The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The telescope’s eye

Posted on October 26, 2020 by

Unlike the Hulk, this site very much prefers Andrew Tickell (previously Lallands Peat Worrier) when he’s angry, as opposed to his rather more customary appearance these days as a hearty and affable chronicler of life from the cosy perspective of someone embarking on a lifelong career in Scotland’s well-fed academic/media/legal elite.

He’s on fine fettle as the former in The National today:

The paragraph above is unfailingly true. But if Tories don’t even care about being seen to starve hungry children – just about the most monstrous, inhuman thing imaginable, as Tickell notes in cold, eloquent fury – it completely escapes our understanding why a substantial proportion of people still appear to believe they’ll give Scotland a second referendum out of some sense of morality and decency, just because they’ll have lost yet another election in a country that hasn’t voted Tory in the best part of 70 years.

We’re running out of time. We need a better plan.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 26 10 20 11:56

      The telescope’s eye | speymouth

    87 to “The telescope’s eye”

    1. shug says:

      I guess if they decline to allow another referendum that very act will drive support up even further allowing the SG to move to plan B. They would also lose face in the international community.

      Plan B will follow Craig Murray. This will only be successful if the bulk of the people support it and Westminster refusing Indyref 2willprovide the required support

      Just a thought

    2. Andrew F says:

      They believe because they want to believe.

      To accept the truth would be too painful, so they simply don’t.

      That can go on for a very long time if managed carefully – and this “management” is where the SNP excels for now.

    3. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I guess if they decline to allow another referendum that very act will drive support up even further allowing the SG to move to plan B.”

      The SNP is bitterly opposed to having a Plan B.

      But if we wait until after the election to have one it’ll be far too late anyway.

    4. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      Why people still see politics as policies and truth instead of a battle between pathologies on both/all sides is beyond me. The extremes of weirdness we are seeing in governments here and down south are probably the most extreme and divisive and irreconcilable I have ever seen in my lifetime. Were the consequences not so deadly serious for the working classes being ignored by both spectrum extremes, I would almost find it bleakly funny.

    5. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Were the consequences not so deadly serious for the working classes being ignored by both spectrum extremes, I would almost find it bleakly funny.”

      Mmm. We’re living in a cross between “1984” and “Idiocracy” at the moment and I don’t care for it. The first time I saw the latter movie I thought it was crude and crass and unfunny. It’s still unfunny, but in a very different way now.

    6. Alison Brown says:

      I thought plan B was to make the May Election an independence referendum – if we get a clear majority of pro Indy votes from pro Indy parties with clear manifestos then it’s a done deal. Their wretched section 30 must be demanded in January and if refused (as it will be!) then the campaign starts for May. There really is no other option – come on Alex we need you back.

    7. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      It’s unfunny when Ow! My Balls! is not a satiric telly show title from that film, but instead is a party political broadcast from our government. 🙂

    8. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I thought plan B was to make the May Election an independence referendum”

      When originally mooted, it was to adopt that policy AFTER the May election, IF winning the election and asking nicely for a Section 30 again didn’t work, ie to do it at the NEXT election. Perhaps that’ll change when it actually gets debated at the pretend conference.

    9. weegie42 says:

      let’s stop this nonsense about second referendum, now. Ain’t gonna happen. Tories are inured to all things society finds essential so why would they pursue something which will cost them. Let’s go straight for Independence. We are a separate country we voted (?) ourselves into this Union so we can vote ourselves out of it, via Holyrood election, a majority for independence is mandate enough. Stop waffling on about what “colour of curtains” we will have after Independence. Focus on Independence solely and vote for what kind of society/country/currency we want after we have Independence.

    10. Denise says:

      S30 is not an option. It’s not happening and anyone that says it is, is lying. In the Spring I’m sure we will get a lot of Journalists talking about ‘sources say the position is unsustainable’ and low ranking MPs suggesting a s30 might be forthcoming – to ensure the manifesto is nothing more than ‘ask nicely’. And it really doesn’t matter how conference votes the manifesto is written by someone appointed by Nicola and they can weasel and ignore the vote.

      So this is how it will go…
      SNP win big next May with a wiggle room commitment to an indyref.
      Late 2021 yet another Holyrood vote for an indyref.
      2022 ask Johnston for a section 30.
      Towards summer 2022 Johnston says No.
      Summer campaign on ‘tell Johnston we want an indyref’ and a fund raising campaign.
      Bleeds into winter and now it’s 2023
      Focus on GE 2024 another mandate/ hung parliament/ Keir Starmer will give an indyref Etc etc
      Tories win in 2024 with manifesto commitment to no s30
      Focus now on Holyrood 2025

      And the same conversations we are having Now.

    11. Robert Graham says:

      The Deflection of Tory MPs voting to prevent giving children in England a free school meal out of term time and continuing the scheme that was set up and used during the Summer holidays it’s all a contrived diversion to keep everyone occupied and stop asking uncomfortable questions .

      This look at what the bad Tory government are doing neatly covers up the mind boggling amount of money misappropriated by awarding uncontested and as has been discovered No bid or totally No scrutiny contracts to companies that have been trading for a few weeks and have no history or track record delivering the service they have given millions to deliver , its like kids being allowed a free run in a Sweet Shop , the Tory Mafia can’t believe their luck , free money and your kids are picking up the bill , because it definitely ain’t them or their family’s ,

    12. Stuart MacKay says:

      For the conservatives who pray at the alter of Market Forces the Internal Market Bill is a stroke of genius. None of the devolved administrations will be able to ban imports from other parts of the UK. Take for example, low cost, extremely high fat crisps. Whether solid reasons for a ban on health grounds exists or not they will insist it should be left to the market to decide.

      In one stroke a large part of the value of having a government is gone never to return. You get rid of a lefty, paternalistic approach to government, which all Tories hate because it’s the only defence that a lot of people have against the machinations of the rich. With an inability to regulate then what’s the point of having a toothless government. And, voila, the independence problem is solved as well as there will be no organisation with the clout to offer an alternative vision for the future or the means to implement it.

    13. Astonished says:

      Dump the wokeratti and it’ll all fall into place.

      More and more folk are raging about the mess were in.

      May I take this opportunity to remind Ian “hot air” blackford that we are being dragged out of the EU against our will. And he is still doing nothing.

    14. ClanDonald says:

      Dom and Boris still think they can get away with breaking international law and breaching the Good Friday Agreement.

      Yet indy supporters think they’ll fold on receipt of a mere letter and grant a section 30?

      Why would they? What’s in it for them? You think the opinion of a million or two Jocks from the outer reaches of Northern Jocko land matters to them? And what are we going to do about it when they say no anyway? Whinge to the media that they control?

      Of course they’re not going to grant a section 30. If you were a London-based Tory would you? I wouldn’t.

      Anyone in the SNP still punting the Section 30 line is either too thick to be someone we want representing us or they don’t actually want independence.

      Or someone with their bum on a cosy, warm green bench who’s hoping for another few years at the well-paid trough (looking at you, Pete Wishart)

    15. Garrion says:

      So how can a competent nationwide political organization committed to independence come into being when that space is firmly in the hands of the SNP(ScotLab version)?

    16. Nell G says:

      The Leadership will never seek a Plan B or force a Plan A for that matter. Who in their right minds would vote for them in an independent Scotland? They most probably know this although god knows what goes on in Nicola’s head.

      No, it suits their agenda to remain in the UK unchallenged by Westminster and the Unionist press in an unholy pact, based on the condition that they never strive for Independence. It’s a win for both sides. Not having to answer to the EU in a post-Brexit world only means they can implement the kind of Rainbow fascist policies they could only have dreamed of previously.

      I can’t see how the SNP can be saved at this stage. Even with JC or Alex taking control, Sturgeon’s simpletons are too great in number and when the truth unfolds I suspect many of them will turn to Unionist parties rather than support a real pro-independence leader. The rot has taken hold and is now gangrenous.

      We need radical intervention i.e. a new party, however, I feel the SNP will be given until the end of next year to move on Indy. When that fails I suspect the new party will have to be formed as only the most gullible will continue to offer support beyond this although nothing would surprise me at this stage.

    17. Helen Yates says:

      I’m firmly of the belief now that the only way Scotlands independence could ever be restored would be by the people rising up and demanding it, sadly it would seem that even that avenue has been removed, our government has got us all well and truly tied down, I no longer have any hope of seeing Indy and therefore I see no sense in voting at all, it wouldn’t matter if the polls showed 80% support continually, without a government serious about Independence and a population frightened to leave their homes I can’t for the life of me see how it could possibly ever become a reality.

    18. Andy Ellis says:

      @Neil G

      I don’t think we cannot should wait for another year to start the formation of a new party. It’s now self evident to many of us that the SNP is no longer fit for purpose. The chances are we’re already too late to force the issue by making Holyrood’s 2021 election plebiscitary: the SNP leadership will never agree to using that as Plan B, and the rank and file membership lacks the means, the will and the leadership to make the party change course in time.

      As a result, those of us horrified at the lack of appetite exhibited by the SNP need another voice. It has to be a new party, with some big hitters, and it has to be prepared to stand in both constituency and list seats for the Holyrood election after 2021. I think it should simply ignore Westminster and stand only for Holyrood on the basis that it’s pointless being involved. The new party’s aim should be to assert our sovereignty in accordance with Stu’s “Declaration of Bath”.

    19. John Jones says:

      Just read Iain Lawson’s blog, having to sit down to get my mind back in focus.
      Are there any politicians left who are not contaminated by the master controllers, why on earth do we want independence when it will just be more of the same? Is it possible to find enough nearly honest people to follow and support in order to finally achieve Indy?

    20. Beaker says:

      I wonder if the SNP leadership are deliberately trying not to win a majority next year.

      Swinney now saying that he may ban students from being with their families at Christmas, yet at the weekend talking about staggered returns (which makes more sense).

      Just hope the SG don’t decide to follow the example of Wales…

    21. ahundredthidiot says:

      If the Tories are so evil as to starve hungry kids, why would they give a shit about the elderly in a pandemic, yet appear to do so?…..I find that curious, while accepting the premise that Tories don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves, so I am hardly making excuses for them.

      Meanwhile, John Swinney says dont give weans sweeties, cos of the ‘coronavirus’, yet, like every other politician, allows the mail to flow freely with peoples slabbers all over their letters and card shops still selling (and always did) envelopes that require the gob. (we have cowardly police officers calling this ‘assault’)

      Maybe the Great 2020 Pandemic is not all it’s cracked up to be with approximately one twentieth of one percent of the population, actually dying and a UK population incapable of having a grown up, mature conversation about death. Who knew what, when, will be the question. The NHS now stands for No Health Service and people continue to die because of it. GPs are empty still.

      Perhaps in 2025 there will be a Crimes against Humanity trial – the politicians behind this killing of the population should be in the dock – John Swinney amongst them.

      Prick used to be a good guy, too.

    22. Robert Graham says:

      I just read a Tweet from Our I am ok Pete MP the Rev posted .

      Maybe it would have been better for all Independence supporters it Pete had joined another band at least he might have had some entertainment value doing what he’s maybe reasonably good at .

      Because for Christ Sake as a MP please share with everyone here your achievements in all the years you have lived a desperate existence in probably one of the richest in cultural availability an one of the most diverse cities in the world , aye we feel your pain Pete , we are truly grateful that you are slavishly working on our behalf , a Medal and and a generous Pension is not really enough is it Pete what else can we shower on you to alleviate your pain ? .

    23. David R says:

      Take it he has evidence to back up the claim that it’s mainly women that are “trying to keep body and soul together for their families”

    24. Republicofscotland says:

      I personally think we’re already out of time, if the May elections aren’t doubled up as a indyref, then you can kiss independence goodbye for good, think I’m exaggerating? Then show me where independence will come from next year, or the year after etc.

    25. robertknight says:

      S30 is a convenient excuse for both WM and HR to keep on kicking the IndyRef2 can down the road, nothing more.

      I know it sounds ludicrous, but imagine living in a country rich in natural and human resources, and yet children go to bed and go to school feeling hungry.

      In reality you don’t need to imagine… you just need to look out the window.

    26. Robert Graham says:

      Any calls for a inquiry into the widespread Theft of Millions from the Taxpayers in this country and the criminally inept handling of this present situation , Laughter all round any Judge appointed to lead a Joke Whitewash Inquiry will be closely involved with the ones being Questioned ,

      Will any Inquiry uncover the Truth Ha Ha a simple glance at the Legal shenanigans preventing discovery and disclosure of relevant facts I would draw attention to the on going Inquiry into the Fire that caused so many deaths in the Grenfell tower block in London .

      Any Judicial review or Inquiry into anything that might cause discomfort for people with power and influence has only one aim right from the start protection of the guilty that is the Primary Aim , END OF the entertainment value is limitless fine words all meant to Polish a Turd .

    27. Neil Mackenzie says:

      I understand why Theresa May got away with it.

      May didn’t “refuse to allow” a second independence referendum. All she did was agree, verbatim, with the wording Nicola Sturgeon used in her representation of Scotland’s democratic will to exercise the legal right to freely choose sovereignty and international status to Westminster on our behalf. May was only able to say “Now is not the time” because Sturgeon handed her the loophole on a platter by suggesting it in the letter.

      At the time I was ready to believe it was a terrible blunder on the part of the First Minister. On reflection, however, seeing her underwhelming non-response to refusal from Boris and considering Nicola Sturgeon was a lawyer for several years before being elected to Holyrood, I’m no longer willing to assume that it wasn’t a deliberate sabotage.

      I do not understand why Boris is getting away with denying us our right of self determination under the law derived from the United Nations Charter.

      Q: Since when did legal rights need “permission” from the UK Prime Minister?

      A: They don’t and never have.

      David Cameron agreed to the 2014 referendum because he had to. It wasn’t a choice he made. It was a legal requirement to comply with international law. Johnson has no more authority to deny us our right to self determination than Cameron had. The difference is that Cameron didn’t break the law and Johnson did. The law gives us permission, already, and to comply with the law, Boris has the legal duty to enable our right to freely choose by administering the necessary powers appropriately. It’s a clerical job – not a political decision and that how the narrative of this saga should always have told it.

    28. Willie says:

      Too tight Clan Donald. If her Majesty’s Government can tear up an international agreement like the Good Friday Agreement they’ll certainly have no hesitation whatsoever in rejecting Jocko’s demand for a Section 30.

      More so when they have effectively neutered the independence movement and it’s so called premier party the SNP with Indy lite wokes.

    29. Daisy Walker says:

      @ Denise

      Johnston will not say ‘no’ to a section 30 order. He will prevaricate and / or say ‘now is not the time’ once in a generation, blah,blah,blah…

      And that is all he needs to do.

      Any request by ScotGov before May Holyrood election for a S30 order has got to be time barred, and a no reply, or unclear reply is taken as an Official Refusal and used in the election campaign as such.

      Be aware that whoever is in charge of the SNP first half of next year, if they submit the request, and do so in a way that does not have the above proviso – they are at it.

    30. Nell G says:

      Andy Ellis@ 12:31 pm

      You don’t need to convince me as I’m 100% for a new party now. I just don’t think the population en-masse have woken up to the charade of Nicola at this stage. I’m shocked at how gullible and easily manipulated people are and I don’t shock easily. I think there won’t be appetite to support a new party by the general population until after May, that’s just an honest assessment.

      It doesn’t help that those in the SNP who do believe in Independence (save a few) are not sticking their heads above the parapet and do what is right for the Country by exposing these charlatans. They are just a culpable in my opinion by allowing shit show to continue without challenge and just highlights that they are totally self-serving. The Nation is at stake here yet complete silence. They will not be forgiven!

    31. Mist001 says:

      People deserve a comfortable life but it’s a double edged sword because people now are too comfortable. They’re far better off financially than they were 40 years ago, there’s Ant and Dec on the telly, they have their 4WD outside and all the rest.

      All of this has been delivered under the Tories, so if people think their lives are alright, then why should they upset the apple cart by doing something crazy like voting Labour or changing things?

      And that’s precisely why the Tories can get away with starving children, because to the average person sitting in their house on a Saturday night watching And and Dec and having a couple of beers, its someone elses problem, not theirs.

      I’m alright, Jack.

    32. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      Ahundredthidiot – not many Tory voters among people with starving families. A lot of elderly people do vote for them, however. Pretending to care about them makes practical sense.

    33. Monastic Ned says:

      “We’re living in a cross between “1984” and “Idiocracy” at the moment”

      For me it’s a cross between “Atlas Shrugged” and “Pink Flamingos”. Ordinary, decent people getting squeezed between two forms of extremist depravity. I would emigrate but to where? Seems like the whole world’s gone nuts.

    34. osakisushi says:

      It’s funny. I thought I knew all the slang words for “prick”, then along came Pete Wishart. Why is he so afraid of standing up for Scotland?

    35. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andrew Tickell may talk a good game, but he’s simply a bit out-of-date when it comes to constitutional law and stuff. He also appears to be convinced that Westminster retains legal authority over Scotland, despite Brexit. Subsequently, he appears to be a bit of a parochially minded legal positivist, so is unlikely to be able to support the rule-of-law or democracy.

    36. If this is an equal Union why do we need permission to hold a ref., from anyone ???

    37. Republicofscotland says:

      Well for the past number of years Sturgeon fooled most of us beautifully, even today there’s countless folk who think she’ll somehow lead us to independence, she really done a number on us.

      Anyway those lost years, sitting on the edge of our seats as she and Blackford spewed out angry sound bite after angry sound bite that Scotland wasn’t going to stand for it on one thing or another really had us pumping our fists in the air and yelling inside, Yeah, not long now to independence Nicola’s gonna give to them soon.

      Sadly reality has taken over and in the cold light of day, we can now see, well some of us anyway that our chance has passed for independence, albeit in the event of a miracle at next years elections coinciding with Sturgeon and Murrell and their clique buggering off, and a independence minded leader pushing hard for independence next year, which in my opinion seems unlikely.

      Post 31st of December the Tories will be rolling out all manner of shit to negate Holyrood, whilst their men/women inside Holyrood do the same, this coming election is in my opinion the last glimmer of hope, but with Sturgeon at the helm the glimmer will soon fade.

      Its all over bar the shouting in my opinion.

    38. Why is my comment awaiting moderation ???there is nothing offensive in it ???

    39. Breastplate says:

      Unfortunately, I agree with others that we have already run out of time for an indyref this side or up to the May HE.
      We need to contest the regional seats this election, the next election we need to contest regional and constituency seats.
      The penny will have dropped for many people by then that the SNP are only interested in a token effort regarding self determination.
      If the SNP wakes up and realises that they are on the same but accelerated path as Scottish Labour and manage to change tack by securing a means to independence, then all well and good.

    40. David R says:

      Seen a lot of noise from Labour regarding provision of free school meals during holidays and may have passed me by however is this something that was in place when labour was in power.

      If they and others now see this as something that should be provided then they need to come up with how it will be paid for and staffed. Could find that handing the provision of school meals to a private company is on the surface the best option (only to be bit on the arse further down the road)

    41. CameronB Brodie says:

      Seriously folks, I appreciate Andrew Tickell is a professor of law, but he simply appears to be a low-flying devotee of British constitutionalism, which is now openly hostile towards international law. If your man wasn’t simply a bit of a posser, he might be able to make a difference. As, “‘It’s what you do that makes a difference’ An interpretative phenomenological analysis of health care professionals and home care workers experiences of nutritional care for people living with dementia at home”.

    42. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Why is my comment awaiting moderation ???there is nothing offensive in it ???”

      No. However, there was something extremely offensive in this one:

      “Nearly all these freaks who want to stand are foreign they do not belong here only true Scots born and bred here of Scottish parents should be allowed to stand to rule Scotland not interlopers go back to where their country and sort out its problems I for one do not want you here if I had my way I would deport the whole lot of you you contribute nothing but troble”

      and therefore you can no longer be trusted to comment without supervision. If you don’t like that, tough.

    43. David Holden says:

      Oh god who woke up the Wiki monster troll.

    44. LeggyPeggy says:

      The Tories will always look after the tories and what is to them if some children go to bed hungry at night , they would have children back up chimneys if they could . They don’t have one ounce of compassion in their soul for “ ordinary “ working folk . They’ll only look after the “ money “ men

      What amazes me is the areas in the north of England that voted for them where Thatcher closed all all the industries down just as she did in Scotland .

      I suspect that Boris Johnson will be gone after January 1st as he was the “clown character “ that got their Brexit deal through and they’ll stab in him in the back and get rid of him and it’ll be someone even more heartless than Bojo in no 10 .

      We can forget about any of them giving a section 30 to us and this where Nicola Sturgeon went down the wrong path in 2017 when T May said “ now is not the time “ then announce the election in 2017 and the Snp had their lacklustre campaign and lost seats in Westminster . We will never get a anywhere by keeping our Mps in London.

      Our fight for independence should be happening in Holyrood and unfortunately that’s not happening just now with the Snp party while Nicola Sturgeon is the leader of the Snp .

    45. CameronB Brodie says:

      David Holden
      Given the only links provided have come from Ian B and myself, I’ll assume your snark is directed against myself. Do you actually have a legally informed opinion, or are you simply hostile to knowledge that can help support public health and democracy?

    46. Andy Ellis says:

      @Spameron Brodie

      Who to trust:

      A) the highly regarded law lecturer who specialises in constitutional law.

      B) the PTSD suffering town planning specialist who spends all day spamming and derailing someone else’s blog and abusing anyone who tries to remonstrate with his abusive and risible claims of his own intellectual superiority and educational purpose.

      It’s a conundrum right enough. 🙂

    47. If you don’t like it tough ???well you see Stu sometimes telling the truth is offensive to those who deny it what I say I honestly believe but if you prefer to bow to those who find that a threat so be it I have been on here almost since day 1 and do not use swear words or have ever tried to belittle a fellow blogger becausbe I did not agree with their views or theirs with mine but if this is the way this site is going then as Pro., Robertson used to say I wish you all in the Islands and Highlands in lowlands and borders a very good night or my case good bye

    48. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      You have no training in law, so I’d be daft to consider your judgement competent.

    49. ElGordo says:

      If the Tories can ignore the demands for free school meals for the 4.2m children living in poverty across the UK, they can certainly ignore the polite request for a section 30 from the SNP and the occasional show of support from less than 2m nationalists.

      Separatists who have in recent years been generously granted a referendum, with the promise that this was a once in a lifetime event.

      Over the coming years the people of Scotland would be better served by focusing on its post covid (brexit) economic recovery, than further division and further distraction from getting on with the day job.

    50. CameronB Brodie says:

      If your man Andy Ellis was genuine, he would not be attacking my position, which respects “The Foundation of International Human Rights Law”. It’s as simple as that.

    51. A Person says:

      -Shug man, come on! If they refuse to accept a referendum, then that’ll increase support for independence, so then we’ll ask for another referendum , and they’ll refuse… repeat as nauseam… it doesn’t matter if support for independence is at 329% if we never have a means of getting to it.

    52. wullie says:

      If England wanted to dissolve the union would they ask Scotland for an S30

    53. winifred mccartney says:

      If we must ask for S30 then ask for one in January and if permission not given before the election then the the election itself in May will be a plebiscite for Independence.

      We must move this on before it is too late.

    54. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “If you don’t like it tough ???well you see Stu sometimes telling the truth is offensive to those who deny it what I say I honestly believe but if you prefer to bow to those who find that a threat so be it I have been on here almost since day 1 and do not use swear words or have ever tried to belittle a fellow blogger becausbe I did not agree with their views or theirs with mine but if this is the way this site is going then as Pro., Robertson used to say I wish you all in the Islands and Highlands in lowlands and borders a very good night or my case good bye”

      A demand for the blanket repatriation of all foreign-born people is as unambiguously racist a position as can be imagined, and is not welcome here. Goodbye to you too.

    55. David Holden says:

      Trolling 101 Use lots of big words and post lots of links in the hope you are mistaken for being clever.

    56. Andy Ellis says:

      @Spameron Brodie

      I do have some legal training in fact. Certainly it is enough to know that I would sooner listen to and give credence to Peat Worriers bona fides in this matter (or indeed ANY matter I suspect) than yours.

      Your output here and your modus operandi in general tells us all we need to know about the weight we should attach to the product of your wiki mining, which appears to pass for argument in your imagination.

    57. Willie says:

      Good stuff Rev Stu for booting the racist commentators off the blog!

      Wings may be hard hitting but it’s accurate, well researched and honest commentary. Keep up the great work.

    58. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Your output here and your modus operandi in general tells us all we need to know about the weight we should attach to the product of your wiki mining, which appears to pass for argument in your imagination.”

      I’m just about on my last thread of patience with all concerned here. I’ll repeat myself once more, for the last time: enough with the personal shit, ALL of you. I don’t care who starts it. Tell me and I’ll deal with it, don’t retaliate yourself.

    59. CameronB Brodie says:

      David Holden
      My perspective is critically and legally informed, so I know how to defend my legal identity and rights. What about yourself? For instance, how would you go about answering the simply question of “Are Human Rights Important In Bioethics?”

    60. CameronB Brodie says:

      “I do have some legal training in fact.”

      That I very much doubt, or else your man would not be attacking me.

    61. Andy Ellis says:

      @Rev Stu

      As I’ve said frequently in the past, it’s your blog, do what you like.

      I’m beyond tired of that roaster abusing me and many others on here who object to his rantings. You appear indifferent to it or then get snarky with us when we object rather than deal with the real offender. It took him about a day to revert back to his usual behaviour after you warned him off last week.

      I give up frankly. It’s little better than Twitter, which is a shame.

    62. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “You appear indifferent to it or then get snarky with us when we object rather than deal with the real offender.”

      I put Cameron on pre-moderation last week when he refused to change his posting format. It’s changed now. You haven’t ever alerted me to objectionable posts of his to take action about. The rules are the same for everyone.

    63. CameronB Brodie says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell
      Can I risk being a pedant? I didn’t refuse to respond to your instruction, I simply missed them. I changed my practice as soon as you clarified things for me though, as I’m not here to cause trouble or simply rubbish others.

    64. Andy Ellis says:

      @Rev Stu

      The games not worth the candle for me any more. You see and have often reacted to Cameron’s output and his divisive impact: we shouldn’t have to clipe to you every time when it’s that obvious.

      To be honest, I’ve never understood why you were so patient with it, but it’s entirely your choice. More in sorrow than in anger I reckon I’ll leave you all to it. Spameron will doubtless be thrilled.

    65. CameronB Brodie says:

      “Cameron’s output and his divisive impact”

      I find it hard to accept Andy as a credible agent, as he appears hostile to post-colonial theory and a post-postivist approach to the law and legal practice.

    66. ahundredthidiot says:


      ‘not many Tory voters among people with starving families. A lot of elderly people do vote for them, however. Pretending to care about them makes practical sense.’

      This would be a fair enough point…….if we weren’t destroying the economy and printing billions of pounds out of thin air…….and on that point, all politicians seem to be on the same page….worrying.

    67. Corrado Mella says:

      I’m afraid there’s nothing left to do, for you, folks.

      Ca’canny has given the BritNazi Establishment all the time they needed to prepare.

      It’s over.

      Save a bloody, violent popular revolt that may drag for years, Scotland is skewered.

      Scunnered as I am, I also know when it’s time to abandon ship.

      And as I said before, coming from the very heart of a country where individualism and mors tua, vita mea reigns supreme, I know how to behave in shark infested waters.

      Sorry, I screamed at you for years to get things done quickly. Now you’ve turned into your worst enemy – and consequently mine.

      Good luck.

      Who am I kidding… I’ll have no pity.

    68. CameronB Brodie says:

      If Andy was capable of supporting democracy, do folk not think he might be able to prove his case? Does his inability to do so, not suggest something, or his determination to exclude me from the debate?

      Perhaps he’s simply not aware his perspective is rather narrow and limited. Of course, he could simply be hostile towards human rights and post-colonial legal practice, such as “Post Legal Positivism: New Paradigm of Legal Science (Jurisprudence) and Practice in Brazil”.

    69. cirsium says:

      @El Gordo, 2.07

      Over the coming years the people of Scotland would be better served by focusing on its post covid (brexit) economic recovery,

      Only independence will allow us to work on economic recovery.

    70. James Che. says:

      Weegie42 we did not vote to join the treaty of the union in 1707, and it is fact that England picked the Scottish commissioners, not the Scottish people, Scottish people and nation of Scotland protested against the treaty. Not one of the sovereign people in Scotland were even informed what was about to happen, they were scared to tell the Scottish people, when it leaked they had to bring up an English army to subdue the protesting people.
      As far as I can tell the elite got paid/bribed for signing themselves into a treaty,
      Not one sovereign Scot signed their name or even put a cross on any parchment paper to say we agree to a treaty, just the opposite.
      Legally the Scottish population were not asked,
      Legally we were deliberately excluded from the treaty of the union as the population and people of Scotland.
      How they they thought and decided in 1707 to keep it from the Scots, and eliminating any due process, even for those days, might come back to bite them in the back….

    71. stonefree says:

      I said a couple of days ago the Treaty is merely a contract, leading on to the Act.
      If a contract then ,accordingly if one party breached the other can seek redress or rescind the Treaty

    72. Mac says:

      There are so many interesting posts and posters to read here (without the spammers) it is overwhelming at times keeping up.

    73. somerled says:

      @James Che

      Can you explain what a Sovereign Scot is?

      You might disagree with the Treaty of Union but it was signed by Scottish nobles who were the main politicians of the day. Should every Treaty & agreement in history to be rewritten to include every modern voter? Having studied the Treaty at Dundee Uni, i disagree with your statement that ordinary people didnt know about it. There were debates in Guilds & Burgh councils throughout Scotland, some in favour for trade purposes, security etc and others against. While i agree Scotland hasnt always been treated equally, that is more because of Englands larger population and more MPs. The Labour Party is the real disappointment for not doing more for Scotland especially under Blair & Brown.

      We had a referendum in 2014 and the majority voted against Independence. While i think Indyref2 is a reasonable idea, i believe it is too soon and maybe in another 10 years or so. If Brexit is as bad
      as many Indy supporters seems to want, then there will be clear majority ie over 75%. If Brexit is succesful (as i hope it will be as it is definitely happening) then it will prove Scotland is better in the Union rather than in EU.

      Incidentally, some of the signatories of the Treaty were descendants of the same people who signed the Declaration of Arbroath so should that be ignored too because it was signed by aristocracy?

      Finally, one of the descendants of a signatory of the Treaty (the Earl of Balcarres) is Conservative Baroness Nicholson (her mother was a Lindsay from Fife) and she is doing a great job in the House of Lords working with women of all parties in the UK to protect women’s rights in the Equality Act, which women will lose in an Independent Scotland if the SNP get a majority next year and Indy follows. A vote for the SNP is a vote against women.

    74. Hatuey says:

      So, I read Craig Murray’s latest blogpost. My head hurts.

      He’s basically saying we need to isolate the elderly and those with underlying conditions and allow the rest of society to get back to normal.

      Here’s 200 reasons why I think he’s very wrong;

      Scroll through that Guardian page, look closely at the faces and ages of the people who died, then tell me we need to open up society and get back to work.

      Then he says this, and I realised I was wrong;

      “returning to the familiarity with and acceptance of death that characterised our ancestors, is something to which mankind may need to become re-accustomed…”

      He’s actually arguing for a suicide pact, not a return to normal, which is fair enough. I have no objections to that.

    75. velofello says:

      As acknowledged by many readers, Wings provides excellent accurate and truthful articles, trouble is the comment section is becoming less and less worthwhile reading due to little ping pong debates between some readers.

      A suggestion. Why don’t those indulging in personal debates exchange e-mail addresses and then you can continue your debate off-Wings,without troubling the rest of us?

    76. Saffron Robe says:

      somerled asks:

      Can you explain what a Sovereign Scot is?

      A Sovereign Scot is someone who believes in the sovereignty of Scotland i.e. that the governance of a nation should be by the people of that nation.

      Should every treaty & agreement in history be rewritten to include every modern voter?

      No treaty that is or was ever signed includes every voter. We are not asking for the Treaty of Union to be rewritten. The problem is that one of the co-signatories of the Treaty of Union is refusing to abide by that treaty. Not only are they refusing to abide by it, they are breaking it entirely through Brexit.

    77. Effijy says:

      The UK media has conditioned so many to gate people who need some help in life.
      I watched a TV show in a friends house, one of the many shows about people on the dole.
      Some had mental difficulties and some were wrecks due to drink and drug abuse and some
      Looked unemployable.

      The friends wife jumped on a poor soul as he had a dog for company and a roll up cigarette?
      So having some form of companionship and a please in a skinny role up means he is using up
      all the nations resources?

      God bless these people if they can exist on £10 per day.

      I would much rather the tax avoidance and off shore accounts were closed and brought in £Billions
      to the economy.

      Ratcliffe who owns Ineos has is worth £20 Billion, still raking it in as a Senior Citizen
      and looking at basing himself in Monaco to save on tax.

      I’d rather we stopped people like that who don’t want the less fortunate to exist or the NHS to be funded or poor kids to be fed.

    78. Al-Stuart says:

      Cameron Brodie, PLEASE would you give it a rest.

      There are VERY IMPORTANT MATTERS ABOUT SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE that need forensic analysis.

      Not once have I seen any of your output that adds to the debate in a digestible way. Your posts inspire a trip to the medicine tablet for the Rennie tablets or a swig of Gaviscon.

      I confess to be in support of Andy Ellis when he engages with you. Several, including the site owner have tried to help you be less boorish. Few, is any, seem to succeed.

      When I see your overloading each thread with these inane references, it becomes just another irritant like Shroedingers Cat.

      The fingers get sore and the eyes weary at SO MUCH SPAM from Cameron B Brodie.

      I do have legal training and the bona files to go with it. So after reading six of your links way back in the mists of time I discovered either you went down a rabbit hole of irrelevance, or you deployed a lazy way of self aggrandisement. Precious little of your output merits the self-entitled tag of being “legal”.

      Then, if folk distress your fragile ego, you start fighting with them.

      I just read Rev Stu. clearly giving you good advice on this thread. Because once you dropped those spammer links and started posting in a way that was digestible, you made some good points.

      If or possibly when Stuart Campbell gets scunnered of your winding-up Andy Ellis and bans you both, I will miss Andy. But Cameron, you are like a rabbit hole version of Shroedingers Cat. Someone that wastes space on this site and gives finger ache to those that have to scroll by your self-indulgent ramblings.

      I would prefer Stuart had his time to research articles and publish them on here than have to spend his valuable time referee to your inane wandering.

      Cameron, PLEASE get a grip. Scotland has a government run by a dishonest clique who are about to bring in 1984 Orwellian laws.

      CBB, did you not notice how the Wokerati got Stuart Campbell banned from Twitter? Do you not realise the McWokeist McWankers have a plan to close down Wings Over Scotland?

      This site and that of Craig Murray is amongst the last oasis of sense AND the place from whence the genesis of recovery to get Scottish Independence back on track will likely spring from.

      For what it is worth Cameron, there is an old adage…

      “Less is more”

      If the Rev has already whispered in your ear, maybe pay some attention to him?

      As for this fighting like ferrets in a sack, the site owner could be forgiven if he be heartily sick of sorting out the websites behind the scenes shouty matches.

      Last but not least, Andy Ellis, I enjoy reading your points. You have several that were a catalyst to interesting debate. For my tuppence wort, please keep posting on WoS.

      It is NOT my call to make. But there is a reason what folk read this website. There are brilliant, forensic articles and some very impressive BTL comments.

      Long may that continue.

      In short, Cameron have you thought of starting your own website and seeing how many readers flock to it? I suspect there would be a lot of flocking. But most of it when folk read the output and then flock off.

    79. Andy Ellis says:


      Thanks for your comment and supportive words. It’s pretty obvious Stu isn’t really interested in addressing the problem though, and I have better things to do than tolerate no-marks like Cameron, who obviously has a wee want about him.

      I may drop in now and then to read threads that interest me, but I’m bowing out for good with respect to BTL comments: it’s just not worth the effort anymore. The constant spamming by Spameron makes it harder and harder to see the good stuff amongst the sea of drivel posted.

      I wish all the reasonable and engaging posters BTL well: I have a sense you’re going to need all you patience. Mine ran out tonight.

    80. twathater says:

      I would agree with Al-Stuart in continuing to post Andy Ellis, I don’t always agree with your posts but as Al says they are informative and promote discussion, this site is so important to FIGHT FOR OUR INDEPENDENCE and EVERY soldier of freedom is needed in this fight,so keep us informed and edumacated by your continued presence and comments

    81. James Che. says:

      And that is where I stand, Promoting discussion, looking at every angle, from the unelected nobles that took it upon themselves to sell the nation of Scotland to line their pockets and duly received payment, except it was not theirs to sell. As for all of The ordinary every day Scot knowing about it, that’s not what history records, when the people eventually discovered what was happening they rioted, as history books state. Which Rabbie Burns in his famous lines states, Scotland was sold, for English gold.
      I would not call that consent by a long shot, if the consent was not given by the Scottish people then the remaining fact is, that only the nobles agreed and signed the treaty on their own behalf, for financial gain,
      So if the every day Scot in Scotland did not sign it, did not agree with it, protested it, rioted against it. It is not a treaty with the people of Scotland, it is a treaty with the nobles whom lived in Scotland.
      at that time, and signed it. History Facts are history facts.
      I do not disagree with treaties, in fact I think they should be respected,
      Which brings me to another point, their were only two kingdoms that signed the treaty of the union 1707, Wales was already annexed to England, I believe you could ask just about any one on this site how many times England’s government has broken that treaty since it was signed by the nobles, and I bet you will receive more than one answer, local Burroughs is one of them, law would another, devolution is another, you see when that treaty was signed against the will of the people, at least the nobles were meant to honour it, the very first break in the treaty that I found was the year after it was signed, and that was a change to laws.
      It doesn’t matter which way it’s looked at, either from the very beginning or as the situation stands now, the treaty of the union is not valid.

    82. James Che. says:

      Sovereignty is a peculiar thing in and to Scotland throughout history, and of corse it is referred to in the claim of right, as confirmed, and passed through Hansard in July 2018,
      It gives the Scottish people the right to choose whom governs them, be it monarch , government or the nation of Scottish people’s as one, as it does not state when we choose a new replacement, we have to keep the old sources of governance, it does not stipulate a time period or length of time,
      Again their are many contributors here that I know of, that can frame the wording better than I can,
      On the subject of voting, I agree that, not all possible voters were counted, but surely when a nation is not asked to vote on such an important issue, it was guaranteed to have bias outcome in favour of those who were promised monies if they voted in a certain way by commissioners selected by England’s nobility, the treaty of the union is the biggest scam that I know of in my opinion,
      and over three quarters of the population in Scotland had nothing to do with it,
      As to the 2014 vote to stay joined to England, ie, the treaty of the union, how could we vote to stay in it, when we never voted to join it in 1707,

    83. David Holden says:

      I am with Al-Stuart and others above Andy Ellis and will be sorry to see you go if you throw in the towel. Clogging up a blog with endless drivel is classic trolling and it seems to work. The troll has to get people to engage with it to work so best ignore it and do not feed the troll. I have seen it happen on a range of blogs and if anyone engages the troll you get caught in a swamp of crap and eventually lose the will to live. Sorry to see you go and all the best.

    84. Michael Laing says:

      I have been scrolling straight past Cameron Brodie’s posts on here for as long as I can remember. I think I’m a reasonably intelligent person – certainly above average – but I can’t make head nor tail of them. Also, I visit this site in order to find out what’s happening in Scotland (I don’t have a TV and don’t read the unionist newspapers) and to keep up with the latest news on our progress towards independence. I do not visit this site in search of arcane and irrelevant academic papers. If I wanted to strain my brain reading those, I would go to university and study “post-colonial theory and the post-positivist approach to law and legal practice”, whatever the hell that might be. The profusion and irrelevance of these comments is clearly deterring people from visiting this site and from taking it seriously.

      I have refrained from commenting on this issue previously as I don’t want to get drawn into personal attacks and abuse or to offend anyone unnecessarily, but I feel that comments on this site should be written in the clearest and most concise language possible, and be strictly relevant to the subject of the blog-post. I also feel that a maximum of perhaps two or three comments per person per post ought to be quite sufficient.

    85. Stuart says:

      I downloaded the SNP accounts from the Electoral Commission website. As someone who’s seen more than his share of company accounts they make peculiar reading, seemingly designed more to obscure rather than inform. On a cursory scan a few things jumped out at me:

      1) These accounts are for the year ended 31/12/19. Why are they being released 10 months later? This also implies that the AGM has not been held yet either. Companies are required to lodge accounts within 6 months (at least they are here in Australia, I assume similar in the UK) That’s for private and public companies, but in most listed public companies if the accounts were delayed that long there would be a shareholders’ revolt and the directors turfed out.

      2) These accounts are for the Head Office only and don’t include the local branches which these accounts refer to as “unconsolidated accounting units”. If the SNP was a public company it would be required to produce “consolidated financial statements” where the income & expenditure and assets & liabilities of all subsidiary companies (ie separate legal entities) are added together and intra-group transactions are eliminated. The purpose of this is so the profitability and financial position of the group as a whole can be visible and to limit scope for accounting skullduggery. In the case of the SNP I would expect the HO and the local branches to be part of the one legal entity, so the accounts should reflect all of the SNP’s activities. They don’t. Why the Electoral Commission allows this I don’t know. Are the branches separate legal entities who submit their accounts separately?

      After writing the above I saw Note 1 to the accounts that states “the SNP is not incorporated in law and thus not bound by the Companies Act 2006. The Party … is required to prepare financial statements in accordance with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000 (PPERA). … As stated in the Annual Review the Party has 292 accounting reporting units. …. These accounts are unconsolidated and present the accounts of the Central Party only.” While answering the question of why the accounts don’t comply with the Companies Act this raises a host of others. 292 accounting units? How about a list of them in the Annual Report – seems excessive in a small country like Scotland. Are the IndyRef funds parked in one of them? If so, why not include that in the Annual Report? Regardless of what minimal disclosure PPERA may allow I’d still want to see consolidated accounts and full disclosure to the standards of a public company. For example are there debts in those accounting units that the SNP are liable for? Where are the “ring-fenced” IndyRef money?

      3) The financial activities of SNP Head Office are relatively simple: they receive member dues, allocate monies to branches, pay salaries and office expenses. The election campaign of December 2019 adds a little more complexity but most of the expenditure would have been incurred a couple of weeks in advance and the invoices for printing, travel etc submitted promptly. Any competent accountant could have the accounts ready within 2 weeks or 4 at the most. The biggest delay is probably the availability of the auditor, for whom the SNP is not likely to be his most important client. However I would expect that the audited accounts could comfortably be available at the latest by 3 months and the AGM held within 4. This stuff about “we have to wait for the Electoral Commission to release the accounts” is nonsense. The Electoral Commission doesn’t audit the SNP’s accounts, at most it probably checks that the donations agree with those declared to it. The SNP’s primary duty is to its members and there is nothing to prevent it issuing the Annual Report and Accounts to members and holding its AGM without asking for the EC’s approval. I’d think that the SNP’s Articles of Association would have something to say about this.

      4) The first thing that strikes me about the Balance Sheet is how much white space there is and how little text. Current Assets and Current Liabilities (both totalling Pds2+million) consist of 2 lines each, the same amount of space as is devoted to furniture and computers totalling Pds134,400. In order to get details of the CA or CL items you have to dig into the footnotes. It’s almost as if they’re trying to hide something!

      The second thing to notice is that Current Liabilities (“CL”) of Pds1.225M exceeds Current Assets (“CA”) of Pds1.097M, meaning they are technically insolvent (and were so in 2018 too). “Current” refers to assets that can be realised and liabilities that are payable within the next 12 months. How has the SNP survived? Diving into Note 21 we find that the largest items are 357K in Trade Creditors and 582K in “Amounts owed to accounting units” ie the local branches. The bulk of the Trade Creditors presumably relate to the December 2019 election and since normal trade terms are 30 days and the 357K greatly exceeds the 97K in the bank the HO presumably either went into overdraft or delayed payment to the creditors. The 582K owed to the branches is why the SNP HO is still afloat. This appears to be mostly the branches’ 25% share of members’ 2019 subscriptions – 561,836. So HO collects the subscriptions this year and pays the branches their share of 2019 subscriptions out of 2020 subscriptions. Since they owed the branches 758K at 31/12/18 it seems this questionable practice has been going on for some time.

      5) Turning to the Current Assets, there are 67K in Trade Debtors and 54K in Other Debtors. I suppose the Other Debtors could represent legacies they’ve been notified about but not yet paid, however I’d have thought it more prudent to book those as income only when the cash is in the bank. As for Trade Debtors it’s difficult to imagine what these might be for a political party unless they’ve been accepting ads in the party magazine and election literature. But the lion’s share of the 1M in CA is 879K in Prepayments and Accrued Income. Prepayments are expenses that you pay for in advance, such as insurance, mobile phone and internet usage, however it’s hard to see them adding up to 879K. It’s also difficult to see what the accrued income could be unless it relates to Short Money or Holyrood grants that are being recorded as income in advance of actually receiving the money. If so, why not say so?

      6) The IndyRef funds are not the only funds supposedly “ring-fenced” but aren’t. The accounts state that the Parliamentary Levy is “ring-fenced for national campaign purposes”. With both an EU and a HoC election in 2019 I’d expect all those funds to be spent by 31/12/19, however there should have been money in the “ring-fenced” fund at 31/12/18. Maybe it’s part of the 411K cash in the bank but I’d want it to be in a separate bank account disclosed as a separate line item and with a reconciliation of the movement in that account during the year.

      It is clear to me from the above that the Head Office is hopelessly insolvent and the only way out of this is for the branches to forgive the outstanding branch share of dues on the basis that their share will be paid promptly in future. Why not do that? My guess is because it would expose Murrell’s mismanagement and he and others would be forced out. In addition, the Income and Expenditure needs to be placed on a sustainable basis – which means job cuts at HO. I’ll have more to say about this after I’ve had a closer look at the I&E statement.

    86. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I downloaded the SNP accounts from the Electoral Commission website. As someone who’s seen more than his share of company accounts they make peculiar reading, seemingly designed more to obscure rather than inform”

      Another fun fact – they were signed off without anyone on the NEC seeing them, which is supposed to be a requirement.

    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

    ↑ Top