Wings Over Scotland

To quote that great political commentator and all-round intellect Danny Dyer on Cameron: “Twat”.

F### this for a game of soldiers ,, am off to the pub ,,,,,,

If you tried to sell just about anything else using the promises, claims and lies the BritNats used then you would end up in jail.

Lies, damn Tory lies, damn Labour lies, the anti Scottish coalition just keep churning out quite obvious lies.

But many of the unknowing in Scotland simply cant help themselves or their families, they are, and I’m sorry if I offend anyone,too thick to see what is very clear.

We reside in a rather potentially wealthy country but our wealth is being pumped darn sarf by a shower of chancers who cant believe their luck. The establishment are very grateful that we are pretty thick in Scotland its a terrible pity for us and our families.

A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

Specially when his prophecies turn out to be wrong.

Has any prediction emanating from Westminster been right? Are we living in a near federal state? Are there frigates being built on the Clyde? Are we leading the UK not leaving? Did the broad shoulders of the UK preserve jobs in the volatile oil industry? Are pensions safe? The Barnett formula? The Sewell convention?

When will the £350 m a week be delivered to the NHS?

I think we have a serious case of false prophets in Westminster.

re:Donald Anderson@7.53

‘Char show’ and ‘Sock of them’ those typos say it all, not meaning anything bad, but they made me laugh! 🙂

Artyhetty , me too, it reminded me of the policeman in Allo, Allo!

Maid In Scotland @ 8.21pm:

“We Scots should not trouble our pretty little heads about such important issues, but leave it forever to the big boys and girls in the Parliament of England, our elders and betters, who know exactly what they are doing. They will always see us right in the end.”

I feel a subsidy coming on.

_____

And I feel a Johann Lamont quotation coming on … 🙂

BREAKING NEWS this evening to avoid scrutiny

The Supreme Court has allowed UK Govt to challenge Scottish Court decision that European judges should decide if Article 50 can be revoked. The Scottish Court of Session said no last week – UKG Law Officers went straight up to Supreme Court.

On 13 November 2018 Joanna Cherry asked Lucy Frazer the Tory Justice Minister why the Supreme Court has been asked to intervene in the article 50 case, as Scots Law states that when a unanimous verdict is given by the Scottish Law Lords, there is no facility to overturn that decision.

Miss Frazer reply. “We are well aware of Scots Law, but we look forward to the decision of the Supreme Court”

Translated. “Tough, we have our legal system”.

Looks like our laws and the Treaty of Union being ignored yet again

Talking about brexit lies etc.. I saw a short segment earlier today or yesterday, when a reporter was in a cafe in blackpool, getting people’s views on brexit etc. She spoke to one guy (and I actually felt sorry for him) who said he voted for brexit. When asked why he said his father was ill, and their was no support for him, so he voted for brexit, because ‘something’s got to change’.

I mean, that is a classic case of somebody who has unfortunately believed the total lies, and out of desperation at the poor social care or whatever for his father, voted for brexit, in the vain hope it will make things better. It is criminal how people such as that have been lied to.

I am sure he is not alone, honest, good, hard working, decent people, who have been totally deceived about brexit. Just in the exact same way, NO voters in Scotland were lied to about the EU.

I know I’ve said it before, but my god, I am so, extremely angry about Scotland being forced out of the EU by England. So very, very angry. These total lying f*** heads in London and their cabal of Britnat London-worshipping, Labour and Tory stooges in Scotland, are the lowest of the low, Utter, utter scum. They would rather see Scotland destroyed by brexit, than countenance the country of Scotland running its own affairs like any other NORMAL country.

Auld Rock – jings has it really been that long? 🙂

Sinky at 831pm,

You are right. But this is important. It is a clear breach of Scots law, os far as I can see. But then, that is the problem when you have a Westminster-designed pretendy ‘supreme court’ (created a few years back by Tony Blair) which sits just around the corner from Downing street, pandering to London’s whims.

So here’s the question, which judgement stands? In Scotland, it is the judgement of the court of session which stands, otherwise their is a clear breech of the treaty of union.

That new Brexit secretary obviously loves us!

On 15 Jun 2015:
Stephen Barclay voted against requiring the consent of the Scottish Parliament and of the Scottish people in a referendum before the Scottish Parliament can be abolished; and against strengthening the constitutional status of the Scottish Parliament.

link to theyworkforyou.com

We can be better, why are we tied to the millstone of the english empire.
Could we not be free and able to look after our own people.
Could we not be a more outward looking nation that holds no fear of people from other nations.
Could we have a government voted for by the people of Scotland and not the government of a adjoining country.
Could we not be free of wars designed to enrich the already rich.
We could be so much more.

Robert Louis says at 9:09 pm
Have to say, I am glad the FM did not accept the cynical ‘invitation’ to talks this morning with David Liddington

UK Gov respect for Scotland continues

link to thenational.scot

Robert Louis 8:48

Thanks for that. Its good to be reminded that there are ordinary, decent people all over England who have been betrayed by the same elitist cretins who would subjugate Scotland. I believe independence is a tremendous opportunity to bring this delusional edifice of empire crashing to the ground for the benefit of all the people of these islands.

Anyone know what’s up with Angus Brendan?
Did he have a titanium spine inserted or something? His letter to May was top notch. If all our MP’s were in the same groove, we’d be a lot closer than we are.

The relief in this household is palpable, that Cameron just had our interests at heart!

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH

STOP PRESS Johnston Press owners of Scotsman etc has gone into administration this evening.

A sad state of affairs, a newspaper that supported devolution when it was unfashionable and had 100,000 readers before the Barclay Brothers and Andrew Neil promoted as Unionist agenda.

Never an SNP or Indy supporting paper but it at least allowed pro Indy voices which is more than the London based newspapers ever did.

Let’s hope a pro Indy or at least a politically neutral owner rescues it from the ashes.

How long will it take before some labourand lib dems move to support yes

I won’t be shedding any tears over the Scotsman or its Britnat bampots that posted btl.

Which paper is next. I hope it’s Clegg next to get his jotters. He can then pissof to his spiritual homeland – London.

The Scotsman owner Johnston Press goes into administration
A statement published on Friday night revealed the publisher will place itself in to administration.

link to archive.is

@X_Sticks

Sorry sorry! How about you do the morning links instead ? 🙂

You can certainly rely on the military to cut through the BS..
This document is all about the next 30 odd years and what the priorities should be.
Funnily enough it all comes down to resources and energy..
link to assets.publishing.service.gov.uk

I wonder how long it will be, before we see the last ever edition of The Scotsman newspaper.
I’m actually a wee bit sad that Johnston Press have gone into administration as it was a very old Falkirk (my home town) firm which was ruined by non Scottish millionares.
Still, serves them right as the Falkirk branch of ‘Marks and Sparks’ has closed down also (my first job…Saturday boy).

How much further can the Westminster establishment go in making this country into a banana republic (without the bananas)?

@Nana

Nicola’s speech was excellent.

It does sound as if she has the starting pistol ready in her handbag.

We’re ready when you are, Nicola!

So, the laughingly titled’ Scotsman’ newspaper goes into administration. Well, what a freaking surprise. At the referendum, it didn’t just support a no vote to independence, but it ran almost every single day for years with a headlong that started with the immortal words ‘Samond accused…’.

Their editorial policy was aimed at British Nationalist Unionists tories – who make up a small fraction of Scottish readers. No wonder they have failed.

Their was a time when The Scotsman was a decent paper, with its impressive office right in the very centre of Edinburgh in their majestic building on the North Bridge.

Scotland has changed, Scotland’s politics have changed, and nobody in The laughingly titled ‘Scotsman’ seemed to notice.

One question – can we buy it?

A banana monarchy – without the bananas?

Defo @21.28

Ross Thompson is an Aberdeen MP born and educated in Aberdeen. He is a twat, but hardly a carpet bagger.

A bit off topic, but my favourite quote of the day by Feargal Cochrane in the National today in relation to the 585 page withdrawal agreement…..Never has so much paper been wasted by so many people in pursuit of so little.

The Irish have not been slow to take the piss right out of Westminster at every opportunity (Except the DUP of course).

I wrote this piece about the UK Supreme Court business, in historical (13th and 14th Century) perspective, for the previous post, but it also seems relevant here. Gary 45%, Sinky, Auld Rock, Bob Mack, Robert Louis and others. If anyone can be bothered to read it, that is, given the length, for which apologies – but no one his obliged to read it. Jump it by all means, though others might have time for it. Here it is:

With regard to that very recent and new-fangled thing, the so-called ‘UK Supreme Court’, questions must be asked: What is it? And what is it for? Who invented it? And why?

It seems to me it was a Tony Blair invention. That gives it the kind of pedigree that should raise suspicions right away. hardly an ancient constitutional institution! What was TB up to?

Of course, it sounds like a shiny new thing – all Tony’s new-fangled things ‘shone’, and claimed to be ‘new’ – imported from the States. It’s the USA that has a Supreme Court. So, was Tony the moderniser simply thinking: Why don’t we all get jazzed up and become modern, like the USA?

The USA – that wonderful model and ideal for our Tony’s New UK?

Well, there is a very good reason for not doing that – because the USA’s constitution is quite different from whatever the equivalent of it might be in the UK, and the legal realities on either side of the pond are by no means the same. The history of the UK, including the way it came into existence and the implications that follow therefrom, are nothing like the history and beginnings of the USA.

There isn’t a ‘fit’ possible between the USA’s Supreme Court and this funny, shiny thing that our Tony pulled out of his Magic Box of Tricks, dubbing it ‘the UK Supreme Court’.

But I don’t think Tony was simply transfixed by the USA model, or overcome by his America obsession. I don’t think he was simply Little Cringer trying to play the Big Man hung out to dray in George Bush’s shadow. Is it not possible that this invented ‘UK Supreme Court’ of his had Scotland specifically in mind? Was it not designed from the start as a means of undermining Scotland’s separate legal system? Just in case things ever got really out of control up there?

Something that could be pulled out of the bag, if the going ever got too tough, or the war – for war it is – got just too dirty? ‘Let’s just invent a new blunt instrument, a legal tool of the Executive (me!), with which to blunt the Scots’ very possibility of independence … and put them down – and ‘keep’ them subject … A means to change the old ‘Union’ into the New UK.’ Was that not what Tony had in mind? If he was too late to become the Hammer of the Scots – that title had already been used up – maybe he could become Blair their Slayer…

And did that idea not morph into the ‘four-nation’ one that Teresa May now talks so blandly about, meaning Big England and its three (ever-so-little) ‘pimpledoms’ … That is, its ‘native reservations’ of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland …

Such a good idea – Doesn’t the USA have ‘native reservations’ like that as well … ?

More precisely, was the UK Supreme Court invented with an eye on Scotland all along, in order to be used to transform that old Union into something it never was and never had been.

Modernisation, you see … means bringing everything under England, under what our Tony thought of as the English monarchy and making all things subject to the English law. The law he studied at Oxford (or was it Cambridge?), having escaped from his English public school (in Edinburgh!) into the arms of top-of-the-class Cherie (good move) and through her, getting to walk straight through the golden gateway into the future Lord Denny’s chambers (yet another very astute move) and on and on and on … even conveniently becoming a ‘Newcastle United fan’ on the way.

Joanne Cherry has already very clearly pointed out, in the House of Commons no less, exactly why the UK Supreme Court – even by its own terms of reference, as set out by the UK’s Supreme Charlatan (the Maverick Tony Blair) – has no legal authority to hear, far less to judge, the appeal which the UK government has disingenuously lodged with it. If the UK government did not heed what Joanne told them, it is because they already knew it before she ever said it. They know the UKSC has no right to hear appeals in matters where the highest court in Scotland, the Court of Session, has already given a unanimous judgement.

Yet the UK English government ignores the legal reality, and knowingly presses on with its fatally flawed appeal. Flawed, that is, in legal terms, since there are simply no possible grounds on which to base such an appeal. But now that we have our Brexit, having gained our liberation from the European Court of Jutsice or Human Rights or all such obstacles to our unfettered freedom – our Henry VIII style liberty to rule by Executive Diktat – what should anyone care any more for ‘the rule of law’? Whatever that means.

And, if the rule of law did still mean something, shouldn’t the UKSC simply say that hearing such an appeal lies outside its competence, and end the matter there? Instead, it has decided to ‘consider’ it, which already means giving a hearing of some kind to something which should be automatically thrown out, and not heard at all. What is there to consider?

And the UKSC might very well – indeed, it sounds as if it will – hand down a judgement on that appeal, even though, by its own terms of reference – as spelled out by Joanne Cherry – it has no right or authority to do so.

This tells us exactly where we now are. The idea has form. It has precedent. It has a long, long history.

In fact, it goes back seven and a quarter centuries.

We are back to precisely the same spot where where we were at the most crucial point of Scottish history. ‘Plus ca change, plus ca reste la meme chose’, say the French – the more a thing changes, the more it stays the same. And here we are back to where it all began …

On what we thought was 16 November 2018 – St Margaret’s Day (the Margaret who was Malcolm Canmore’s Queen, both of them dying in 1093) – we are not so long away from her day after all. We are actually back in the early 1290s … only a couple of hundred years after she and Malcolm III were with us.

What follows relies for its facts on the late Professor Barrow, whose magnificent book on Robert Bruce remains by far the best in the field. But he should not be blamed for some of the judgements or interpretations I make around these facts, insofar as they are mine.

On 22 December 1292, just three weeks after the enthronement of John Balliol at Scone the preceding 30 November, Edward I of England heard the appeals of one Roger Bartholomew, in regard to three cases which he (Bartholomew) had already lost before the highest secular court in Scotland. Bartholomew was a burgess of Berwick, then indisputably in Scotland, and the cases concerned matters which had taken place on Scottish soil.

The Scottish court had found against Bartholomew in all three cases, the details of which suggest that Bartholomew was a bully and a cheat, and not at all to be trusted in financial matters. Edward handed down judgements that were significantly different from those of the Scottish court, and he did so not in Scotland but on English soil, at Newcastle.

He was thereby acting as if he personally, as King of England, had authority over and above that highest of Scottish law courts – the equivalent of today’s Court of Session. By implication, and by the very fact of handing down such judgements, he was claiming to be the superior lord – overlord – of Scotland.

In so doing, Edward was laying down the gauntlet to the Scots’ newly enthroned King John Balliol. He was acting as if the Scottish kingship had been feudally subjugated to the English crown. Simply by hearing Bartholomew’s appeals, and even more so by handing down judgements in their regard, he was sending out the unmistakable message that Balliol’s kingly title was purely honorific, and not authentic kingship at all. He was affirming the lie that all political and legal authority in Scotland lay with himself as King of England.

Not just John Balliol but all Scottish ‘kings’, Edward was saying – both all previous ones and all future ones – were nothing but ‘pretendy’ kings. And Scotland merely a ‘pretendy’ kingdom. Not a country, not a kingdom, not an independent entity but a dependency dependent on and subjected to, indeed belonging to, the English crown.

Didn’t Tony Blair, at bottom, think the same?

Edward had wasted no time in asserting these claims, moreover in the particular way that he chose to do so. Specifically, through overruling decisions of the highest Scottish court, although he had in fact no right to do so. Sounds familiar?

It was only on 7 December 1292 that Bartholomew had lodged his complaint with Edward in the first place, and the judgement was handed down two weeks later. Bartholomew was helped in the whole matter by one Philip of Rydale, another burgess, who is known to have been mayor of Berwick in 1291. Edward, of course, was helped by both of them: his (beady) eye was not on the justice of the cases involved, but on the prize that would be his. Scotland would at last become a shiny jewel in his own crown. This would come about through using such trivia, such legal niceties, as instruments in his hand, for the accomplishment of his much greater and mightier designs. Bartholomew and his pal Rydale were but pawns on Edward’s chess-board.

It was a very big lie, and a deliberate one. Edward knew very well that his handing down judgements in such cases had no legal foundation or substance whatsoever.

For quite some time, and especially from mid-1291 onward, he had been very carefully preparing the way for making a move like this, in order to capture Scotland. He was like a hunter springing traps for his prey, as the Scots well knew (they even described him in precisely such terms when their legal team – Bisset, Eaglesham and Frere, all of them priests – defended the Scots’ cause at the Papal court in 1301, and when they concluded they went further still, pointing out that he should not be treated as a noble lord, but as a thief and a robber!) … And a liar: Edward had already decided, well before 1291, to press his spurious claims even though he knew them to be completely and demonstrably false.

Soon after the Scottish throne had fallen vacant with the sudden and unexpected death of Alexander III in 1286, Edward had begun what we might call his ‘Scottish project’ by making a thorough search of his own royal archives, and of monastic archives throughout the length and breadth of England. He did so in the hope of finding grounds on which to substantiate a claim over the kingdom to his North, but all to no avail. It was a search for evidence to justify a course of action on which he had already decided, but it had turned up precisely nothing – not one single scrap of evidence – that would support his case.

Proof that Scotland and its king were subject to the English crown – that is, under English rule – simply did not exist. To the contrary, far from supporting any such claim, the legal documentation that was found went entirely in the opposite direction, thereby disproving rather than proving what Edward, ‘the covetous king’, so much wanted and desired.

Edward was determined to press on nonetheless, dressing up claims that he knew to be false with all kinds of contorted and spurious arguments, cunning and clever in their own way but legally groundless. On December 31 1292, little more than a week after judging the Bartholomew cases that he had no legal right to judge, Edward brazenly and unilaterally revoked all the agreements and commitments that he had made with the Scots during the seven-year period between the death of Alexander III and the enthronement of John Balliol.

Inherent in these agreements, for instance in the Treaty Birgham of 1290 (which was concluded prior to the death of the Maid of Norway, Alexander’s heir), was an acknowledgement of the independent status of the Scottish kingdom. Once Edward had thus unilaterally torn up the commitments and obligations towards Scotland that he had so recently made, John Balliol had no option but to retaliate in kind. Just a couple of days later, on 2 January 1293, Balliol responded by repudiating whatever commitments the Scots had made to England and its king during the same period.

After this, although it took a while for hostilities to start, it was inevitable that war would break out.

Meanwhile, just in case you didn’t think it was all a put-up job, on 6 January 1293, King Edward – that noble lord! – paid out the not inconsiderable sums of 1 pound, 13 shillings and fourpence to Roger Bartholomew, and an even mightier 3 pounds, 6 shillings and eightpence to Philip of Rydale. They were well paid for what they had done, these two – the mighty pawns, on Edward’s chess board. They were surely being rewarded for playing Edward’s game, and doing his bidding, being good little pawns in his grasping hand, to be moved around at will for the accomplishment of what was ultimately his – not their – purposes.

It wouldn’t be the first or the last time that a couple of greedy, self-serving Scots had sold Scotland down the river – should I say ‘down the Berwick-on-Tweed? – for the sake of their own personal and purely selfish gain. Sounds familiar, even in our day? Don’t get me started on that line in the sea that was drawn outwards from Berwick without so much as a by-your-leave, in Tony Blair’s time, perpetrated with the collusion of senior Labourite Scots … one of whom at least is still around, making intermittent ambiguous and vacuous interventions. I believe he used to play for East Fife, or – even then – was he simply playing for himself?

Back to 1292-3, and Bartholomew and Ryland, Professor Barrow puts it wryly. He notes that that little entry in Edward’s account books, dated January 6th 1293, might look like a suspiciously prompt settlement of their ‘expenses’ … ?

To bring this little story bang up to date, let’s just fast forward about 725 years … to St Margaret’s Day, 2018, in fact. Take a good look at what is happening in front of our own very eyes, on this very day.

When we contemplate the inflated pretensions of the UK Government, and when we see clearly what it hopes it will achieve in a pretendy legal way, through the subterfuge of its so-called UK Supreme Court hearing an appeal which it has no right to hear … And when we think of even the possibility of that Tony-Blair-invented UKSC (the same Tony Blair who never in his life believed even in devolution, and is on record as saying since then that the creation of the Scottish parliament was a mistake), when we think of that UKSC handing down a judgement or making any statement at all on a matter over which it has no competence whatsoever … And when we further think of the outcome which will follow should it actually even attempt to judge the matter, with the UK government using that inherently invalid judgement to tear up the Union of 1707, effectively – de facto – declaring Scotland fully and finally subjugated to its entirely arbitrary rule …

When we imagine all that, and see it happening in front of our eyes, we know exactly where we are …

We are at the end game, and back where we started. We are thick once more in that war which broke out in 1293, in the wake of the events described. That war which has never really stopped.

After the 300-year long lull that was the Union, where we were not as fully alive as we could have been, but were not extinguished either, it is back to the stark reality that never really disappeared during the whole of the last seven centuries, and more. What is stark is the choice: it’s now or never. No longer is any halfway house even remotely possible.

Either Scotland stands up, and becomes an independent country once again. Or else she will be swallowed and extinguished and trampled underfoot once and for always by her southern neighbour.

England’s project, her intention towards Scotland, now worse than ever, freed up by the impending Brexit, unleashed and unrestrained, is what it has always been. The whole thing, which was long kept in abeyance, has been revived, in all its tooth and claw reality. The monster, which many thought slain, has risen from the deep, once more breathing fire upon us.

There is only one possible response. Scotland has the right to exist, and will prevail. Scots have no right to let her sink. They have a duty to see to it that she rises again, and is never extinguished. Only moral cowards would baulk at it: those in the right have no right to let injustice overpower them. Freedom is a noble thing …

Wull,

Thanks for putting that together.

Riveting read Wull.

Thanks.

Got me thinking again!

Rob James @ 12.15

I know there is no real queue. Was just using the “queue” theme of the article as a way (as a cue?) to offer my thoughts.

Wull @ 11.42

Terrific piece of work on really important issue. Merits being a post in it’s own right.

Expect an outpouring of bile from unionists and journalists at the independence supporters for not supping up the shite printed by the Scotsman. Apparently we should support the plurality of voices, although this plurality to me seems somewhat one dimensional in the MSM.

What’s that old saying, I did not leave the Scotsman, the Scotsman left me. If the public don’t like your fare then why should the buy it.

Cappella
I NO expert, but at a guess, neutralize our legal system?
🙂

Totally agree with this by the way, and perhaps where iScotland could contribute with a bit of statespersonship and diplomacy, tinged with genuine integrity, which at least used to be, an internationally recognised hallmark of Scots.

“Partnerships and alliances.
Over the past decade, increased military activity in the
Arctic has produced new forums such as the Northern Chiefs of Defence conference
and the Arctic Security Forces Roundtable. Such forums are still nascent and have
been negatively affected by the deterioration of relations with Russia in recent years.
However, they do indicate a growing realisation among the Arctic States, including
Russia, of the need for some form of Arctic security architecture where joint interests
can be discussed in a way that does not pit Russia against the rest.“

Anways, my feeling is that that paper proves that it’s not military, a strong military, is the enemy of peace.

It’s weak politicians.

@defo
China has already surpassed Russia with its economic influence, probably the US, certainly the UK and maybe the EU. It’s slow and steady for them, no theatrics.

YIR2
Economic wise no doubt you’re right, or thereabouts.
Militarily,our ex special ‘friends’ can, & I believe would blow all and any daft enough to mess in their backyard back,in atomic sized pieces,to the jungle canopy.
Anyone disagree?
See; Historic precedent. Cuba?
Current arms levels, & spending.
Hiroshima
William Hill Esq.Take £. Lots

Ps They seem to think China (& Russia) will endlessly put up with them doing exacly

@ Wull 11.42pm
Thanks for that read Wull and let’s hope the VERY fact that the brit nats have challenged the Scottish Court of Sessions decision will be highlighted and used alongside the various breaches of Acts and Treaty of Union when we #dissolvetheunion

For everyone on here who doubts Nicola Sturgeon’s intentions: future actions. For those who think that she’s Mrs Nicey-nicey to the point of being Mrs Dafty-dafty. That think that she’s happy with her lucrative “cosy number”. Who think that she’s been duped by a bunch of Holyrood and Westminster ignoramuses then think again.

Think of someone who’s had to do the day job with (well planned deliberate) cuts from Westminster, England and been thwarted in Holyrood, Scotland with the London controlled Unionist rag, tag and bobtail chancers opposing her at every turn. Add to that the Labour “tags” using the mostly London based Unions to bring her down. And on top of the day job she’s had to deal with Brexit (White Papers / Continuity Bill / input no doubt into the ECJ A50) and of course the crooks, mostly Tories, who have the use of massive amounts of dark money and the Media Mafia in the UK, in particular in Scotland. Then there’s the unreported online rape, torture and death threats.

Is there anyone on here who could have coped, dealt, with all of this (and the rest)? Just asking. She’s worked her butt off for Scotland. Worked her butt off for you and I. One singular woman. What have YOU done? She’s not putting that question to you (too professional, decent and kind to do so). But I am. All she’s saying now is that, “the future is in OUR hands.” That her message to us. If you love your country. If you want your children and grandchildren to live in a better world. If you want to live in a decent democratic society, in the here and now, stop griping about her, this singular women, and get out there and do something about it. There are hundreds of thousands of us. Many with amazing talents. So do it. Just do it and get us out of this (resume) hellhole.

link to m.facebook.com

Aye and Theresa May remains the threatened member of parliament, but their inner finger-pointing conservative politicians are all talk and no action, they cannae even gather enough names for their operation oust at the one time.

Radio also says the removal of Titanic Theresa has “stalled”.

That makes them British-Nationalist politicians look…

1) Yellar bellied
2) Scaredy cats
3) Chicken

Q. What did you see in them, previous tory voters?!

A good morning to ye fine Saturday of the 17th. 🙂

Fine art is imminent…

Just to clarify, I would acknowledge the SNP’s thankless and overlooked endeavours to actually get us devolution, but what I meant to malign was the Westminster version of devolution we got, that was designed to be a toothless placebo.

link to ncdiblog.wordpress.com

Re the Wightman case;
Can someone please, in very simple language, summarise what is happening.
And most importantly explain tbe possible outcomes for Scotland, please.

I’ve read Mr Maugham’s outputs and other legal writing and I’m still not clear on this.

@Giving Goose
I’ll give it a try.

Once Article 50 is invoked, then the UK is out of the EU 2 years after the invocation, with or without an agreement.

If both the UK and the EU-27 agree, the UK could cancel the invocation of Article 50 and stay in the EU.

If both the UK and the EU-27 agree, the 2 year period could be extended, so the UK could stay beyond the end fo the 2 years, but this would not be a cancellation of Article 50, after the agreed extension, the UK is out of the EU with or without an agreement – unless both sides agree to extend again.

Currently nobody knows if the UK could just cancel Article 50 and hence Brexit, without the agreement of the EU-27.

The Wightman case is about finding that out – from the ECJ which is the definitive court for anything concerning the Lisbon Treaty, which is what all 28 members have signed up to.

Actually, if the UK could cancel, then I guess it could just cancel and reinvoke Article 50 if it wanted an extension to the negotiations!

@Giving Goose: “And most importantly explain tbe possible outcomes for Scotland, please.”

Quite a lot I guess. One perhaps is that if the UK can just cancel Article 50, the SNP and Greens (and maybe LibDems and PC) could move a motion or Bill in the House of Commons to cancel Brexit – and see just how many MPs voted with them!

The threat of that might ruffle a few feathers, get anxious sweat on the faces of the Tories, and who knows, even make them rush through a Section 30. Total off the wall speculation by the way 🙂

Thanks for replies on Whiteman.
Is there a scenario in legal terms that recognises Scotland as a de facto seperate state?

@Giving Goose
Possibly one of the more interestng things is the Supreme Court effectively ruling on whether it has the jurisdiction to overrule the Court of Sessions and allow the UK Gov to appeal to it, to then appeal against the Court of Sessions ruling that the case can go to the ECJ (urgently) overturned.

Strong and stable? The sheer number of Tory resignations since Brexit speak for themselves.
link to facebook.com

link to centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

link to facebook.com

link to johnstoncarmichael.com

link to politico.eu

Bemused EU eyes options for British Brexit meltdown
link to archive.is

link to infacts.org

link to evolvepolitics.com

link to taxresearch.org.uk

link to rte.ie

link to ukandeu.ac.uk

link to thepoorsideof.life

Looking in from Ireland it does seem as though Scotland is approximately 120 years behind the curve.

In this rather fiery and impassioned episode of #3Blokes In A Pub, we talk to scientist Dr Mike Galsworthy about #Brexit’s impact on medicine and the NHS.

TL;DW: it’s not good. It’s really not good at all.

link to youtube.com

@Nana
Touch-typing, sometimes the fingers don’t line up right!

I blame it on the keyboard, it wasn’t in the right place.

Morning yesindyref2, you are absolutely on the button 🙂

~Nana
Ds,r yjomh js[[rmd yp ,r!

@defo
Yes, China might be playing it a bit more carefully now, for a time.

Good game, good game!

Wonder when us pawns will just get sacrificed? Again?

@Nana
Took me about 5 minutes doing it 🙂

Breeks @ 4.35 am

Why were you not in bed?

This is an excellent read everyone on here should take the time to read it.

Well found.

YIR2
It’s a Generation type game.
Our new Chinese overlords generally don’t do the killing your customers number. Way to clever.
They saw how trying to outspend the Military Industrial goons in the Big Hoose went for the Soviets.
War for them is economical, and they’re doing just fine with the Plan so far.
Chairman Deng Xiaoping was a wee man, who will get the credit he deserves one day.

And for your Brucie bonus, can you explain how Reprobate Ross gets to pick and choose who he calls on to resign?
Fluffy, but no the Mooth !

Any takers?

Anyone care to comment?
link to thejournal.ie

Breeks @4.35 am

The link to the S- Un article covers exactly why I hate looking at the Dewar statue in Buchanan st Glasgow. Just like the Labour Party – they have always been anti devolution. Just another bunch of Britnnat liars.

Get that statue out of Buchanan st. It is just more Britnat propaganda but in stone rather than words.

Glasgow council bin the Dewar statue.

Women for indy conf, Nicola is there

link to livestream.com

Nana says:
17 November, 2018 at 11:08 am
Anyone care to comment?
link to thejournal.ie

I don’t want to dwell on the matter because it might be inflammatory, but the degree of ambivalence which arose about EU membership in 2016 still haunts us. I think it was a strategic mistake.

In my opinion, we should have nailed our colours to EU Membership from the outset, citing the obdurate Constitutional proof that the sovereign people of Scotland had spoken, and spent the time between then and now converting Europhobes and bolstering support for EU Membership against the same backdrop where the outright stupidity of Brexit broke itself against the impermeable rocks of collective European solidarity and unflappability.

If we had committed and coordinated ourselves with Europe I think we’d have been a lot more successful converting thoughtful Euroskeptics into YES/Remainers, while simultaneously driving home a Constitutional stake into the black heart of Westminster to their impotent frustration. Instead we have stood back to watch the the corrosive insanity of Brexit upon a surprisingly durable and intransigent Unionism. We will never know if that alternative strategy would have shifted the polls much more than they have.

That, cover to cover, is my beef with the SNP, but it no longer matters. Coulda, woulda, shoulda, is no longer relevant. We are where we are, and whatever misgivings I held are now academic. We have chosen different routes to get to where we are, and some preferred to take the scenic route.

Draw a line under it. This is heads down stick together time.

STATEMENT BY CUSTOS ON LATEST EVENTS REGARDING JOHNSTON PRESS, Johnston Press Plc in collusion with the majority bondholders, US hedge fund GoldenTree Asset Managemen

link to twitter.com

Some great posts on here such as Wull’s at 11:42pm. Thanks for taking the time to put it together Wull.

Some great advice too such as Breeks at 11:56pm … “Draw a line under it. This is heads down stick together time.”

And thanks for the links Nana and your coverage of events over the last few days. The contents of the United Nations report could prove to be extremely helpful for us in the weeks to come …….

“The United Nation report is harshly critical of Government policy saying that it’s been driven by social re-engineering rather than economics.”

link to archive.is

Westminster is in breach of a number of articles in relation to the founding pillars of the United Nations system, such as the State (Westminster) ensuring that every child has a right to nutritious food (Children’s Rights – Article 24).

Also in breach of a number of Articles outlined in the following document … and there’s more of course.

link to ohchr.org