was sworn by Elizabeth II before the Accession Privy Council on the day immediately after her accession, and which is renewed by her each year (whether in writing or in person) before the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is in the following terms:

“I, Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British dominions beyond the seas, Queen, Defender of the Faith, do faithfully promise and swear that I shall inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the True Protestant Religion as established by the laws of Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right and particularly an Act entitled an Act for the Securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government and by the Acts passed in both Kingdoms for the Union of the two Kingdoms, together with the Government, Worship, Discipline, Rights and Privileges of the Church of Scotland. So help me God.” (emphasis added) »

« 3.10 What this means is that this distinctive Scottish constitutional tradition embodied in the Claim of Right – of the Crown holding power from and in trust for the people assembled “in a full and free representative of this Nation”, with the Crown bound by the constitution to honour the terms and limits of the sovereign people’s grant of that power, and with both the people and the Crown subject to a duty to respect fundamental rights and the rule of law – not only survived the 1707 Union, but was expressly preserved by it and is reaffirmed by the Crown in personam every year of her reign. »

Aidan

I’ll come back tomorrow as I’m out tonight, but for everyone’s benefit can you please highlight the section where Aidan O’Neil says that the U.K. is formed of two distinct sovereign states, bound by an international treaty which can be discharged by a majority of Scottish MP’s voting to end it. Not something pointing to Scottish legal tradition or the history of the union, but an explicit statement of the above.

James

‘Aidan’ must have a lieu day.

No doubt back soon to divert, distract, rinse, repeat. But hey, that’s the day job.

These yoons eh?

“Naw ye didnae”
“Naw ye cannae”
“Naw it wisnae”

“It will never work”

….. But, if it will never work, why do they protest, so?

Mia

Thank you for these two posts, Fearghas. They are most interesting and useful.

With your permission, I am going to copy them and save them in my files for future reference.

Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh

Thanks Mia. And for all your own very helpful and encouraging contributions.

I would add that, since I can no longer find online a PDF of Aidan O’Neil’s IWGB Brexit Appeal submission (perhaps it is no longer available?), I have just now put the contents of the full PDF online at the previously linked webpage here:

UK Supreme Court: Article 50 ‘Brexit’ Appeal [2016] (IWGB Submission – Aidan O’Neill QC)
(Please scroll down that webpage page for this additional PDF material. Apologies that the general formatting was done quickly and lacks most of the detailed italicisation of the original. However, hopefully the substance is intact.)

Mia

Thank you.

Mia

“The idea of the U.K. as an entity formed of an international treaty between two sovereign states is complete nonsense”

The United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN is formed on the back of an international treaty between the sovereign states of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England. It is that international treaty and the ratification of the treaty by the parliaments of Scotland and England what gives that union legitimacy. End the treaty, end the union.

Now, the [(United Kingdom of Great Britain) + Northern Ireland] is the current “UK”. But if you end the entity of “Great Britain”, which is what Scottish nationalists are pursuing, you actually end the concept of “United Kingdom”.

Northern Ireland is not a different Kingdom to England. It is one of the dominions of the Kingdom of England, and it has been so for centuries before the treaty of union between Scotland and England took place. The whole of Ireland and Wales entered the Treaty of union between Scotland and England as a dominion of the Kingdom of England. The Kingdom of Ireland was terminated the moment Ireland declared itself a republic.

“It is an idea that isn’t recognised or applied by anyone in authority anywhere”

If you are referring to the entity [(United Kingdom of Great Britain) + Northern Ireland], then I am not sure that there is an actual treaty, valid under international law, between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As far as I remember from what I read in Hansard a while back, it was said that when the union was between a power and its dominions an international treaty was not necessary, just an Act, which is a piece of domestic legislation.

But if what you are attempting to peddle here is that the treaty between the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland that produced the United Kingdom of Great Britain does not exist, then you are evidently lying and pursuing active disinformation. You only have to do a google search and information about the treaty immediately appears.

Last edited 29 days ago by Mia
Aidan

We’ve been around the houses a few times on this before MIA and we always end up at the same position. I point out that there is no authority for your point of view, and further point out that the within the range of opinions from authoritative sources on U.K. constitutional law, all of it sits in explicit opposition to your opinion on the “treaty between two sovereign states” construct. You navigate this by simply saying you do not recognise the legitimacy of any part of the U.K. legal, administrative or political system which conflicts with your own opinion. To think within those parameters is a rejection of truth and logic, and makes any form of debate or progression impossible.

Yet you view the 2016/17 SNP party as being ("Tractor" - Ed)ous at that point for not embracing your alternate reality and acting in accordance with it. The obvious reason for not doing so is that in a collision between fantasy and reality, reality will win. If a majority of Scottish MP’s had voted in some format for a motion to end the ToU, that would not be recognised by the speaker and passed for royal assent. If the same MP’s convened themselves somewhere in Scotland and did the same thing, neither the court system or the administrative or governance systems in Scotland would recognise it. Then what, do those MP’s attempt to mount a coup? Or do they end up looking like a ridiculous bunch of impotent eccentrics who then back down with the tails between their legs and spend the rest of their days shouting at people on street corners.

Lastly, one of the common themes behind these “alternative facts” legal theories is the belief that in understanding the law; modern opinion, precedents and legislation is of very little relevance or value. What matters is the precise interpretation of documents which are 300/400+ years old. Documents of course that applied in a very different societal, commercial and governance context, and often for a specific purpose at a point in time. Usually the ‘reinterpretation’ is done in a way that offers some direct benefit to the one doing the interpretation, I.e. interpreting that Magna Carta means individuals have no liability to pay council tax, or that the ‘right to travel’ means that people using a motor vehicle do not need to have a license or insurance, or the most amusing one: that those who receive a loan or finance have no obligation to repay it since the money was “invented” in the first place.

If the wording of the ToU is paramount and sits above all subsequent law, then is not Scottish independence a complete legal impossibility given that the first lines are “ That the two Kingdoms of (fn. 1) Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name
of Great-Britain” – seems pretty fatal to the cause right?

Alf Baird

Indeed, fairy tales and even marriage ceremonies end in ‘for ever after’.

The reality is that any alliance agreement is usually ended when it is no longer in the best interest of a signatory party. The history of treaty making comes with a history of treaty breaking. It would be rather naive to believe otherwise.

Fairy tales are illusions of course, just like the ‘United Kingdom’ and ‘British’ culture, the memory of which will soon be ‘far, far away’.

Aidan

You’ve beautifully contradicted yourself and Mia there. Initially, you both were saying that the terms of the Treaty of Union sit over and above the constitutional law of the United Kingdom, and that constitutional law can only develop subject to those terms.

Now you are saying that in fact, the terms of the ToU are not fundamental law in that way, that peremptory norms in international law on the formation and disillusionment of treaties can override the explicit terms of the ToU, so which is it?

Mia

Now you are saying that in fact, the terms of the ToU are not fundamental law in that way, that peremptory norms in international law on the formation and disillusionment of treaties can override the explicit terms of the ToU, so which is it?”

No, we are not contradicting ourselves at all. I think you are just pretending to be obtuse here.

What do you think the fundamental conditions of a treaty are there for, Aidan? decoration?

And the main principles of international law? just as entertainment?

A treaty is contract. If the fundamental conditions of a treaty are breached, the parties are entitled to end it. But for as long as the contract is upheld by all parties, then it remains valid, but then the conditions must be fulfilled.

The treaty of union is the basic constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain for as long as the treaty is extant and upheld. And it stands to the obvious why: for the kingdom of great Britain to continue to exist, the Kingdoms of Scotland and England have to continue agreeing to put their own statehoods on hold and they have to continue agreeing to have a single parliament and the same succession to both crowns.

If the treaty is revoked, which can be done unilaterally by any of the two parties, then the treaty ends. At that point, not only the treaty ceases to be the constitution of the Kingdom of Great Britain, actually, the Kingdom of Great Britain as it was created in 1707 as one of the outputs of treaty, ceases to exist.

Mia

If the wording of the ToU is paramount and sits above all subsequent law, then is not Scottish independence a complete legal impossibility given that the first lines are….”

And THAT is why the treaty has to be repealed. The wording of the ToU is paramount as constitution of Great Britain for as long as that treaty remains valid and extant.

The following quote:

“Any legislation should deal with the Treaty and Acts of Union that created Great Britain in 1707. The Secretary of State for Scotland told us: “The union was constituted by a treaty followed by two Acts. If it is now to be dissolved, it would presumably need that at the very least.” The ratification of an agreement (following negotiations) between Scotland and the rest of the UK followed by legislation in each Parliament would be a symbolic act, echoing the Treaty of Union in 1706 and the 1706-07 Acts of Union”

was taken from “CHAPTER 3: constitutional implications for the uk state, Legislation required for negotiations“, included within the Constitution Committee – Eighth Report
Scottish independence: constitutional implications of the referendum” ordered to be printed by the House of Lords on 14 May 2014. The whole document is accessible via the http://www.parliament.uk website.

As you can see from the above quote, the Lords also recognised in 2014 that the treaty remains extant and therefore needs to be repealed in order for Scotland to become independent.

The only authorities who can repeal the treaty are the parliament of Scotland and the parliament of England. The so called “parliament of the UK” gets its authority to act on behalf of Scotland and England from the parliament of Great Britain, which in turn gets its legitimacy from the treaty and is a subordinate of the treaty. But there is absolutely no place for NI or even Wales to actually take part in the repealing of a treaty to which they were never signatories in the first place.

I also would like to bring to your attention this quote extracted from the Scotland Act 1998:

The Union with Scotland Act 1706 and the Union with England Act 1707 have effect subject to this Act”

The quote above was extracted from “Part I – The Scottish Parliament”, section “Other Provisions” and it can be accessed from the website legislation.gov.uk

The meaning of that quote is obvious: the Act of Union of Scotland with England and the Act of Union of England with Scotland will only remain extant for as long as the Scotland Act remains extant too. Why do you think this is?

Some have interpreted the quote as the union being extant only for as long as Scotland has a parliament, in line with popular sovereignty and what the people of Scotland voted for in 1979 and 1997. In other words, the validity of the two Acts of union remains for as long as Holyrood exists.

It is very true that Westminster recognises the authority of Scotland’s popular sovereignty, although it rarely acknowledges it. That it recognises the authority of Scotland’s popular sovereignty is reflected, for example, on the following quote also extracted from the Scotland Act 1998 (Part 2A: Permanence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government):

“The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum”

The above seems to recognise that, because the people of Scotland demanded a devolved parliament, it is only the people of Scotland themselves who can abolish that parliament.
However, my interpretation of the first quote of the Act is very different. Article III of the Treaty of Union says:

‘That the united Kingdom of Great-Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament, to be stiled the Parliament of Great-Britain”

Scotland is a constitutional and indispensable part for the Kingdom of Great Britain formed by the treaty to continue to be called “Great Britain”.

This means that if Holyrood becomes a full blown parliament, the “united kingdom of Great Britain” is no longer represented by a single and same parliament. In other words, Article III of the treaty, a fundamental one for the union to continue, would be no more.

If some powers are transferred permanently to Holyrood, it would mean that more than one parliament would have to coexist in Great Britain, breaching Article III and potentially invalidating the treaty. It is because of this that, in order for the treaty to remain extant, Holyrood can never become anything other than a devolved parliament. It can never own any power that Westminster does not own and it cannot be anything more than an administrative unit working on behalf of Great Britain’s parliament.

Once you see this, you immediately understand the reason as to why England MPs continue to insist on “parliamentary sovereignty” and that Westminster retains ownership of all Scotland’s powers, independently if they have been devolved or not, and more importantly, independently of what the people of Scotland asks for or wants.

This is supported by the outcome and what was on offer in 1979 and 1997. In 1997, for example, the people of Scotland were only asked if they wanted a devolved parliament with taxing powers. They were never ever asked what powers they wanted in their parliament or, indeed, offered the option of choosing for Scotland a proper, non-devolved parliament with permanent powers.

Why is this important? Because, it is an indirect proof that Westminster actually recognises Scotland’s popular sovereignty and their authority over Westminster parliament, therefore they did not take any risks. The options the people of Scotland were presented with on those two referendums were carefully controlled. They were only offered what Westminster was prepared to deliver, and they were never given the option to actually CHOOSE what they wanted for Holyrood or the kind of parliament they wanted Holyrood to become.

The moment the people of Scotland demands transfer of certain powers to Holyrood, Westminster ceases to be the only parliament of Great Britain. In other words, getting the people of Scotland to demand full and permanent transfer of powers to Holyrood is another route to invalidate the treaty and to Scotland’s independence.

For years I have been wondering why on earth the so called “SNP nationalists” had not exploited the opportunity that the many Holyrood and General Elections we have had since 2014 to actually exploit this route. The only explanation I could find is that Sturgeon and the toothless version of the SNP she fabricated were never nationalist and were never pursuing independence.

Aidan

The arrangements in the treaty are described by the treaty as existing forever however, which means ergo that it is not capable of being repealed, if we were to take your line of argument.

Everything you’ve written above I’ve heard from your before and it’s nonsense for the same reasons I’ve explained then. Please provide a positive explicit statement from a source of authority (not some wild interpretation or implication) demonstrating that the U.K. is formed of two sovereign states joined by a treaty. If you can’t that’s because it’s not true, it’s absurd to suggest that such a foundational concept in U.K. constitutional law hasn’t been written down or discussed by anyone, especially given the number of times the U.K. constitution had been examined in the last 20 years. So if you haven’t the explicit, positive statement, that’s conclusive proof that it isn’t true.

Mia

which means ergo that it is not capable of being repealed, if we were to take your line of argument”

No, this is incorrect. ALL international treaties can be repealed under international law even if they do not show a direct route of exit. The principles of pacta sunt servanda, a change of circumstances and, of course, the breach of any of the fundamental conditions of the treaty are indeed permanently open exit routes.

Do you remember the manifesto of the SNP during the 2016 election? Why do you think the words “a change in circumstances” was included in it?

Scotland can use any of the three open doors, or even the three at once if it so wish. The fundamental conditions have been breached many times over since 1707; circumstances have changed in multiple ways since the treaty was signed – for instance, the UK is no longer at war with France and the Uk is no longer part of the EU; and it can be argued that the kingdom of England acted in bad faith in many instances, like for example dragging Scotland out of the EU against its expressed democratic will, by stealing a whole lot of powers from the Holyrood with the excuse of brexit, or by attempting to sneak into law and by the back door the English convention of “parliamentary sovereignty” when Scotland’s parliament never had “parliamentary sovereignty” and therefore could not pass this onto Great Britain’s parliament.

Wasn’t England’s Advocate General who told us all during the brexit negotiations that there is not such a thing as a treaty from where a country could not exit if it no longer wished to remain in it?

Aidan

Indeed, and that proves that the terms of the Treaty of Union cannot have primacy over all other forms of law within the UK’s constitutional structure. Exactly as I have been saying.

Dan

Hud oan a fuckin’ momento. Aren’t you talkin’ aboot “ancient guff” here.
Franchise Fanny says that sort of shizzle ain’t relevant.
It’s the the hokey fuckin’ cokey of Scotland’s predicament.
Can a single bawbag unionist actually tells aw us Scottish plebs how we can exercise oor right to self-determination.

Andy Ellis

Any people can exercise its right to self determination via a number of routes Dan. Nobody sane disputes the fact. In our particular case, presumably we are all at least in agreement that (absent some huge crisis as yet unknown) it isn’t likely to be necessary for us to resort to the use of force à la Ireland.

It might presumably at some point be necessary and regarded as legitimate by Scots voters to resort to civil disobedience in the event of a future British nationalist government refusing to negotiate in good faith. in the face of a clear mandate to become independent, which is where resort to a UDI may become both necessary and legitimate in the eyes of the international community.

Absent either of the two scenarios above, modern custom and practice requires a clear majority of the people in question expressing a desire for independence by voting for it. Nobody really cares if that’s via referendum or plebiscitary elections. Either are quite legitimate, but the former is now overwhelmingly more common.

None of this is new.

None of it is rocket science.

It doesn’t require reference to 300 year old history and arcane debates about the Treaties of Union, just a movement and enough people with the political balls and intelligence to actually get off their arses and vote for it.

Happy to help! 🙂

Dan

Can a single bawbag unionist actually tells aw us Scottish plebs how we can exercise oor right to self-determination.

Hmm, Andy responds…

James

Aye, Dan. 59% Yes.

When’s the referendum, again?

Mia

Indeed, and that proves that the terms of the Treaty of Union cannot have primacy over all other forms of law within the UK’s constitutional structure. Exactly as I have been saying”

No. You are completely twisting this to suit your narrative.

The treaty of union has primacy over every piece of law within the UK constitutional structure that relates to Great Britain ie: everything. And the why stands to the obvious: the treaty is the piece of legislation that gives legitimacy to the kingdom of Great Britain to exist and to operate as such. You remove the treaty, you remove “Great Britain” as a legal entity.

Now, this is not the same as to saying that the treaty can never be revoked. The treaty can be revoked in line with international law as any other international treaty can. If you alter any of the fundamental conditions of the treaty with all those other “forms of law” then you are opening the door for a demand from the affected party to end the treaty. But, if you end the treaty, you end the union and by ending the union, you terminate the entity known as “Great Britain”.

Dan

And as the terms of the treaty of union in certain matters pertaining to law are either reserved or devolved by London Rule clearly aren’t equal for each constituent part of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, it makes a mockery of us being in an equal union.
Looky here at the list of devolved and reserved powers the Scottish Parliament (which is merely an entity existing from the UK’s Scotland Act) has a remit for.

link to parliament.scot

Mia

Absolutely. I always thought that this “asymmetric” devolution of powers between Scotland and England was unlawful under the conditions of the treaty.

England continues to use the union parliament as if it was its own and continues to have direct control over all the union apparatus of government and direct access to the union purse, which it of course uses as if it was its own. Meanwhile, Scotland has to do with some pocket money.

Dan

Aye, The Kingdom of England doesn’t even have its own Parliament. It simply hijacks the UK Parliament for its own ends.
Xaracen has frequently pointed this situation out.

link to wingsoverscotland.com

link to wingsoverscotland.com

Dan

And a wee bump for the utter totes in yer face aspect that the “equal” union has been anything but equal for the Kingdom of Scotland over the course of this 300 odd year “better together” exploitative shitfest.

At the time of the union the Kingdom of England’s population was approximately 5 times greater than the Kingdom of Scotland’s. Yet now the KoE’s population is now approximately ten times larger than the KoS’s.
That there has been no political policies implemented over the course of the union to redress and correct this population growth disparity between the two supposedly equal Kingdoms, breaches the terms of the Treaty in that no constituent part of the UK should have an economic advantage over another.
And those figures also need to be extrapolated further and consider they are not truly representative due to falling Scottish birth rates and “white flight” English internal UK migration with all the negative factors that brings to Scottish fowk.

link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com

It will no doubt be stated as racist or xenophobic to highlight that of the 200 hunner children born in my locale recently, only 20 bairns born were to both Scottish parents…

Dan
Dan

Another of Xaracen’s posts I bookmarked to save them retyping so often.

link to wingsoverscotland.com

Mia

Cynical as I am, I have always thought that this is how England retains control over the entire UK and how it can continue to sell us all the pup that England’s debt is “UK debt” and England’s expenditure is “UK’s expenditure”.

Have you ever looked at the ginormous deficit of trade of goods England causes year on year?

The figures for 2022 have not been released yet. They were due in December 2024, but they have been delayed until February.

Well, for 2021, England’s deficit of trade of goods was, according to the table, an astronomical 127 billion pounds. In contrast, Scotland had a positive balance of trade of goods of 9.1 billion.

Overall, Scotland had a positive balance of trade (goods + services) of 20.9 billion.

Compare that figure with the 40 billion or so that we got in the block grant. Half of that block grant is already recouped by the surplus in trade that Scotland produces every year. If we add to that all the electricity and oil/gas England gets for free from Scotland, the excess we have to pay here for the energy our own country produces and therefore the higher tax, if we also add the extra that we have to pay here for putting energy into the “national” grid, we add the profits from tourism and we add all the taxes that we have to pay, corporation tax, corporation tax accounted for in companies with HQ in England for transactions in Scotland, VAT, etc, etc, etc, I would say that very easily, not only Scotland pays its way, it is actually paying far more than what it is getting, and that is despite Scotland being deliberately kept as a consumer, sending over 10 billions more to England by importing England’s goods than exporting to England because our market has been flooded with England’s produce instead of promoting our own.

England has a surplus of trade of services, but when you combine goods and services, its total surplus in 2021 was a meagre 3.4 billion.

But the table has a few quirky things.

For instance, the table shows an astronomical deficit of trade of 50.8 billion pounds allocated to “unknown”. It also has a deficit of trade of -8.5 allocated to “extra regio”.

According to the table, “Unknown region includes unmatched companies, trade in precious metals, national imports of gambling services and businesses who act within the UK on behalf of foreign companies overseas”

Right, who would generate most of that debt, England or Scotland, who has only around an 8% of England’s population? I think this is a sneaky way to hide England’s imbalance of trade of services.

“extra regio” apparently means “parts of the national economic territory which cannot be attached directly to a single region including some offshore oil transactions and territorial enclaves” Right, we all know where most of the “UK” oil and gas are produced, don’t we? and it is not England. We also know where it is mostly consumed, and it is not Scotland. So, who is generating this deficit? Again, this is, in my opinion, another attempt to play down England’s deficit and to underestimate Scotland’s surplus.

This information has been obtained from

Section 3 “Subnational trade analysis – International trade in UK nations and regions, in 2021″, Available on the website titled “International trade in UK nations, regions and cities: 2021” from ONS.gov.uk, released on 28 June 2023 and accessed today.

Dan

May be a helpful explanation of the asymmetry within the union.
link to consoc.org.uk

I used to have an article bookmarked but lost it in a hard drive failure (have tried several times to find it since so if anybody has it please post link) which had a pie chart image which highlighted the ludicrous folly of the UK attempting to attribute everywhere but England being responsible for the UK’s overall deficit.
Fucking comedy facade, but that’s all the equal union realty is.
A pretense maintained by a compliant MSM and unfortunately a supposedly pro-Scottish self-governance alternative media that’s for the most part got its head stuck up its arse to busy with competing egos and one-upmanship seemingly more important than educating and enlightening Scots to their subservient predicament.

Approximately 96% of oil and 65% of gas fields (and also a disproportionate allocation of renewable power generation located in would be Scottish territorial boundaries), but only 10% based on manipulated population proportionate share is attributed to Scotland.
Nae thief ever told they were stealing from you, but the sad fact is far too many Scots are as dumb as a box of rocks and believe the pish they get fed.

None of the content I have posted in a half dozen posts this evening is difficult to find, yet day to day I still speak with utter thicko roasters that are brainwashed into believing the false reality they are fed on MSM and shite sites like Facebook and twitter or whatever the fuck it is called now. Plato’s cave allegory writ large.
The other day had some plastic middle class “green” dullard having a go at me for defending local farmers on inheritance tax issue because that was the latest ADD narrative shite being published in the likes of the Guardian. Told them to open their fucking eyes and observe that the most productive use of local land and local employment creation in oor surrounding area is in food production on said farms, and jist where are we going to source oor food from if those farms go and the land gets hoovered up by some massive global corporates.

Also spent a couple of hours speaking with local authority watercourse management personnel the other day who was out investigating the rising watercourse and property flooding issues.
They got an unexpected but hopefully enlightening tour of the area highlighting just a few of the local issues.
So hopefully they’ll get back to me and can arrange a further visit from a structural engineer to survey and be made aware of the not insignificant issues of road foundations being undermined by beavers (which I called out as an issue years ago). Maybe the local council will get their shit together and apply for a permanent management license including the use of up to lethal force to begin to address and quickly respond to the issues created by the utter folly of the unofficial release of the varmints in this area.

Last edited 28 days ago by Dan
Aidan

GERS provides figures for oil and gas revenues on both an illustrative geographic share and a population share basis. Why are you telling lies, not least lies that are easily discoverable by just a few clicks?

link to gov.scot

Mia

Ahh!!! GERS, that magic con-trick with the power to apply the miracle of the fish and the bread in reverse so the bulk of the oil and gas extracted from Scotland’s waters always vanishes into those “extra regio” and “unknown” mystic dimensions, or indeed England’s pockets after the war criminal Blair, in breach of international law, on his own accord, and following the advice in the McCrone Report, proceeded to re-draw the boundaries of Scotland’s waters to steal for England some of Scotland’s oil fields.

Yeah, that GERS, huh?

Last edited 28 days ago by Mia
Aidan

I’ve literally just posted the link above showing the two ways GERS accounts for oil and gas revenue (I.e. population share or geographic share). What do you have to gain by lying about something which anyone can identify as objectively false based on a single click of a link posted above?

Mia

I clicked on the link and this is what it says:

In the ONS’s Regional Accounts, the UK continental shelf is not allocated to specific geographic regions, but is considered a separate region of the UK (the extra-regio territory). As such, an assumption as to Scotland’s share of the North Sea needs to be made in GERS

So the figures are not real figures, they are assumptions. What this tells me is that those in control of Scotland’s government are neither nationalists at all nor competent in any way or measure. Frankly, it is unbelievable that after TEN YEARS this group of numpties have not yet found a way to determine precisely how much oil and gas Scotland actually produces. And if they cannot even determine that, how on earth can they take us to independence?

Here is the thing, since Blair stole those waters from Scotland, I do not believe in assumptions and I do not believe in “geographical allocation”. I can see from the map they present in the figure that the waters that Blair stole from Scotland have been apportioned to England, not to Scotland. So just give me the facts and the hard data. I can do the rest: give me the location of each field (I will determine if it belongs to Scotland or not), give me the total amount of barrels of oil extracted from each field and the year when they were extracted and I will establish how much Scotland produced and how much of the revenue corresponds to Scotland. For goodness sake, how difficult can it be?

Now, the document also says:

Two estimates of Scotland’s share of North Sea revenue are shown in GERS:

  1. An illustrative geographical share
  2. A population share

An “illustrative” geographical share.
I do not want “an illustrative geographical share”. I want the actual geographical distribution of each fricking oil and gas field, one by one, the amount of barrels of oil/gas each of those produced and the year when they were extracted. Goodness, how difficult can it possibly be to get those figures? It is inexplicable to me that those figures are not widely available and released to the public.

“A population share”
What on earth has Scotland’s population share of the UK have to do with it? If the oil is extracted from Scotland’s waters, it does not matter an iota if Scotland has 50 people, 5 million people or 500 million. The amount produced by Scotland is the exact same. This is Scotland’s resource, so let’s know how much its value it. That population share is a gross underestimation of the production of oil and gas by Scotland. It is simply ludicrous. Actually insulting to even present that measure. Scotland produces over 90% of the oil and has 8% of the population. Presenting a “population share” is at all practical effects a mechanism to completely dwarf the share of what Scotland gets compared with all what it produces.

And this is what I mean by the con-trick miracle of the fish and the bread in reverse: Scotland produces over 90% of the oil, but its share is an 8%. Excellent money making scheme for England. I bet you that something very similar, if not worse, is happening with the electricity we produce.

And that is just with regards to PRODUCTION.
Now let’s talk about expenditure. Scotland is self sufficient in energy. Actually, it has a surplus of energy. Where is the money from that surplus? And Why is Scotland apportioned a share of the expenditure that England inflicts because it is not self-sufficient in energy production?

So, under the con-trick of “GERS”, and this is just with regards to energy, Scotland is bludgeoned trice: first by not being apportioned the correct share of the production, second by not being paid the revenues of the oil, gas and electricity that England sucks from Scotland for free, and third by being lumbered with a share of England’s expense. And that does not even include the extra that Scotland has to paid for the energy it produces compared with England and the extra that Scotland has to pay for putting its own electricity on to the grid so England can suck it for free.

I do not give a toss about “GERS” con-trick figures. Give me the REAL figures: the production of EACH oil and gas field and their location. And the total amount of electricity from renewables Scotland is producing and how much of that is being sent away from Scotland, I will tell you how much of the total revenue corresponds to Scotland.

And that is without even entering the fact that the revenues are under the “UK” financial scheme, which is not generating ANY petroleum tax revenue, for example, actually it is giving to the oil companies money back (our money), while our children have to skip meals here and our elderly has to choose between eating or heating their houses. How do the taxes and levies imposed by the UK compare with those of Norway, for instance?

So, who is the one lying to us and taking us for complete fools?

Dan

Aye, how hard can it be in this modern tech filled world to simply allocate genuine numbers to actual amounts of specific resources and where they come from.
I recall back in mid nineties helping to put the first of the subsea infrastructure on the seabed West of Shetland for the Foinavon and Schiehallion fields.
Those fields had FPSO vessels permanently moored on the surface so volumes handled and where the oil went will be known, and approximate volumes are mentioned in these links.

link to en.wikipedia.org

link to en.wikipedia.org

link to bp.com

Mia

Absolutely, Dan. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

For instance, another thing I did not include in my comment to avoid making it too long was the jobs that the oil and gas sector generates.

According to EITI (Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative), 27,600 people in “Great Britain” (Scotland + England + Wales) were directly employed in 2022 in Oil and Gas extraction and support services.

How many of all those jobs are provided by companies based in Scotland?
how many of those jobs are being paid in Scotland?
how many of those jobs are held by people who live in Scotland?

Why are those questions important?

Where the company has its HQ will determine where corporation tax for activities conducted in Scotland will be paid. If those HQ are in England, that corporation tax will not count as “Scotland’s” but as England’s.

Where the job is paid is important to establish what country collects salary taxes, pension contributions and National Insurance, for example.

Where the person who holds the job lives determines where most of their expenditure takes place: rent or purchasing a house, utilities, payment of council tax, payment of road/car taxes, purchase of a car, purchase of essentials, etc, etc, etc. From each of those purchases, there will be VAT to be paid. Who pockets that VAT? The country where the expenditure is made.

Jobs are wealth creators. The overwhelming majority of oil is extracted from Scotland’s waters, and the majority of the gas too. Therefore, if Scotland was an independent country instead of being treated as a colony, the majority of all those jobs would be based in Scotland, paid in Scotland and held by people living in Scotland.

So it is not only that Scotland is being robbed of the revenues from its own asset, it is not paid for the electricity, gas and oil that England is taking for free and it is lumbered with a portion of England’s expenditure because England is not energy sufficient. Scotland is also deprived of all the revenues that come with the jobs in the oil and gas industry that England is siphoning under the excuse of being in a “union”.

For instance, Scotland has the largest production of oil, and where will the closest refinery will soon be?

The figure of 27,000 jobs in 2022 corresponds only to “direct jobs” in the oil and gas industry (employed by companies operating in the extraction of oil and gas and associated services). The total figure of indirect + direct jobs related to the oil and gas industry in the UK was 189,200 (figure taken from EITI). Should Scotland had been an independent country and its share of the number of indirect jobs related to the oil and gas industry would be much larger, as many of those companies would be based in Scotland, rather than England.

Then there is another group of jobs related to the oil and gas industry: “induced jobs” (“those in the wider economy supported by the oil and gas sector i.e. employment supported by the expenditure of income from the oil and gas sector”). According to EITI, the number of induced jobs for the oil and gas industry in the entire UK was 75,500. So, what is the proportion of those “induced” jobs that Scotland is currently enjoying? I bet you it will be a much smaller share than it should have.

And then of course we would have to consider that each of those jobs related to the oil industry brings indirectly even more jobs in the large economy: they will need supermarkets, farms to produce food, amenities, pharmacies, all manner of shops, insurance, etc, etc, etc, etc.

If Scotland currently has a much smaller share of all those oil and gas related jobs than it should have given that it produces most of the asset, then it means that Scotland is also having much less general economy jobs which provide goods and services to the people employed, directly or indirectly, by the oil and gas sector. Less general jobs means less income tax, less NI, less VAT, less pension contributions, etc, etc, etc. Jobs put money back into the economy. If most of those jobs are down in England, it means that the money is being continuously sequestered from Scotland’s economy and put into England’s one. The money is not being recycled in Scotland, only taken away.

What is currently happening is that England is stealing from Scotland not only the majority of Scotland’s asset, but also it is siphoning and hoarding all the benefits that spin directly and indirectly from Scotland’s asset. The latter may amount to even bigger revenue than the revenues from the asset itself. And this could be replicating in every single sector. It is theft on an industrial scale, and it has been going on since the oil was first discovered.

How is any of that reflected on GERS?

Looking at those numbers of jobs, if Scotland had been independent from the moment the oil was discovered, unemployment would have disappeared from Scotland’s vocabulary.

It is truly disgusting how Scotland has been robbed and, on top of that, we still have to put up with those useless amoebas in Holyrood and Westminster dangling the stupid GERS in front of our noses and the colonial parties rubbing salt in our wounds with it.

** All the figures were obtained from the EITI website, available from link to ukeiti.org and accessed today.

Mia

Just for the sake of completeness:

According to google AI, in 2022 Norway had 156,900 jobs directly or indirectly related to the petroleum industry (this figure does not include the induced or the general economy indirect jobs)

By comparison, the estimated (and it is only an estimation, apparently) of total jobs directly and indirectly related to oil and gas in Scotland in 2022 was around 58,000 (figure obtained from the website of the University of Strathclyde, Fraser of Allander institute, available at link to fraserofallander.org and accessed today)

So, despite Norway having a very similar population number as Scotland, despite Norway discovering oil more or less at the same time as Scotland and despite Norway extracting roughly similar amounts of oil as Scotland, Norway had in 2022 close to three times more jobs in the sector than Scotland.

In other words, 2/3 of the jobs directly or indirectly related to the oil and gas industry which should have been in Scotland have been hoovered by the Kingdom of England. And that does not even include the general economy indirect jobs that would supply goods and services in response to the the demand created by those 156,900 people. Wonderful.

And yet, they call us “benefit scroungers”, rub the stupid GERS on our faces and expect us to be grateful for being robbed blind.

James

‘Aidan’ thinks it’s ‘British’ oil, Mia.

Silly us!

Dan

For somebody that is often such a pedant in matters of btl law discussions, it’s odd that you should then try to put so much worth into GERS related shite.
There’s umpteen articles (many on this site) that debunk the fictional story the figures try to tell.
But you have misinterpreted my mention of “manipulated population” numbers because my point was as can be read by context of my comments in this trail… “At the time of the union the Kingdom of England’s population was approximately 5 times greater than the Kingdom of Scotland’s. Yet now the KoE’s population is now approximately ten times larger than the KoS’s.
That there has been no political policies implemented over the course of the union to redress and correct this population growth disparity between the two supposedly equal Kingdoms, breaches the terms of the Treaty in that no constituent part of the UK should have an economic advantage over another.

This means any use of attributing allocations on a population share is flawed because the current population of the Kingdom of Scotland has been manipulated through London Rule’s implementation of policies over the course of the 300 year union that clearly failed to facilitate the equal growth of both Kingdoms which form the UK.
And that also makes a further mockery of past and present political representation for Scotland when the number of elected officials an area has is based on a population shares.

Mia

For somebody that is often such a pedant in matters of btl law discussions, it’s odd that you should then try to put so much worth into GERS related shite”

Absolutely, Dan. The eloquence in the comments and focus on the subjects seems to vary quite a bit from one day to the next. Do you get the feeling as I am getting that there might be more than one person using this “Aidan” moniker?

Dan

Could be but who knows for sure. Over the years there has been a steady stream of btl posters that rock up and operate in similar ways though.
A tendency to be uber focused and pedantic on certain matters but rarely if ever going near other topics too add an equivalent level of discourse to those discussions.
Eg. Can anyone recall John Main ever demanding absolute clarity from unionists so we could all see through the UK’s fictional obfuscation and Scots be “shown the money” in relation to GERS geographical or population based allocations.
And that is the obvious tell that flags those individuals as operating btl with questionable intentions.

Captain Caveman

FFS Dan, really? No-one is out to “get” you, Mia or anyone else. It’s called discussion/debate, and guess what – ordinary people like you, me and whoever else disagrees about stuff. Doesn’t mean that if I met you IRL I wouldn’t buy you a pint and/or the likes of a nobody like me and probably everyone else here is part of some shadowy international conspiracy.

I mean, really, maybe get some fresh air.

Dan

I never said anybody was out to get me or Mia so wind yer neck in and stop trying to make something out of nothing ya fud.
I merely pointed out that it is very obvious that some btl commenters that are clearly intelligent and articulate choose only to go near certain topics and avoid answering questions when put to them.

Plenty fresh air for me as I go about my day to day chores and other tasks. Two hours this morning collecting 4 tonne bags packed full of leaves from my front garden.
That’s down to the local authority shirking their responsibility yet again for trees they chose to take management of.
Morons taking a wage on the public’s dime that don’t understand that trees do the same thing every year so need to have an annual process in place to deal with the various matters huge living trees create.
Not doing so just creates higher maintenance issues down the line once the detritus build up results in road drain sediment bowls overfilling and choking the outflow pipes thus requiring more intensive work with them then requiring to be jetted to try to clear them.
Sad as fuck such basic practices are not understood by folk that are meant to manage these things.

After lunch will be contact a local estate owner to move forward with planning the removal of a tree that has fallen into a confluence of village drainage burns prior to a bridge, which if left to choke and flood the area will be far more difficult to deal with. Once the tree is removed a large excavator can then gain access to remove a couple of decades of sediment build up so the large pipes under the roads that the burns flow through will not be so badly restricted and be back to their full diameters they were originally sized at to cope with water table level and flow rates.

Captain Caveman

No mate, you’re the “fud” pal. What’s that chip on your shoulder, you want the rest of us to be impressed about you banging on about you working outdoors shovelling shit or worrying badgers? Mate, some of us worked hard at school and reaped the rewards, get over it.

Seriously, what are you on about here anyway, spouting a bunch of crap that nobody was talking about. Properly weird mate.

Dan

Wrong again fud! There’s nae chip oan my shoulder but you seem overly exercised about responding to me and not addressing the main content of my posts.
You’ve alluded you’re in an engineering business so should be well aware that to build or design anything to function in a proper way and to a decent degree of accuracy requires proper knowledge of dimensions.
You should therefore surely see that GERS is pish, likewise the inefficiency of wasting taxpayer’s monies on piss poor services, but your silence on engaging on these points out says it all.
What is politics if it isn’t about running a country as the folk that live in it want. Oh, that’s right, you don’t even live in Scotland so just here for the bantz coz if the union ended it would have fiscal ramifications for you because you own a property here. Fucks given by you for Scots that don’t even have one home and warmth to live in…zero.

I do all that work to maintain and improve my locale in a voluntary capacity as have no need for money being that I must be so fucking successful that I don’t need to work to earn money in any serious capacity to get by. I garner enough satisfaction from the rewards of doing and seeing a job well done. A few folk appreciate my efforts, though I presume you aren’t one, fud boy. lolz

Captain Caveman

The (unasked for and unwarranted)“contents” of your post in this instance and the last consists of a bunch of bitter moaning about people with good jobs that doesn’t involve vendettas against beavers and water pipes etc, so forgive my not responding, save to say you have a chip on your shoulder the size of the Grand Canyon.

Two a’penny mate, heard it all before. Life’s about choices, Chief.

Dan

Aye, that’s the issue right there when you think everything is jist fine with taxpayers paying someone good money to do a shit none job which gives little if any benefit to wider society.
You are a selfish fud. Consider that my efforts to highlight the developing issues caused by the rollout out of bad policies will help nip things in the bud and save taxpayers having to pay out for mitigation measures, and even save private individuals losing their property to increased water levels or flood damage. Fairly sure you’d give a fuck if you were being affected by this.

Captain Caveman

Your efforts make you look like someone very odd, with a chip on their shoulder, shouting gibberish at clouds.

Dan

Aye, I have the self awareness to recognise that I am different from more conventional “normal folk” that all too often just sit on their arses and do nothing whilst all around them things go to rack and ruin.
But in the scheme of things, who is more useful to our locale. The oddball that steps up and gets shit done like installing a mains water supply to provide clean water and fire hydrant to half the village and get the properties off the failing private supply with low pressure and which regularly fell below acceptable chemical and bacterial contamination levels.
Someone who spots and reports the damaged village sewer pipe that was pumping 2500 gallons of untreated effluent into the wrong watercourse then doggedly chases up the issue to the point of reporting Scottish Water to SEPA to get them to actually do something about it many hundreds of thousands of pounds later.
Someone that gave up time to be a Community Councillor for the area before the lack of engagement of locals because they jist sit whining about shite on Facebook meant the council was no longer quorate.
Someone who is happy to interact with wealthy estate and farm owners, and also the most vulnerable in the community.
Someone that gives their time to clearing pavements and road gullies so the pavements are usable and the roads don’t flood.
Someone who will pick up tonnes of litter and fly-tipped waste to keep their locale tidy.
Aye, far better in your world if oddball twats like me did nothing. Personally I think people that choose to contribute nothing to improving the areas they live in odd.

Last edited 27 days ago by Dan
James

The concern trolling didnae work, fud. We see ye.

Captain Caveman

Piss off you illiterate twat.

Aidan

I happen to agree that the population share method of allocation is of no value, but thankfully GERS also provides us with the geographic allocation share, so what you are saying about this being used to hide Scottish income or transfer it to England, is untrue.

Alf Baird

You fail to observe what is a colonial balance sheet.

Colonial plunder easily makes one of the richest nations in NW Europe into the poorest. The Holyrood grant is just scraps off the master’s table to pay the wages of colonialism. Scots are losing upwards of £150 billion a year through the colonial corset:

link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com

Aidan

The U.K. is one of the richest countries in the world by GDP and GDP per capita, around 11th (out of 220) in the world when you exclude micro tax avoidance countries like Monaco.

James

You should try reading this site’s numerous blogs about the bollocks that is GERS.

Oh, but of course, that’s not part of your job description is it, chummy?

James

ROTFLMFAO!!!

You should be in the Sturgeon/McDairmid comedy gig. A proper threesome LOL.

Last edited 27 days ago by James
Mia

Hopefully the local authority will do something about it. Can you get other neighbours to back you up on this and also send complaints to the council?

Aidan

Treaties can be terminated for the purposes of international law (I note that is one legal principal that you do chose to recognise), but in your fantasy, there is no way of amending the UK’s constitutional structure to give effect to that termination, given the treaty describes itself as continuing forever and you say that the U.K. Parliament has no way to amend it. Even if the internationally recognised obligations of England and Scotland towards each other were to end, the domestic implications of the treaty would continue.

The Brexit equivalent would be the U.K. formally leaving the political and administrative structures of the U.K., but being unable to repeal the European Communities Act.

That’s one of the many reasons it’s an absurd proposition.

Aidan

That should read “administrative structures of the EU”

Mia

but in your fantasy, there is no way of amending the UK’s constitutional structure to give effect to that termination”

Goodness.

Who is above the treaty and therefore above “the UK constitutional structure”?

The two parliaments who signed the treaty.

Any of those two parliaments can unilaterally revoke the treaty and declare null the Act of union of that country with the other.

Did you actually read at all what I posted above in response to your comment and which indicated what legislation the Lords considered required in 2014 to effect the termination of the treaty? Take a look at it.

What you need is to reconvene the parliament of Scotland or/and the parliament of England. You do not even need both. Those parliaments still live today in the form of those kingdoms’ respective MPs. To act as Scotland’s parliament, Holyrood would have to be empowered to do so, as, currently, it is not Scotland’s parliament, simply an administrative branch of Westminster with borrowed powers and no powers of its own. This is precisely what the lords were referring to. But Scotland’s MPs and the Life peers are the custodians of those powers and therefore can recall the old Scotland’s parliament whenever they want.

The “UK parliament” as such cannot terminate the treaty by itself because the UK parliament includes representation from NI and Wales, which were not signatories of the treaty of union, and also because England MPs have no power to revoke the treaty or to nullify the Act of union with England on behalf of Scotland. The exact same applies for Scotland’s MPs with regards to England’s Act of union with Scotland.

Your problem is that you keep obsessed with the English convention of “Westminster’s parliamentary sovereignty”. When it comes to the treaty of union and revoking the treaty of union, Westminster is no longer the “sovereign” entity. It is just an output of the treaty and therefore subordinated to the treaty and to the entities that ratified the treaty. That is Scotland and England.

In such circumstance, Westminster does not have “parliamentary sovereignty” over anything other than itself. It is Scotland’s parliament and England’s parliament what have sovereignty over the Parliament of Great Britain.

Westminster can only continue acting as Great Britain Parliament for as long as it keeps getting the consent from both, Scotland and England, to do so. If one of the two, or the two of them deny that consent, and a yes vote in an independence referendum or a majority of MPs standing on an anti-union ticket, for example, are expressions of the denial of that consent, then it ceases to have the legitimacy to continue acting as the parliament of Great Britain.

I actually would argue that since 2016, when Scotland gave its first mandate for a referendum, that consent was put on hold/withdrawn and Westminster does no have legitimacy to continue acting as “Great Britain’s parliament” until that consent is renewed by a no vote in a referendum. Westminster is, in my personal opinion, acting ultravires and continue to assume a consent from Scotland which was withdrawn in 2016.

Needless to say that, after Scotland ends the union, what is left can, of course, call itself as it wishes. It can continue calling itself “UK” if it so wishes, but it will be a different entity to what is now known as “Kingdom of Great Britain”. The “Kingdom of Great Britain” ends when the treaty is revoked.

Aidan

The two parliaments who enacted the treaty no longer exist, and haven’t existed for hundreds of years, so the problem still remains. What you are proposing to invent a new parliament, without any constitution or authority to get yourself around the problem I have described. Yet another invented legal concept “like statehood on hold’, one of dozens of which you’ve had to create, which aren’t recognised anywhere else and by anybody, to deal with the numerous contradictions in your point of view. The problem here is you’ve decided on the conclusion first, and you’re now desperately working backwards to try and work out the rationale and explanation.

I’ve read what you’ve written and linked to above. Nowhere does it say that the U.K. is formed of an international treaty between two sovereign states or in any way reference or allude to the idea of “statehood on hold”. So that’s yet another informed inquiry considering exactly this precise subject which has apparently neglected to mention this critical and foundational fact which you say is the cornerstone of U.K. constitutional law.

Mia

The two parliaments who enacted the treaty no longer exist”

But they can be recalled. The only thing that is needed to recall Scotland’s parliament is for our so called “Scottish MP representatives” to lift their arses from the green seats and to either reconvene the old Scotland parliament or transfer the powers to Holyrood.

“Nowhere does it say that the U.K. is formed of an international treaty between two sovereign states”

Please use your common sense: only independent states can enter international treaties. Both, Scotland and England were independent states when the treaty was independently ratified by each one of them.

The “United Kingdom of Great Britain” is what was formed by an international treaty between the two sovereign states: the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. I can see very clearly that you are trying to do here is to play with words.

“or in any way reference or allude to the idea of “statehood on hold” “

Again, please use your common sense: what would be the purpose of including fundamental conditions in a treaty if there was no way of enforcing them and violating them would mean absolutely nothing?

If there was no way to return to Scotland’s statehood after the treaty was ratified, they would have never bothered in putting any fundamental conditions in the treaty.

It stands to the obvious to even a child that those fundamental conditions were included as a safeguard, which, if violated, would ensure a route of return to Scotland’s statehood, and that route would be through the MPs.

I have already said this several times here:
Both in 1712 and 1713 Scotland’s MPs and peers were seriously considering revoking the treaty of union and reconvening Scotland’s parliament. Most of those were the very same people who were sitting in Scotland’s Parliament in 1706/7 when the Treaty was ratified and the Act of Union with England passed. Some of them were actually the commissioners that redacted the articles. They would be the best placed to know if Scotland’s parliament could be reconvened or not and if Scotland’s statehood could be restored or not.

? Actually, if you look at the records of the parliament of Scotland, at no point it says that the parliament was “abolished”. The parliament was simply adjourned. You can go on and look at it yourself. The last session was on Tuesday 25 March 1707. You can find the records at link to rps.ac.uk

Aidan

No the two parliaments cannot be recalled, the last representatives of those parliaments have long since died and the constitutional structure within which those parliaments sat has again, long since disappeared and be superseded by 300+ years of constitutional development. It would obviously be unacceptable from a democratic position to go back to a position prior to universal suffrage (or when women could be MP’s), where the monarch still had legislative power, and it would cause endless difficulties for the court systems trying to work out the powers and constitution of the recalled parliaments and consequently, the applicability of various laws that have been passed over the last 300 years. Obviously it goes without saying that there is no legal mechanism to provide for this recall, anywhere at all. It would cause endless chaos, and for what benefit. The only single benefit it would provide, is alignment to your alternative view of the constitution.

“Use your common sense” you say. A rather odd statement, given your view sits in direct opposition to every authority on the subject. Are you saying that the lawyers, parliamentarians, judges, historians, commentators and academics all collectively failed to use their common sense on the numerous occasions when they considered this topic?

Mia

Scotland’s parliament can be recalled at any time. The only thing we need is for our so called “Scotland’s” MP representatives to stop acting as the useful idiots of the British state, to unglue their arses from the green seats and reconvene Scotland’s parliament.

Alternatively, they can give up the seats and transfer all the powers they currently hold on behalf of Scotland to Holyrood to empower it as Scotland’s parliament.

It would obviously be unacceptable from a democratic position to go back to a position prior to universal suffrage…”

And yet, we are expected to accept as democratic being forced out of the EU despite 62% in Scotland voting against brexit; being robbed of a series of powers with the excuse of a brexit we voted to reject and by bludgeoning the Scotland Act without our consent and twisting the interpretation of the Sewell convention by applying the English law convention of “parliamentary sovereignty”; being robbed of massive chunks of Scotland in the form of freeports that we never voted for; being imposed an unelected crown representative in the middle of what should be a democratically elected cabinet, so this crown representative can steal from us control over our legislative power and hand it to the English crown, and of course being refused a referendum despite having given by now, how many was that? five mandates?

It is a wonderful irony that those who abuse power and are the first denying actual democracy to us are also the first ones demanding it for themselves, isn’t it?

The majority of Scotland’s natives voted yes in 2014. Had the franchise been a real one, like the one every other European country has for constitutional referendums, instead of a flawed one and Scotland should have been independent by now. And you still have the nerve to talk about a “democratic position”?

There is no democracy for Scotland in the UK and there never will be. To demand democracy in such context is simply having a laugh (at our expense).

Aidan

It’s the typical conspiracy theorist tactic when asked to provide some evidence, to respond by making an even more ridiculous outlandish claim. Which is what’s going on here. I think you probably know what you’re saying is nonsense.

Mia

When exactly did you provide any evidence?

Just like those who rush to deny Scotland democracy are the first ones rushing to demand it for themselves, those who carefully avoid providing any evidence are the first ones insisting the other party does not provide any when they already have.

So, what is it that you are really after, the quotes from 1712 and 1713 which demonstrate how at those times the recalling of Scotland’s parliament was being seriously considered?

I have already wrote them in other threads, and more than once, but I am happy to provide them again. Is that what you want?

P.S.: as you well know, the term “conspiracy theory” has psychological connotations and it is usually resourced to as a deliberate form of gaslighting to either distract from the subject or to prevent the other party to throw light on an argument which the gaslighter is unable to cannot counteract. In other words, it is part of the ad-hominem phase: when you cannot trash the message, trash the messenger.

I have been in these threads for long enough to spot and become immune to such amateurish gaslighting and psychological blackmail tactics. You are wasting your time.

Aidan

What I want is an explicit positive authoritative statement demonstrating that the U.K. is formed of a treaty between two sovereign states. I’ve asked for this many times and you’ve produced nothing.

Mia

And you continue to deliberately twist words to confuse.

What do you mean exactly by “U.K.”?

Please state the name of the entity you are referring to in full.

Aidan

The state of the United Kingdom – do you not understand what that means, or do you think that could refer to more than one thing?

Mia

The state of the United Kingdom”

And what state is that, exactly? There is no a state with a formal name like that.

Please state the formal name of the entity you are referring to IN FULL, not just the abbreviation. Please state the formal name the entity you are referring to uses to sign treaties.

Aidan

Okay – so you have zilch in the way of evidence, as expected. Which begs the question why you so persistently continue to assert this view . .

Mia

It stands to the obvious why I am asking the question: I cannot provide evidence of an entity if you do not make clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, what entity I am supposed to provide evidence for.

Sorry, I am not prepared to make assumptions as to what it is in your mind.

So, are you going to provide the full formal name of the state or you don’t even know it?

Aidan

“Beyond all reasonable doubt” – you aren’t on trial here (luckily for you). I’ve also referred to the U.K. several times above and you didn’t have a problem on any of those occasions. I’m sure you have absolutely bags of compelling evidence to share – hence the delay/diversionary tactics.

Mia

The formal name of the entity in full, please.

The complete name of the entity is part of the evidence. So, are you going to provide it or are you going to continue evading the question?

What are you trying to distract attention from?

Mia

I am still waiting for the name in full of the entity I am supposed to provide evidence for.

I think this must be the sixth time I am asking you for that information. It will be the last, unless you ask for that evidence again.

Just out of curiosity, which part of the full name of that entity you do not want to mention?

Aidan

Right, so you claim to have an in-depth and mature understanding of the constitutional structure of the U.K., but apparently the term “U.K.” isn’t something you’re familiar with or understand.

You’ve had your chance and you’ve come up with nothing, just as we all knew and expected. The reality is that this view has no relationship with reality at all in any way, and is only persisted by a tiny number of eccentric members of a campaign group. It plays no part in mainstream Scottish debate, governance or law, and is a total distraction as far as Scottish independence is concerned.

Mia

Which part of the formal name of that entity you are so furiously peddling back from and why?

Aidan

The revealing thing is that even though you cannot produce a single piece of evidence in support of your view, not one single solitary thing. In a few days time on another post I know you’ll be espousing exactly the same nonsense, in exactly the same way.

Mia

I cannot provide evidence until you tell me the full, official name of the entity you have in mind.

Which part of the full name of that state makes you that you cannot bring yourself to write it?

You cannot just say that the name of the state is “UK” or “United Kingdom” without stating what united kingdom we are talking about and what kingdom has been united.

The ball is in your court.

Aidan

Mia – it’s no skin off my back if you don’t provide any evidence to support your claim. You just look ridiculous.

Last edited 27 days ago by Aidan
Mia

Well, and that was me thinking that what looked truly ridiculous was someone demanding evidence about the formation of a state but then immediately proceeding to circle the wagons when asked to give the full, official name of the state.

What is it about the name of the sate that bothers you so much? Why can’t you bring yourself to write it down?

Aidan

Why don’t you help us all out and give a few options for what U.K. could refer to, since it’s apparently a point of insurmountable confusion?

James

LOL. Look in a mirror.

Self awareness bypass.

Andy Ellis

As we all know a majority of MP may not represent a majority of voters. 56 of 59 MPs represented 49.9% of voters: close, but no cigar. Even if it HAD been > 50%, they weren’t voting for independence because the SNP and movement didn’t explicitly state it was a plebiscitary vote.

The international community would have ignored such a result, and so would Westminster.

The British nationalists wouldn’t even have had to go to the trouble of beating up Scottish grannies or jailing pro independence leaders à la mode Catalan, because our leaders don’t have the political balls the Catalans had and the people wouldn’t have been behind it.

Your hot takes on international politics and self determination are as perceptive as your caricaturish views of the general Scottish population.

Alf Baird

The role of the colonizer ‘is to make any prospect of liberation for the native seem impossible’ (Memmi).

Aye, yer daen a guid job thair.

Andy Ellis

If only you had any ideas of your own Alf rather than regurgitating inapplicable post colonial theory talking points like some Red Guard cadre waving The Thoughts of Chairman Mao.

Doubtless the study of Memmi & Fanon and ability to recite them by rote will be a requirement in the new Scottish Republic.

Have you thought of translating them in to Scots yet…..? I’m sure there would be a muckle* market of at least a dozen or two.

Insider

Well said Andy !
I wish Alf would realise how much harm his constant spamming of every discussion does to the Indy movement.
Random quotes about colonialism in 19th century Africa have no relevance to Scotland in the 21st century !

twathater

“I wish Alf would realise how much harm his constant spamming of every discussion does to the Indy movement.”

FFS another franchise fanny that knows what every independence supporter THINKS

How about you and the REAL franchise fanny tell us what the winning lottery numbers are seeing that youse are so prescient

Alf Baird

Much of what we know as postcolonial theory was written from the 1950s and 60s onwards, which corresponded with the mass of declarations of independence after WWII and the creation of the UN.

It is this body of literature that helped create the fundamental principles of self-determination independence within the UN, the intent of which was to bring to an end the imperial powers through decolonization of their acquired territories.

Postcolonial theory is applied to the Scottish colonial situation in this published academic article here:

link to cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com

Chas

Unbeleviable. Yet a link to yet another load of mince written by, you guessed it, the bold Alf Baird.
As someone posted earlier, the continual self promotion of repetive dross only serves to drive people away from Wings and the the desire for Independence. Who really wants to be associated with rabid nutters?

Hatey McHateface

Ouch Andy.

That dart must have stung when it hit its target. 🙂

One of the problems with the “Scotland as colony” trope must defo be that most Scots look at ex-colonies and see that many of them are utter shitholes. Sure, some ex-colonies have gone on to thrive post-Indy, but plenty have deteriorated to the point where the locals look back fondly to the days of colonial rule.

So why would any Scot vote for that?

James

The concern troll mask has slipped…..

twathater

“The international community would have ignored such a result, and so would Westminster.”

And as usual the FRANCHISE FANNY not only knows what everyone in Scotland, engerland, the uk knows and thinks HE now speaks for the whole INTERNATIONAL community,
what a ballsack

Andy Ellis

Try interacting with what people actually say and write rather than what the voice in your head or at the bottom of the bottle tell you twatbyname.

If you can show that the international community and/or Westminster would ever airily accept a situation where some random body with no clear mandate declared UDI, be prepared to show your workings.

If it’s so self evident, or you can show that I’m wrong and you’re right, then provide some evidence….you know:

  • polling of popular support;
  • statements from Scottish political parties and respected public figures supporting your Brigadoon fantasies;
  • learned papers from subject matter experts in international law, International Relations theory, constitutional law and practice;
  • UN and other international organisations voicing their support for these novel routes to independence.

Should be a shoo-in since you and other fantasists BTL here keep insisting that I’m not reflecting the views of the majority.

We’ll wait….

Chas

The nutters, there are a good few on here, are incapable of reason. They live in their own wee fantasy world where anything that is said or written is correct if it fits with their warped views. Anything to the contrary has to be shouted down at every opportunity.

I find it difficult to pick out who is the worst amongst them. The least original is definitely Baird but…………….he has a following for some strange reason. Of course, one track minds attract………..one track minds.

After Independence, which will occur by magic, EVERYTHING will be fantastic in Scotland. We will not even need a competent Government. Maybe Dynamo. David Blaine or a whole raft of the Magic Circle will stand for Parliament?

twathater

You don’t have to wait Fanny because everyone knows YOU only speak for YOU so your grandiose statements mean Fuck All to anyone apart from yir fellow yoonionists

Mia

The international community would have ignored such a result, and so would Westminster”

The international community recognised the division of Czechoslovakia despite being decided by a simple majority of MPs, not by a majority of the vote. As far as I remember, there never was a referendum and the public were not even consulted on it.

Ireland separated from the UK on the basis of wining the majority of the seats representing Ireland, not the vote. As far as I remember, the vote was below 50%.

Independently of Czechoslovakia’s and Ireland’s cases, in the case of Scotland we are speaking of repealing an international treaty. An international treaty that, lets not forget, was enacted on the power of a simple majority of MPs and that, therefore, can be repealed, unilaterally, by a simple majority of MPs from any of the two entities that signed the treaty.

We have been told many, many times that the UK is not a democracy but a parliamentary democracy. Well then, that applies to the treaty too.

The problem is that we seem to be constantly forced to look at the case of Scotland under the optics of the Catalonian case. But Scotland is not Catalonia. Scotland is not a region of the Kingdom of England. Scotland is united to England merely by a treaty. That is it.

There is no reason as to why other countries would not recognise the right of Scotland to unilaterally end a treaty of which it is a signatory after a change in circumstances has invalidated the reason to keep the treaty or because sustained violations of the fundamental conditions of the treaty.

Scotland does not need to “secede” from anywhere, like it was the case for Catalonia. It simply needs to end that treaty, which it can do unilaterally at any point of its choosing, to restore its statehood.

It does not need a referendum and it does not need the majority of the vote either. Scotland was dragged out of the EU against its will and on the minority of the vote. Scotland only needs either a majority of Scotland’s MPs reconvening the old Scotland parliament and ending the treaty, or a mechanism to empower Holryood and to overrule those MPs that, for the last 10 years, have refused to enact the mandate to end the union.

A way of empowering Holyrood would be through Westminster, but that route appears permanently blocked. An alternative route is by bypassing Westminster and electing MSPs on a mandate to ditch the Scotland Act and to transfer all powers currently held by Scotland’s MPs to Holyrood. We just need an election and a political party willing to put that in their manifesto. That would be, in my view, what using a Holyrood election as a vote on independence should look like: a vote to restore Scotland’s old parliament and repeal the treaty.

The political party that pledges to do that have my vote.

Hatey McHateface

“Dragged out of the EU against our will”

It seldom takes too long for somebody to state what’s really bugging them.

Right now, if we voted for Indy, we would be dragged into the EU against our will. I wonder if anybody has ever stopped to consider if changing circumstances now means that little detail might be stopping Scots from supporting Indy.

The EU today bears little resemblance to the organisation a majority of Scots looked up to in 2014.

Hatey McHateface

“c.70% support for Scotland rejoining the EU”

I can only suggest that people aren’t paying attention.

My understanding of what’s going on in the EU is that its major economies are falling ever further behind the rest of the world, as they are sabotaged by Nutt Zero, riven by ethnic divisions, and frozen in fear by the war being waged on the doorsteps of the eastern EU member states.

I’m not understanding what it is Scots find attractive about that mess.

But on a point of principle. Scotland can’t “re-join” the EU, as the territory and political nation of Scotland was never in the EU. The UK was.

The terms and conditions that the UK enjoyed as part of its EU membership will never be available to Scotland, as Scotland is less than one tenth of the UK.

Perhaps that inaccurate description of “re-joining” also leads to facts-free support for what would in reality be a completely different membership experience.

Andy Ellis

Ireland’s independence happened in the face of incipient civil war after negotiations between British and Irish nationalists predicated on a threat by the British to invade if the Irish didn’t accept partition. Nice try, but no cigar on the comparison front.

The Velvet divorce was indeed cooked up by the leaderships of both sides, but again it’s hardly comparable with the UK: the populations of both countries accepted it, the political leaderships in both accepted it, and there was no successor state, there were two new states. In the case of the UK in the Scottish case and Spain in the Catalan case there will be a successor state.

The international community won’t see any difference between the Scottish, Catalan or Quebec cases: all have differences and all have similarities, but they’ll all be held to the same standards.

There are lots of reasons other countries won’t recognise a unilateral decision: ask the Kosovans, Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, Somaliland, etc. Refer to the points above in response to twatbyname. The onus is on the small coterie of extremists punting non-conventional means to show their concepts have any intellectual, political and popular hinterground.

So far you and they are coming up empty. No change there.

I actually agree with some of you last paragraph: what’s needed is a party with the balls to do it. That clearly isn’t the SNP. Plebiscitary elections need to demonstrate a majority in favour of parties standing on an explicit independence platform, same goes for Holyrood parties proposing to repatriate all powers over our constitutional future.

Mia

Ireland was one of the Kingdom of England dominions and entered as such, the same as Wales, in the treaty of union.

Scotland was not and is not a dominion of the Kingdom of England. It is united with it by an international treaty. You keep forgetting that.

Despite that important difference, the comparison of both is more than pertinent, because both of them were subjected to the exact same UK rule and laws. What Ireland did was in violation of UK laws ( according to Westminster) and was not initially recognised by Westminster, hence the war.

You go on and on about “recognition by the international community”, as if you knew what the other countries think and how geopolitics is going to play at a given moment in time.

Despite Ireland being a dominion, despite refusing to follow the laws of the imperial power when declaring independence, and despite that independence not being recognised initially by Westminster, the international community had no problem recognising it. The truth, no matter how much you try to obfuscate it, is that Ireland declared independence after a GE where Sinn Fein had a majority of MPs but not the majority of the vote. Did they need a majority of the vote? No, because the UK is not a democracy. It is a parliamentary democracy.

The division of Checoslovakia is a perfect comparison to the situation of Scotland and England. First of all, Checoslovakia dissolved into two separate states by exclusive decision of MPs. The people of Checoslovakia was never asked, nor given an opportunity to express a desire or rejection to that division.

Despite the decision not being democratic in the strict sense of the word, the two new states had no problem whatsoever being recognised by the international community.

Secondly, that MPs got to decide the division in Checoslovakia means that Checoslovakia, the exact same as the UK, was a parliamentary democracy, not a democracy. So yes, the comparison is more than pertinent.

Thirdly, the same as it happened with the union between Scotland and England, it does not appear that the formation of Checoslovakia followed any kind of referendum. In other words, the people in the original states that then would unite to form Checoslovakia were forced into it wanted it or not.

It stands to the obvious that if a referendum was not needed to form Checoslovakia, a referendum would not be needed to exit it, and that is exactly what Checoslovakia had. A union or a dissolution of a union is a political decision. In a parliamentary democracy, that decision is made by a majority of MPs. That is what Checoslovakia had and what the UK should have. The idea of a referendum has been simply another fabricated obstacle to the dissolution of this union. The other fabricated obstacle being, of course, the flawed franchise.

But there is yet another interesting twist in the case of Checoslovakia that further demonstrates the nonsense of your need for a referendum and “recognition from the international community”:

It seems that the original Checoslovakia was formed by uniting provinces with no previous historic connections: Bohemia, Moravia, Czech-speaking Silesia, Slovakia and Subcarpathian Ruthenia”.

When Checoslovakia’s MPs decided to end the united state, they did not revert to the original status of those provinces as separate entities, which is what you would expect would happen should a treaty have been terminated. Instead of this, those MPs, by themselves, created two completely de nuovo states that had not existed as such before! This is stretching international law to a whole new level compared to what Scotland needs, which is simply dissolving a treaty. And yet, it was perfectly accepted by the international community, despite not being democratic and despite not holding a singe referendum to either form Checoslovakia nor to dissolve it into two the nuovo territorial states.

Scotland’s territory has not changed since the treaty was agreed. In other words, the dissolution of Scotland’s treaty with England and return of Scotland to its original status with its borders intact is a much, much simpler affair that the exceptional change that the territory where Checoslovakia existed went through.

The international community won’t see any difference between the Scottish, Catalan or Quebec cases”

I am sorry but this is complete and utter nonsense. The people representing the international community are not dumb idiots who cannot read. That is preposterous. The international community will never see in the same way a region trying to secede, as it was the case of Catalonia, and a former state exercising its perfectly legitimate right under international law to repeal a treaty. I am sorry but you are trying to peddle nonsense here.

“So far you and they are coming up empty”
Actually, it is you who is coming up completely empty here. You insist and insist and insist some more in forcing everybody to see Scotland from the prism of Catalonia, despite knowing well that they are completely different cases. Catalonia is not even “a dominion” like Ireland was. Catalonia is simply a region.

Scotland is neither a dominion nor a region. It is a former state that put its statehood on hold after signing a treaty which is perfectly entitled to repeal at any time of its choosing.

The case of Ireland and Checoslovakia are far more relevant as a comparison to the situation of Scotland than Catalonia or Quebec would ever be. Yet, surprise, surprise. Here you are still desperately attempting to distract attention from a very relevant case of Checoslovakia, which was actually a union, to bring it back to the cases of Catalonia and Quebec, which are just regions and integral part of a larger country, attempting to secede.

Andy Ellis

You go on and on about “recognition by the international community”, as if you knew what the other countries think and how geopolitics is going to play at a given moment in time.

How else do you think it works? there are no other directly comparable examples of part of an advanced democracy seeking and achieving independence. The examples we have involve the break up of post WW1 empires over a century ago, the independence of colonies post WW2 and the break up of multinational states like the USSR and Yugoslavia in the 1990’s.

The most common comparators for Scotland have long been recognised as Quebec, Catalonia and the Basque Country.

Of course none of us know what the exact circumstances will be. We didn’t know how indyref1 would pan out, anymore than we knew how the Catalan or Quebecois referendums would: we can however make inferences about what would happen from reactions to what has happened in the past in these cases and what happened in contested (largely successful) cases like Kosovo and Timor L’Este or unsuccessful cases like Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Transnistria and Somaliland.

That is preposterous. The international community will never see in the same way a region trying to secede, as it was the case of Catalonia, and a former state exercising its perfectly legitimate right under international law to repeal a treaty. I am sorry but you are trying to peddle nonsense here.

Not at all. It’s quite logical. The international community neither knows nor cares about the minutiae of British, Scottish and English history, or Catalan and Spanish history. They may exhibit some similarities and some differences, but EVERY case of self determination rests on the same bases and is guided by the same principles of international law.

Many currently independent countries had never ever been independent in the whole of history. The fact Catalonia has never been an independent state whereas Scotland has is irrelevant. Scotland doesn’t get special treatment because of it’s colourful past. the international community didn’t treat Poland differently from Estonia or Slovenia just because only Poland had a history of being independent before. You’re floundering here.

Mia

You say that “The most common comparators for Scotland have long been recognised as Quebec, Catalonia and the Basque Country”

I ask, recognised by whom? This can only be the case if those people people do not have a clue about the actual situations of Scotland and those three other entities.

I am incredibly surprised that you find a bigger parallelism between The Basque country, Catalonia, and even Quebec to Scotland than the more than obvious parallelisms between Ireland and Scotland.

Ireland was part of the exact same Westminster parliament that Scotland is still part off, Ireland was subjected to the exact same laws as Scotland until its independence, and Ireland was subjected to the exact same government and political system as Scotland currently is. We are trying to overcome the same political system that Ireland successfully overcame last century. The thing is, nothing has changed much since Ireland left.

Come on, you surely have to see that it is ridiculous for you to carefully leave Ireland out of the comparison.

I admit I do not know an awful lot about Quebec, other than it is currently a province which was initially a French colony and then became a British colony.

I will read more about it, but what I do know is that it had an “Act of Union”. But this is just part of domestic legislation, like the “Act of Union” with Ireland, which was also a British dominion, was.

For what I have read so far, it does not look like Quebec ever had an actual international treaty of union like the one Scotland currently has. In other words, Quebec never entered that “union” as a sovereign state, but rather as a dominion, just like Ireland. This is a very, very different situation to Scotland’s which entered an international treaty as a sovereign state.

Please note, I am not by any means whatsoever disputing the right of Quebec to seek independence. I am only stating that its situation is very different to the one Scotland finds itself in.

Where I know a little bit more is about Catalonia and the Basque Country. These are most definitely completely different cases to Scotland.

For starters, they are both regions of a country. They were never part of any international political union or anything of the sort, like Scotland is in a union with England.

Secondly, both were subjected to military conquest, they were annexed, not “united”.

Thirdly, both, Catalonia and the Basque Country do not only look to secede from Spain. They actually also claim territory that currently belongs to France. In other words, their current territorial boundaries have completely changed to what they were before the annexation had taken place.

Neither Catalonia nor the Basque country are or, as far as I know, ever were “dominions”, like Quebec was. They were military annexed.

Their situation, the same as Quebec’s is completely different to Scotland’s situation. You seem to be unnecessarily overcomplicating things here.

The only thing Scotland has to do to recover its statehood is to revoke an international treaty. That is it.

The problem we currently have is that none of those who call themselves our “representatives”, despite what they were elected for, have the guts to actually deliver or facilitate a mechanism to effect that revocation of the treaty, never mind to allow the will of the people of Scotland to be stated.

What those people have been doing for the last 10 years is simply passing the hot potato to Westminster knowing that Westminster will never do anything about it because it is in its vested interest to retain Scotland as England’s cash cow.

Our obstacle is not the international community. It never was. Our main obstacle are the useless so called “Scotland’s” “representatives” who have been deliberately blocking the route by sitting in Holyrood completely wrapped in the Scotland Act, and by sitting in Westminster wrapped in the English convention of “parliamentary sovereignty”.

Mia

I have tried to reply to this comment three times already, but they keep being sent to moderation.

I will try again later.

Andy Ellis

When Checoslovakia’s MPs decided to end the united state, they did not revert to the original status of those provinces as separate entities, which is what you would expect would happen should a treaty have been terminated. 

Bohemia and Moravia were always regarded as the historic Czech lands forming the Kingdom of Bohemia. Sub-carpathian Ruthenia was ceded to the USSR post WW2 and was in any case overwhelmingly Ruthenian and Hungarian in ethnicity: it was something of an oddity that the Czechs managed to bolt it on to their newly independent state in 1918.

Although it’s doubtful there was popular support in either country for the Velvet Divorce, neither was there significant opposition. As there was no dispute between Prague and Bratislava, and no prospect to them agreeing on the future shape of the federation, the Velvet Divorce was enacted by the governments of both sides over the heads of the people.

As we’ve seen elsewhere, the international community isn’t generally keen to intervene against legitimate governments to try and impose solutions, as was seen in Kosovo and Timor L’Este.

Things may have worked out differently if either the Czechs of Slovaks had disagreed and there had been a dispute, or significant popular opposition, but there wasn’t.

Of course, you and others who think it’s the way to go are free to try and convince the SNP to “do a Slovakia”, or form a party or movement which will make it so. Or perhaps you think the Kosovar route is preferable? I suspect the prospect of an independent Scotland gaining international recognition in such circumstances are remote: even less than Kosovo in fact whose independence is still not recognised by many states.

Go do, as they say. Many of the usual suspects in here keep insisting I don’t speak for the movement or for the international community which is of course true and not something I ever claimed. It’s simply based on the facts at hand, precedent and experience and the total lack of any evidence in support of the contrary position.

The onus is on you and them to “show us the beef” as the old burger advert used to say.

We’re still waiting…..

Instead of this, those MPs, by themselves, created two completely de nuovo states that had not existed as such before!

Not so. The Slovaks (briefly) had their own state during WW2, although it was a puppet of the Nazi regime and lost significant territory to Hungary. Czechia is to all intents and purposes what used to be the Kingdom of Bohemia from Hapsburg days.

The case of Ireland and Checoslovakia are far more relevant as a comparison to the situation of Scotland than Catalonia or Quebec would ever be. Yet, surprise, surprise. Here you are still desperately attempting to distract attention from a very relevant case of Checoslovakia, which was actually a union, to bring it back to the cases of Catalonia and Quebec, which are just regions and integral part of a larger country, attempting to secede.

Czechoslovakia was a federal state, not a union, so wrong again. It’s not a relevant comparator because BOTH the Czech and Slovak political leadership supported dissolution of the federation when they couldn’t agree on how the federation should be reformed. The Slovaks wanted a very loose confederation, the Czechs wanted a “viable federation” implying tighter co-operation.

The distinction you try to make between regions which you assert are just integral parts of a larger country and parts of a union like Scotland and (erroneously) Slovakia is quite simply utterly false.

The International community and international law makes no such distinction anyway. Self determination is a jus cogens available to any self identifying people, irrespective of their historical situation or their current political arrangements.

James

Facts, eh?

They mean nothing to a Franchise Fanny.

This subject MUST NOT be discussed.

Roll up roll up, get your ballot paper at the border…

willie

And meanwhile our democratically mandated Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has today just signed up a 100 year partnership with Ukraine in terms of defence, the economy and healthcare

Social ties too declared unelected President Zelensky as he crowed about the billions of aid already provided by Britain.

So there we are folks. Your votes count. Out of the EU we are now blood brothers with Ukraine.

Thank you Sir Keir our taxes and heating cuts are not in vain. Surprised Swinney wasn’t in on the act as a batman to the signing of the 100 year deal.

rob

who cars about tories labour or any of the english based parties,,,,,,,,,not me,,,,,,,,,, you can big up any of them i care not a jot,,,,,,,,,,,,in fact big up the lot, they are all just ("Quizmaster" - Ed)s in fancy dress after all.

Aidan

Good to see that the Harvie/Slater co-leadership is about as popular as the coronavirus!

agent X

As an aside I note that The National has removed the ceasefire from their online main articles and it barely gets a mention now. The King is dominant.

Hatey McHateface

Maybe in the words of the famous saying (slightly modified), it’s a good day to bury good news.

Vivian O’Blivion

Massive, YouGov, MRP poll has Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht – Vernunft und Gerechtigkeit (BSW) at 6%, breaking the ceiling for representation at the Bundestag and getting 45 MdBs. Perhaps more importantly, Die Linke, get zero seats. BSW has won the battle of the left.

?Combined with the populist right (AfD, 2nd largest party at 146 seats), the populist block would comprise 30% of seats. Difficult for the centre and the German, Permanent State to ignore and sideline, but I’m sure they’ll manage. Expect dirty tricks.

Andy Ellis

The Germans have a history of Grand Coalitions though, so it won’t seem that outlandish to them. Parties representing 70% of the electorate (or a subset of them) co-operating to ensure parties representing 30% of the electorate who are knowingly supporting populism is the essence of democracy.

Parties of the right and centre in the Weimar republic cosying up to the NSDAP and thinking they could contain/control them didn’t really work out to well for the Germans in the past.

Hatey McHateface

I’m surprised nobody has commented on the implications for Indy of Starmer’s announcement yesterday of his “Historic 100-Year Partnership”.

There are a number of things the alert reader can infer from his speech. The first is that Starmer’s an eejit, but then just about all alert readers would have already known that.

The key take home is that Starmer obviously expects the UK to hold together until at least 2125. How else could he, as PM of the UK, make a 100-year commitment?

As I wrote, where’s the outraged anguish on here? Is nobody paying attention?

agent X

Speaking in an interview with the Scottish Sun, John Swinney was asked: “When will Scotland next vote on independence?”

He then responded: “Soon.”

There you are.

sarah

Is anyone holding their breath? [I’m not.]

100%Yes

I’m 100%Sure Swinney meant monsoon, the guy is a moron. I’m absolutely in dread of next year elelction their becomes a collision between British Labour and the SNP. Warning our politicians will say and do anything to get your vote the after all bet are off, I would trust any of them and neither should you.

Mia

It all depends on the context he had in mind, of course. For example, 100 years from now, in geological terms, might be considered as “imminent”.

gregor

Of course…

SWINNEYDREVIL
Dan

@muscleguy

If climate change and