The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The threatened member

Posted on November 16, 2018 by

Ah, remember these simpler times, readers?

Thank goodness for etc etc.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 16 11 18 19:56

      The threatened member | speymouth

    135 to “The threatened member”

    1. Geordie says:

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

    2. Ghillie says:

      Right now I would be delighted to just BE in que to be in the EU!!

    3. Joe says:

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

    4. Gfaetheblock says:

      There was always two risks to continued E.U. membership, Yes and Leave.

    5. galamcennalath says:

      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.

    6. Gary45% says:

      Unfortunately there are still residents in Scotland who will simply refer to this as “Fake News” cause the media still controls their sorry excuse for a life.
      last week or whenever me and the wife heard Tory Boy “Mr Bungles” Boris using the word “vassalage, vassal state”, and we said to each other “that’s the latest word for the fuckwit society to use” sure as shit all the nobody’s in the media are at it.
      We have a new meaning for the word .
      Vassalage/Vassal= To talk utter meaningless Brexit Bollocks to make one sound like a total twat.
      Expect to find it used in the Tory Boy Christmas annual
      “Mr Bungles Bumper Annual of Fuckwittery and Brexit.”

    7. Jason Smoothpiece says:

      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.

    8. Donald anderson says:

      Joe says:
      16 November, 2018 at 7:40 pm
      F### this for a game of soldiers ,, am off to the pub ,,,,,,

      Set ’em Joe. Mine’s a malt of the month.

      Sick of listening to English political char show blethers. No wander Europe is sock of them. Who cars of Theresa resigns or not. Who wants to be ruled by any of them. Boris Karloff or Corbyn the pumkim head, wot’s it to us?

    9. ScotsCanuck says:

      To think that I believed him …. and he sold me that bag of Magic beans !!!!!

    10. Capella says:

      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.

    11. Artyhetty says:

      Remember also that EU nationals living in Scotland in 2014 could vote in our independence referendum. They were conned by the Britnats’ ‘Project Fear’ and all that the Britnats threw at them and whoever else they needed to scare out of having a decent 21st century country, in which to live with a good democracy that is looking to the future.

      The opposite is now true of course. We are being dragged backwards by a very dangerous bunch of British Nationalists, dictating to Scotland, leaving Scotland out of any Brexit talks at all, ( imagine they’d said that on the ballot in 2016, ‘Scotland, you lot can go eat worms ha ha, you won’t be getting any say on our all in it together Brexshit btw lolz!’) demonstrating nothing but contempt for Scotland’s democratically elected government, and certainly taking the absolute rip out of the people of Scotland.

      Scotland is in a dangerous place right now, people go about their business as usual, but if you really think about it, things are not looking good, on so many levels.

      Always the pessimist, but, also there is a glimmer of a silver lining, we just need to keep quiet about when the next referendum will be, it could be needed swiftly, no time to dilly dally so to speak. So, on that thought, we still have a chnace to escape the sinister clutches of the abhorrent rule from Westminster, they have plenty to be getting on with without Scotland giving them grief!

      EU nationals must have the vote in any indy ref, and so must our young people, after all, they are officially adults at 16 years old in Scotland, that means they should be voting from age 16. (It’s 18 in England).

    12. Artyhetty says:

      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! 🙂

    13. Peter Macbeastie says:

      On Facebook earlier, where I bumped up against the kind of person who would have believed every word of that without question.

      I was on the STV News page, where they’d highlighted a report from the BMA that Brexit was likely to result in a shortage of qualified doctors as currently many in the UK, not just Scotland, are from EU countries.

      This guy called that scaremongering. And when I pointed out what the fragrant Ms. May had emphasised in her speech yesterday evening, the ending of freedom of movement, he actually said he was commenting on the headline first, and on reading the article had decided that it was all scaremongering.

      Or to put it another way, a Daily Mail editor’s wet dream. A moron who reads the headline and actually thinks everything they need to take from the article is right there.

      The amusing thing out of the whole Brexit shite for me is that’s one thing they won’t be able to play as a threat next time.

      ‘Vote yes and you’ll be out of the EU! Oh… shite.’

    14. Dorothy Devine says:

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

    15. Maid_in_Scotland says:

      Today John Beattie read out a text or e-mail from a listener who asked could they do programmes without Trump, Brexit, food fascists and ……. wait for it ….. PRO-INDEPENDENCE RHETORIC!! How I laughed and how the BBC bods who decided it should be read out must have laughed. I daresay that message is code for “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.

      Can someone please direct me to any BBC programme that pumps out pro-independence rhetoric, even in tiny doses. Thank you.

    16. Welsh Sion says:

      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 … 🙂

    17. Hamish100 says:

      Brexitor John Redmond let it slip on Any Questions tonight when he refers to England. No one corrected him.

    18. Sinky says:

      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

    19. Auld Rock says:

      Johnson and Rees-Mogg complain about having to live in a ‘vassal state’ – well boys welcome to Scotland for that’s what we’ve been living like for 3011 years.

    20. Robert Louis says:

      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.

    21. ben madigan says:

      @ Maid_in_Scotland who asked for “any BBC programme that pumps out pro-independence rhetoric, even in tiny doses”.

      Sorry to disappoint you Maid.

      That’s a programme you will never get the chance to view.

      The BBC does what it says on the tin “British Broadcasting”

    22. TJenny says:

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

    23. Bob Mack says:


      Not quite Sink. The Supreme Court have decided that three judges will look at the Westminster submissions to see if there is sufficient grounds to hold a hearing.

      Interestingly the government are basing their case on the grounds used by the Appellants. E. Joanne Cherry et Al as their own case.

      To keep up to date on events follow Joe Maugham QC on twitter, as he is driving the article 50 bus so to speak.

      This case could split the Union.

      The Supreme Court are being asked to supercede the right of the Scottish Court to appeal direct to ECJ. Even though that is the law in the UK.

      Perhaps we now know why Liddington tried to get Nicola to London so urgently, but also why she did not go

    24. Robert Louis says:

      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.

    25. Iain says:

      We are witnessing history at the collapse of the brittish empire and Scottish freedom, we just have to be strong and firm in our resolve
      Their empire is falling apart and the rise of English nationism will see us free.
      Ulster will be the rock that the empire breaks on, followed by those rebellious Scots.
      We just have to stick to our stubborn and thorn nature and freedom awaits.
      England will just have to manage without its cash cow.

    26. mike cassidy says:

      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.

    27. Robert Louis says:

      Have to say, I am glad the FM did not accept the cynical ‘invitation’ to talks this morning with David Liddington. They, in London are showing nothing but utter contempt for the people of Scotland, and, especially, the FM and Scots Government.

      Even if she does not call a referendum right now, the FM needs to start playing hardball with these lying bas***** in London. The time for cosy chats is over, and playing by any notion of courtesy.. Being ‘nice’ doesn’t work with Westminster.

    28. Iain says:

      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.

    29. Golfnut says:

      @Robert Louis,

      It’s a clear breach of the European Coventions as well which the UK signed up to.

      This is a sign if we ever needed it, that they are desperate. Time is against them, not us. Something happening in the background that we can’t see yet.

    30. Sinky says:

      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

    31. defo says:

      Professional carpet bagger, and all round Bawbag, Ross T is being really unfair to Fluffy!
      It couldn’t be that he’s got yet another a phobia of a sort?
      If his position is ‘untenable’, then what that of neo-Malthusian, NI friendly, but not THAT friendly Gadaftie ?

      Ex-Pearty Leaders can only expect to watch TV exposure plummet, like the proverbial merde of off a pelle.
      No more photy ops. Awww.

      Crawl back on the box?
      Maybe a nice wee chat show, where she can espouse endless SNP BAD (and get paid for it, so no real change then), and how she would never dare to put her (well within the child limit) new arrival within the same postal district as one of those murderous baby boxes.

      I’m sure someone from London Auntie could have a word in some minion up heres ear.
      Keep the MSP moola, and a few hours exposing herself a week on top. Pay for life’s little extra’s sort of number, now the ermine is fading from view sort of jobbie.
      2 MSP salaries coming in doesn’t go as far as you might think, it’s barely a bakers dozen households on the Clause triggering WTC incomes.
      She could take a wee footy team-full of the Social,and still have enough for the essential second holiday.
      Every cloud has a silver lining.
      For some.
      At a mere moral price.

    32. Davie Oga says:

      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.

    33. pipinghot says:

      And the headline on BBC news Scotland is some unknown arsehole with a butchers apron background pointing a finger. FFS I did not believe the state broadcaster could get any lower.

    34. Davie Oga says:

      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.

    35. Jock McDonnell says:

      I can’t say I’m convinced yet that May getting this through the commons is a good idea, but it will at least provide clarity on what a bad deal is. It will result in future relationship negotiations – which the FM can base an Indyref campaign on – demanding a seat at the table.

      We must be ready.
      Day of Action tomorrow too.

    36. Mogabee says:

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


    37. galamcennalath says:

      Telegraph … “Nicola Sturgeon and her Brexit Minister have been accused of a “dereliction of duty” after refusing offers of face-to-face meetings with Theresa May’s deputy to discuss the Brexit deal.”

      The time for face to face meetings was a year ago!

      And, discuss the Brexit deal, AFTER is has been negotiated!? What is there to discuss with the Tories? Jeez, they are even trying to stop the ECJ ruling on whether it can be cancelled. Perhaps if they withdrew their appeal and awaited a decision, it would be a good step.

    38. Sinky says:

      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.

    39. Proud Cybernat says:

      You’ll find it in ‘Alistair Carmichael’ too…

    40. Shug says:

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

    41. Cubby says:

      Amber Rudd another English Britnat Tory who specialises in chucking people out of the country who have every right to be here and making people’s lives a misery with no right to do so. A Home Secretary shamed (if Tories can be shamed) by the Windrush scandal and hostile environment and then lies about it in Parliament.

      Invited back in to UK government to rule over us and take over Universal Credit and sanctioning people. A bit like a convicted child molester being giving a job in a nursery after getting out of prison. The witch resigns and the beast is brought in to take her place.

      The Tory scum are the lowest of the low.

    42. Cubby says:

      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.

    43. call me dave says:

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

    44. X_Sticks says:

      Dammit Nana! First time in ages I thought I had something worthwhile to add but you beat me to it, as always 😉 xx

    45. Nana says:


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

    46. TheItalianJob says:


      Goodness me Nana you’ve been working overtime and posting all day and evening.

      Great find on Nicola’s speech on Facebook (I’m not on Facebook).

      Great speech. Looks like we’re on our way soon.

    47. ScottieDog says:

      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..

    48. remo says:

      So sad about the Hootsmon – NOT. Serves them right. Chorus of “YESSS” in our house on hearing they are going into administration. One down, how many more to go?

    49. Bill Hume says:

      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)?

    50. Nana says:


      I’m not on facebook either, but I know a man who is 🙂

    51. galamcennalath says:


      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!

    52. James Barr Gardner says:

      Thanks awa fur the crackin’ comments it’s helping me forget ma dodgy disc nae fun at awe ! Donald Anderson I’ve gave up the pain killers I’am noo on the malt o’ month! DIY at ma age is’nae fun, better wi’ a guid book oor WOS !

    53. Robert Louis says:

      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?

    54. galamcennalath says:

      Bill Hume says:

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

      Aye, and without being a republic either! 🙂

    55. Capella says:

      A banana monarchy – without the bananas?

    56. Capella says:

      Interesting discussion on Crosstalk RT on nationalism and patriotism after Macron’s dig at Trump last week. Approx 30 mins:

    57. Gfaetheblock says:

      Defo @21.28

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

    58. mr thms says:

      BBC News 24 is breaking news that Johnston Press is preparing to go into administration..

    59. Rob James says:

      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).

    60. David C says:

      Once we get independence, I think that the queue for EFTA with the EEA option might be shorter. In truth it might prove to be a smarter initial option as there will be an awful lot to sort out and set up at the start – giving us a stable trading environment to operate within, but allow us a bit more elbow room to work some things out than might be the case if we opted to go straight into the EU.

      Once things are set up and settled down we could then consider if we wanted to go for the full EU experience or not.

    61. wull says:

      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 …

    62. Capella says:

      @ Will – what an excellent read! Thx. G W S Barrow was a very thorough historian. I have his Anglo-Norman Era (not read all of it yet though).

      So will be interested to see how the Supreme Court deliberations turn out.

      What I had understood was that, previously, the House of Lords was the highest court of appeal for most cases. The Supreme Court was supposed to remove the process from the House of Lords but retain the function of a court of last resort. Obviously, not for matters decided by the Court of Session.
      Perhaps there are some experts here who can explain the decision to set up the Supreme Court.

    63. cearc says:


      Thanks for putting that together.

    64. yesindyref2 says:

      @ScottieDog at 10:38 pm

      Sheesh, that’s pretty hugely global and all-encompassing. Yes for your point, military has to look at blunt bare basics not just politics. Impressive the MOD has. I’ve bookmarked that report, but honestly doubt if I’ll ever read it!

    65. Pete Barton says:

      Riveting read Wull.


      Got me thinking again!

    66. Rob James says:

      David C @ 11.32

      There is no queue!!! That is a claim promoted by Unionists and we are all aware that they occasionally tell porkies.

      Wull @ 11.42

      My sentiments exactly, but it would have taken me about six months to write it. Kudos to you.

    67. David C says:

      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.

    68. yesindyref2 says:

      Wow, interesting document, just flicked through. This was interesting “Deterring illegal maritime activity could drive greater regional cooperation“, and a potential driver for better relations as it affects all countries, even non-maritime ones. And this is bang on:

      By 2050, the Arctic could be a major supplier of oil and gas and, as its waters warm, an increasingly important fishing ground. As competition in the Arctic increases the security paradigm could change and the region may become increasingly militarised. New institutions and frameworks may be required to ensure security and governance of the region and to reduce the risk of military conflict.

      The Antarctic is fairly well recognised for international co-operation and scientific research but it seems to me the UK is late to the Arctic game, at least in terms of defence, though there has been a recent exercise. Something of great importance to Scotland, whether willingly or not.

    69. jfngw says:

      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.

    70. defo says:

      Gfae somwhere in the northeast,I guess.
      Apologies, mixing up the old political punches.All this fun, watching their Brexit guarantee our aims, has fair done for me. Plus lurgy i’ve gotten, requiring steroids N antibiotics…

      How about any/all of these instead.
      Self serving sycophant
      Amoral twat
      Greasy pole climbing fumbler
      Bandwagon jumping lemming…

      Feel free to disagree/delete/ignore/add to list

      Cheers for correction.

      Btw re Hootsmoncide.
      woo hooo.
      To the Nth.
      Eddie Barnes and co. GIRUY
      Redcoat and Herald buildings report pegs on doors have suddenly all gone shoogly.

    71. defo says:

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

    72. yesindyref2 says:

      n particular, further demands for the independence of Greenland from Denmark can be expected.
      . . .
      For example, whilst Iceland has traditionally looked to the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for security, its small, yet independently-minded population might, if the circumstances were right, decide that its interests were best served by forming alliances with partners outside NATO.
      . . .
      China is also looking to invest in Greenland and should Greenland become independent from Denmark, China might become its primary partner.
      . . .
      Whilst the prospects for Greenland’s independence remain a matter for speculation, an independent Greenland that wanted to leave NATO would throw into question the future of the US military base at Thule.

      No mention of Scotland, but just modifying the above would cater for our Independence, in the assessment of the MOD and NATO of an iScotland. And then there’s this which caught my e’e:

      The US has long had airpower superiority in the Arctic, and this advantage is likely to be maintained by the Pentagon’s investment in the F-35 series of aircraft. Tested in the Arctic conditions . . .” (my bold)

      adds to my belief we should have an LDA / LPH capable of taking a few F35-Bs.

    73. yesindyref2 says:

      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.

    74. yesindyref2 says:

      Sorry, forgot to painfully reformat that last bit.

    75. yesindyref2 says:

      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.

    76. defo says:

      Why is Loon Ross calling for Fluff to step down, after he reneged on resigning, but the Mooth is sound by him, even though she did the same.

      Answers on a postcard, addressed to all good unionist publishers would be most welcome.

      Re Greenland
      If our Chinese cousins even dreamed of hinting at ambitions there, the only pragmatic things worth building would be bomb shelters and hospitals.
      Sleep tight on that y’all.

    77. yesindyref2 says:

      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.

    78. Liz g says:

      Will @ 11.42
      Fantastic read Wull, Thank You …
      You must have spent ages putting it together!!
      Loads to take in … but for now…
      Says it all really… we have always been and still are caught up in the aspirations of London (Westminster)… nevertheless we have kept our identity, which is quite, in and of itself an achievement… and, now that the world is where it is,
      We now need to go take our place in the 21st century.. mibbi all that has happened had to happen!
      Mibbi we are the personification of an idea whose time has come?
      So that Scotland, this Scotland, .. forged in how not to do Unions/empires and all that shit..can emerge as the egalitarian example, humanity sorely needs..
      Here’s Hoping… fingersX

    79. defo says:

      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.
      William Hill Esq.Take £. Lots

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

    80. defo says:

      exactly the same thing.

      Soz. Fat thumb phone thing.

    81. twathater says:

      @ 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

    82. yesindyref2 says:


      Done competently, it’s like a dance. One party pushes the economic sphere too far, a bit of military saber-rattling to discourage and persuade back those being influenced, a counter-saber rattle, it doesn’t go too far because of the danger of nuclear obliteration.

      The problem is when at least one of the players isn’t competent, then the actual danger of nukes increases. Do the other players back off, or make threats? But generally they know the likely moves and it’s still part of the dance.

      Every so often you get someone totally unpredicatable, and that’s where Trump comes into his own! He can’t even predict himself what he’s going to do next.

    83. Petra says:

      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.

    84. Petra says:

      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 r*pe, 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.

    85. Cactus says:

      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…

    86. Breeks says:

      Excellent read Wull. Thoroughly enjoyed it.

      In similar vein to the Constitution of UK’s Supreme Court, though perhaps a little nearer the knuckle, you could also argue that the foundation of the Devolved Parliament of Holyrood was yet another instrument ostensibly sold to us as charitable and generous emancipation, but which came to us corrupted with sinister designs to entrench Westminster’s superiority over Scotland.

      The Act of Union itself has never drawn a single breath of Constitutional legitimacy, sold to us as thing we should be grateful for, but underneath, a wilful and orchestrated subversion of our liberty.

      I have in the past put forward the notion that Scotland’s unique sovereignty, so eloquently and unequivocally defined in the Declaration of Arbroath, has been a veritable Gordion Knot for our would-be overlords from the South. There is no solution to their puzzle because there never can be. There is no closure to their colonial enterprise. Legitimacy will always confound them because Scotland’s sovereignty is the knot they cannot untie.

      A pet theory I have is that Scotland’s indigestible Sovereignty is actually the reason why the clumsy and unorthodox Union of kingdoms actually exists in the first place. Scotland couldn’t be beaten, it had to be “joined”.

      If the Union were now to last that long, though I very much doubt it will, we Scots might expect a ringside seat to yet another “British” colonial misadventure, as Westminster seeks to alter, and draw the teeth from it’s adolescent Holyrood Legislature which has grown up to be difficult and unruly, and has already become such a thorn in its side.

      The Auld Scots penny is dropping at last, at long last. There is nothing, not a thing, which comes to us under the seal of Westminster which actually empowers Scotland in any way. It is all perfidy and insurrection. Nothing comes back to us that hasn’t first been taken from us. Every Constitutional strength and protection which Scotland enjoys has its origins in our original Scottish Constitution. It is the kryptonite that Westminster is literally powerless to defeat.

      Our Constitutional essence, the very nucleas of Scotland itself, is older, stronger, and deeper rooted than anything the duplicitous government of Westminster can contrive to master us. The cage door is open. We might walk out whenever we like.

    87. Breeks says:

      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.

    88. yesindyref2 says:

      We’re inches away from Independence, maybe even centimetres.

      And that means now is the time to up our principles, to have compassion and understanding of our neighbour, and to hope it all goes well for them.

      From that point of view I hope the political coup of the far right, Rees-Mogg and the ERG and the back-stabbing of Theresa May fails, and fails miserably, and those perpetrators get deselected and never appear in politics in the rUK again.

      When Indy Scotland is onwards and upwards, we don’t want our friends and family, and neighbours in the rest of the UK, to get flushed down the toilet and sent back to the Victorian era for the sake of personal power, wealth and privilege.

    89. Giving Goose says:

      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.

    90. TheItalianJob says:

      @Wull at 11.42

      Read it full. What a great piece and how we have been betrayed for so long.

      That article is worth printing and publishing widely.

      @Breeks at 4.35am.

      Another good follow up to your usual posts on Scottish Sovereignty.

      Keep them coming.

    91. yesindyref2 says:

      @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!

    92. Graeme says:

      @Wull at 11.42

      Great piece Wull

      I normally skip over super long posts but that one had me riveted to the end.

      You should try and have that printed in every newspaper in Scotland local & national

      I may be wrong here but if I’m not mistaken was Balliol himself not summoned to Edwards court to answer for his judgements ?

    93. yesindyref2 says:

      @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 🙂

    94. Gfaetheblock says:


      Self serving sycophant gets my vote

    95. Giving Goose says:

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

    96. Golfnut says:

      A great post by Wulls, Edwards machinations were little different to the current establishments, and comprises mostly of smoke and mirrors dressed up in legalese. It’s purpose is to convince us that we are powerless against the Westminster juggernaut.
      It fails when you have an informed population.
      The Declaration of Arbroath was accepted into International law by the Papal court.
      The Treaty of Union enshrined Scots law and the Peoples Constitutional Status, the English signed up to that through their own Act of Union.

    97. yesindyref2 says:

      @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.

    98. Nana says:

      The @10DowningStreet is in a hole, she must stop digging. If the Gov had negotiated on basis of continous access to the SM and CU they wouldn’t have left the us all in this mess. They aren’t fit to govern. I will try and do their work for them; in the economic interest of the ppl

      Please welcome new-podcast-on-the-blocks…Dial M for Mueller
      The story the BBC *literally* won’t report. Brexit Trump Russia. And why we desperately need a Mueller inquiry

      The bbc at qoek

    99. brian lucey says:

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

    100. Nana says:

      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.

    101. Nana says:


      should read ‘work’

    102. yesindyref2 says:

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

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

    103. Robert Louis says:

      Wull at 1142pm,

      What an excellent piece. You are correct regarding the pretendy ‘supreme’ court. This was dreamt up by Blair to replace the role the house of lords at that time had in assessing appeals from Scotland on CIVIL matters. Of course the fact that the Westminster lords were doing so, was in itself a complete breach of the treaty of union, since heir was NO provision for that to happen within the treaty of uniion. London just literally took it upon themselves to ignore the treaty and do it

      The decision by the pretendy ‘supreme’ court in London should be ignored by Scotland, and, if England imposes its will, then the treaty of union is ended. It is that clear.

      We cannot have a situation where London says that Scotland is under their control because of the treaty of union of 1707, then in the next breath for them to say, but we in London can just choose to ignore ANY and ALL aspects of that international bilateral legal agreement (treaty) any time we choose.

      London seems hell bent on not just destroying the ‘rules’ governing the UK, but actually removing them completely. This cannot be allowed to pass.

      The Scottish Government should pay no heed whatsoever to the supposed pretendy and wholly illegal ‘appeal to the pretendy ‘supreme’ court.

      Westminster has chosen to end the treaty of union. This is a very, very serious matter, and I hope the Scotgov are wholly and fully paying attention. This cannot simply be allowed to pass, as it creates legal precedence. I’d really like to hear what they are doing about it -or are they just ‘waiting to see…’

    104. Nana says:

      Morning yesindyref2, you are absolutely on the button 🙂

    105. defo says:

      Ross Thompson, Self serving sycophant it is then.
      Glad we sorted that.

      You played the Trump card well sir.
      He probably thinks Brinkmanship is a boat belonging to Mr Brinkman.
      China will not be building anything, or even considering such moves over Greenland.
      Maybe 20+ yrs from now. ?

    106. yesindyref2 says:

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

    107. Nana says:

      For anuone who missed this last evening

      Nicola speaking at an event this evening

      Mainstream TV news media are refusing to give any decent coverage of today’s UN report on poverty in the UK. So here’s a brief report on it.
      (NB this is a free service unlike BBC I won’t be forcing you to pay £150 a year for news like this)

      -An unofficial party within UKGov’s party opposing its policy (ERG)
      -An unofficial Cabinet Committee rewriting the WA that the UKGov agreed with the EU & that it’s UKGov policy to support
      -UKGov MPs briefing foreign govt officials against UKGov policy

      Is a quiet coup underway?

    108. yesindyref2 says:

      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?

    109. Nana says:

      @yesindyref2 lol, I’m going to have to spend the day decoding that now 🙂

    110. yesindyref2 says:

      Took me about 5 minutes doing it 🙂

    111. Breeks says:

      yesindyref2 says:
      17 November, 2018 at 7:05 am
      @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….

      All correct, but for me as I understand it, the great significance of this legal challenge is that first, it is a competent case very likely to succeed in reaching its desired destination and be heard before the ECJ, and then actually succeed when it gets there, but second, the body driving the motion forward is testing the Constitutional strength of the body struggling to hold it back. The case tests the Constitutional argument of who outranks whom.

      Formally, it will create a formal legal judgement between the strength of UK Parliament over the fealty of the Government sitting within that Parliament. Theresa May’s will is not the sovereign will of the House of Commons. That in itself opens a complicated legal can of worms for Westminster and Brexit, but I won’t even begin to get my head around that.

      It will also establish in legal process that the UK’s Supreme Court of the House of Commons is inferior and cannot overrule Scots Law, because Scots Law lies beyond its jurisdiction. In bringing the case, the Scottish Law Lords are testing the UK’s lawful capacity to overrule them, and that by definition is a Constitutional Test Case.

      The case will deliver arbitration and clarity and that’s the last thing the UK, the mother of all fudges, can afford. It will not create Scotland’s Sovereignty, but affirm its recognition in European Law.

      …..I think.

    112. 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.

    113. Golfnut says:

      @ Breeks.

      A pretty good summation IMO. Further to your comment, which has some relevance I believe, is the decision by the International courts that the Lockerbie bomber was to be tried under Scots law, albeit at the Hague but temporarily designated as Scottish territory. Several aspects of this are worth noting.

      The UK and Us governments argued that they were principals and lost.

      The crime was was judged to have been committed in Scottish airspace,therefore a recognition of Scottish territorial boundaries, in International law a countries boundaries are defined by legal jurisdiction.

      I’m not sure if this was the first instance of Scots law being used at the Hague or elsewhere, but Lockerbie has set precedence in International law.

    114. defo says:

      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?

    115. yesindyref2 says:

      @Breeks / @Golfnut


      I’m a man of few words 🙂

    116. ScottieDog says:

      The point is, when it comes to military planning, there’s no BS or poitlics.
      For example the US military have long worried about climate change and what to do when the arse falls out of society. There was a book in the late 1970s called the Grand Chessboard written by a former presidential advisor talking about America’s global strategy . It talked of dominating Iraq, Iran, trade wars with China etc. It’s all being played out.

    117. Cubby says:

      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.

    118. Nana says:

      Re Johnston press

      Dear UK taxpayers, Johnston Press is owned by vulture fund billionaires. They have just offloaded their pension requirements onto UK taxpayers. This means you and I will now be paying their employees’ pensions. While they have more money to buy more luxury yachts. Regards, Tom

    119. Breeks says:

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

      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.

    120. Robert Peffers says:

      @Giving Goose says: 17 November, 2018 at 7:59 am:

      ” … Is there a scenario in legal terms that recognises Scotland as a de facto seperate state?”

      I’d promised myself to remain for a while as only a lurker but your question really deserves the proper answer that I suspect none of the anti-Nicola, anti-SG, anti-SNP numpties here on wings will ever provide for you.

      The answer is a very definite YES THERE IS a legal document that states the Kingdom of Scotland is a separate Kingdom and will remain so for all time.

      That document is extant for if it were not there would be no United Kingdom – it is, of course The Treaty of Union.

      Which, if it was not still in operation, there would be no, still united, “United Kingdom”.

      It is that treaty of union that Scotland must declare ended to disunite the United Kingdom.

      That treaty is as much an extant treaty today as it was on 1 May 1707 for if it were not so the union would already be ended.

      Unfortunately the only way it can be ended is by either the Kingdom of England’s Sovereign Monarchy, via their legally delegated, (and legally non-existent), elected Parliament of England or by a clear majority of the legally sovereign people of Scotland demanding their legally elected MPs and/or MSPs end the Treaty of Union.

      That has been the sticking point for all of the almost 311 years that this stinking union has endured.

    121. Nana says:

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

    122. Jack Murphy says:


      Stewart McDonald MP and Alyn Smith MEP speaking earlier today in Glasgow.

      With Questions and Answers.

      Is now Archived on Independence Livestream.

      Begins at less than 2 minutes in. 🙂

    123. Petra says:

      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.”

      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.

    124. Gary45% says:

      Man that was some read.

    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