Wings Over Scotland

And not only that but they might just get another independence referendum and that would really f**k them up wouldn’t it? We might actually end up becoming independent

If they had the all 4 countries vote to leave caveat. Then it would be a no brainier. Remain would win hands down. Would there be any point in a referendum? Can’t see the opposition agreeing to that.

In that case the SNP should refuse to vote for it, unless they conceded the section 30 beforehand. Problem with that is it might well be the Tories in charge again and they would not honor anything signed by the opposition.

It would be manifestly reasonable for it to demand two things: firstly, that any second referendum would require a majority in all four countries of the UK to enact Brexit. There’d be no reason for the opposition parties to object to that – it’s supported by the public UK-wide, and of course it would make Brexit effectively impossible, which is what they want.

But the second demand is at least outwardly more problematic: that the opposition parties must pledge support for a second Scottish independence referendum. Yet it’s clearly a fair condition. If a re-run for Remainers is legitimate, without any sort of democratic mandate, then plainly it is absurd to deny Yes voters one that they DO have a (multiple) democratic mandate for, especially in such a starkly obvious context.
———————

I made a comment last night proposing this almost word for word, with one exception: that it’s presented to those wanting EU Ref 2 as a choice of ONE of the above. Here’s the comment:

>One thing that Stu and others are right about it is that the SNP seem to be failing to use this brief period of leverage in Westminster, due to being *too* consistent and therefore predictable in their Brexit stance.

>With the current scramble to get support for EU Ref 2, the SNP might just be able to thread the needle as follows.

>They agree to support EU Ref 2 in the HOC if ONE of the following happens:

>1. They’re granted a permanent transfer of all constitutional and broadcasting matters to Holyrood. (This could be negotiated down to a S30 if necessary).

>OR

>2. For EU Ref 2 to result in the UK leaving the EU all four countries have to vote for it.

>And the SNP make it clear that this is a *choice* for Labour and the Lib Dems. They simply have to grant us one of these and we’ll support the second EU ref.

>I cannot see Labour in particular agreeing to 2, so that leaves them with 1 as their only option. If they reject that too then that’s on them. We gave them two requests fully supported in Scotland and they turned them both down. Then Labour go into a GE having to defend blowing their one chance at a second EU ref because they wouldn’t give Scotland *either* of its requests, and therefore facing EU obliteration in England and Wales too.

>Even this is unlikely to succeed, of course, but it’s surely worth a try. Use the leverage we now have, not on the Tories but on Labour.

Anarchic English public-school boys are still calling-the-shots, Letwin and Benn to name but two of them. Everything is changing, bugger all has changed.

“EU obliteration” above should read “GE obliteration”.

Note too that the demand for full constitutional powers for Holyrood etc can then be *negotiated down* to an S30. I have a bee in my bonnet about the SNP demanding too little in discussions with London parties.

“without extracting any concessions in return”

I’d say “without attempting to extract any concessions in return”.

They should put forward a couple of amendments along the lines of above, but even if they amendments are voted down, should vote FOR a second EU referendum.

The problem which will arise if 2nd vote proposed is that the other parties will say they’re not supporting indyref2 and call the SNP’s bluff. SNP then stuck in the situation of not having demands met but not wanting to tank PV. A situation for which they will only have themselves to blame for 3 years of taking their eye off the prize and focusing on stopping brexit.

Rather than pledging support for an independence ref:

1. Any second referendum would require a majority in all four countries of the UK to enact Brexit.

2. In the absence of 4 majorities, provide the option to disolve the Union to allow each member do to its own thing.

I wonder if here in Scotland perhaps NI on the same day as the second Brexit referendum we could have an IndyRef here and a Border Poll in NI?

Then we could ignore the Brexit referendum and go hellf or leather to get us out of the Westminster clusterfuck. Pointing out that even if the Second Brexit referendum goes for Remain the Brexiters will not go away. The ERG group in the Tory Party might well just defect to the Brexit Party en mass. Can anyone rule that out? Farage won’t be going away either.

Brexit would still and for a very long time be a major issue in English politics. We and NI should leave them and Wales to it. Though pity the native Welsh, outvoted they claim by English Settlers. I can also see the British govt seek to abolish or neuter the Cardiff Bay parliament. While there are three of us Devolved parliament parts of the UK that can seem normal and just but the Welsh being the only ones? Cue the Cornish and Yorkshire nationalists cutting up rough about that one and WM killing it by abolishing Welsh Devolution.

Devolution was essentially forced on the UK by the Council of Europe (NOT part of the EU) but it seems the Tories want to be like Vlad of Russia and leave that too (it has Europe in the title). So free of those meddling democratic monitors the UK will be free to do what it wants with just some noises off.

There are very few “SNP” haters posting on here. There are people with genuine concerns over their strategy on this issue of how to deal with Brexit.

Those are different things entirely. If you cannot grasp that tben perhaps its you who has the problem.

I’m not a violent person, but THIS article and its absolutely sound logic, should be metaphorically nailed to the foreheads of every single SNP MP and the SNP leader/Scottish First Minister.

It is a truly golden opportunity.

This is what is commonly referred to as a ‘no-brainer’.

So, let’s see what happens…

O?T ish.

Tory and Labour MPs on tv there saying “rushed law is bad law and time and care is needed”….over 600 pages init!

(er! except all these Scottish things we rushed through parliament in one day 18 months or so) and suck it up Jocks! 🙂

\Scotsrenewables.

Why not ask the Rev how long some “new”posters have been contributing to Wings. Might surprise you.

This is a major issue that would encourage many previously silent readers to speak up.

I recollect that Alex Salmond demanded this very thing – each constituent country to vote LEAVE if the LEAVE vote was to be valid – in the run up to the 2016 EU referendum. David Cameron flatly refused to entertain it. IMO that is exactly what will happen again. Why should England dilute its power in the UK?

Can see BritNat parties demanding caveat that if UK votes to Remain in EURef2 then IndyRef2 is off the table.

Rob says:
21 October, 2019 at 12:22 pm
Why would the SNP need any clause beyond “hold a referendum needing four party agreement?” As things stand (which is where my reasoning falls flat, I guess) were England blocked from Brexit by a Scottish “veto” we’d likely see irresistible southern pressure for an indyref re-run. Yes?

————–

Yes, definitely. We have a real chance for leverage here, in a way there never was for a deal with the Tories (too many moving parts needing to align for that one to work).

But London Labour know that if they facilitated what you describe, their Leave supporters might desert them forever. So we should use the four-countries request as leverage to get what we really want: indyref2.

Present a *choice* to Labour and the Lib Dems — give us the four-countries EU ref OR give us indyref2 — knowing how unpalatable the first would be for Labour.

Breaking

Scottish court allows case to continue to ensure compliance.

Unionist Media BDSM Club says:

21 October, 2019 at 12:26 pm

Even if it was a bluff, it would still be worth a try, no? Nothing much lost if the bluff is called and they go ahead and support the PV. Surely better than demanding absolutely nothing, which seems to be the current policy.

I’m generally supportive of Nicola, but suspect Alex would at least try a bluff in these circumstances, or if necessary be willing to withdraw support for the PV.

At the moment we’re way too predictable at WM, and maybe too honourable too, especially considering the pathological liars we’re up against.

——————-

I think we might actually 95% agree going by what you say here. My only difference would be I don’t think if SNP’s requests are rejected they should abstain on PV proposal. Otherwise they become seen as toothless and compliant and will never be able to ask for anything.

Sooner or later the SNP has to show that it’s not just faffing about. Now is as good a time as any to grow a spine and some claws.

Who cares what they demand? The SNP are the ones with the leverage here.

I’m fairly sure the BritNat parties will care. And they may very will simply ignore the SNP’s “leverage”.

How would the numbers go if the SNP abstained on such a vote (as a result of their demands being rebuffed)?

Ah!
BBC says that the Edinburgh court adjournment can still can result in a letter being sent to EU on behalf of the UK Gov if Judge decides in favour.

Not done yet.

Im wondering if the SNP are majorly concerned about the prospect of a border between Scotland and England ?

Its the only thing that makes sense as to why they are fighting for all of the UK to remain.

Would a border not be quite problematic in many ways other than trade? Any ideas?

If we are going down that route then we sould aim big. Demand that the power to hold any and all future referendums on Indy be decided in the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Parliament only!!!

“What a great negotiating position. We’ll be independent in no time!”

Since 2015 with 56 MPs, and 2017 with 35 MPs, the SNP have had absolutely zero negotiating position, zero power, zero effect, null, zilch, nil nada zip. Even with 59 it would be no different. The futile 56, the thwarted 35.

But they can use it for “marketing” purposes.

Hearts and minds, hearts and minds, and according to Cutrice that IS working. Just very slowly that’s all.

Bob Mack

That is precisely the reason the SNP is trying to keep the whole UK in the Customs Union. If England is out of the EU and we are trying to stay in then we cannot escape from a land-border between Scotland and England as that would be the de facto EU border.

This has been a main tenet of their argument since the referendum in 2016 formed part of their document that they produced about the best solution for Scotland which the Tories ( T May) dismissed outright three years ago.

However, maybe you will have a better reception for your suggestion. When I suggested this some months ago I was accused of reiterating unionist fear mongering.

Maybe some people are actually beginning to see exactly how the SNP is trying to navigate a minefield and get the best possible result for Scotland without rushing headlong into a UDI and subsequent Catalonian situation.

A better PM than T May should have suggested a cross party approach to the 51%/49% outcome to the initial referendum result and put that in place before triggering Article 50 – plus it should have embraced all four nations of the UK. Compromise form the beginning would have helped to remove the divisions which have festered since.

Failure to do so has clearly shown that this entire issue is about England and how the Conservative party can take back control.
If you remember, it was the original threat from UKIP which was ‘stealing’ voters from David Cameron and his knee-jerk response was to allow the EU referendum.

The SNP at WM have no leverage.
They are there to make up the numbers.

Colonial moaner administrators of the Union.

The SNP know their place. They have already promised unequivocal support, no conditions attached, for a UK one nation (England decides for the rest) People’s Vote.

@Colin Alexander,

You are only spouting anger. Fine. Maybe you need to come up with solutions as well.

SNP have let a lot of people down here. I think that we should be looking at getting a Scottish independence party up and running one that hasnt been unlike the SNP infiltrated by agents of England.

@Dabdydons1903,

You wi!l never ,ever, have a party that is not infiltrated by some form of opposition. It cannot be done.

Too many vesfed interests go let politics go unmonitored.

Yeah.

In this scenario, the SNP are in (more or less) the position they say they’d want to be after a General Election, i.e. in a position to support Labour towards something.

They say they hope to win later, effectively, by being kingmakers. But, as has been argued in recent days, they could offer the Tories a deal to pass the bill or they can support calls for a second referendum or a general election. Not getting into an argument here about who it’s right to support BUT the point is that the SNP are already in a position to be constitutional kingmakers due to the mathematics of Parliament currently.

So I really don’t see why they do not try and extract what they want while they can, especially since we know we cannot magic up a Labour government for them to extract such concessions from later.

I recognise that this is “a big deal”, “a risky time” etc etc with other parties being very determined to get what they want as well but, surely the best time to try and get what you really, really, want is when the other party has something they really, really, want and you can give it to them?

Are the SNP trying to convey the impression that they are “above politics” by playing “a straight bat” and not asking for something in case “it seems venal” or something? Guess we will see but I hope our representatives keep in mind that they *are* “doing politics” and it is not possible not to piss off at least some of the people whatever you do.

Perhaps it’s a worry about being accused of “divisive” or something that’s making them reticent. But that word should be banned as it relates to politics because it is all about division because….people want different things and pretending otherwise is futile.

@ crazycat – The official explanation (provided by David Lidington in the HoC) was that the safeguard was unnecessary because the referendum was only advisory.

Good point. It does illustrate how politicians in Westminster will simply manipulate any rule, obscure or otherwise, to get what they want. The EU referendum is only advisory when Scotland’s vote matters but cast iron when England’s vote matters.

This is similar to the status of the Grouse. It is a wild bird, therefore protected by law, when roaming about on the moors until some toff wishes to shoot it at which point it becomes the property of the land owner, except when it flies into your car and damages the windscreen and becomes wild again.

These people have been making (up) the rules since Norman times.

There is much to be learned about Scotland, from the experience of women in abusive marriages / relationships.

link to vice.com

Scotland is in a Union with England. But this Union has become dominated by disrespect, abuse and endless lying. Not forgetting the never-ending transfers of Scotland’s wealth to England, mostly done on the quiet.

There are parallels in this relationship with abuse in Marriage. It includes having less and less say in how things are run, apart from ‘devolving’ tasks like how to do the housework and hang out the washing, and eventually moves on to the woman being repeatedly told that she can’t afford to leave her abusive husband.
So we get the mantra that Scotland is too poor to ‘leave’ the Union. Many ask how will Scotland manage without England’s subsidies. It never occurs to them to ask how will England manage without Scotland’s oil, gas, electricity, water, fishing and farmed food.

Now, Scotland has to live with Boris Johnson.

And so it goes on, and on, and on.

Till, one day, the woman overcome her fears, and decides to leave.

Let’s make it soon, Scotland.

Couldn’t Westminster turn round and do the same thing though?
Make Indy Ref 2 a UK wide vote where all 4 parts had to agree.
Based on a yes vote affecting the ” whole” of the UK.
Then
Scotland would keep the UK in the EU and N.I. would keep Scotland in the UK!

I agree

Yes a separate EU referendum in each of the four countries
England NI Scotland wales

A majority in each treated separately
No joint U.K. vote

We know the tories will not agree to this
So we should propose to them that each individual country either remains or leaves the EU
depending on the result in their own country

Simple
Yes I know …this is what WOS suggested years ago …was it two yrs ago ?
But it’s the most sensible suggestion of the whole three and a half years
Every country gets what it wants

Not everyone…..but every country

Tories as we have seen want everyone and every country to leave along with England
DUP want every country to do the same thing even if countries differ in what they want

If each country was allowed to decide for itself whether it remains or leaves the EU
it would lead to the break up of the U.K. and as I have said all along

There is one thing that Westminster will not do in order to achieve brexit
and that is lose control of this whole island because they believe they own it

They don’t mind losing NI , if they have to

But not Scotland or Wales

Every party in Westminster has MP,s who are not voting the same way the voters that put them into parliament voted with regards brexit.

When I hear some of them say “ it’s the will of the people” I know it’s a lie because
Westminster MP,s are voting on brexit for what is best for themselves personally
when they should in all honesty
be voting for what the majority of the electorate in their constituency voted for

A comment on LaraK’s timeline:

“#IAmNoLawyerBut Contempt/Perjury is a quasi-criminal act, Hence not clear if even justiciable by #UKSC as there is no leave to appeal criminal cases to UKSC from Scotland. Note sentence up to 3 months for contempt, up to 2 years for perjury.”

… and misconduct in a public office has a sentence up to LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

The thing is
We know england is never going to agree to another EU referendum that stipulates
each country has its own referendum and all four countries have to vote to leave for the U.K. to actually leave

And we know that England is never going to agree to another EU referendum that stipulates
each country has its own referendum and each country can leave or remain in the EU individually

And we know that England is never going to negotiate anything to do with a Scottish independence referendum linked to brexit conditions , that’s because England’s Westminster firmly believes it owns this whole island

So the plan is to demand a second indyref from opposition parties who have no power to grant such a thing in the hope that they might at some point in the future have the power to do so (by winning a General Election, which they can’t because according to this site, they won’t vote to hold one or have no chance of winning it)

I understand the frustration of people at the Tories for refusing a Section 30 order, and indeed the SNP for not pursuing more robustly an alternative way towards Indy Ref 2 , but for the life of me I can’t work out why demanding things from people who have no power to grant them is going to work ?

H ats off to Bercow and the Scot tish judges

Bercow again working hard for his salary and doing a good job in difficult circumstances.

Some saying my friend is in the bunker others, Oh no,the ba@tards on the green.

Anyhoo! He’s stymied Boris again to stick to the golfing analogy

From Nick Eardly:
“Also understand some agonising going on in SNP over what they would and wouldn’t back when it comes to 2nd referendum amendment. Some want to avoid referendum between PM’s deal and remain. Wording might be key.
. . .
One idea is to amend the PM’s deal to include customs union then put customs union v remain in referendum. V tricky though and Brexiteers would be furious.”

That would be a win-win EU 2nd referendum – for Indy 🙂

No short-term damage to Scotland while building up to Indy Ref 2, and Leave rips itself to bits in a frothing frenzy of frantic freaky fridays. #FuckOffScotland

Soor gr*p*s from the Tories Bercow is unfair disadvantaging his side.

Bercow reminds him of all the times in past years he has been kind to him. 🙂

We’ll be watching this for months and months…at this rate. 🙁

Ooft! Labour MP.

Queenie is waiting and J. R. Mogg’s incompetence in trying to sneak in the same question within 3 days is disrespectful to her. He should consider his position. 🙂 Aye!

The Tories al so had the Queens speech which opened a new session of Parliament ogherwise Bercow would have had to deny any previous submissions from Cherry etc. They can now be revisited

O/t, what Scotland needs is an Edward Snowden or julian Assange inside the corridors of Whitehall, a whistleblower who would expose this myth about England subsiding Scotland.

The quadruple lock if it went through would perhaps hasten England’s secession from the U.K.

Lizg @ 2.36 pm. No, Westminster could NOT put such a condition with regard to Indyref2.

Indyref2 and Brexit are not comparable in that way. Membership of the European Union is a different kind of thing from Scotland being in a Treaty of Union with England, which makes it (Scotland) one of the two constitutive entities that make up (i.e. constitute) the UK.

There are two issues here, and they are quite separate things. Not only ultimately, or in principle, but in reality. Try thinking of them as being entirely different. Scotland becoming an independent country is one thing, and the what the UK decides to do with regard to Brexit – (i.e. what kind of Brexit the UK opts for, or even whether it carries Brexit through or abandons it) – is quite another.

No end of confusion arises from conflating these two issues, treating them as if they were virtually one and the same thing. They are not. The Scottish government, being a devolved parliament, realises it does not intrinsically have the power to keep Scotland in the EU, even though a clear majority of Scots voted for it.

If the country was already independent, and the Holyrood parliament therefore not a devolved one, the Scottish government would be entirely empowered and able and indeed obliged to implement what the sovereign Scottish people (or at least 62% of them) had instructed it to do – retain European membership. But as the devolved administration of a devolved parliament it hasn’t, as it stands, got these powers, at the moment.

I think Nicola Sturgeon recognises the above. And realises that if she begins to act as if Holyrood has powers which it does not at present have, that will simply give the strong anti-Scottish forces at Westminster the excuse it wants, and is no doubt looking for, to close it (Holyrood) down. These forces, which do not understand the true nature of the Union which composes the UK, and who therefore totally ignore it (maybe because they simply are ignorant, or maybe out of deliberate ill will), would love to reduce Scotland to a the same status as Northern Ireland. And they would love to treat Holyrood as if it was Stormont, and interpret Scotland through a Northern Irish lens.

Nicola Sturgeon has to tread warily. Sh can’t make a move which would give the real enemies of Scotland the pretext they want to reduce first Holyrood and then Scotland itself to nothing. I don’t like the fact that after the Brexit vote she so quickly said she would offer a compromise – i.e. she would actually compromise – the expressed will of the Scottish people to remain fully within the EU. I do not agree that she was empowered to do that, and I do not believe that it was the right thing to do.

At the same time, it is only fair to make an effort to understand why she did it. And it’s plain daft to presume that she did it to thwart rather than to help Scotland, or to prevent independence. It’s also worthwhile to try to find a good motive that might have led her to this action, even if I personally strongly disagree with it. And, indeed, there, perhaps, is one aspect of the matter – she did not want to make statements or claims that would offer the real enemies of Scotland and her enemies a pretext for closing down Hollywood, on the grounds that it was exceeding its powers and threatening to act illegitimately.

Her emphasis on legitimacy and legality is in fact typically Scottish, and it has a very long pedigree. If you go back to the crucible years of 1286-1329, it is remarkable how consistently and meticulously the Scots argued the legitimacy of Scotland’s cause. The Scottish lawyers never wavered in that
regard and played an absolutely crucial part in the ultimately successful struggle to safeguard and retain Scotland’s ongoing existence as an independent nation.

They did not simply use opportunistic arguments in the pursuit of that cause as occasions arose, and such opportunities came and went. Give her credit where credit is due – neither has Nicola Sturgeon. Most of the complaints against her here – perhaps including some that I myself have sometimes made – seem to be on the grounds that she has not been opportunistic enough.

That is, she has not used and exploited the Brexit issue to the maximum advantage – for gaining independence – which pro-Indy people like myself and most of us here would have liked. That’s what opportunists do – they use one thing for another. They do not see or judge issues in themselves: instead, they think only of how they can USE them to obtain whatever their ultimate objective is.

If you want a classic example, just look at Boris Johnson. Throughout his career all his actions serve only one end – not just that of the advancement of Boris Johnson but, specifically, that of Boris Johnson becoming PM. That’s even the reason why he opted to be pro-Brexit. Because he reckoned that would get him closer to achieving his only real goal in life. It’s not a conviction – remember the story about him writing for his own benefit two articles, one for Remain and one for Leave, before deciding which of the two options he would take. That’s something quite different from being genuinely convinced of the option he then took. He wasn’t actually convinced of either option, but chose the one that would suit HIM best! Fir his own purposes. That’s why he lies all the time, shamelessly, without even feeling any need to either justify or hie all his contradictions and switches of position from one day to the next. The only thing that would ever cause him shame would be if he did not promote his own cause and career, and now that he has got what he wants – being Prime Minister – don’t ever expect him to let it go.

The least that can be said about Nicola Sturgeon is that she is nothing like him, and nothing like that. For sure, she does want independence, just as much as any of us on this sight, and no doubt even more than most of us. But she does not see the Brexit issue as pure and simply a means of achieving that end.

In her position as First Minister of a devolved government, she thought she would never be able to keep Scotland in the EU after the UK-wide vote gave an overall Leave majority. So she decided to try to get the next best thing – keep the UK, and therefore Scotland, in the EU and the Customs Union. That is a position the UK could easily have adopted, while respecting the result of the referendum (even if, unlike Indyref1 in Scotland, the referendum on the EU was only consultative, and not binding).

I can see why she thought obtaining that end would be the best objective for her to pursue, while Scotland remained part of the UK. First, it would keep both Scotland and the rest of the UK economically fully aligned with the EU. That fact would make it more likely to achieve an open border between England and Scotland when Scotland eventually did become independent, as she believed would still happen. If England was in the same CU and SM as Scotland at that point, with frictionless trade with Europe in place, then that frictionless trade would continue along the Scottish border after Scotland became independent. And it would continue if, after independence, Scotland rejoined the EU as a full member even if England did not.

In other words, what she was aiming at was the kind of Brexit that would facilitate Scotland’s future independence, and not frustrate it. I expect that continues to be her aim. It seems to me we can certainly disagree about whether her strategy in that regard is the right or the wrong one, the best way forward in the long run (or even in the short term) or seriously flawed.

What I find inadmissible, no matter how much some of us might disagree with her on these strategic matters (which I do admit are important), are those posts that impugns her personal integrity or question her commitment to the cause of independence. If she is NOT an opportunist, I find that a plus, not a minus. Unscrupulous, opportunistic politicians may seem to succeed in their objectives, in the short-term, but not for long. Very soon it all comes undone, and their great ‘achievements’ soon unravel and come crashing down to the dust. All their nonsense ends up in a heap of ruins. Not only their own, alas – for they take a lot of good people with good intentions whom they had duped with them.

We do not want that to happen to Scotland’s independence. That project has to be built on firm foundations, that will make it last. The legal minds that fought that same cause with consistency and integrity in the late 13th and early 14th Century knew that, and they did a magnificent job. And they stuck at it with great tenacity.

So should we.

We shouldn’t be cavalier with sacrificing those who are with us on the same journey, towards the same end. Of course we don’t all agree with each other, on lots of things, but we ARE on the same side. We can’t afford to kill each other off with friendly fire. The only cause which that will serve is that of those on the other side, not ours.

I hope that part of the snp’s cunning plan to stop brexit is to deliberately annoy the English and Welsh electorate. So that the torys get a landside as I’ve said all along that they will because of all this stop brexit bullshit.

Well said, Wull.

J. R. Mogg Business for the house this week.

W Agreement bill Tues, Wed, Thurs…Day off Friday.

He’s getting jip for walking off on Saturday
a) for not making a business announcement but spoke to a POO
b) not staying to hear the comments of other MPs

and (C) (my view) generally behaving like an arse! 🙁

Well said Wull. I always enjoy reading your posts.

With the lives of millions potentially blighted by the threat of Brexit, what does the BBC headline with at six?

Celebrity couple unhappy with the media attention their fabulous wealth and privilege attracts.

Well, boo hoo. What about the millions of other couples struggling to make ends meet in the face of Tory austerity?

@Wull, 5.01

Well said

Nicola Sturgeon has the highest approval rating of political leaders in the UK among Scots.

Sturgeon Plus 5

Corbyn. Minus 45

Johnson. Minus 36

Farage. Minus 30

Swinson. Minus 12

No rating for Campbell

Kumbaya Captain

The ball is in their court, it will be interesting to see how they play it. the time of reckoning is upon them.

There is one flaw in your analysis. It assumes that political parties act on what the voters want. They don’t. Even the parties have made this clear when stating that this is a ‘Parliamentary Democracy’ and that therefore the MPs are sovereign, NOT the people.

It’s not that they won;t take into account what the public think, but that is ONLY to a limited extent and ONLY during election campaigns, even then, THOSE promises can and will be broken.

Even then, the other assumption is that decision making happens in a vacuum. Were the SNP to do ANYTHING which in any way, shape or form could possibly facilitate Brexit then SLAB would milk it for all it was worth for ever more. Remember, they’re STILL trying to milk the no confidence vote on the Callaghan Govt in 79!! They try to tell voters that ‘SNP let the Tories in’ in 79. They didn’t, of course, that was the break up of the LibLab Pact, it was, unsurprisingly the Liberals who ‘let the Tories in’ but SLAB have never had a problem having coalitions with them at Holyrood since.

The Tories are mostly hard Brexiteers, Labour will vote against ANYTHING they put forward even if it was something THEY suggested (Kier Starment was caught doing this only last week) SNP are in a strange position, Brexit both helps and hinders us but they CANNOT do anything but take a position against it as Scotland DID clearly vote to remain AND this is the VERY scenario always warned of that SHOULD get us another Indy Vote.

You are having interesting thoughts and, to be fair, weirder things have happened BUT, in reality, none of this will happen…

The length of time someone has been posting or the frequency of posting is irrelevant to the validity of their comment.

This has some interesting stuff in it about who in England wants us – and who doesn’t!

link to lordashcroftpolls.com

and this wins a prize for one of the most un-self-aware comments from an English person about his/her friends:

“My Scottish friends are worried about their pensions if they become independent. They hate the English.”

link to lordashcroftpolls.com

Liz g

I think the answer to your possible section 30 conundrum is the knowledge that the UK is a product of two kingdoms agreeing to join together to form one united kingdom in the same way as two people join together to form one union.

The rest of the family don’t get a say on whether or not they want the couple to divorce, even though it undoubtedly will affect them.
Only those who have signed the legal document are entitled to make the decision to separate.

Wull says
(NS)n her position as First Minister of a devolved government, she thought she would never be able to keep Scotland in the EU after the UK-wide vote gave an overall Leave majority. So she decided to try to get the next best thing – keep the UK, and therefore Scotland, in the EU and the Customs Union’

Really Wull?..well when did she and Blackford, the merchant banker, at any stage, tell us that was the strategy? Your deduction may be correct..but that is the problem: Scotland ia the equal signatory of the Act of Union..in Sturgeon’s own words the Uk attempting to drag us out of the EU was a ‘material change in circumstances’.

This should have meant a challenge via the ECJ for our Sovereign vote of a majority of 62% to be recognised as a de facto and de jure dissolution of the UK Union. But no, the SNP have gone down the disastrous devolved dead -end of fighting from within the Union trap and consequently tying themselves in political volte face knots with total confusion as a consequence.

Boris and his controllers have and will continue to outsmart and outthink the SNP, because the English establishment is ruthless, deadly and without scruple. We will stay ‘catched’ because of the stupidity and cowardice of playing by the ‘House’ ‘rules’.

wull says:
21 October, 2019 at 5:01 pm

….. I don’t like the fact that after the Brexit vote she so quickly said she would offer a compromise – i.e. she would actually compromise – the expressed will of the Scottish people to remain fully within the EU. I do not agree that she was empowered to do that, and I do not believe that it was the right thing to do.

I like your posts tremendously too Wull, and while I’m not deaf to your point we shouldn’t be condemning Nicola’s motives, which I more or less agree with, the thing which gives me reflux is exactly as you say, whether Nicola, irrespective of the best of intentions, actually had the constitutional authority to compromise a sovereign edict from the people.

Ok, bad enough that the will of the people was arbitrarily compromised, but even with course corrected and error forgiven, suddenly there’s a chasm of doubt which opens up concerning how sure footed the Scottish Government actually is on Constitutional matters when it can commit such a, dare I say it, Constitutional gaffe?

This isn’t being pedantic or obsessive about Constitutional issues, it is vitally important, definitive even, and cuts to the very heart of Scotland’s Constitutional predicament and our ‘apparently’ misunderstood Constitutional strength. We shouldn’t be making these types of errors or poor judgements. Nicola, for all her integrity and best intentions, simply needs to get it right.

Or, if she’s convinced she is right and on the money in Constitutional terms, she needs to address the apparent anomaly; join some of the dots so thicko’s like me can keep up with the plot and maybe even get to sleep at night.

If you don’t build from a sound foundation, then whatever you do build is doomed to collapse. I fear we may have charged up the wrang dreel, and not talking about it isn’t helping.

@ Lochside

“Boris and his controllers have and will continue to outsmart and outthink the SNP”

If you’re a regular to this site, the Rev outthinks the SNP on a daily basis. No disrespect to the Rev but to me, the SNP don’t seem to be the smartest tools in the political box and there’s been plenty of evidence over the past three years to back that statement up.

Bob Mack

Perfectly valid questions. If Scotland is Independent within the EU and England is out, there will probably need to be a hard border but it depends on the EU?England agreements. There isn’t really one between France and Switzerland or between Sweden and Norway, for example, but if England is outside the customs union and single market yes a hard border probably will be needed.

I have spent today with Julian Assange in Westminster Magistrate’s Court. Not the sole reason, but it focuses the mind of what a vicious, authoritarian place Little England would be. A hard border against it would be a very good idea.

re a hard border – we would in fact be opening up 27 borders for the cost of 1 new one & removing our eggs from being all in one basket

O/T sort of: just wanted to say it has been a pleasure reading [most of] the exchanges btl this evening. Thank you everyone.

@Craig Murray

I totally agree especially the road England is trave!ling always !eads to an unpleasant destination.
I feel some Indy supporters dismiss these problems too quickly. Yet it is probably a big factor in SNP forward planning.
Personally speaking, a hard border would be no problem at all.

It is intersting the way the Speaker of the House of

It is interesting the way the Speaker of the House of Commons is able to use rulings about Parliamentary procedures, that pre date the Treaty of Union.
That is in effect, telling us, this really is still the old English Parliament.
Isn’t that grounds enough for Dissolving the Union?
Because, if they can still make use of rules that were in force in London before 1707, it means the English Parliament has never been Dissolved, just the Scottish one.
There is no actual Union, but a take over of Scotland.
We wonder if some SNP Lawyer politician, would care to address that issue. There is plenty of such SNP MPs around at the moment. Some more prominent than others!

@T Jenny,

No secret really. you simply have to use a kindle, coupled with predictafext and contarcted tendons in your hands so you type with your knuckles.

Not peffect but you do what you can.

If Westminster can use laws that were made before 1707 can Scotland do the same there must be laws that can help us gain Independence.

@TJenny,

I understand pefectly.

@Colin Alexander
““Go Nicola!”

Was a response to your comment above.”

In what quiveringly lunatic universe is the rest of your comment in any way a normal rational or sane response to my posting?

Don’t bother answering, your drivellingly raving postings have nothing to do with me, or anything I post. Get your programmer to change your code to latch on to someone or something else – or post dots repetitively as the other Colin bot on the Herald does. Presumably because SiU have run out of money to maintain the algorithms.

Tjenny
Not all of us use keyboards. For example the on screen keyboard on my tablet has the “!” directly below the “l”. Big fat fingers often get the wrong letter. Failing eyesight does the rest! (Hope that was a “!”)

@Jatgee,

You are actual!y implying that SNP suuporters, not members shouldnt think for themselves here. Thats a very dangerous road to go down.

I remember Alex Salmond was expelled from the SNP for thinking for himself.

These next few days will tell the story of where the SNP want to be rdgarding Indy.

Further to this ,would it not be better to focus on those individuals who are actually members but are destroying the party from inside under the cloak of SNP membership.

Stu never has been about the SNP. He is about Indy. I was a member till I found that you were broadly sudelined for questioning party policy. Not for me.I like to question ludicrous ideas like GRA Im afraid. We d idnt see eye to eye.

@Cubby,

One of your more sweeping statements, and there have been many to choose from

naina tal – thank you – that seems to explain it. 🙂

In 20-14 we had a Section thirty.
Damn the British – they went and did the dirty.
We had Stu’s Blue Book; we knew the facts all right.
We scared the Empire British; we gave them all a fright.

Well, We cast our votes and Queen Betty was a purrin.
We cast our votes and threw it all away.
We cast our votes
hopin for our freedom,
what we got was British treachery.

Well, We look to the future, and what do we see?
we want our freedom, for Scotland to be free
We have the Scottish Party: we have the SNP
the talk is devolution, they’re no talkin sovereingtee

Well, We cast our votes and Queen Betty was a purrin.
We cast our votes and threw it all away.
We cast our votes
hopin for our freedom,
what we got was British treachery.

Now wee Nicla
leader SNP,
And Ian Blackford: he’s a Commons MP.
They wanna stop Brexit, they both talk so well.
But it’s all bluff and bluster the British can tell.

Well, We cast our votes and Queen Betty was a purrin.
We cast our votes and threw it all away.
We cast our votes
hopin for our freedom,
what we got was British treachery.

Well, they got 56, to fight the Vow treacheree
Holdin their feet to that democratic fire.
They lost a third playing the Empire’s game
and for Scotland’s freedom they’ve been absolutely dire.

Well, We cast our votes and Queen Betty was a purrin.
We cast our votes and threw it all away.
We cast our votes
hopin for our freedom,
what we got was British treachery.

Now, in Scotland we’ve really had enough,
Wings’ Stu Campbell, he’s really talkin tough.
We want our freedom, we want our sovereigntee.
Scotland is sovereign, we’re not a colonee. You listening SNP?

Well, We cast our votes and Queen Betty was a purrin.
We cast our votes and threw it all away.
We cast our votes
hopin for our freedom,
what we got was British treachery.

New lyrics for an old song. Anyone guess the tune?

I think it must be the new £/word initiative
😉