The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The test case

Posted on May 29, 2020 by

Some in the independence movement got quite excited yesterday about a widely-reported poll showing that 63% of Scots want a new indyref in the next five years. It reminded us that we’d had a question on the subject in our own Panelbase poll earlier this month that we hadn’t got around to talking about.

Because of what we wanted to find out, that question was asked in a slightly strange way, so let’s quickly explain.

People could tick either or both of the “electoral mandate” options, but those were the only circumstances where they were allowed to choose more than one option. What the responses break down to more simply is this:

There should be a democratic way to secure an indyref at the next Scottish Parliament election: 36%

There should NOT be a democratic way to secure an indyref at the next Scottish Parliament election: 45%

Don’t know: 19%

That’s a little worrying, particularly as only 67% of SNP supporters thought it should be up to Scottish voters to decide – 17% didn’t know, 7% wanted it left up to Westminster and 9% thought there definitely shouldn’t be an indyref in the next five years under any circumstances whatsoever.

It’s also surprising, as poll after poll for years and years has found that a clear and substantial majority thought it should be a decision for the Scottish Parliament, not the Westminster Parliament, to make. We’ll be probing a bit more deeply into this apparent contradiction/reversal in our next poll.

But the true reality of the situation was revealed by another poll this week, one which ostensibly had nothing to do with independence.

A UK survey commissioned by the Daily Mail found that an absolutely overwhelming majority of Conservative voters (63-37 excluding DKs) thought Dominic Cummings should either resign or be fired. It found that the Cummings affair was significantly damaging voters’ opinion of Boris Johnson and his government, something which was emphatically confirmed by other polls.

But here’s the thing: Dominic Cummings is still in a job.

The SNP’s current official strategy is to increase support for independence in the polls – a “magic number” of 60% is often cited – at which point we’re told that Westminster will cave in to public opinion and grant us one.

Yet this week we saw that even the fury of almost two thirds OF ITS OWN VOTERS – and dozens of its own MPs and MSPs, who’ve now called for Cummings to be sacked – hasn’t been enough to get Boris Johnson to let go of one man.

Do we truly believe that a smaller majority of Scottish voters – most of whom already don’t vote Tory – would force him to let go of five million?

Print Friendly

    2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 29 05 20 14:57

      The test case | speymouth

    2. 30 05 20 04:21

      The test case | Global News Wire

    189 to “The test case”

    1. Simone says:

      Maybe our wannabe Speaker will ask “Pretty please” but I’m not holding my breath

    2. Ryan Mac says:

      Got damn, this is so depressing. Good job the weather is good outside to make us forget about reality.

    3. Mist001 says:

      Time for Ian Blackford to be wheeled out with one of his ‘We WILL have a second referendum, whether Westminster allows it or not!’ just to fire up the troops and get them all excited.

      Then he gets wheeled back into his box.

    4. Sarah says:

      Of course he won’t. None of them will, of any English party. They don’t think about principles, and only have shallow, ignorant views.

      It is shameful that the Westminster system has declined so quickly to be a mere elected dictatorship.

      I have heard in the last couple of days from my MP’s office that the only way to independence is through a “legally binding referendum”.

      I have respectfully replied to say that is not the normal way and was not SNP policy until relatively recently.

      Time for Blue Blanket protests?

    5. Vivian O'Blivion says:

      Perhaps the lesson to take is, don’t ask complex questions, it just confuses the punters. Let’s face it, a substantial block of the public is Velcro shoelaces thick.

    6. frogesque says:

      Said so many times.

      Power,real power, is taken. Not given.

      If that makes Scotland or the wider UK ungovernable then so be it.

      We have to get off our arses, and quickly, before Westminster gets its shit together and shuts Holyrood.

    7. If the Incomers are allowed a vote on Scotland’s right to freedom and postal voting is allowed we will never gain our freedom no matter how many polls you hold as I have said before only those who were born and live in Scotland should decide the future of their country no one else no fair minded or reasonable person would object to that surely???

    8. Proud Cybernat says:

      I’m past asking WM. They had their chance to do things civilly and refused to play. With the very real prospect of them losing such a vote, they’re never actually ever going to agree to a 2nd IndyRef, imo. So we have to just bloody well do it without their agreement and let them try and stop us. Trying to stop people from exercising their right to democracy is never a good look for any Government. Scotland isn’t Catalonia. Scotland exists within an agreed Union and has the sovereign right to extinguish that Union should it so wish. If WM try to stop IndyRef2 through the courts, they’ll only drive Indy support higher. If they remain quiet, let IR2 go ahead and YES win, they’ll simply refuse to acknowledge the result. Years of court battles to have the result recognised. By refusing to recognise the result, WM will, more than likely, end up with a whole new set of ‘Troubles’ right on its doorstep. And that will probably suit them.

    9. robertknight says:

      If Boris had any sense, (Okay – I’ll admit to the dumbest statement of the day), which we know he doesn’t, but for the sake of argument let’s pretend…

      Boris could introduce a Bill to Westminster to create an Act of Parliament providing for an Order in Council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act to permit Holyrood to organise another Referendum on Scottish Independence.

      He could then allow his majority Tory backbenchers a free vote.

      Those same backbenchers would then shoot Sturgeon’s fox by killing the Bill off during it’s first reading.

      Boris could then blame the SNP’s Westminster group for having failed to persuade a majority in the House of the merits of the Bill, despite Boris having provided the opportunity for them to do so.

      Result: Boris is off the hook re.S30, Sturgeon’s policy for IndyRef2 is in tatters, Scotland is in chains.

      What Sturgeon’s ‘Plan-B’ would be in this scenario I for one would love to know.

    10. Smeddum says:

      The question that is never really answered is WHY he wants to hang on to Scotland. He clearly despises the Scots, has no respect for their elected government and has spent years promoting the idea that Scotland is a drain on England’s finances. He doesn’t even pretend to respect the Union. So what is going on?

    11. Alec Lomax says:

      An election based on ethnicity? Didn’t they use to have that sort of thing in South Africa?

    12. Sharny Dubs says:

      So, so, so depressing.
      So, so, so disappointed with the SNP.

      I was waiting for the formation of the new Independence Party before wiping my arse with my membership card and sending it back.

      But I’m beginning to lose all hope.

    13. Stoker says:

      Not read your article yet but that pish starting to appear on poll questions “in the next 5 years”?

      They can fuck right off with that. We should have had one long before now and unless they stick to their word about one this year they can guarantee i’ll be spoiling my ballot for the first time in my life when any elections come around.

      I don’t give a crap about SNP apologists, Sturgeon is sitting on more mandates than she can obviously handle so if she wastes them she can GTF. Had enough of her and her band of freaky-frockers driven by anything & everything other than indy.

      They are getting no more time out of me to introduce their own warped interests at the expense of others’ rights etc. She has until midnight on 31st December 2020 to show she’s kept her word, eventually.

    14. Merkin Scot says:

      I think we will eventually be dragged kicking and screaming to the realisation that the Indy2 scam was just one more weapon used by Westminster to thwart Independence.
      Still, it gave a few folk a free bus pass for a few years lol.

    15. Andy Ellis says:

      @Blair Paterson

      Plenty of fair minded Scots would totally reject your proposal for the regressive blood and soil ethno-nationalism it so patently represents. If there was any such proposal, I – and imagine swathes of other pro-independence voters – would refuse to support it. Would you institute a scheme whereby cots in the diaspora are allowed to vote, even if they’ve never lived here and have no intention doing so?

      Trust me, I lived in England for 25 years and the vast majority of those Scots living in England (said to be >800,000) with Scots parents or grandparents are likely to be solidly unionist. If you intend to deprive “non-native” Scots in Scotland of a vote, it’s only fair you offer it to those who would qualify as Scots citizens who now live abroad surely?

      Civic nationalism pre supposes the inclusion of all Scots, whether their roots go back to time immemorial, or centuries or just a few years. If we can’t persuade a majority of ALL Scots to vote Yes, we don’t deserve to call ourselves democrats or to enjoy the opportunities and the risks of independence.

    16. Graeme says:

      Alec Lomax says:
      29 May, 2020 at 1:31 pm

      An election based on ethnicity? Didn’t they use to have that sort of thing in South Africa?

      I don’t think Blair was talking so much about ethnicity as eligibility Alec, there’s a difference
      I’ve noticed it quite fashionable on here to indiscriminately tar people with the racist/xenophobe brush

    17. Mist001 says:

      I wonder what Dominic Cummings position is on Scottish Independence?

      He seems to have all the power and the ear of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and so on, so if HE was in favour of Scottish Independence, then it might have a chance.

      Anyone know which way he leans?

    18. starlaw says:

      Who dreampt up ‘within 5 years’ try 1 year

    19. Glesgachib says:

      @Andy Ellis
      Blair Paterson makes a very valid point. Research conducted after the IndyRef1 showed that the majority of people who were born IN Scotland voted Yes. The majority of people born elsewhere in the UK voted No. Many of the Brits living in Scotland will always vote no to independence and will be a block on our regaining independence. How we address that is a big challenge.

    20. Capella says:

      Only if you add the 8% of those who think the decision should be made at Westminster to the “undemocratic” tally. Which is dubious.
      I think it more accurate to say the 41% think there should be a referendum if there is evidence that Scottish voters want one, 37% don’t and 19% don’t know. What Westminster thinks is irrelevant.

    21. Geordie says:

      The single biggest hurdle to Independence is the overwhelmingly biased Britnat media and the relentless influence it has on swithering and soft no voters. We would be Independent now had the media thrown it’s weight behind us.

      I read these articles on various survey questions and am left with an overwhelming sense of ‘so what’? What good do they do us? Do they bring us any closer to Independence? No, and I see confirmation bias in many of the subjective interpretations of results.

      The most valuable contribution from WoS would be to revert to the original modus operandi of exposing falsehoods and hypocrisy amongst Britnat politicians and journalists. Please.

    22. Terry says:

      The present leadership of the snp is neither interested in independence or is way too timid to deliver on the mandates they’ve been given.

      You said months ago that our only chance would be for Alex to return. We really need him now more than ever. And of course the astute and courageous Joanna cherry. That’s the calibre of politician that will free Scotland. Not a group of timid careerist managers.

      Being in the union is killing people. That stab at herd immunity is just another in the long list of crimes against our country.

    23. Stoker says:

      For some time now i’ve thought there would be somewhere in the region of the Scottish electorate 10% to 15% hardcore ‘No’ not now not ever. And that around 55% could comfortably be convinced of the merits of taking back our right of self-determination.

      On looking at your figures at the top of your article, if we take away the 15% hardcore from your 45% there would be a possible further 30% to work for. But that would take a gargantuan effort in what form i’ve no idea but realistically not very probable.

      So if the 19%, or most of them, are added to the 36% and whatever we can take from the 45% it is still doable. I know this is a bit hopeful and seems more like wishful thinking but it’s still very doable. If we don’t believe that then we need to chuck it.

      Still on the theme of polls. Just yesterday AUOB(?) started a poll on were you Yes then Yes now, No then Yes now, No then No now and Yes then No now. And within no time at all there was something like over 1600 votes and between the 2 Yes options they were pulling just over 98%. Just over 91% for Yes then Yes now and just over 7% for No then Yes now.

      Still got a few days to run but i’ll take the way it’s heading. I’d imagine twitter polls reach a bigger & wider audience than most other polls? Looking forward to seeing the final results though.

    24. CameronB Brodie says:

      Scotland will not enjoy the benefits of democracy, as long as Westminster considers itself impervious to international law, and as long as Scotland’s political leaders consider their judgement superior to the jurisprudence of international law.

      Full text.

      The new policy sciences: combining the cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis

    25. Liz g says:

      Well Boris Johnson also lost a chance..

      If I’d been him, I’d have agreed back in December to the section 30 and took control of the vote…the date,the time and the question.
      I’d have claimed to want it settled before Brexit and for decades to come
      I’d have put it through for March caved in over that till April and he’d have been sitting pretty right in the middle of the fear factor of a pandemic with the power to insist the vote go ahead.
      We would have had no argument against it and our win would have been in doubt..
      Everything lost
      But he didn’t 🙂
      So we are where we are.

      The SNP/Nicola need to start talking to the Yes movement,there are many ways forward ( goodness knows we’ve aired them often enough here) but we need that plan B.
      It’s not like 2014 when independence was a righteous move and an enriching route for Scots.
      People are suffering and dying the lunatics are in charge in the mad house and they are getting more dangerous by the day.
      There’s not a thing stopping her setting up a group of MPs and MSPs who are not caught up in the Covid response to start getting things organised and that’s mibbi where we should concentrate our push while we can’t get out on the streets ?

      After all….If massive public pressure from Scots can’t make her change her position on what is also a section 30 stance, then she can’t argue that it would move Boris Johnson in that circumstanc either….

    26. callmedave says:


      Isle of Wight contact-tracing app trial – a mixed verdict so far

      The numbers on BBC websites except the ones darn Sarf!

      N. Ireland…….today……03………Total…..521…BBC

      UK……………today…no data…… data..

      PS: The SUN

      COVID CRISIS Coronavirus UK LIVE: True death toll is over 48,000

      The UK’s true coronavirus death toll is higher than 48,000, according to new figures released this morning.

      The shocking news was revealed on the day Chancellor Rishi Sunak is set to make changes to the furlough scheme, with reports suggesting employers will be asked to pay 20 per cent of employees wages along with national insurance and pension contribution. 🙁

    27. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Somebody said on the last thread:

      “The SNP have not had the plebiscite policy since Salmond took over, over 20 years ago. In other words a whole generation of SNP administrators have gained and held colonial power by NOT standing for indy.”

      That Salmond was able to convince what was then a pro-independence party, of the advisability of morphing into soft-left proponents of sound governance was down to one thing.

      We were at the time going nowhere, with a G.E. vote share in the order of 20% i.e. less than the Tories and at best half that of Labour.

      He was able to convince many who could accurately be described as “Tartan Tories” and all but the hardest of hard-line nationalists and Euroskeptics to get with the program.

      For what they perceived as being the greater good.

      Acquiring Electabillity as opposed to preserving Ideological purity.

      That battle has been won – It is time to remind the SNP leadership that the war is still raging.

      And if they do not go on the offensive – by making 2021 a plebiscite election.

      They will soon be joining Dalyell, Cunningham, Wilson, Robertson, Murphy, Brown, Darling and Dewar – In Scotland’s Hall of Shame.

    28. schrodingers cat says:

      maybe thats cos ur polling questions are over complicated and well…shite stu?

    29. CameronB Brodie says:

      Folk still appear keen to place politics above the law, which gets you nowhere other than into trouble. If you disrespect Treaty law you might as well give up on democracy (see Brexit).

      Faith, Ritual and Rebellion in 21st Century (Positivist) International Law

    30. Willie says:

      Interesting stuff Rev which maybe tells us something.

      Without a party that campaigns for independence there will never be independence.

      It’s as simple as that. No big analysis or deep theory needed. The Unionists haven’t given up but we have, or at least the current SNP leadership has.

    31. robbo says:

      See these polls over the years by all pollsters,why don’t they jist ask the question straight?

      Scottish Independence:

      1) Are you for Yes ?

      2) Are you for No?

      All these caveats do ma box in.

      If they say -acht a don’t ken, mibees aye mibies naw.

      Just say – richt you jist beat it ya fud and ask next person alang.

      Then you ken wit starting base is. If it’s gid, then press on.

      Nae time for this fannying aroon noo.

      Simples dimples,pimples, wimples

    32. robbo says:

      That man swore! LMAO

      Boris’s face, lol

    33. liz says:

      Just finished reading the previous column’s BLC.

      I despair of NS, and the more I read from informed folk like Breeks, the more depressed I become.

      Today just found out that the @scotgov under NS have agreed that WM can build pipes all the way from the Borders into England and take our water.

      Looks as though, yet again,our elected reps have capitulated and rolled over.
      England is desperate for water, and everything else, because it is over crowded with lack of resources, so NS should have demanded in return at least an #indyref2.

      Personally I’m now more in favour of using the constitution because I don’t believe in the efficacy of a ref to achieve indy but I doubt we’ll get either through the current admin

    34. Lorna Campbell says:

      I am not at all surprised by any of this. I have been saying since 2014 that it is the second indyref – any indyref, S30 or otherwise – that is the problem. It is a self-made trap. After 2014, there was not the slightest chance of either getting another so-called constitutional referendum or of holding an unconstitutional one. Who said we needed a second indyref? Who said it is the only way to get independence? Who said it was a precedent? Why has it entered our mythology as something that needs to be at all? There is no legal requirement for a pre independence referendum. None. The Unionists have latched on it as to a lifeline. We need to sit down now and work out just how we can by-pass No voters, who comprise a number of MINORITY vested interests in keeping the status quo (minorities that coalesce on one issue only, opposing independence, instead of pandering to their ideas of what constitutes democracy. One referendum win (and even that is open to question) does not mean that the Scots must be corralled in the Union forever and a day. Democracy does not work like that. The SNP – the main party of independence – has won every election, SE and GE, since 2007. That is democracy. That is our primary source of democracy. If it is not, and the Unionists, British and English Nationalists argue that it is not – at least, that is the logical conclusion to their one-off referendum-style democracy – then we must demand an indyref instead of a parliamentary SE in 2021. They would not dare boycott that.

      My own preference is to resile the Treaty on the grounds of England-as-the-UK’s perfidy, breaching of the Treaty at every turn and its refusal to allow us access to the means to the means to a referendum – illegal under international law, and take our case to the ICJ. That would be perfectly legal and democratic, coupled to a post independence confirmatory or ratifying referendum. It is the PRE independence nature of the proposed indyref that is the problem. Top that off with an appeal to the UN Charter on both self-determination and human rights grounds. A legal action on the Treaty would stop Brexit for Scotland in its tracks, and you could almost guarantee that the UK would prefer to give us a referendum that it could interfere in again. Please don’t tell me it didn’t interfere in the 2014 referendum because it did. The Vow was an interference, asking other countries to cold-shoulder our independence was interference, and I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why the biggest postal vote in the history of the world (per capita) was not even publicized or debated or discussed or argued by any branch of the media, anywhere, and certainly not in Scotland or in the UK? You’d think it would have been shouted from the rooftops. I am not saying anything was wrong with the postal vote, because I simply do not know, and the evidence will have been deleted and burned, but I do find that strange; almost as if too close a scrutiny might turn up something they did not want to be turned up.

      The one thing that is undeniable: we will not get independence by being passive and nice to the point of idiocy. We need to be pro active and push and shove the debate on somehow.

    35. Ottomanboi says:

      If Scots really want independence they’re going to have to fight for it….just like every other suppressed nation in history. It will not be handed on a plate, even if a democratic majority were in favour. The occupier will use any means to prevent loss of territory, face or prestige by stoking fear and self-doubt. Both are rather effective on soft nationalists and 90 minute patriots, conceivably the majority.
      Ultimately it’s up to the hard core committed to push the cause. It is ever thus in the history of political change.
      Unfortunately, Scotland has an ageing population, a demographic situation more likely to encourage caution than boldness. A younger population, with no thoughts of a pension, would have made the break years ago.
      In the end democracy IS in the eye of the beholder and all depends on who’s doing the presentation, writes the narrative.
      Covid-19 lockdown, democracy in action or a brazen, authoritarian statist attack on individual autonomy?
      The answer to that may help to sort the wheat from the chaff.
      National liberation does not come cheap.

    36. CameronB Brodie says:

      Brexit has transformed the British constitution from a legal document underwritten by moral law, into one underwritten by English legal dogma. Subsequently, the idea of democracy is now dead in Brexitania.

      The British constitution was already an outdated piece of legal pseudo-science, Brexit transform British constitutionalism into an Anglocentric eugenics program of cultural domination.


    37. Ron Maclean says:

      @CameronB Brodie 4:37pm

      ‘Brexit has transformed the British constitution from a legal document underwritten by moral law, into one underwritten by English legal dogma.’

      What legal document?

    38. Colin Alexander says:

      Lorna Campbell

      Thank you for that comment at 4.27pm.

      All it takes is Scotland’s politicians to do the opposite of what they did in 1707: declare the Union over. Legal denunciation.

      Indyref is Salmond and Sturgeon mince.

    39. CameronB Brodie says:

      Ron Maclean
      OK, you got me. 🙂

    40. robert graham says:

      Furlough been mentioned on BBC News just now after a bit of searching it appears that there are 374000 Scots being looked after by the English taxpayers , When you type in how many in England it refuses to give any figures other than UK , funny that more or less the same results for the death count in England , try it for yourself,
      The English government wouldn’t be fkn about with the figures would they ? Just asking .

    41. CameronB Brodie says:

      It is easy to imagine Brexitania is governed by constitutional law, but it would be more accurate to describe contemporary Brexitanian constitutional “convention”, to be grounded in cultural narcissism and pseudohistory. This is the perfect legal psychology to breed bigotry and prejudice.

      Laws of cognition and the cognition of law

    42. PacMan says:

      The BBC and the other Tory media says that the Scottish government should have started the lock down sooner.

      As the SG, a devolved administration, don’t have the necessary powers to have done so but even if they could, in doing so, they would have been doing the exact opposite of what Westminster are doing, these Tory media outlets are effectively making the case for independence.

      That isn’t their intention but it is a very big own goal on their part and they don’t have the self awareness to realise it.

    43. twathater says:

      @ Lorna Campbell 4.27pm Lorna a poster called Breeks has been posting this exact scenario for years which MANY have supported , with pleas to Joanna Cherry to do just that , the result TUMBLEWEED , instead as normal we are now discussing the best way forward to get an additional ( sorry ) a new party who SUPPORTS independence into Holyrood to attempt to force the SNP to move on indy and try to oust the unionist carbunkles

      The results of Stu’s previous poll and this one above is deeply concerning when you have so many SNP members voting for SNP having political power rather than the independence of our country , one can accept unionists voting AGAINST independence no matter how deluded they are but to see members of a supposed independence party voting against their supposed reason d’etra defies logical explanation

    44. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Lorna Campbell (4.27) –

      Would you mind if I used a sentence or two from your comment to plug this discussion via Twitter?

      Some of us are experimenting with ways to keep a WOS profile on Twitter since it banned Rev/WOS completely – a couple of tweets yesterday seemed to be well received but actually using a reader’s comment may draw in some new readers as well as tempt some of the ‘old’ regulars back to see what’s happening.

      The discussion last night also seemed to be well received and we’re hoping it’ll keep-up, in quality and quantity, throughout the weekend.

      P.S. Soo-perb comment, heartily agreed with it all.


    45. Beaker says:

      @Blair Paterson says:
      29 May, 2020 at 1:22 pm
      “If the Incomers are allowed a vote on Scotland’s right to freedom and postal voting is allowed we will never gain our freedom no matter how many polls you hold as I have said before only those who were born and live in Scotland should decide the future of their country no one else no fair minded or reasonable person would object to that surely???”

      What about someone who was born in England, lived there for 1 year but has spent 25 years living and working in Scotland? That’s precisely the situation of one of my relatives (who is in favour of independence).

      You cannot go down the path of only allowing those who were born in Scotland to have a vote. It’s not only dangerous, but would be political suicide, as it’s effectively discrimination.

    46. robert graham says:

      Very interesting CBB but do you have any thoughts on the accuracy of the English governments figures , or indeed the amount apportioned directly to Scotland from the massive amount the English treasury have borrowed in order to cope with this pandemic .

      Apparently Dentists in England are returning to business shortly , I heard a interview with the head of Dental Practitioners this morning , the gist of it was Fkd if we know no one consulted us because all our PPE supplies were requested for NHS use , oops over to you Bawjaws what’s the plan , oh ok ask Dominic eh he’s assisting Durum constabulary with a driving offence he possibly has committed , this being Driving while having impaired vision an offence under the road traffic act 1972 sub section 1a .

      References to the Road Traffic Act are a load of pish , but what the heck I am just joining the party everybody is at it what’s another bit of shit who gives a fk

    47. callmedave says:


      Rishi Sunak there looking forward to restarting the economy and sees carbon capture as an important way forward and extolling its virtues, suggesting new initiatives in the N.E. England at Teeside. 🙁

      You’ll remember in Scotland Longannet and Peterhead a few years ago each carbon capture scheme was scuppered by the UK Gov.. because!! 🙁

      Make no mistake if it’s a good idea it will not be built in Scotland.

    48. Mist001 says:


      “As the SG, a devolved administration, don’t have the necessary powers to have done so but even if they could”

      This is a major part of the problem though. Certainly, everyone who participates on this blog and probably if you asked, the majority of Scots too, were 100% of the conviction that health was a devolved matter to Scotland.

      I raised the matter at the time on here at the beginning of lockdown, that since health was a devolved matter, then Scotland had every right to lockdown and takes whatever steps were needed to protect the interests of Scotland independently of Westminster.

      Since then, it’s been shown that health being devolved to Scotland isn’t in fact the case and that’s why according to Mrs. Murrells own words, Scotland has been following in lockstep with the UK government over this Corona issue.

      If health truly was a devolved matter, then Scotland could have locked down immediately and they had the right, under the banner of health, to control Scotlands borders.

      None of this happened because health isn’t really devolved to Scotland when it matters. It’s only a soundbite and looks good on paper and that will be true of all of Scotlands so called ‘devolved’ matters, as The Rev is currently finding out with its justice system.

      We’ve been lied to big time and Mrs. Murrell is complicit in these lies because at no point has she ever said otherwise, even though she knew full well that health wasn’t really devolved to Scotland.

      Fucking administrator that she is.

    49. Effijy says:

      How about we do a deal with Cummings-
      Give us Indy Ref 2 and we will say that we
      Believe all that pish about your Lockdown journeys?

    50. CameronB Brodie says:

      He’s been punting that line for donkeys, even though it has been pointed out to him that determining policy through ethnic lines is incompatible with social democracy (see Brexit). I do think a minimum period of residence should be adopted to improve Scottish democracy though, by helping to inform and improve the quality of political choices made by newcomers.

    51. Muscleguy says:

      Of course he won’t. I bet Sturgeon is hoping Martin Keatings court case on whether the original S30 is still in effect will say yes or is she? The SNP/Scotgov could have asked the courts to rule on this question which many legal minds said was at least arguable but she couldnae be arsed to. So a private citizen had to raise funds to dot it for her.

      A much easier way, entirely legally under International Law is to give notice of our intent to resile from the Treaty of Union (list of major breaches attached) subject to a confirmatory referendum with Union law suspended in Scotland in the interim. Then dare Bojo to send in the troops. The EU I’m sure would back us. Unionists would boycott at their peril.

      Noting UK govt argued, successfully, in the case of Kosovo that the law of the country being seceded from is irrelevant under International Law and can be ignored by a seceding country. We throw that back at them.

    52. Liz g says:

      Soo…are some of us saying we don’t actually want the section 30 from Westminster?

    53. Willie says:

      Asking for a second referendum is like asking to have Cummings removed. It ain’t going to happen.

      Indeed, check out the UK government petitions site. Despite a number of attempts to have a petition raised to have considered the removal of Dominic Cummings the Request was rejected.

      Not it seems appropriate to have a petition on honours or appointments.

      So 5here. You can’t even lodge your dissent. And NScsays we’ll get a referendum. Don’t think so. Don’t think so.

    54. CameronB Brodie says:

      robert graham
      It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragically predictable and predictably tragic. ;(

      Motivated Cognition in Legal
      Judgments – An Analytic Review

      How and when do legal decision makers’ preferred outcomes inadvertently drive their judgments? This psychological phenomenon, known as motivated cognition or motivated reasoning, has become an important topic of investigation among scholars conducting experimental research at the intersection of law and psychology.

      This article presents an overview of that literature, discusses some of its legal applications and implications, highlights areas that require further investigation, and considers some potential ways to curtail the covert operation of motivated cognition in the legal arena.

    55. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Lorna Campbell (4.27) –

      I don’t know if you’ll be back in today so I’ve just gone ahead and used the end of your comment to link to this page. Hope you don’t mind.

      Here it is:

    56. robbo says:

      Mist001 @ 5.29

      How many times do you need to be telt?

      We cannot close the borders,the airports the sea ports because that’s reserved.
      But you know that don’t you rocket.

    57. MightyS says:


    58. robbo says:

      It wasn’t NS that tied in Scotland to a sect 30 order was it?
      You can blame the Scotland act 1998 which I’m sure she wasn’t leader of the biggest indy party then was she?
      Away chase yirsels

    59. robertknight says:

      robbo @ 6:17

      “It wasn’t NS that tied in Scotland to a sect 30 order was it?”

      She certainly didn’t take the opportunity to untie Scotland either, did she?

      Nope! Instead, she simply took the opportunity to nail the other foot to the floor.

      Brilliant piece of political strategy, no?

    60. Thomas Dunlop says:

      Luckily, Cummmings is not going to go away, any time soon. So despite themselves, the SNP are going to get near their 60% mark with a year.
      One could argue that they have to say something and to be silent is to be complicit to Cummings and BoJos behaviour.

      SO I leave an open door and open mind to the situation, becuase the last thing we would want is a split in the solid 45 % proIndy vote (which a fantastic base to start any campaign) which would reflect badly on the fence sitters. (But all for sending constructive criticism SNP leaderships way-keep the good work Stu). The reason I say this, is I have never won an argument by insulting my opponents.

    61. Bailey says:

      Beaker, The UK Government didn’t allow EU nationals to vote in the Brexit referendum. You say that not to let non-Scots vote in an independence referendum may be discriminatory but, as far as I know, no other country in the world allows residents born elsewhere to vote in such a vote. It’s a vote on the constitution, not an ordinary election. The first Scottish referendum wasn’t a “gold Standard” as some people think, it would be unheard of in any other country to allow people of the country we’re trying to get away from vote. “English Scots for independence” are a totally unrepresentative minority. Growing up in rural Scotland, I could have told you back in the eighties and nineties that allowing English people resident here to vote on our constitutional position would be a disaster. The majority see us as an inferior people and our country as an extension of England.

    62. robbo says:

      Lorna Campbell @ 4.27

      You can blame Tony Blair and the unionist leader at the time in Scotland Donald Dewar who agreed the sect 30 trap back in Scotland Act 1998.
      Nowt NS can do about that is there?
      Unless you declare Udi.Ican see that going fan dabbi dosey yi

    63. CameronB Brodie says:

      I try to only insult those who I see as political opponents, and I feel it my duty to do so. Because of reasons. 🙂

      Toward a “constitution” for behavioral policy-making

    64. Ian Brotherhood says:

      The fact that we’re having this discussion is seriously getting up some people’s noses.

      Just had to block Mike Small after a typically snidey comment in response to my tweet plugging this thread. He just can’t help himself when it comes to anything Wings-related.

      Makes me seriously rethink what I said about any ‘Freedom Party’ welcoming every group interested in indy, no matter how incompatible they may appear to be.

      I’ve shared a platform with Mike, but would I ever be able to do so again? Hard to imagine after the way he’s behaved. It’s one thing to have a personal dislike of Rev Stu. That’s not uncommon by any stretch. But to insult and belittle folk he knows and has worked with solely because we champion debate in this place? It’s fuckin ridiculous, and the sort of infantile behaviour which ensured RISE would never get anywhere, completely wrecking the small-but-effective SSP in the process.

      Sometimes I fuckin depair.


    65. Ian Brotherhood says:


      Aye…despair, even…


    66. robbo says:

      Robertknight @ 6.30

      So how would this untie work then robert?
      How did she nail the other foot,by doing what?

    67. Bob Mack says:

      @Ian Brotherhood,

      Shows you how ego talked over eventually .

    68. Republicofscotland says:

      What we need is for the EU and the international community to accept the results of an independence referendum that doesn’t require any kind of consent from a foreign country’s parliament namely Westminster, after all we’re in a union as two separate nations, so we shouldn’t required the consent of the other party to leave it.

      Nor should any consent to leave it be acknowledged by any other countries around the world. Did Westminster require the consent of the EU or any other nation to leave the EU, no it did not.

      We will never exit this union if we follow Westminster’s rules of the game, nor will we exit this union if we wait until the magical 60% is reached for it will probably never arrive.

      We need to hold an indyref, on our own terms regardless of whether or not Westminster agrees with it or not, then and only then will the indy polls convert into a majority for independence.

      As Craig Murray often says it’s not Westminster that we need to agree with our holding an indyref on our own terms, its the EU and the international community that we need to get on board, by pointing out that Westminster will not agree to holding an indyref in the near future, or any future for that matter. Thus holding Scotland as a prisoner in this one-sided union.

      To recap.

      Get the international community onside

      Hold the independence referendum without Westminsters input.

      I’m confident yes will win.

      Recognition from the international community seals the deal.

      We leave the union.

    69. Beaker says:

      @CameronB Brodie says:
      29 May, 2020 at 5:50 pm
      “I do think a minimum period of residence should be adopted to improve Scottish democracy though, by helping to inform and improve the quality of political choices made by newcomers.”

      I agree with that. I wasn’t particularly annoyed by the comment, but people who use that sort of argument just cause damage to the arguments for independence. Perhaps he asked Nigel for advice 🙂

    70. J Galt says:

      The “we’ve never been closer” fantasists will hate you for this!

    71. Ron Maclean says:

      @CameronB Brodie 5:56pm

      ‘How and when do legal decision makers’ preferred outcomes inadvertently drive their judgments?’

      Recent events suggest that we bring that closer to home; How and when do legal decision makers’ preferred outcomes deliberately drive their judgments? I’m calling that covert, corrupted cognition.

      There must be a dissertation in there somewhere, or at least an article for one of our fearless, investigative journalists.

    72. CameronB Brodie says:

      Ron Maclean
      The intellectual terrain of culturally prejudiced legal practice, has already been pretty well mapped out. That’s what I’m trying to re-connect with. 😉

      Law and Cognitive Neuroscience

      Law and neuroscience (sometimes neurolaw) has become a recognized field of study. The advances of neuroscience are proving useful in solving some perennial challenges of legal scholarship and are leading to applications in law and policy. While caution is appropriate in considering neurolaw approaches, the new knowledge should – and will – be put to use.

      Areas of special attention in current neurolaw scholarshipinclude (a) techniques for the objective investigation of subjective states such as pain, memory, and truth-telling; (b) evidentiary issues for admitting neuroscience facts and approaches into a court proceeding; (c) free will, responsibility, moral judgment, and punishment; (d ) juvenile offenders; (e) addiction; ( f )mental health; ( g) bias; (h) emotion; and (i ) the neuroeconomics of decision making and cooperation.

      The future of neurolaw will be more productive if challenges to collaboration between lawyers and scientists can be resolved.61

      Key Words
      neurolaw, psychology, criminal law, fMRI, responsibility, addiction

    73. Ron Maclean says:

      Nicola Sturgeon has boxed herself (and us) in with her insistence on the need for a s30.

      How do we get round that?

    74. CameronB Brodie says:

      You need a bit of cognitive linguistics and stuff, as well.


    75. Republicofscotland says:

      I don’t know how far along James Kelly is with this, but I am confident the Cummings debacle has boosted our independence cause.

      “A PRO-independence blogger is running a fundraising campaign to determine if the Dominic Cummings scandal has increased Yes voters.

      James Kelly of Scot Goes Pop launched the campaign to commission a poll on GoFundMe after requests from readers.

      He said it is “it’s reasonable to wonder” if Cummings making two trips during lockdown has changed the minds of No voters.”

    76. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’ve kind of drifted into the realm of cognitive legal psychology, which is nice. 🙂

      When, and How, Should Cognitive Bias Matter to

    77. Republicofscotland says:

      “Nicola Sturgeon has boxed herself (and us) in with her insistence on the need for a s30.

      How do we get round that?”

      By persuading the international community that we don’t need it to hold an independence referendum, after all it’s their recognition that really counts not Westminsters.

    78. Ian Brotherhood says:

      I would really like to know if others here share my hopes for the AS book.

      Not that I have any insight at all. Just wondering if it will prove to be the game-changer so many of us want to see.

      And when? That’s the big question – the timing will be crucial. Has the grapevine thrown up any details at all?

    79. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Just posted a comment which has gone straight into moderation because it contained the word ‘gr**vine’. Grrr…

      Anyway, I was asking whether or not anyone has heard anything about the Alex Salmond book and when we might expect to see it? You would imagine a few wee details might have started working their way out by now.


    80. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Bob Mack (7.06) –

      Just a quick one to say I wasn’t ignoring your comment there, I just didn’t understand it.

      I guess you’re referring to Mike Small?

    81. Dogbiscuit says:

      Alex Lomax it’s not ethnicity just place of birth

    82. Ron Maclean says:

      @Republicofscotland 8:11pm

      I think the independence referendum would have to be held and won before the quest for international recognition even began. That might be possible but I can’t see it happening while Nicola Sturgeon is in control.

    83. CameronB Brodie says:

      Cognitive legal psychology plays an important role in informing administrative law, which is essential to the processes of democracy.

      Cognitive Competence in Executive-Branch
      Decision Making

    84. Bob Mack says:

      @Ian Brotherhood,

      Yes. Sorry for spelling but my predictext has gone loopy and I am trying to turn the damn thing off with little success.

    85. Republicofscotland says:

      “I think the independence referendum would have to be held and won before the quest for international recognition even began. That might be possible but I can’t see it happening while Nicola Sturgeon is in control.”


      I was referring to international recognition to hold one without Westminsters consent, as Westminster will never give it.

    86. Colin Alexander says:

      Ian Brotherhood

      I think Alex Salmond is scared to give an update about fingering the keyboard in case the Salmond Polis Team try to get him charged with that.

    87. Ron Maclean says:


      How do you connect your recent postings to the difficulties we’ve been having with the Sottish legal system?

    88. Dogbiscuit says:

      By giving in to London over Scotland’s water Sturgeon helps London loot our resources .She’s a dirty skank. She makes no effort for Independence .Nicola Sturgeon is boiling Scottish frogs. Beware women with Fallschirmjaeger hairstyles.

    89. Dogbiscuit says:

      I think given that Sturgeon is such a fan of Hillary Clinton Mr Salmond is probably in fear for his life.

    90. Ron Maclean says:

      @Ian Brotherhood

      I think the Salmond book is likely to tend towards the anodyne to avoid claims of defamation and contempt. I’m not getting my hopes raised.

    91. Ron Maclean says:


      I think we agree. If we hold a referendum and win I’m sure we’ll get international recognition. It’s the Sturgeon veto that worries me.

    92. CameronB Brodie says:

      Ron Maclean
      Off the cuff, the fabric and psychology of Scots law has been damaged through its’ unnatural subourdination to English legal culture. International law provides a far more robust and ethical jurisprudence than common law under Parliamentary sovereignty. Unfortunately, Westminster is a racist patriarchy, so Scotland is on to plumbs as far as justice is concerned. ;(

      Judicial Mindsets: The Social Psychology of Implicit Theories and the Law

    93. Dogbiscuit says:

      What a weak and ineffectual self serving idealIt’s Scotland calls a leader. We would be in with a better shout with the late Coco the Clown for a leader.If there are any S N P cyphers out there wake up to the British agent in Boot House.

    94. Dogbiscuit says:

      Too many Socialists spoil the broth.

    95. Republicofscotland says:

      “I think we agree. If we hold a referendum and win I’m sure we’ll get international recognition. It’s the Sturgeon veto that worries me.”


      Sturgeon made all the noises of holding one this year even though the SNP coffers are empty and Johnson wouldn’t agree to a S30 if asked. Basically it was bluff and bluster, and the virus got her off the hook however we must call her bluff and hold her to her promise of holding an indyref.

      If she reneges on her promise the grassroots movements along with the hundred odd thousand that attended marches throughout Scotland last year must make it patently obvious to her during future marches, chants placards etc that she must fulfil her promise, or stand aside for someone who can.

    96. Denise says:

      I wonder if Nicola doing the press conferences every day will have an effect on the over 65s voting intention. I am sure they are all religiously watching them. Will it make them less hostile to independence? I’d like to see that investigated in James Kelly’s new poll.

      Also is there going to be a fundraiser to replenish the fighting fund?

    97. Dogbiscuit says:

      Robbo. With Parliamentary support at Holyrood Nicola Sturgeon could call a referendum she could also dissolve the Union and appeal to the United Nations .I believe those are legal and morally justifiable approach’s. You sound like Sturgeon when you speak of ‘precedent ’.

    98. Ron Maclean says:


      We agree.

    99. Denise says:

      Nicola’s Independence strategy is crap if she even has a strategy I also suspect there are a number of BritNats in her inner circle. 6 years is far too long for a leader of an independence movement to be in place without any movement towards independence. She is the establishment and will prioritise staying FM far ahead of independence. We will never get independence as long as she is leader. We need a new leader

    100. Alex Montrose says:

      14 Scots Indie ref,
      15 UK GE,
      16 Holyrood GE,
      16 EU ref,
      17 UK GE,
      19 UK GE,
      20 Covid-19 pandemic,

      21 Holyrood GE, vote SNP 1, Green 2, to decimate the Unionist list MSPs and ensure Scotland can move forward towards Independence.

    101. Liz g says:

      Denise @ 9.21
      It dose look like it’s too much for one person….what do you think of separating out an Indy team and letting them rip with it?

    102. callmedave says:

      The SNP will have to put it in the manifesto that there will be a referendum every Parliament session where they are the Government. No pish about once in a generation stuff.
      Without WM permission/ or involvement

      Either a ‘litmus test’ referendum first…..(non binding)

      If a win then good WM can see the lie of the land. Go for a binding referendum.

      If it’s lost SNP Gov still stands in power, wee bit Egg on face but not much, all they did was ask the people…never a bad thing!

      Go for for the full Monty referendum within 1 year of the election result

      If it’s lost….Games a bogey. Till the next election Win and it’s in the manifesto again. (I’ll be deid probably)

      If it’s won then game on! WM can see the result.

      Mind you all hell will break loose but…
      We asked the people and they said yes!
      Other countries have noted as much many probably liking what has happened..

      There other things:
      Post Corona virus and Post Brexit economy. UK skint huge debts and our precious resources will be at stake from Westminster using them.
      The usual Unionist howls, how can we Scots afford independence and all that jazz, folk will have to be strong and reassured by the SGov.

      Borrowing money from ‘friendly countries’
      Getting our own money to keep by not paying for things WM charge us for and so on.
      Feeding ourselves …and we can.
      Also our share of the UK assets we are entitled to them.

      Scotland also has no debt because we cannot borrow money at the moment.
      WM spends money on what they think we need and for themselves we cough up our 9% no matter what.They have our credit card.

      The WM rUk will be at its weakest since 1945 but will be no pushover… but weak nevertheless.
      Lets go for it.

      That’s off the cuff as the German football is rubbish and I’ve lost interest in it.

      I’ll catch up later.

    103. Denise says:

      I would never vote Green they are a bunch of misogynist b*stards. We need a different list party that prioritises independence and doesn’t throw women under the bus.

    104. Dogbiscuit says:

      If Nicola Sturgeon won’t call an Independence referendum then it is difficult to see the point in voting SNP .We’ll be taken out of Europe ,our water resources are being tapped, according to Liz. It seems whichever way we vote we get Tory policies or unpopular social policies.The threat to free speech that’s inherent in the Hate Crime bill is just fucking stunning in a supposedly mature democracy. Scotland appears run by insane student activists. Would Sturgeon be ‘offended’ if we invited her back to planet Earth?

    105. Denise says:

      Agree with you dogbiscuit

    106. Mist001 says:


      Arse. When health is devolved, then health is the responsibility of Scotland. That gives it an automatic right to override Westminster, PARTICULARLY with an oncoming pandemic. Scotland could and should have taken control of its borders because who was going to stop them?

      English people were getting turned back from Scotland just three weeks ago, so who took control of the borders then? Westminster or Police Scotland?

      You’re just not very fucking bright. Away and watch a repeat of Braveheart because you’re not much use for independence.

    107. Dogbiscuit says:

      The Greens would take society back to year zero.Beware Pat Pot.

    108. Liz g says:

      Aw looky,looky….Dan has a twin..or is it a clone?
      Hope you’re paying attention Cameron don’t get played cause give the eugenics of late it might be a fucking litter 🙂

    109. Liz g says:

      Sorry Cameron that should have been Joe not Dan….whit am ah like… 🙂

    110. Republicofscotland says:

      “I wonder if Nicola doing the press conferences every day will have an effect on the over 65s voting intention. I am sure they are all religiously watching them. ”


      Not to throw any slight on the over 65s, I’m sure many of them voted for independence in 2014, or support independence. In my opinion the unionist over 65s will vote for the SNP because they see Sturgeon as a competent FM. This pandemic has seen her stock rise, however those same 65s and and over will vote against holding a second indyref and vote no if Sturgeons does somehow fulfil her promise, because they’re still emotionally attached to this union.

    111. Fireproofjim says:

      Although I agree with much of the comments re the SNP dragging their feet on a new referendum, I would point out that we are currently in a great position with 50%+ for independence. NS is doing a good job on being open and honest on the virus, and probably changing minds of older voters towards Yes.
      In my opinion it would be madness to try to hold a referendum this year, much as I am desperate to see one. The physical impossibility of actual voting until this virus is done and dusted makes it unlikely that there will be time.
      Again, in my opinion, the 2021 Holyrood election should be fought on one policy only -Independence.
      By then the utter incompetence of Bojos’ government will be clear to all.

    112. robbo says:


      You’re a fucking clown and don’t know what you’re talking aboot ,but you know that.

      Do wan

    113. Republicofscotland says:

      “In my opinion it would be madness to try to hold a referendum this year, much as I am desperate to see one. The physical impossibility of actual voting until this virus is done and dusted makes it unlikely that there will be time.”


      In my opinion there was never going to be a indyref this year regardless of the pandemic, at the very best Sturgeon would’ve asked Johnson for the S30, knowing fine well he would say no. Sturgeon and Blackford the latter in the HoC wouldve railed moaned and groaned about Johnson saying not now, and it would’ve gotten her off the hook with the indy support.

    114. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      A plebiscite election for Holyrood 2021 is, probably, the only way forward.

      The UK parliament will never agree to a referendum. Johnson has been briefed as to how important Scotland is to England’s economy.

      The problem is…
      How do we get the SNP to, once again, adopt the ‘plebiscite election’ as a way forward to independence?
      I despair, specially at the guff that Pete Wishart is coming out with, a man I used to respect.

    115. twathater says:

      ROS and Ron MacLean if you read Lornas comment @ 4.27pm it outlines how it could and should be done as Breeks who S Cat thinks is a moron has outlined numerous times on here and has been supported and agreed with by many who S Cat I presume also thinks are morons

      But NO we are going round and round trying to figure out how to get the independence job done whilst we have a crowd of independence IMPOSTERS and a FM selling out/giving away Scotland’s water

      A wee question , will the new list party be able to oppose the water giveaway or will that come under the PROMISE to stay schtum

    116. robbo says:

      Correct fireproofjim

      Disappointing as it is,trying to hold a referendum is the most ludicrous idea during a pandemic I ever heard from indy supporters. Absolute nuts and won’t happen. Any sain person can see that.

    117. jfngw says:

      Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats have accepted they have lost Scotland, their answer is to try and close Holyrood. They want control of Scotland back in their hands, they don’t care if you return 59 SNP MP’s with Holyrood closed they are back in control. Labour and the Tories are happy to play a bit of tennis knocking control back and forth, LibDem’s are happy to have a few seats in the HoL.

      Labour now see it as a failed plan to have a permanent fiefdom in Scotland and the Tories were quite happy to let them have it as long as they kept the resources. We are not getting independence with Westminster consent, we will need to take it.

    118. Dan says:

      @robbo at 9.56pm

      South Korea managed to hold an election with nearly 30 million folk participating on April 15th. Just sayin’.

    119. Republicofscotland says:


      Thank you for directing me to that fine comment from Lorna Campbell, if only we had politicians with grit who’d dissolve this union, as Lorna hints at, pity we don’t.

    120. Republicofscotland says:

      Not feathered but twathater, bloody predictive text I do apologise.

    121. robbo says:

      Where’s this water story of pipelines going from Scotland to England please?

    122. CameronB Brodie says:

      Liz g
      I’ll do my best to keep it real. Here’s some stuff that can help others do the same. 😉


    123. Lorna Campbell says:

      Robbo: no need to go the referendum route at all. I would contend that much of the Scotland Act is ultra vires whilst giving the opposite impression. I would contend that devolution itself is ultra vires in the context of the Treaty, and particularly so because only England does not have it. Neither domestic nor international law demands a PRE independence referendum. A confirmatory/ratifying referendum would, I think, be a requisite condition of international recognition, and would certainly be democratic if open to everyone of the requisite age living in Scotland.

      Ian Brotherhood: not on Twitter myself.

      twathater: lots of people advocate this route. I, too, have been trying for years to get people to understand what we have and to counter the Unionist drivel on the constitutional position. I would also be disputing the democracy inherent in one vote on one day in one week of one month in one year as superseding the SNP wins in every election since 2007, and the mandates accrued. Are elections not our primary source of democracy? When did that change? Who changed it? Anything in law that is too onerous is considered to be challengeable, and the Scotland Act is certainly onerous, and, therefore challengeable – if not in domestic law (as ruled by the Supreme Court, the UK final court of appeal on the constitution) then certainly through the Treaty in international law. It is one thing to rule out the means to independence (a constitutional referendum on the grounds of sovereignty of parliament) but it is quite another to block any means to independence at all. That is as near to fascism and totalitarianism as it is possible to come without actually proclaiming the UK such a political regime.

      Colin Alexander: the Treaty is a bi-party international agreement which must be adjudicated on in international law. We, the present people of Scotland are the legal successors to those Scots of 1707 who entered the Union unwillingly. Ergo, we have a locus standi as the successors of the independent nation state of Scotland that agreed the Treaty. It was not the parliamentarians who enacted the Treaty, as such, but Queen Anne’s Commissioners from each country (Scotland and England) on behalf of HM, who was acting in her role as (separate) Head(s) of State (Union of the Crowns, 1603) of each independent nation state. The parliamentarians signed the subsequent Acts (secondary legislation, and which cannot supersede primary legislation, the Treaty) that translated international law into domestic law (ratification). That legal right of Scotland to translate international law has never been rescinded, abolished or fallen into desuetude, so Scottish representation in the international courts is perfectly feasible and legal. Until fairly recently, the Scottish people have been told piles of ordure by Westminster and the Unionists, British and English Nationalists here, and they have believed it. We need to start challenging every single thing they say and which we have been expected to swallow at face value. The final point I would make is that, however we come to independence, the Treaty will feature powerfully in any independence negotiations. We might not value it, but you can bet your bottom dollar that England-as-the-UK will try to use it against us, to take as many of our resources and assets as possible and, I suspect, to try and force us into some kind of deal over Trident that would see us hosting this monstrosity for decades after independence.

    124. robbo says:

      Dan says:
      29 May, 2020 at 10:05 pm
      @robbo at 9.56pm

      So is that one of those precedents Dan?

      Some don’t like these precedent’s Dan, you do know that?

    125. Denise says:

      Does anyone trust Nicola Sturgeon and the people round her to negotiate a good independence deal? I don’t she’s too soft I think Joanna Cherry would do a better job. We don’t want a crap deal that impacts Scotland negatively for generations

    126. Mike d says:

      Lorna Campbell ‘no need to go the referendum route at all ‘ i agree,because between the incomers, postal voting, and the media, any referendum is doomed to failure.

    127. Lorna Campbell says:

      Republic of Scotland: I would add that the moment a legal challenge is made on the international stage, our Brexit would be suspended until such time as we received adjudication. Although the Vienna Convention on Treaties does not cover the Treaty of Union, there are tribunals that deal with old treaties. We need to start by having the Treaty ‘sound’ in law, in Scotland. I’m not saying we’d definitely win because the UK is a powerful opponent even now, and sits on the UN Security Council, but we are not winning now, are we? I think we have an excellent chance of building a case and having it heard. The UK has made enemies, and they will be sitting in the UN. We need to be smart and start thinking the way that the British State and its elites think: with pragmatism and realism.

    128. Dogbiscuit says:

      Robbo.Liz put the story about pipeline on this thread.

    129. robbo says:

      Lorna Campbell says:

      Robbo: no need to go the referendum route at all. I would contend that much of the Scotland Act is ultra vires whilst giving the opposite impression. I would contend that devolution itself is ultra vires in the context of the Treaty, and particularly so because only England does not have it. Neither domestic nor international law demands a PRE independence referendum. A confirmatory/ratifying referendum would, I think, be a requisite condition of international recognition, and would certainly be democratic if open to everyone of the requisite age living in Scotland.

      Some good points and well put.

      What would the unionists up here say to this,taking things like this through courts and such like is fraught with danger,no?

      If you say the Scotland act was ultra virus,why wasn’t this shouted from the rooftops in higher echelons at the time, indy movement i mean aswell as our Scottish legats ? cough cough!

      I’m sure we had one back in 1320 and 1707 maybe got beheaded lol,but in 1998?

    130. call me dave says:

      I have only seen a few scare stories some old some new see below two examples.
      But nothing at all about any real plan or agreement of a plan that it will ever happen.

      Boris Johnson: Move Welsh and Scottish water to England

      England set to run out of water within 25 years – but Scotland has gallons going spare

    131. Mike d says:

      Robbo 10.16pm Google AECOM £14 billion canal Scotland to England.

    132. CameronB Brodie says:

      Here’s what Lorna is talking about.

      Recognition in International Law

    133. CameronB Brodie says:

      And a bit more.

      Concept of Recognition in International Law and Instances of its Breach by Powerful Nations

    134. falk13 says:


      I completed this poll and I was NOT aware that you could select two options.

      I think that seriously questions the data and your analysis of it.\

      Would also explain the high % of don’t knows.

    135. CameronB Brodie says:

      And a bit more. Full text.

      Human Rights, International Economic Law and ‘Constitutional Justice’

    136. call me dave says:

      @Mike d

      That story is 2014 and it’s the Hootsman!

    137. robbo says:

      Mike d says:
      29 May, 2020 at 10:42 pm
      Robbo 10.16pm Google AECOM £14 billion canal Scotland to England.

      Aye seen that Mike.

      Yanks- no thanks!

    138. Dogbiscuit says:

      Can the people of Scotland appoint representatives to go above the heads of a discredited Scottish Government declare Independence and take it to the U N? Do we actually need a willing First Minister? Does anyone other than career fast trackers and cuckolded dreamers still believe in Sturgeons Independence credentials? I don’t like the continued lockdown10 weeks now especially as it was to initially help NHS and some bollocks about flattening a curve.Well both have been achieved and some here still haven’t admitted to themselves they got taken by MSM conmen. Journalists are leading society by the nose. Also this crisis is a Godsend to the Scunner Sturgeon. Did Scottish Govefnment have dick people put into care homes?

    139. Dogbiscuit says:

      Nicola Sturgeon.Why are you ignoring the increasing amount of evidence that shows that covid wasn’t as deadly as you and others have made out ?Dont think for one second I’ll consent to any track and trace regime .That is the stuff of Tyranical regimes .Youre mask is slipping you bastard.

    140. Ron Maclean says:

      Round about now Nicola’s flower girls should appear and tell us to have patience as Nicola has a secret plan.

      How do we take this forward?

    141. Mike d says:

      Call me Dave, I know it was 2014, but once trump gets his hard Brexit deal with bojo, you dont think that Westminster wont implement that once Holyrood is dismantled. They’ll need all the Scottish resources they can get then.

    142. robbo says:


      Your mask slipped long time ago ya clown.
      I would have you on permanent lockdown in a straight jacket and padded cell

    143. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Mike Small has been rolling out the ‘Wings cult’ patter again, in tweets earlier this evening.

      It’s way beyond time this shite was knocked on the head, but how best to do it?

      Any idea, fellow cultists?

    144. Quinie frae Angus says:

      @Lorna Campbell

      Thanks very much, Lorna, for your highly informative posts. Much appreciated.

    145. CameronB Brodie says:

      Ian Brotherhood
      You could try a bit of experimental psychology and stuff. Full text. 😉

      The partisan mind: Is extreme political partisanship related to cognitive inflexibility?

    146. ben madigan says:

      I can understand people who want to hurry things along the road to Independence. Because time is running out for Scotland folks.

      The EU is allocating unheard sums of money in an aid programme to help member states get over the devastation of Covid-19 and the economic damage of the lockdowns.

      The UK will get nothing as it is no longer a member state. (hence Sunai’s plans about carbon capture etc)

      Unless Scotland manages to stay within the EU or do something to prolong its transition period past Dec 31st this year, Scotland will get nothing and will remain at the mercy of England.

    147. CameronB Brodie says:

      I don’t follow personalities so I’m unsure of Mike Small’s position re. the proposed GRA reforms, but you could always hit him with some behavioural biology and the law, if he’s a gender-ideology cultist. Just saying. 😉

      Law and Behavioral Biology

    148. Sarah says:

      I’m enjoying the thread again this evening. Thank you everyone. We might end up with a Plan!

      Nice to see you again, Quinie.

      Lorna Campbell – nice positive comments. Keep them coming.

    149. Beaker says:

      @Ian Brotherhood says:
      29 May, 2020 at 11:30 pm
      “Mike Small has been rolling out the ‘Wings cult’ patter again, in tweets earlier this evening.

      It’s way beyond time this shite was knocked on the head, but how best to do it?

      Any idea, fellow cultists?”

      I’ve been visiting this site for years, but I wouldn’t describe myself as a cultist. I’ve been called something similar involving fewer letters and a spelling change.

    150. CameronB Brodie says:

      The lens of Social and Political Psychology is also rather helpfull in trying to understand the Mike Small’s of the world. 😉

      Special Thematic Section on “Societal Change”
      A Complex Systems Approach to the Study of Ideology: Cognitive-Affective Structures and the Dynamics of Belief Systems

    151. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’m aware that was a bit of poor grammar that might well have triggered a few readers, but effective proof reading is not one of my skills. Anyhoo, here’s another way of approaching Mike Small’s opinion.

      Lecture 3: Cognitive Legal Realism: The Science of Law and Professional Judgment

    152. Liz g says:

      Ian Brotherhood @ 11.30
      Whit is wrang this the Revs Back Hurting Mike Smalls Knife ?

    153. CameronB Brodie says:

      That previous one is also a good way of judging Dom Cummings.

    154. robbo says:


      anti NS fan club won’t like this one bit.

    155. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Liz g –

      If we could do the GIF thing here I would be posting the one of the big guy chuckling, like a modern Buddha.


    156. Liz g says:

      What to do What to do…..Invite everyone to the Stall to see for themselves?
      But other than that I wouldn’t worry too much about it Ian…
      Everyone who visits Wings ( and it’s a bloody lot ) know the “Cult” thing is a smear and that also know they can visit all the other blogs quite happily without being branded that way…..end result they will have to think twice about Boorish Bella because their interests have been insulted and belittled…
      As for the Rev….ha ha like he gives a shit……where’s that kool aid 🙂

    157. Liz g says:

      Hey Ian we could make a thing of it at the next stall….it could be a right laugh…live dangerously come see the Cult….we could make Ronnie walk round with sandwich boards 🙂

    158. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Liz g –

      I await orders…in the meantime, aff tae the scratcher!



    159. Joe says:

      I know most of you arent exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer but any who vote/support SNP while this hate speech legislation is on the table aren’t just thick – you are morally bankrupt and thoroughly deserve the shithole banana republic you will create. Of course it wont come to that. People will realise whats going on and plead with Westminster to save them. Then goes power with it.

    160. Joe says:

      Either way – you lose. Short of a radical clearout of leadership the SNP will sink Scotland as a nation while they are empowered by you. Dont mind me though, I wont get in the way of your progress to the result you deserve. Honestly – you fucking disgust me and I have nothing but contempt for any who will look the other way on the issue. I will enjoy reading the comments when reality hits home.

    161. Liz g says:

      Aw don’t Joe always make ye feel all warm and fuzzy? Just before bed time too 🙂

    162. Ruglonian says:

      Some great posts here today – it was a pleasure to read!

      Lorna, I enjoyed your contributions – some thought provoking points in there – and look forward to more 🙂

      Liz, you crack me up 😀 😀 😀

    163. CameronB Brodie says:

      The FM has been careful to avoid open support of the GRA proposals, as far as I’m aware. So it possibly isn’t her fault the bill has progressed as far as it has, as she appears to be getting legal advice that contradicts existing ethical legal doctrine concerning the legal identity of biological women.

      Rationality, Legitimacy, & The Law

    164. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Not been a member of the SNP since before they hit the big time.

      Does anyone know if proposed legislation is run by National Council before they inflict it on the proles?

    165. CameronB Brodie says:

      It should also be noted that a state of justice is next to impossible to achieve without an adequate legal epistemology. So that’s Brexit and the GRA proposals right out the window. That is if you support the principle of equality in law, that is.


    166. Cmonindy says:

      Used to call in to this site regularly to see the effective decimation of Unionist and MSM propaganda. Now, having had my hundreds of pounds donations spaffed against a courtroom wall, and seen a medically-worrying obsession with gra issues and the proposition of an Independence-denyind Wings party, I merely visit ocassionslly to check how mad things have got.

    167. CameronB Brodie says:

      Well I think you might have a bit of a personal agenda and view indy in isolation from a respect for the rule-of-law. 😉

      Cognitive Agendas and Legal Epistemology

    168. Liz g says:

      Cmonindy @ 1.59
      Well don’t keep us in suspense…how are we merely doing… Not that I’m fishing for compliments here..but some have said ” Mad Bad And Dangerous tae Know ”
      So come oan Ei….Indy say whatcha mean 🙂

    169. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Cmonindy says “I merely visit ocassionslly to check how mad things have got.”

      I visited the SNP website – The page for joining was pretty mad.

      There was a list as long as your arm for the “Title” prefix to your name – Everything you could think of between Lord and Lowlife – But no Colonel.

      It asked me If I was Male/Female/Non-Binary/Din’t want to say/or Wished to Self Describe, they kindly provided a box for that.

      I chose to “self describe” as Male

      They also included what I thought was a bizarre request for a photograph.

      I sent them this one.

      Please tell me they don’t put a photo on the membership card.

    170. twathater says:

      I notice it is mostly males or posters who appear to be males from their poster names who have no problem accepting or telling real females to accept the GRA amendments then get indy , they insist don’t worry it won’t come to anything or even if it does we can PROBABLY overturn it at some later stage , but these freedom fighters who are willing to chuck our females under the bus refuse to accept or recognise that the NEW Hate Crime Bill which protects transgenders in law , not female sex , will make it even more DIFFICULT to overturn or even oppose the legislation

      TBH I am disgusted that people would even think to prioritise indy over the protection of our wives , mothers ,sisters , daughters and grand daughters , that is not a choice we should even have to consider , it is beyond reprehensible that a government that we elected to serve us is forcing people to even consider this , what has it come to that a govt we elected feels empowered enough to ignore our opposition

      How can ANY right thinking person believe this choice is acceptable and how can ANY right thinking person believe that this govt should be forcing us to make that choice


    171. CameronB Brodie says:

      If the Lord Advocate is happy for the GRA proposals to proceed into Scots law, then I’d suggest he did obtain his qualifications from a cereal box. That or his intentions are other than to support justice and democracy.

      Epistemology and legal regulation of proof

    172. CameronB Brodie says:

      The GRA proposals don’t simply affect women’s rights, they compromise the potential for inclusive democracy and social justice. Just like British nationalism.

      Behavioral Law and Economics Is Not Just a Refinement of Law and Economics

    173. susan says:

      Thank you @ twathater, you explain things much more clearly than I could about the GRA and hate crime bill trap.

    174. Bailey says:

      Robbo at 10:40 pm, You ask what unionists up here would make of us taking Lorna’s advice and having the treaty looked at in the courts. I think Lorna means taking it to the floor of the UN. The treaty is an international one and the domestic courts, including the Supreme Court, wouldn’t have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is a creature of the British State and would just uphold British i.e. English constitutional law anyway. If we took our case to the UN, it would take the situation out of “Scottish” unionists hands as they represent London based parties and the British state wouldn’t be able to manipulate matters which were not in the domestic arena.

      Our ancestors may have acquiesced to the treaty hundreds of years ago simply because they may have had no choice. In 1998, people may have been glad to finally obtain a Scottish Parliament; but we don’t have to acquiesce to anything now, and things are a lot more serious now than they were in 1998 as I believe the Scottish Parliament’s existence will be threatened after Brexit. The Scottish Legal profession is largely made up of people who are doing nicely out of the current system so I don’t think a challenge will come from them. Very few solicitors that I have had dealings with are “political” and wouldn’t challenge anything unless there was an attempt to subsume Scots Law into the English system (which I think will come).

    175. robbo says:

      Bailey@ 7.11am

      Yes I get that but they certainly wib’r be quiet. I get what Lorna said in her post and with a good plan pre planned would certainly give an alternate route of engagement. IT’s hairy fairy plans that don’t follow the 7’s that I have issues with,just saying.

    176. robbo says:

      The 7 p’s plan

    177. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:


      I completed this poll and I was NOT aware that you could select two options.

      I think that seriously questions the data and your analysis of it.”

      (1) It was clearly stated on the page. Be more alert.

      (2) it doesn’t question the data or the analysis at all. If you ticked EITHER box OR both boxes you’re still counted as one vote in the 36% figure.

    178. Republicofscotland says:

      “Republic of Scotland: I would add that the moment a legal challenge is made on the international stage, our Brexit would be suspended until such time as we received adjudication. Although the Vienna Convention on Treaties does not cover the Treaty of Union, there are tribunals that deal with old treaties. We need to start by having the Treaty ‘sound’ in law, in Scotland. I’m not saying we’d definitely win because the UK is a powerful opponent even now, and sits on the UN Security Council, but we are not winning now, are we? I think we have an excellent chance of building a case and having it heard. The UK has made enemies, and they will be sitting in the UN. We need to be smart and start thinking the way that the British State and its elites think: with pragmatism and realism.”


      Sounds good to me, but which of our politicians and judiciary will get the ball rolling?

    179. Chic McGregor says:


      In 2006-7 one of the less publicised projects of Independence First (they were best known for organising marches) was to begin a complaints procedure to the UN in regard to the UK’s refusal to allow an independence referendum. The denial of the human right of self-determination.

      To do this, it had to be a complaint on behalf of an individual citizen and one of our group was duly selected for that purpose.

      Of course, in regard to a complaint regarding denial of national self determination, independence or an independence referendum, certain criteria had to be established.

      That the region seeking self determination was a geographical area with well defined and recognised borders.

      That the inhabitants constituted a ‘people’ (UN term)

      That there was evidence that there may be a majority support for independence.

      That all current paths towards self-determination were being blocked by the existing rulers.

      That all local remedies had been exhausted.

      A previous attempt had been made some 20 years before that (following the 1979 referendum) by a group called Scotland-UN.
      I was not a member of that group although we did seek and get advice from some of its members 20+ years later.

      However they soon realised that it would be difficult to demonstrate that a majority at that time might support independence and also at that time the Unionist politicians claimed that all Scots needed to do was vote in a majority of SNP MPs (something which seemed fantasy at the time). Remember “Every election is a referendum!”?

      They therefore switched tack to the ECHR but still retained the legacy, though now misleading, UN tag. The problem with the ECHR is that although the human rights enshrined there largely mirror those of the UN treaties it specifically does not include human rights on national self determination. That is because the ECHR covers nearly every country in Europe e.g. Russia etc.

      However matters of regional autonomy and devolution within the member states was something which could be pursued there.

      In our case in 2006 we had an advantage.

      We had uncovered buried polling data which showed that there were many polls carried out between the start of the Scottish parliament and 2006 which asked the simple question, independence Yes or No? Those averaged 54% for Yes (neglecting DKs). When we alerted SNP MSPs to this, from some of their replies, it became evident that even they did not know about them. [Instead they were fed indy support levels from polls with multi option questions and which conflated EU membership with independence].

      So we had evidence that a majority might support independence.

      Our complainant wrote on behalf of Indepence First to the UK Government demanding a referendum and asking when we could have one. The official reply in writing, and signed, was that they had no intention of allowing a referendum.
      Furthermore on being asked to specify what other mechanism exists to pursue self-determination, they replied (paraphrasing) ‘there is no other mechanism’. [They are required to identify and promote awareness of a self-determination mechanism]

      Regarding other local remedies (courts), well at that time constitutional matters were outside the remit of the Scottish Courts, even the Court of Session for it was aligned with the ECJ (EU Law) which in turn is aligned with the ECHR and therefore not able to consider matters of national sovereignty or secession.

      The final appeal court in the Lords, while they might have considered the matter within their purview, consisted of mainly Unionist party aligned Lords and we were confident that the UN would for this particular issue, given the clear conflict of interest, have waived that requirement as it would of course have been a complete waste of time. They have some wiggle room on the all local remedies exhausted requirement.

      Then of course, Alex Salmond’s triumphal return and the SNP’s ‘impossible’ government of 2007 came along and threw an unexpected spanner in the works. His promise that there would be an independence referendum meant that we, of course, no longer met the ‘all local remedies exhausted’ requirement.

      We therefore withdrew the complaint which we had lodged with the UN.

      So now, we are almost back to where we were in 2006.

      The pro indy support in the polls is almost back to where it was. There is certainly a clear majority for indyref2.

      On the down side, that denial of a self determination mechanism letter is no longer current. You will need to get the equivalent by the Scottish Government formally requesting a Section 30 order and being refused. Also I suspect they would either have to prevent an attempted non Section 30 backed referendum or ignore its results.

      Also, regarding the UKSC which is now in existence, it would be harder to demonstrate an innate bias (which I’m sure exists) and therefore less likely that the UN would consider all local remedies exhausted if the UKSC has not ruled a referendum out.

      However, there has been no Bill of Rights passed to confer power over this to the UKSC yet, and they might rule themselves that it is outwith their competence, but I doubt it.

    180. Sarah says:

      @ Chic McGregor at 3.25: I expect you have contacted Joanna Cherry already, but if not now seems a good time!

    181. robbo says:

      Interesting stuff Chic.

      Maybe you should link up with Lorna Campbell on twitter or submit if you both have it?
      We may need multiple plans + sub plans to frustrate that lot in Westminster-keep them occupied from different fronts.

    182. robbo says:

      But keep master under wraps and not public for now!

    183. robbo says:

      This is one hellava rant to be fair- UK strategy -well hmm
      N0 7 is great LMAO

    184. Chic McGregor says:

      Alas I am retired, in my 70th year and not as fit as I used to be.

      Glad to leave it to a younger crew.

      Probably the main UN treaty of concern is the ICCPR article 1 and 2

      The following may be useful.

    185. terence callachan says:

      Never believe a poll unless you know exactly and I mean exactly who was polled where they live where they’re from and what their living standard is.

      Never believe a poll when the questions are numerous

      Never believe a poll when the questions are a bit odd or could be misconstrued

      Only believe a poll if it was a single question
      and the question is a straightforward easy to understand simple yes or no answer

      You can get people to answer the opposite to what they believe by tricking them with numerous confusing questions set in spurious circumstances

      As ever , ask the question , who are these people they poll ?
      They are obviously people who are approached by the pollster sometimes by phone sometimes by other methods but remember this…pollsters keep records over many years of who has been polled before what they were asked and what they answered

      If you believe Cambridge analytica worked for the government legally honestly and openly
      You will no doubt believe pollsters work legally honestly and openly

      If you have any sense you will believe they are all at it

      Don’t believe polls

      WOS a strange feel to it

    186. Paul says:

      Come on then Wings tell us the solution! My question aside is this Are you a Pro Independence site or a Yoon one?

    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