The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The unbreakable lock

Posted on October 21, 2019 by

It’s Monday morning, readers, so welcome once again to the world’s favourite situation comedy, the United Kingdom.

The current position is that absolutely nobody has the slightest idea what’s going to happen this week, or today, or by lunchtime. The Prime Minister is as we speak being taken to court (again), and a whole series of votes in the House Of Commons may or may not take place and may or may not determine anything.

But there’s one particularly interesting thing going on.

There was much talk over the weekend that the DUP – massively disgruntled over Boris Johnson proposing a border in the Irish Sea that he’d previously categorically guaranteed never to support – would switch to backing a second referendum, which would be enough to gain it majority support in Parliament.

The media has since announced that they won’t, but we can find no direct statement from the DUP to that effect. All they’ve actually said is that they don’t WANT a second referendum, which alert students of language may have observed is some distance short of saying they wouldn’t VOTE for one.

So as things stand, a second referendum may well be proposed and voted on in the Commons today. What we know for sure is that it would have no chance whatsoever of succeeding without the votes of the SNP. But the party has been uncharacteristically quiet on the subject, and perhaps for good reason.

Because SNP voters, and Yes supporters in general, would be forgiven for expecting – indeed, demanding – that the party would exact a price for its support at a moment when it held unprecedented leverage over the future of the UK.

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.

And again, this is a position backed by the public. There would be little to no political cost to Labour or the Lib Dems, because their own voters aren’t that bothered whether Scotland gets a second referendum or not (or indeed whether it leaves the UK).

They WOULD, however, almost certainly be furious with their parties if they rejected a chance to definitively stop Brexit for the sake of denying democracy to Scotland.

That fury, we suspect, would be very vividly mirrored among SNP voters if the party enabled a second EU referendum – which we already know would substantially harm the cause of independence – without even extracting any concessions in return.

Our guess is that they’re currently praying there’s no vote on it in the Commons this week. Because if there is, and they vote for it unconditionally, there’ll be hell to pay.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

664 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brotyboy

Agreed.

Bob Costello

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

Mist001

I’d like to see these events take place but since it’s Sturgeon and the SNP, I expect nothing to happen and we’ll have Blackford bleating in the Commons again and Sturgeon tomorrow morning telling the gullible again not to worry, independence is coming.

I don’t even despair anymore because I know that the SNP are going to fuck it up. Again.

Big Jock

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.

Unionist Media BDSM Club

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.

ScotsRenewables

And the Wings BTL SNPHaters are out of the trap, it’s BobCostello in the lead but the newcomer Mist001 is coming up on the outside . . .

YAWN

On a more positive note, let’s hope there is a vote for another Brexit referendum and the SNP DO vote for it. Because there is no chance of Scotland votiong for independence even if it is offered it on a plate, we will fuck it up again because that’s what we do.

(And if there is a new referendum, expedited by – guess who?? – then expect to see these same btl haters telling us why we should vote NO because it is all an SNP plot . . . )

Josef Ó Luain

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.

Unionist Media BDSM Club

“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.

callmedave

Yes I think that stance is justified.

We are a country in our own right and in a EU referendum if it is a remain vote in Scotland we should stay in Europe. (backstop)

A UK vote swamps the other 3 countries and England’s electorate drags the other 3 along. (equal partners in a Union my a@se)

Then onto Indi Ref2 and if Independence gets the nod once the dust settles look at everything afresh. (even Europe) (Queenie) etal.

If not an independence vote then we ‘suck it up’ but are still are in Europe with a better trade deal and freedom of movement and more socially acceptable rules.

By then many of us will be gone…deid… Norwegian blue parrot!
But others will continue on for Indi Ref3. 🙂

dadsarmy

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.

Robert J. Sutherland

Stu’s propositions seem emiently reasonable ones. Remind the BritNat Remainers that there is no free lunch. Another EURef is an unwanted distraction for us, but if it has to be, let it be for a worthwhile price.

and I’m still prepared to believe that might actually be the SNP WM position also.

Martin

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.

defo

Remembering that your average punter isn’t Plato, and that up here the two referendums would effectively be conflated into one,
i.e. What they’d be asked is UK(Eng would almost certainly vote Leave), or EU?
Too much for some to comprehend, and they’ve got a vote too.
Messy & risky.

Cellar Shark

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.

ScotsRenewables

Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

If you find it so boring here, feel free to fuck off rather than boring people by whining on endlessly about how bored you are. I can help you if you like.

So you are going to start banning people who disagree with you or who choose to defend the SNP?

Your blog, your choice. Up to you. You seem determined to alienate as many of your former supporters as you can for some reason. How.s the viewing figures, out of interest?

Muscleguy

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.

Unionist Media BDSM Club

Martin says:
21 October, 2019 at 11:41 am
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.
—————-

But Martin, surely all the SNP need is to be *seen* to be for a PV, and in this scenario they would be. They favoured a PV and made an offer to support it on condition that Scotland got *something* in return: indyref2 and/or (I prefer ‘or’) all four countries having to agree to leave.

If both of those requests were then rejected then that’s on the Lib Dems and Labour, not on us. Labour would then have to go into the GE defending blowing EU Ref2 because they rejected two requests supported not only in Scotland but, as Stu shows above, in the UK as a whole. They would be wiped out in such circumstances.

In other words, the proposal here couldn’t be a bluff from the SNP. They’d need to be prepared to refuse support for EU Ref 2. That’s the only way they get real leverage.

Bob Mack

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.

Doug Bryce

SNP have this covered.

Joanna Cherry on radio argued that we need general election before second EUref. The current government can’t be trusted to deliver a peoples vote : which is correct (and I agree, peoples vote could cancel SNPs current mandate for Indy as described above).

Ultimately if Brexit is cancelled there will be civil war in England. There is nothing SNP can really do to influence the outcome.

Robert Louis

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…

ScotsRenewables

That fury, we suspect, would be very vividly mirrored among SNP voters if the party enabled a second EU referendum – which we already know would substantially harm the cause of independence – without even extracting any concessions in return.

For the record, before I am banned, I agree that the SNP should attempt to secure concessions before supporting a second Brexit referendum.

But if they are unsuccessful?

I am not so certain they should vote against it in the absence of any deal, because lets face it they represent Scotland and Scotland voted against Brexit.

I think more SNP voters would be incensed by the SNP voting against a second Brexref (or abstaining) than would be incensed by them voting FOR it.

And – I am not convinced that a second Brexit referendum would damage the cause of independence in Scotland. That presupposes that the result of any such referendum would be REMAIN. There is no solid evidence that this wojld be the case. In the event of a second LEAVE vote but a big REMAIN majority in Scotland support for Indy would be enhanced, not lessened.

This POCV is just as valid as the opposite IMO – as the Rev says, none of us know what will happen by lunchtime.

I DO believe we need to tone down the anti-SNP rhetoric however, as I do not see any way this can be doing our cause any good.

And I believe I have every right to be suspicious of a raft of new posters jumping on the anti-SNP platform this site is currently providing.

callmedave

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! 🙂

Martin

Unionist Media BDSM Club says:

21 October, 2019 at 11:52 am

In other words, the proposal here couldn’t be a bluff from the SNP. They’d need to be prepared to refuse support for EU Ref 2. That’s the only way they get real leverage.

Could not agree more! But my assessment of the reality, from viewing SNP track record is that they would still back PV in those circumstances. I don’t see them voting it down no matter how smart that is. So in reality, it is a bluff.

Bob Mack

\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.

Rob

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?

Capella

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?

BobW

@ScotsRenewables

The final two paragraphs remind me of cereal woman.
Must we all now just sit down, shut up and eat our cereal, to keep you happy?

I’ve voted SNP for more than 40 years, i’m not and never have been a member of any political party, criticism of a party’s policy does not equate to ‘hate.’

Proud Cybernat

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

Unionist Media BDSM Club

Martin says:

Could not agree more! But my assessment of the reality, from viewing SNP track record is that they would still back PV in those circumstances. I don’t see them voting it down no matter how smart that is. So in reality, it is a bluff.

———————–

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.

galamcennalath

Boris et al talking of ‘wrecking amendments’. And the loyal establishment media spreading the same viewpoint.

Ok, WM sucks, and we want away from its clutches asap. However, today, right now, it is total misrepresentation to suggest amendments duly passed by a majority of PMs are anything other than the will of UK elected lawmakers. The current WM makeup is the result of the 2017 GE held in midst of the Brexit debate.

If they pass amendments to delay, or for an EURef2, or to stay in customs union, then that is the will of parliament. A parliament elected by voters who knew what Brexit was about.

It might be ‘wrecking’ the plans of the far right, but to label sensible changes as being ‘wrecking’ is totally arse for elbow.

Or maybe everything at UK level politics and in WM is consistently arse for elbow in these times!

Unionist Media BDSM Club

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.

PRJ

Another condition the SNP can demand is. If Scotland votes 60% to stay within the EU and the majority UK vote wants to leave then Scotland has the right to negotiate towards independence.

Bob Mack

Breaking

Scottish court allows case to continue to ensure compliance.

galamcennalath

Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

keep us in and mistreat us

That certainly seems to have been the Tory plan since we dared to threaten their glorious Greater England in 2014.

They could have gone ‘win hearts and minds’ instead they chosen ‘scorched earth’.

Martin

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.

Blair Paterson

OT Scotland is being ignored says the SNP in Westminster of course it is and rightly so it had the chance of. Freedom and refused it other people have given their lives for freedom but we could not even vote for it I am talking about the No voters and Incomers who allowed this to happen and brought this shame upon us as one old shipyard worker said to me they used to call it the Red Clyde they now call it Yellow River and yes I still feel empty and ashamed at that result. Let’s put right next time no votes for Incomers or postal votes only those who were born and live in Scotland are allowed to vote on the future of THEIR Country do not forget 80per cent of Incomers voted no the last time and swung the vote in favour of no and it is not even their country this must not be allowed next time ???

Stuart MacKay

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.

G

It seems to me that what the SNP should be asking for is not simply agreement to hold indyref2 but permanent power over the holding of any independence referendum, otherwise we are conceding that the Scottish people are not sovereign in this matter. Whilst the received wisdom appears to be that another No vote in indyref2 would put the matter to bed for a long time, and that may well be true, it’s not something I am prepared to concede, and I suspect many others will feel the same.

Proud Cybernat

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)?

RobertTheTruth

Joanna Cherry said on Radio Scotland GMS this am that she, Dr Phillipa Whitford and Hannah Bardell had put their names as co-signatories to a Labour back bench amendment supporting a second EU referendum. She said the wording was ‘acceptable to the SNP’ but did not elaborate that they had insisted on any conditions.

As far as I recall the SNP are putting forward their own amendments which may have conditions but we will see. However, as we have seen umpteen times they are unlikely to command any support from the Unionist parties. So the SNP may be left supporting a Labour amendment which has nothing in it for them except a UK wide remain or confirmatory vote.

callmedave

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.

manandboy

link to lordashcroftpolls.com

ENGLAND SUBSIDISES SCOTLAND

A tale of highly successful brainwashing.

Bob Mack

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?

Old Pete

Hope Scottish court nails Johnson for the truculent wean that he is. As regards above on the SNP, our biggest problem is we need a way round requiring ‘permission’ to have a referendum after all we have had years to figure something out legally.

Maybe UDI after winning a decisive victory in the upcoming general election. Scotland remaining in the EU if you vote for the SNP or Scotland must have Independence to decide our on future with England the EU and the rest of the world. Take back control of Scotland for and by the Scottish people from this vile English government.

Marty

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!!!

Proud Cybernat

Johnson set to pull Brexit Bill if Bercow allows any amendments to be attached.

dadsarmy

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.

dadsarmy

@ScotsRenewables
I DO believe we need to tone down the anti-SNP rhetoric

Totally disagree. Indy Ref 1 mopped up most of the SNP sympathetic voters, GE2015 the rest, what was left were other party voters, and in particular, non-party members. Many of who vote NO and can’t stand the SNP. But voted Remain.

If we want to get close to them, inside their space so we can help move them to at least undecided, going round with religious icons of “Nicola” and the SNP and singing Kumbaya my love I love Nicola might make them boak, hopefully make them laugh, but won’t win them over.

Hearts and minds, hearts and minds.

Meg merrilees

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.

dadsarmy

Meantime back in world Boris, the CoS Inner House has agreed to continue the case, keep it open to see what Bozo does next, as he has to accept any extension or – be in contempt of court.

Don’t forget any contempt proceedings are NOT up to Cherry and Maugham, they’re up to the Court itself. Nothing in that judgement today stops that from happening.

Colin Alexander

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.

Bob Mack

@Meg,

I was talking to a friend who is an SNP convenor, Now this was “nuanced in our talk. He did not say it directly but rather insinuations of problems and solutions such as needing to build our infrastructure,ports roads etc.

Maybe there is truth in that should any border happen or be imposed by England.

We wil! cope though.Of that there is no doubt.

Bob Mack

@Colin Alexander,

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

Capella

@ ScotsRenewables – I agree that, when Stu posts an article criticising the SNP, a whole crop of new posters appear agreeing that the SNP are very bad indeed. Craig Murray’s blog has done the same from time to time. But it’s their blogs and they can write whatever they think fit. I have no doubt of their commitment.

Meanwhile, the unionists and MSM carry on broadcasting lies and mendacity.

You have a website and Nana has been busy posting links on it. Perhaps adding some opinion articles would provide a positive take on current developments or at least another point of view. There is plenty to talk about.

I too oppose some SNP policy, notably the GRA. They are not the only party going down this road but they are in government and in a position to take a lead. So criticism is justified IMO.

But when a campaign starts we will unite for Indy.

dandydons1903

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.

dadsarmy

The two leaders have also sent a joint letter making the same request to European Council President, Jean Claude Junker, saying that the deal requires the consent of both the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd.

link to thenational.scot

That’s the SNP for you, doing nothing. Lazy gits!

Bob Mack

@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.

crazycat

@ Capella at 12.24

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.

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

I think they might find it quite hard to use that argument again (- wouldn’t be too difficult to come up with an alternative, of course – “We joined as one united kingdom, so blah, blah, blah…”).

Johnny

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.

Iain mhor

Scotland has no currency, no leverage, no bargaining chip other than votes. Votes are generally worthless, until someone needs them and is prepared to buy them. The occasions where Scottish votes as currency have had any value, are vanishingly small.
Scotland should always be whoring itself for anything it can get; because the alternative is waiting to be paid after the event. That’s always a long and cold old wait.
A failed state like Scotland, has nothing of value to trade, it owns nothing and controls nothing. It only has votes. Might as well use them for a new fur coat.

*Altogether now*
I’m a little pimp with my hair gassed back
Pair of khaki pants with my shoes shined black…

Capella

@ 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.

Colin Alexander

Bob Mack

My solutions: Scottish Democracy and Scottish sovereignty.

the SNP respects and uphold what Scotland votes for.

The SNP respects what England, Wales and N.Ireland vote for and lets them get on with their own democratic decisions.

If that means separate paths for Scotland and any of the other parts of the Union, so be it.

the SNP promise to keep upholding what Scotland votes for in any other referendums.

Scotland also voted for the right of self-determination, an indyref via the Scottish Parliament. No need for WM consent – the sovereign people decided by electoral mandate.

The SNP should also seek a mandate to have the right to declare indy by GE: by 50% +1 of the popular vote for pro-indy parties. They could even keep this on win on standby, giving an opportunity for indyref first.

manandboy

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.

defo

Given that politicians of all hues like the power and £ that their jobs give, making an EU ref conditional on all the nations being in agreement isn’t a goer IMHO.

Howevs, agreeing to a new EU referendum would give the opportunity to hold Indyref2 before EU2 which would ensure our continued EU membership, and could be fought with that at the heart of the campaign.

Would the mad Tory brexiteers deny the chance to get rid of the thorn in their side then?

I think they might even help expedite the process.

Liz g

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!

galamcennalath

A thought.

The immediate issues everyone is arguing about in this Withdrawal Agreement are citizens’ rights, money owed, and the UK/EU border in Ireland.

If there is a crash out exit, then these issues won’t go away. They will remain for negotiation. They will be a priority to get solved. They will be precursors to any trade talks.

It would be a changed environment, though (understatement). Here’s my thought. The EU would have considerably greater leverage as the UK would be in a desperate position. Basically, the beleaguered would just have to accept what the EU demanded. This it’s the way the Tories see it, full of entitlement and exceptionalism, but I think it more than likely.

So, if the EU wanted all this mess tidied up, a month or two of utter chaos after a crash out, would focus UK minds on getting things sorted out asap then.

Terry callachan

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

Unionist Media BDSM Club

Martin says:

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.

——————-

Agreed. Sorry if I sounded a bit abrasive in our exchanges. It’s just that I think there’s an actual opportunity here, in a way that hasn’t been the case till now.

If the SNP don’t at least *try* to use their WM leverage here, when are they ever going to do so? If no such attempt is made, Yessers are hardly going to be enthused to vote for SNP MPs in future, and SNP claims that ‘WM pays no attention to Scotland’ would ring hollow if they don’t grab this chance to make them do so.

Or at least make more noises that they’re considering doing this. That letter from Nicola to Junker is a start (maybe).

The SNP have earned plenty of brownie points for their consistency over Brexit, especially compared to Labour and the Tories. So they’ve earned themselves a little room to manoeuvre here. If they don’t at least *try* to seize this moment, their timidity might scunner Yessers so much they suffer an even worse GE showing than 2017.

Terry callachan

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

dadsarmy

From a comment on Joanna Cherry’s feed:

Despite the Prime Minister, The Attorney General and the Lord Advocate assuring the Court of Session they will not breach the Benn Act, the judges have essentially said, “let’s wait and see.” We live in extraordinary times.

The intention is good but the execution is faulty. The Lord Advocate is OUR guy (Wolffe), it’s the Advocate General for Scotland he meant (Keen).

dadsarmy

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.

dadsarmy

Oh more like this please. mony more:

Any idea why this always starts in Scotland Laura? It has the ring of Hillary Clinton marching around small maverick courts in the US trying to outlaw handguns.

The Court of Session, Inner House, Scotland’s highest court, compared to “small maverick courts in the UK”.

#FuckOffScotland

I could of course point out that the longer the SNP keep the whole thing henging around in “the UK”, the more like this, but I won’t.

Terry callachan

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

Robert J. Sutherland

Bob Mack @ 12:59,

The SNP are (rightly enough) concerned because of what ordinary voters may (be lead to) think. A “hard border” will be one of the few predictable BritNat attack vectors left. (Recall Magrit Curran’s lamentable “families cut off” scare story, for example.) Personally I’m long past that issue but undecideds may not be.

It was, and remains, total bollocks, of course, especially if Scotland is part of the EU just like ROI. For all the UKOK exceptionalist bluster, it’s the EU which has the whip hand. Especially – there’s an irony! – if there is a crashout.

tartanfever

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 ?

Robert J. Sutherland

crazycat @ 14:03,

A stonkingly apposite reminder, cc. As soon as the result of the EURef was in, the “advisory” aspect went right oot the windae and hasn’t been seen or heard of since. (Foul play suspected.)

Which makes it all the more likely that any future referendum in Scotland will necessarily be mandatory, however it is established, not least considering Scotland’s unique constitutional position. Vote or abstain, the result will stand. Which should be enough to bring out the voters (postal included). But that’s a fight for another day.

In the meantime, any vote to invoke EUR2 on whatever grounds makes it virtually impossible for any BritNat hypocrite to refuse our one thereafter. (They may try, but will only look absurd to almost everyone.)

Bob Mack

H ats off to Bercow and the Scot tish judges

callmedave

Well Bercow provides no succour to the Government and goes on to help Boris out by asking him to get J. R. Mogg to update the house of new business later today.

POO: (Point of Order) How did Bercow know Boris would send his letter?

Bercow says he expected Boris to abide by the law! 🙂

So it goes.

callmedave

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

Breeks

21st November for Alex Salmond trial….

With you all the way Mr Salmond.

dadsarmy

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

Bob Mack

@Breeks,

Indeed

callmedave

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. 🙁

Martin

Unionist Media BDSM Club says:

Agreed. Sorry if I sounded a bit abrasive in our exchanges. It’s just that I think there’s an actual opportunity here, in a way that hasn’t been the case till now.

Oh good Lord, if anyone thinks you were abrasive to me I’d hate them to see the rest of all internet exchanges ever conducted by anyone! You were perfectly polite, I just got the impression we were both feeling we disagreed about strategy where in fact we were in almost full agreement.

callmedave

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!

Effijy

Speaker sends Tories Berco!

A Radio expert on parliamentary protocol explains
That the Tories could have avoided this had they taken
The right action at the end of day Saturday.

Yet another of many glaring blunders that have been the Tories
And Westminster these last 3.5 Brexit years and counting.

The twists and turns the Tories make are like a basket of snaks.

Petulant spoiled children from the richest backgrounds refusing to
Accept they cannot have everything they want when they want it.
Pathetic!

Seems that Boris is grooming some EU leaders to encourage them to deny
Any Brexit extension.

This builds with Bojo’s other actions where he has proved beyond doubt that he
Has not adhered to the parliamentary law that demands he makes a legitimate request for an extension.

The Scottish Court of Session must now proceed to prosecute Bojo for breaking the law!

Would you let an armed robber off on a technicality that he claims his gun was only aimed to the left hand side of where the Teller was?

No!

Bob Mack

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

Fireproofjim

All this talk of a “hard border” between Scotland and England is just the usual project fear nonsense.
20% of England’s trade is with Scotland and they are not going to cut themselves off from that.
Anyway, the intention in the case of Brexit was always to try to negotiate a free trade area between the U.K. and The EU.
Scotland in the EU would get the best of both worlds. EU membership and a free trade deal with the rest of the U.K.
A Brexit deal amended to include a Customs Union would serve much the same purpose.

Bobp

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.

Shug

London do not see 4 countries they see only one unitary state
Anyone who thinks London will allow representation s for individual countries is missing this clear point

ScottieDog

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

ScottieDog

Well if there was to a be a quadruple lock and England and Wales voted leave whilst Scotland and NI votes remain, we might not even need indyref. The brexit/UKIP knuckle draggers might demand English secession.

wull

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.

Bobp

Slovenia’s prime minister marjan sarc issuing a statement on Catalonia saying ” it is not desirable nor permissible for a European country to solve problems with any kind of violence”. Dont suppose that’ll be on the BBC news at 6 or 10pm anytime soon.

Tony O"neill

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.

Proud Cybernat

O/T
“…describing something as a once in a generation event isn’t the same as making a manifesto promise.” – Alistair Carmichael.

Thanks. Good to know.

Source: link to twitter.com

Juteman

Well said, Wull.

Andy Anderson

link to thenational.scot

A good answer to an English/Scottish hard border

callmedave

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! 🙁

John H.

@Bobp 4.43pm.

Do you mean someone like John Jappy?

link to youtube.com

Boudicca

Well said Wull. I always enjoy reading your posts.

galamcennalath

“The year is 2192. The British Prime Minister visits Brussels to ask for an extension of the Brexit deadline. No one remembers where this tradition originated, but every year it attracts many tourists from all over the world.” © Julian Popov @julianpopov

Will it turn out that way!?

galamcennalath

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?

Liz g

Wull @ 5.01
My concern stems from that very thing being discussed in the House of Lord’s in 2014 Wull.
When the polls started to shift in our favour the Lord’s started wondering if the referendum section 30 could stand as it affected the whole of the UK and only Scotland voted!
They also spoke of Cameron having the right to Commit to “respecting” the result that tresspassed into diluting parliamentary sovereignty and no Prime Minister or Government had that Authority .
And yes I do know there’s a difference between both Unions and that in Scotland the People are Sovereign… But the Lord’s were exploring at that point in time if they could find a way to halt a Yes vote resulting in actual Independence.
One way was to claim the section 30 invalid and the other was to claim that the WHOLE UK should have a say as the Whole UK would be changed.
This is part of the reason I don’t think a section 30 will put a Referendum beyond dispute the way Nicola is saying it will!
I think she wants it so that other Countries see it a having been watertight and the denials of it perceived as the “illegal” thing. Much in the same way Westminster has everyone thinking that a referendum without a section 30 as illegal…
I would say that many people would see that if each part of the UK has to vote to leave the EU then each part of the UK voting to ( as they’d frame it ) break up the UK. As fair comment…. They are probably not going to make the connection that the WHOLE of the DUP didn’t get a Brexit vote.
It’s the perception that we’d finish up having to argue,much like the currency thing.

cirsium

@Wull, 5.01

Well said

Liz g

Me @ 6.40
The EU… Not the DUP….. Duh….

Cubby

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

Unionist Media BDSM Club

@Wull

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.

————————-

That comment was a pleasure to read, wull, and full of wisdom.

Regarding the above, though, we need to remember that grasping an opportunity does not make someone an opportunist. If an attractive woman makes herself available to me — which happens about as often as the SNP have leverage at WM — it would be daft of me, would it not, to turn down the opportunity because I believe taking it (so to speak) would make me an opportunist.

It’s possible to agree with virtually everything you’ve said above, and not believe Nicola’s a Boris-style opportunist, and still believe she should take the opportunity she’s been given this week, but that may soon vanish. The proposal in this thread offers the win-win, in your terms, of Nicola doing the right thing re Brexit (supporting EU Ref 2) AND possibly winning an S30.

What Boris the opportunist does is very different: sacrifice doing the right thing for his own selfish ends. What this thread’s proposal would allow Nicola to do is have her cake and eat it: do the right thing EU-wise (from her POV) AND secure a new indyref. Make sense?

Other than that, as I say, your comment is superb. Please keep posting.

Helen Yates

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

Cubby

Blair Paterson@12.41pm

“They used to call it Red Clyde now they call it yellow river”

Surely an independence supporter would know that Glasgow voted yes. So away and insult some other city you plonker – if you must – but get it right this time.

You know what you can do with the rest of your blood and soil nationalistic comments. Not wanted in Scotland – try England these days. You and Callachan been keeping quite for a while but you just can’t help popping back up again with your unacceptable views.

Gary

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…

Stuart MacKay

@Liz g 6:40pm

Framing the debate to restrict options is always going to be a tactic of the people who want to stop something from happening.

So take the example of the EU – in effect it’s similar to the UK just bigger. Everybody is an equal partner but there are a few 800-pound gorillas to deal with. So the UK wants to leave. Is the EU diminished by this – well, a little – clearly UK politics helps temper some of the more irrational statements made by commissioners – but it’s still the EU. It does not go away and essentially functions just as well as before, with a few adjustments to the budget. Should the rest of the members have a say in whether the UK can leave – well apart from being preposterous with wars started over less, the answer is clearly no – it’s supposed to be a collection of nations pooling their interests to create a stable Europe. Every nation in the EU is sovereign and while extricating themselves is clearly problematic there’s no way they can be prevented from leaving.

For the UK, if it’s a partnership of equals, then clearly the same applies. If you can’t leave because of the wishes of the other partners then it’s no longer a union. If one country is dictating the rules then it’s a prison.

Cubby

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

TJenny

I haven’t read all the comments yet, so soz if this has already been touched on.

From Ian Smart’s twitter,

‘Holyrood being recalled on Thursday “as an emergency” is your timely reminder that, having taken 9 weeks off in the Summer, they were back for 5 weeks before they took another 2 weeks off. Still, they now plan to sit until the Christmas recess. Which will start on 20th December’. (He’s a Slabber, hence the snark).

So Holyrood being recalled as an emergency and then sitting from Thursday through to 20th Dec, could be in order to fast track through the Referendum Bill. Fingers crossed.

dadsarmy

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

Colin Alexander

Dadsarmy

Go Nicola! Whatagirl!

Banging the drum for devolution yet again: “It is essential that your government respects devolution.”

No mention of Scottish sovereignty.

I wouldn’t expect it from a British Empire colonial administrator. Oor Nicola knows her place.

Meg merrilees

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.

Capella

@ Liz g – here is the UN declaration on decolonisation. The 7 points of the declaration are on p 67 so you need to scroll down one page. This used to be on a handy standalone doc but I can’t find that atm.

All people have a right to self-determination.

If we are an equal partner then we have the right to dissolve the union. If we are not an equal partner we are a colony and have the right to self determination. The UK has no right to obstruct our freely declared wish for independence. That’s not to say they won’t try of course.

link to undocs.org

Lochside

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’.

dadsarmy

@Colin Alexander:
Dadsarmy

Go Nicola! Whatagirl!

Banging the drum for devolution yet again: “It is essential that your government respects devolution.”

Are you mentally deranged? What does that comment have to do with me?

Breeks

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.

Colin Alexander

dadsarmy says:
21 October, 2019 at 1:54 pm
“The two leaders …

“Go Nicola!”

Was a response to your comment above.

Mist001

@ 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.

Al-Stuart

.
Stu.,

Excellent thread as always chief.

I now have a little hope we might get IndyRef2 after all.

For a RARE wee while, the SNP in Westminster have WITHIN THEIR REACH, the levers of control to demand a SECTION 30 or better still as MSM-BDSM suggests, Holyrood gets PERMANENT CONTROL for our own Section 30 protocol trigger.

Or…

The SNP at WESTMINSTER ABSTAIN.

That pretty much guarantees the current Withdrawal Bill gets through. Even if the DUP go back to being the very well paid Tory g!mps.


Onlyone problem. Ian Blackford has painted himself and the Westminster SNP MPs into the SAVE ENGLAND FROM ITSELF corner.

Rev Stu., far be it from me to state the obvious, but YOU have a little leverage to “nudge” the SNP into growing a pair and actually trying to get something for Scotland in reciprocity for saving England from itself in the imminent vote + Labour EU-Ref2 Amendment.

Stu., your LEVER is well described on another website…

http://www.calumslist.org

You only need to ANNOUNCE you are standing against Speaker Pete Wishart. The SNP high command will then have to take notice of the polls and logic on WoS. If not there are 4 more SNP GE 2019/2020 marginals to put the squeeze on Ian Blackford getting Westminster SNP MPs TO DO THEIR JOB AND GET US INDYREF2.

Downside is IF the 35 SNP MPs secured a Section 30 Order for Scottish IndyRef2 they will likely say a BIG BOY FROM BRISTOL MADE US DO IT AND THEN RAN AWAY ?.

I am sure the Bristol boy is big enough and ugly enough to take that one for the Scottish IndyRef2 team???

Has to be worth your considering Rev? We have already raised £500 for your deposit at Perth and North Perthshire and Pete Wishart wanting to become Westminster House of Commons Speaker smells of him being far, far too comfortable living in London and working FOR Westminster, he is SUPPOSED to be working for Scottish Independence.

By the way for the people here calling others tractors, I am NOT anti-SNP, I am certainly ANGRY-with-the-SNP.

P.S. If I was so anti-SNP as some egregiously claim, go to today’s National page 6. The headline starts with “MP rankings”. Why on earth would I be determinedly supporting The National by buying it every day if I did NOT support Independence? ScotRen W??.

Craig Murray

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.

Sarah

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

I hope Nana and Hackalumpoff are looking in – look forward to seeing some comments from them both.

Jock McDonnell

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

Craig Murray

Jock

Exactly right

Sarah

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

Terry callachan

Mist001…honestly ? Do you just make up these fantasies yourself ?

Bob Mack

@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.

TJenny

Bob Mack – was your use of the enigmatc ! instead of l, deliberate? Or is it a secret code?

Gordon Keane

It is intersting the way the Speaker of the House of

Bobp

John h 6.01pm. Thanks for that John, never seen it before, very interesting I’ll be sharing it with family and friends.

Gordon Keane

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!

Cubby

Reading some posts I think I will amend my previous comment that some posters are letting their judgement be clouded by their loyalty to the site owner. They just don’t have any judgement at all but just like saying SNP/Scotgov/Sturgeon bad. They may dress it up as the right to constructive criticism but in reality it is destructive criticism.

When do they ever post anything destructive about the Britnats. Their target is always SNP/Scotgov/Sturgeon. Deliberately or too dumb to realise what they are doing is trying to lower the morale of independence supporters.

So what motivates them? Is it to demonstrate they are smarter than ordinary Independence supporters? Or just plain malice?

Bob Mack

@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.

Gordon Keane

SNP does have its support, for sure.
But at same time, we are allowed to point out flaws in their present approach, regards Independence at this moment in time.

RM

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

Bob Mack – thanks for reply. I’ve seen this ! instead of l, on twitter too, and couldn’t work out how it could be a typo when ll only requires you to press same key twice, but !l needs the other end of the keyboard plus shift. I’m a non-techy, one fingered typist myself and maybe Kindle set-up isn’t querty, so I was intrigued, not mocking.

Bob Mack

@TJenny,

I understand pefectly.

Bob Mack

@Cubby,

Its called having your own opinion. Tell me honestly, does that disturb you that people dont agree with you?

dadsarmy

@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.

Head above

@ Al-Stuart

Pete isn’t standing. So save your £500

naina tal

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 “!”)

Jaygee

Stu

This site has been of great importance in the quest for independence and I have gained knowledge from many of the contributions from a very large group of individuals who had common cause in Scottish freedom.Unfortunately the recent anti SNP contributions have soured the exchanges discussing your insight to to media bias.
The SNP is the only vehicle able to get us there and the constant sniping at Nicola Sturgeon is very similar to the campaign against Mr Salmond when people could not give a good reason as to why they disliked him .
Please try to get this site back to the number one target of independence. The personality arguments can take place if we gain freedom.

Bob Mack

@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

Just plain malice.

Bob Mack

@Cubby,

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

manandboy

Chile and England seem to have problems in common.

Chile on edge as worst unrest in three decades claims 11 lives. Fuelled by deep-rooted disillusionment at how millions of citizens have been frozen out of the country’s economic rise.

link to archive.is

More clashes likely after Piñera expands state of emergency following ‘weekend of rage’

Chile protests rage despite president’s retreat over subway fare rise – video report
Latin America’s most prosperous country is braced for fresh upheaval after Chile’s president expanded a state of emergency beyond the capital and the death toll from three days of violence rose to 11.

The crisis began early last week as a youth revolt against a 3% increase in metro fares that the government was subsequently forced to scrap.

As outrage over those measures grew, student protesters stormed metro stations as part of a fare-dodging movement designed to pressure the government. On Friday, demonstrators torched at least a dozen stations, causing an estimated $300m (£230m) of damage.

But Paula Rivas, the president of the Metro Workers’ Union in the capital, Santiago, said the fare hike was not the driving force behind the mutiny.

“It’s the low pensions, the privatisation of water, the rise in electricity prices, the healthcare system, the need for equal education rights,” she said. “The metro fare was just the trigger, it is symbolic. It made people say, ‘enough’. We will not be silenced.”

Observers and protesters say the rebellion – the worst unrest Chile has faced since the dying days of Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship three decades ago – is fuelled by deep-rooted disillusionment at how millions of citizens have been frozen out of the country’s economic rise.

“This isn’t because of the metro price – it is because the system is squeezing us like lemons,” said Bessy Gallardo Prado, a 34-year-old law student who has joined the protests.

“This is happening because of decades of injustice, abuse, and inequality. There is no social security in this country. People earn little and work a lot and wages are not enough to make ends meet.”

Navia, who is based in the Chilean capital, said unlike in other Latin American countries, public anger was not the product of worsening living conditions.

“Living conditions are in fact improving. Poverty levels are going down … Chile has been growing for most of the past decade,” he said. “The problem is that people perceive that wealth and opportunity are not evenly distributed. There isn’t a level playing-field.

“They feel like they are at the gates of the promised land. And they see all the elites inside having fun and enjoying the benefits of economic development – and they are not being let in.”

The Santiago mayor, Karla Rubilar, struck a conciliatory tone on Monday, calling for dialogue between authorities and demonstrators.

“We want the word of the day to be ‘rebuilding’ – rebuilding trust. Because we know it has been lost. Not during this government, but over many years,” she told reporters.

‘This conflicted place made me who I am’: Santiago, Chile – a cartoon
Read more
But many blame Piñera, who was elected in 2017 and is one of Chile’s richest men, for inflaming the situation with his uncompromising and inept response.

As Santiago descended into chaos last Friday and the state of emergency was declared, the president was photographed dining with his family at an upmarket restaurant. “Piñera eats pizza as Santiago burns,” one critic tweeted.

Advertisement

On Sunday night he caused further fury with a hardline address in which he claimed the country was “at war” with “evil” delinquents who were bent on causing chaos and destruction.

Navia said: “It was reminiscent of George W Bush … It is a provocation. When you tell protesters you are at war with them, they will go out and provoke you.”

He said Piñera’s administration appeared to believe the declaration of a state of emergency would extinguish the uprising – but many protesters were defying the government’s curfew.

TJenny

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

Mist001

Why is the SNP the only vehicle to get Scotland to independence? I’m asking because virtually everything I read elsewhere says that independence is down to the will of the Scottish people, with no mention of the SNP.

So, what one is then? SNP or will of the Scottish people that will take us to independence?

This is a pro-independence board and right now, it seems that I’m watching Sturgeon and the SNP fuck up on an almost daily basis and they deserve all the criticism that they’re getting.

My personal feeling is that this board isn’t the place to discuss brit nats, which is why I never mention or criticise them on here. It’s really that simple. Discussing brit nats would take this board way off track and clog it up with constant rants and whines. Like I say, that’s only my personal feeling about it.

The Rev posts compelling, rational ideas and thoughts about achieving independence and to see them ignored by the SNP would I imagine, be incredibly frustrating so it’s no great surprise that they attract much criticism.

I have no doubts whatsoever that at least some of the higher echelons of the SNP read this board but my feeling is that they think they’re above this ‘rabble’ and wouldn’t take political advice from here, no matter how good it was. It seems sometimes that if a good strategy or idea is presented here, the very next day, the SNP will do the exact opposite and I don’t think that’s coincidental. I think it’s intentional because they believe they’re too good to be taking political advice from here.

Colin Alexander

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?

Bob Mack

@Colin Alexander,

Rule Brittania ?

defo

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

TJenny

Colin – Rock Island Line?

Colin Alexander

T Jenny

Nope. Close though.

Cubby

The SNP would be bonkers if they took advice from Mist001. The person who said some of the senior SNP politicians e.g. J Cherry were ("Tractor" - Ed)s.

TJenny

Colin – Battle of New Orleans?

Colin Alexander

TJenny

Correct. Well done.

Cubby

Yes – just plain malice.

Mist001

My only advice to the SNP would be to stop ignoring your core business, which is Scottish independence.

You can guarantee that they’ll ignore that piece of advice!

Colin Alexander

link to youtube.com

Battle of New Orleans

TJenny

Colin – Hooray! Now having a wee dance round the room. 😉

Colin Alexander

On that happy note of dancing roon the room, I’ll bid youse all nite nite.

TJenny

G’night Colin and thanks for the reworked lyrics.

Al-Stuart

.
Hi Mist001.

You made a pretty much perfect post. Thank you for helping myself and those on here who actually read the site owner’s analysis and research.

Having to repeatedly deal with blinkered, paranoid party loyalists who don’t play well with others is a waste of valuable resources and mirrors the problems dealing with BritNat trolls elsewhere.

I was going to reply to one of the regulars who decided to vent by calling people like me “dumb”. The sin? Questioning the governing party and how the SNP policy of SAVING ENGLAND FROM BREXIT should be suppressed. I am apparently upsetting his morale.

I ain’t this person’s comfort blanket. The fire in my soul is caused by the lethal Labour and Dickensian Tory policy of killing the disabled…

http://www.calumslist.org

There, is that enough BritNat criticism quota to soothe the sad feelings of the passive-aggressive persons hereabouts?

We are almost beyond party politics here, as Tony Blair’s Labour creep, James Purnell MP released the four horsemen of the disabled killing apocalypse… ATOS + MAXIMUS + CR@PITA + DWP., These are the ones I want to see locked up. Followed by the Minister for Manslaughter Iain Duncan-Smith.

I had THOUGHT the SNP were walking the walk after they talked the talk: “Our SNP policy is to treat disabled people with respect” said Jeane Freeman MSP.

The SNP ARE ABSOLUTELY HONOURABLE on that count. The SNP are making a difference and I can say without a doubt the SNP are saving lives as I spend time in that NGO charity advice sector.

BUT…

…and there is often a BIG but.

If the SNP fcuk up this ONE chance at securing a Section 30 Order, the nice, well meaning Ian Blackford will have bl00d splatter on him from those in Scotland whom have the ESA + PIP dreaded brown envelope syndrome and are destined to go the way of Paul Reekie (please look up on the internet what happened to Paul).

If the SNP bu66er up this chance they have in CONTROLLING THE LEVERS OF POWER THIS NEXT WEEK OR SO, the SNP will condemn Scotland to at least FIVE years of Boris Johnson and far right Duncan-Smith deathly policy imposed on it.

For those that whine about posters here questioning the SNP and calling myself and others tractors and stooges and dumb and idiots, I am fcuking raging at you. My motivation is due to watching friends dying by policies from Labour and Tory zealots. So get your head out of your er5es, STOP imaging MI5 plants and get real.

I am NOT anti-SNP.

I am angry-with-the-SNP.

There is a difference. Please comprehend this and the motivation this bereft soul has narrated above. Thank you.

————

Mist001 said it best…


The Rev posts compelling, rational ideas and thoughts about achieving independence and to see them ignored by the SNP would I imagine, be incredibly frustrating so it’s no great surprise that they attract much criticism.

I have no doubts whatsoever that at least some of the higher echelons of the SNP read this board but my feeling is that they think they’re above this ‘rabble’ and wouldn’t take political advice from here, no matter how good it was. It seems sometimes that if a good strategy or idea is presented here, the very next day, the SNP will do the exact opposite and I don’t think that’s coincidental. I think it’s intentional because they believe they’re too good to be taking political advice from here.

Ghillie

Without Nana’s links at day break this site ends up sawing sawdust.

Breeks

Ghillie says:
22 October, 2019 at 7:05 am
Without Nana’s links at day break this site ends up sawing sawdust.

It would be great to see Nana’s links back here.

It would be great to see it flourishing on another site.

It would be great to see TartanPigsy’s flags flying off the shelf, IndependenceLive being paid for, and half a million signatures on the YES petition.

It’s almost as if something oppressive and is stifling the very life of the YES community, leaving it malnourished for momentum and emaciated as a result, and stunting every new flicker of initiative.

Hmmmm…. can think what that might be. I mean, the SNP said everything was hunky dory and going fine at their conference. So there’s more of the same strategy on its way….

But courage mon braves…

Step forward Joanna Cherry QC… “It’s time Scotland’s Constitutional position ….. was brought to the fore…”

link to mobile.twitter.com

There’s a democratic mandate for an Independence Referendum. Yes there is Joanna, but there’s also a sovereign democratic mandate stay in EU which cannot be overruled by colonial oppression from Westminster and the unlawful usurpation of sovereignty.

Plan A MUST be a watertight Constitutional Backstop. Scotland will not be removed from Europe.
Plan B is to use the safe harbour provided by Plan A to facilite Scotland’s transition into an Independent Sovereign Nation which has ended the political Treaty which formed the U.K., and transitioned into a member state in Europe. That is the time and place for discussion and referendum, AFTER we are safe behind sovereign ramparts of Scottish Constitution.

I think it is folly to rely on the fickleness of Labour and dishonesty of the Lib Dem’s to create this safe harbour and forestall Brexit from happening. We are constitutionally stronger by ourselves, we have the intractability of Scots Law and our Sovereign Constitution behind us, we have an emphatic Popular majority to throw out Scotland’s unlawful Brexit, and personally, I believe it is utterly false that the International Community would not recognise the emancipation of Scotland from the UK. It is my belief they would recognise Scotland’s escape as a parachute seen emerging from a WW2 bomber shot down in flames.

We must have the courage to be independent in strategy if we want to be independent as a Nation.

Backstop! Backstop! Backstop! Come on Joanna Cherry!

Heart of Galloway

Breeks@8.02pm

I asked you (twice) some time ago if you could explain the process by which a “Scottish constitutional backstop” could a) be achieved and b) honoured by the Johnson junta.

I suggested three courts could be involved, successively – the CoS, the SC and the ECJ.

I also suggested some of the issues which could arise during that process and the likely BritGov reaction to it.

But it’s not my job to put flesh on the bones – it’s yours. I am genuinely interested and am NOT knocking the tactic per se.

galamcennalath

Oh FFS!!!

Johnson’s EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill has a transition period ending at the end of of 2020.

The Bill has no provisions for what will happen if a Trade Deal isn’t finalised in this period. (Remember, trade deals normally take many years to formulate), MPs will have no say in what happens then. Without a trade deal, the UK will crash out at the end of the transition period in a ‘no deal’ situation.

Every thing we see right now will probably be repeated all over again in 15months time. This time it’s about a Withdrawal Agreement, next it will be a rerun on a Trade Agreement.

So, presumably someone with try to put an amendment in to ensure parliament retains control. And of course, again, the far right loony Brexiteers won’t want that.

Déjà Vu, again.

Ahundredthidiot

Ghillie @7:05

Dont visit until midday then.

That way you dont get bored and we dont need to read your negative comments.

It’s called a Win/Win

Ahundredthidiot

Apologies, daybreak, not midday

Jomry

O/T. Have just read Craig Murray’s account of Julian Assange’s appearance at the magistrate’sm court yesterday in connection with extradition hearings link to craigmurray.org.uk

An absolutely gut-wrenching account of the conditions under which Assange is being kept and a scathing indictment of the “justice” he is being subjected to.
Not a mention of any of this in MSM or BBC, though they are full of the sympathy which must be accorded to Harry and Megan for the dire treatment they receive from tabloids.

An illustration of the power of the state on both sides of the Atlantic to not only crush dissent through the court system and the venality of magistrates, but also to ensure through complicit MSM that these things are hidden from sight.

Too many supporters of Assange turned up so extradition hearings will be moved to Belmarsh to restrict public attendance to 6 seats. Absolutely cynical manipulation – in plain sight if any competent “lournalist” could be bothered to report it.

Abulhaq

Waiting for Scottish independence is akin to waiting for Godot.
Many existential references to the eponymous character who never actually appears.
[When Estragon decides to leave, Vladimir reminds him that they must stay and wait for the thematically reiterative Godot—Unfortunately, the pair cannot agree on where or when they are expected to meet with Godot. They only know to wait at a tree, and there is indeed a leafless one nearby.] from Wiki.
Happy Days!!!!

Shug

It is interesting watching NI unionists clinking to a London system that has, in their eyes betrayed them and thrown them under a bus
I wonder how Scottish unionists are reacting to the great British betrayal

Bob Mack

@Shug,

Second time in a hundred years the Tories have betrayed the Unionists.They never learn. Tories will be wiped out in Scotland due to loyalties and ties many Scots have with Ulster. Who will thdy then vote for? The same leople whk switched from various partys to Tory to protect th e Union.

At least so theY thought. They msy not now even vote at all in protest.
All to play for yet

Shug

I do hope the OO heads to London with their lovely bands and March up and down downing St, pawsing as they outside no 10
Perhaps like I indyref1 in 2014 they could beat up a few foreign types
I am sure the polis will be happy to stand back like they did in glasgow

Shug

My typing is poor at this time of day

Shug

Just looking at the herald comments and it full of unionist drivel. Does the
Herald have a direct link to to 77 Brigade
The commonality of the tone is really surprising

mr thms

I heard on Newsnight a commentator say the Withdrawal Agreement Bill will bring back during the ‘transitional arrangement’ the Treaty of Brussels (also known as the EU Communities Act 1972) which is repealed on Brexit Day by Section 1 of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018?

So if the WA is passed by parliament, aspects from both Acts/Treaties will run together during the transitional arrangement?

Makes this article a keeper!

link to blogs.lse.ac.uk

“Brexit is a form of secession – Scotland and Northern Ireland might soon follow”

Bob Mack

@Shug,

The Herald probably is the 77th Brigade.

I can actually understand posters who feel frustration but they almost certainly do not work for any government agency.

Such concerns arise in every political party and its how you deal with themgbe Many posters have left Wings because they cant handle the challenges the Rev gives them zbout exzctly tbis.

Its Scotlands loss if Wings falls. Having a readership with no staying poower is never helpful to any cause.

They will drift to places where they find “comfort” and a like view from the author. It will end badly.

They damage a cause they say tbey will fight for, and yet at the first sign of adversity to their view and what they believe the blogs view should be they flee.

Ill fight on thank you regardless of how my view is challenged.

I bel ieve them hyocrites. Wanting a free independent Scotland where everyone can have their voice heard, .

Empty rhetoric as demonstrated by the number who have run away from exactly that and left Wings to hear a more comforting tone .

Iain mhor

@Gordon Keane 9:52pm

There begins your journey into a fascinating history, pivotal questions and the ‘auld argument’ over who or what, if anything, was’extinguished’.
The UK is a big kiddy-oan, everything is just invented as they go along. Like the continuing use by the UK of ex post-facto law, because ‘Parliamentary Sovereignty’ under the ‘Crown’ by Divine Right.
So yes, a continuation of the old English Parliament, which has never been denied. On the contrary, it has been stated severally that, the Parliament of England continued, it absorbed the Scottish Parliament, Scotland was ‘extinguished’ and the English Parliament was restyled ‘The UK of GB etc..’

More recently, you could have read of the Mundell, stating that very thing. However, like the entire edifice of the ‘UK of GB etc’ it’s just invented, they have no idea and neither does anyone else – everyone has very strong opinions and interpretations, yes – but the actual scenario has never been properly established.
You may read of such as Wade, Hope, Dicey, Crawford, Boyle, Bogdanor, Drummond & Wright, Tierney and many other renowned legal and constitutional philosophers (and Adam Tomkins) pontificating on the constitution of the UK and its ‘Sovereignty’. They all have very didactic and strong opinions (n.b – Opinions)

Recent fartings from the ‘independent’ Scottish Judiciary has added to the constitutional belly rumbling of these past 300 odd years. A direct attack on the age old premise of Parliamentary Sovereignty (that “Alien Device”) and an attack on the “unwritten” UK constitution. Though as our own Mr Peffers opined; there is a written UK constitution, it is that which ‘constituted’ the UK (The Treaty & Acts of Union)
The edifice of the UK, it’s parliament and constitution, has come under numerous blows, but always recovered by re-interpreting reality.
In the absence of ‘De-jure’ legal certainty, we must operate with what is actually ocurring ‘de-facto’ – and what is actually ocurring, is just as you observe – Westminster acts as the old English Parliament.

Bobp

Shug 9.54am. The tourists would probably think it was just another quaint brit “tradition”.

ben madigan

@ Shug who said “It is interesting watching NI unionists clinking to a London system that has, in their eyes betrayed them and thrown them under a bus”

Here’s a view on what happened in NI yesterday as abortion and same sex marriage were finally legalized by Westminster

link to eurofree3.wordpress.com

RobertTheTruth

The social side of this site is OFF TOPIC. Why those who berate the tone or content on the main site don’t use it is up to them. This is the area where difficult issues are discussed and differing opinions should be allowed to freely aired.

Those who would stifle that need to take their anxieties elsewhere. It is as if they are afraid the neighbours, be it the press, Unionists, Mi5/6, 77th, choose your enemy… will hear a family squabble and think badly of them.

Who gives a damn what they think? So take your blankies and dummies and go sing Kumbaya and stick charms on your wish tree.

You are not up to the battle ahead and you are why we lost the last time.

ScotsRenewables

One last appeal to reason from me.

Whatever people post on here, all of us will vote for independence when the time comes to be counted.

But that will not matter if we can’t take a sizeable portion of previous ‘No’s with us.

I used to point the wavering to Wings. I cannot do that now.

Is that progress?

Cubby

Bob Mack back posting about people running away when he posted recently about getting commission for the number of people he has driven off Wings. Methinks Bob speaks with forked tongue. That is an evidence based statement unlike some of the crap that is posted. No doubt Bob will retreat into I was only joking or it was only satire. No it wasn’t. The hypocrite is Bob Mack.

Bob Mack wants only the pure 100% supporters of the site owner posting on Wings because he can’t handle losing any sensible debate and turns to personal abuse or just total nonsense comments to deflect.

My advice to Bob Mack would be to give your knuckles a rest for a while, review your approach and come back refreshed with perhaps a less aggressive stance to anyone who challenges your point of view.

Effijy

Laugh at the hypocrisy of the DUP.

They must must have everything exactly to same as their English Masters.
Loyal forever or at least while the mega money subsidies and bribes are flowing.

Now that they have the same abortion and gay marriage laws as England the are
Appalled and insist they should be different?

They also have a £Billion scam for burning fuel pellets that doesn’t apply else where.
Why don’t they complain about that.

They are heating empty sheds as they buy the pellets for pennies and get pounds
For each bag burned in their boilers.

One of the DUP leaders brothers had 9 boilers burning night and day but heating fresh air in sheds.

No wonder they can spend fortunes on Toy Soldier Uniforms for the back to the future 1690 walk.

mike cassidy

Iain Mhor 10.32

Without any traditional place in the UK constitution, there is no established means of moving from a referendum result to enactment. Referendums are advisory unless parliament provides differently. …….

This creates another difficulty when it comes to regulating good conduct of the referendum. There is no easy way to do this. For in the event of misconduct in a referendum, there is no obvious way to have a legally non-binding (but politically extremely important) result set aside

link to archive.is

Bob Mack

@Cubby,

You typify my point. Thank you very much.

Dont be like Cubby. Think for yourself.

ScotsRenewables

The fact that the most vociferous posters currently surfing the new Wings wave of neo-whatever have been around for a long time guarantees nothing about their intentions.

Just sayin’

Bob Mack

@Scotsrenewables,

Question

Do you think that previous No voters will be persuaded by being hounded by Wingers for not being loyal to the SNP ?

They are not exactly an inclusive bunch, are they ?

Bob Mack

@Scotsrenewables,

Neo Wingers?

Speaks the guy who is intolerant of any view but his own.

Shug

Stu has a point about the snp doing a deal to let brexit through but there are a few concerns
SNP would be seen as unprincipled and the bbc would magnify this
You could not trust boris to fetch a pint of milk Never mind deliver a promise
Tanking the English economy does not help us
I too have concerns but we must stick to the high ground.
If the salmons case gets thrown out in nov and the indyref2 starts either because Hollywood arranges it or Westminster agrees to it (unlikely) I know, I think we have a result

Bob Mack

@Shug,

I think you raise valid points re the ecomomics side of separation and preserving our own status.

Where we probably disagree is the morality issue. We owe them nothing. They have been picking our pockets for ovef 300 years whilst we play by the rules and look the other way.

manandboy

THE BIGGEST THING IN SCOTTISH POLITICS IN 2019

TBTISPIT is Stu’s idea for a second Independence Party. The reason? Because it is a direct and very real threat to the hopes of Westminster and the British Establishment to secure Scotland politically in the Union.

The English Ruling Class simply could not sit idly bye and ignore such a real danger to their Cash Cow, supplying free oil, free gas, free electricity, free fishing, free water & free farming. And somewhere to go hunting, shooting and fishing on free land.

Remember, if Scotland goes independent, England goes bankrupt.

And so the English Establishment’s propaganda machine has an urgent job to do. To take down Wings over Scotland, or better still, just remove its flight feathers and prevent him from flying, by crippling his support and cutting his funding, through divide and conquer tactics.

That’s what I see happening.

I’ll away back to my soup making.

Bob Mack

They wil! give us a referendum? Look at that prospect in view of a posting on Stus twitter feed, and remember what state the UK is going to be in post Brexit.

It states. Scotland with 8% of the UK population contributes over 30% of Uks GDP.

And you think they will give us a referendum? Not a hope in hell.

ScotsRenewables

manandboy
the English Establishment’s propaganda machine has an urgent job to do. To take down Wings over Scotland, or better still, just remove its flight feathers and prevent him from flying, by crippling his support and cutting his funding, through divide and conquer tactics.


That’s what I see happening as well, but it looks as though such concerns may be punishable by banishment. Stu obviously does NOT believe this is happening, and I suspect that dissent will not be tolerated for much longer.

A lot of us are worried about what seems to be happening to Wings. Have we always been just useful idiots?

Capella

@ ScotsRenewables – there is quite a long list of ex wingers now. Some of them post on other blogs, some have fallen silent. It is a great shame and I miss their input. But, as with my SNP membership, I’m still hanging on here by the fingernails in the hope that sanity will be restored soon.

@ manandboy – I’m persuaded that a second YES party to stand in the Regional vote is a good idea. Gavin’s figures were persuasive, all things being equal. But all things are rarely equal.

Interesting to see the Alex Salmond hearing being brought forward to November 21st when the trial is scheduled for end January. Is that a good or a bad thing? Do the PTB anticipate an early election?

Also, a rumour has spread that Stu intends to stand against Pete Wishart at a GE. I read WoS blog and twitter every day but somehow I have missed Stu’s announcement of this plan. So I wonder where it has come from?

All things are very far from equal in this union.

Bob Mack

@Capella,

Stu standing against Wishart was only a suggestion by a contributor from that area. Never happen of course as Stu is only interested in list seats to rattle the Unionists.

Rumour suddenly becomes truth as you know.

I suppose I didnt help by volunteering to contribute to his election fees. Ah well.

ScotsRenewables

Bob Mack says:
22 October, 2019 at 12:24 pm
And you think they will give us a referendum? Not a hope in hell.

Strange, I seem to remember them doing so before – when oil was at its peak as well.

We have weeks at most to wait before a request/demand is made for a Section 30. Let us wait and see if:

a) It is made
b) It is refused
c) If it is refused, what the SNP’s response is

If a) and b) happen and the SNP have no valid response, THEN is the time to start all this wailing and gnashing of teeth.

THEN we start the Wings party or devise some other response that might be effective – though for the life of me I cannot see what other than a legal challenge could ever succeed. All the forms of UDI spouted on here will fall at the first hurdle – international acceptance.

The thing is, ‘Bob Mack’, alleged long time supporter of independence, it seems very strange and premature to me that this uproar is happening just as we seem – to most of us long-time observers of the scene – to be getting closer than ever.

Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book. Whether willing or unwilling, you appear to be seeking to alienate me and a huge contingent of Wingers and ex-Wingers who disagree with you. You see an opportunity, a mood shift you can exploit to ramp up the anti-SNP rhetoric at a time when it will do most damage.

You and your small coterie of supporters on here may be genuine in your views; I can’t tell whether what is going on here is infiltration by the British state or just that age-old inbuilt Scottish tendency to self-harm and self-destruct when victory is in sight.

What I DO know, to turn the Unionist mantra back on itself, is that NOW IS NOT THE TIME

In a few short weeks the independence landscape will look very different. There will be certainty where there is doubt, and you will be left with egg on your face. I hope that then you will have the good grace and common sense to devote your energies to useful campaigning alongside the SNP and all the other sectors of this wonderful diverse movement of ours.

(And if it turns out you are right and the SNP give in without a fight I will be right behind you and Stu in whatever you suggest next . . . but I do not think this will be necessary)

Capella

@ Bob Mack – indeed. Unfortunately it adds to the meme that Stu is anti SNP.

I have wondered if the infiltration of Wokus Dei into the SNP and, as a result, Stu’s critical articles are somehow the work of the 77th Brigade. If so, you have to admire their skill. The end result will be to demotivate SNP voters.

Nevertheless, it is up to the leadership to deal with this and neutralise it asap.
Still waiting.

Bob Mack

@Scotsrenewables,

1692763.

That was my SNP membership number.

I could have done much more damage by remaining and destroying the party from inside had that been my goal.

I wouldnt do that.

Many have and are stil! doing it by turning the SNP I knew into something quite quite different.

If you cant fight them from the inside, you must do it from outside.

How do you fight the troublemakers without having a go at the party who gave them free rein. I dont know.

Republicofscotland

So it looks like the SNP are going to sit back and let a second EU ref materialise, and more than likely back it if the vote comes.

In the meantime Cherry and Sturgeon are focused on goading Johnson et al into a GE, of which its more than likely won’t happen anytime soon.

If point one comes to fruition and we remain in the EU, independence is very unlikely to happen, we’d still be in the EU and all the horrible reasons for leaving would then be used against us.

Point two, Sturgeon is hoping for a quick GE because her stock is high at the moment in Scotland. However if point one does materialise will her stock still be as high come the Scottish elections on May 2021, if we’re still in the union?

No wonder they fitted up Alex Salmond he at least was intent on leaving the union, hurry back Alex.

dadsarmy

It states. Scotland with 8% of the UK population contributes over 30% of Uks GDP.

The gov.scot document referenced on that ridiculously inaccurate tweet says nothing of the sort, nor could it. Scotland’s onshore GDP is around the same as our population proportion of the UK – 8%. Our GDP per capita is therefore also roughly the same. Include offshore and it’s a little more, but not even as much at the moment as 9%.

Here’s the document referenced which does NOT say anything remotely like “over 30% of Uks GDP”.

link to gov.scot

It’s uninformed shite like this is destroying Wings.

Rob

Stu at 12.27,

“No. England will never vote to throw us out. Quite aside from anything else, they’d find it much more amusing to keep us in and mistreat us.”

I rather agree there – even if “throwing out” were an option. What I’d imagine is more along the lines of “Make up your minds, free with us, or disloyal with them? Have your Section 30 and decide who your friends are.”

None of it very cool or logical, just an emotional spasm the MSM would love.

Bob Mack

@Dadsarmy,

I accept your point. Could England though stil! have the same financial borrowings and lending markets with a 9% drop in GDP from Scotland as sel! as the predicted 10% fall in GDP brought abouf by Brexit?

It al! adds up.

Scottish GDP as far as I know relies on GERs, and I certainly dont believe them.

ahundredthidiot

scotsrenewables @12:44

That is not turning unionist mantra back on itself – that’s repeating it.

Good job the the Rev has tolerance for the odd unionist, I would’ve booted you off days ago.

ScotsRenewables


Republicofscotland says:
22 October, 2019 at 1:00 pm
If point one comes to fruition and we remain in the EU, independence is very unlikely to happen, we’d still be in the EU and all the horrible reasons for leaving would then be used against us.

I don’t see it. We still have every reason to leave as Westminster has demonstrated over and over again that there is no place for Scotland in the UK decision-making process.

You could just as idly speculate that leaving the EU will provide massive ammunition for NO in the form of ‘hard border with England’ ‘biggest trading partner’ bollocks.

OTOH, a second narrow win for LEAVE with Scotland voting 70% REMAIN would provide a massive boost for YES

As I said, all idle speculation. In the meantime, let’s concentrate on holding the SNP’s feet to the fire for a Section 30 demand very soon and an approppriate and swift response to a refusal if there is one.

Once that has happened and the SNP have been shown to have feet of clay THEN I will join you in pursuing some other route, but until then I think we should bide our time another few weeks.

ScotsRenewables

ahundredthidiot says:
22 October, 2019 at 1:23 pm
scotsrenewables @12:44

Good job the the Rev has tolerance for the odd unionist, I would’ve booted you off days ago.

So now I am a Unionist?

Wash your mouth out.

Bob Mack

THE GREAT VOTE BEGINS IN WESTMINSTER.

This will determine our route of travel.

Colin Alexander

Split? Division? Schism?

There is none of the above on Wings.

I can’t see ANY poster having said that we should vote or campaign or turn our backs on independence.

On the contrary, the most vociferous critics of the SNP are all VERY pro-independence, very pro-Scottish sovereignty.

The only real division between commenters is over the SNP and tactics.

My view is that if Scotland ever achieves indy, it will be despite the SNP (under Sturgeon), not because of the SNP. I will no longer vote SNP unless they seek a direct mandate for indy. But:

I’m still AYE.

I still say: Dissolve the Union.

Bob Mack

@Scotsrenewables

You see how it works now ?

Im pretty sumyselfelf you are kosher.

dadsarmy

@Bob Mack
Think about it Bob. Where did that piece of disinformation come from, and I’m not neccessarily talking about the tweeter of it. Where did he get it from?

To put it another way, who is pissing themselves with laughter seeing sich a blatantly WRONG and INCOMPETENT piece of disinformation, being spread by Independence supporters who thereby totally discredit their believeablity?

It doesn’t matter WHO is the “agent”, just examine every piece of so-called info, check its supposed source, and see if it makes any sense.

Scotland with 8% of the population of the UK, clearly can NOT produce over 30% of the UK’s GDP, even with oil and all the gold around Tyndrum. Use our noddles!

manandboy

(theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/oct/22/brexit-boris-johnson-deal-leave-eu-live-news)

“Nigel Farage has also been on his feet, telling the parliament that the deal reduces the UK to the status of a colony of the EU.” By implication, utterly unacceptable.

But he doesn’t see, like the rest of the English Ruling Class, that Scotland is treated by England as having the status of a colony of England. Utterly acceptable and desirable to English eyes.

Oh, Scotland, to see ourselves as we truly are.

Bob Mack

@Colin Alexander,

You paint yourself into a corner unless there is an alternative road to indy. That is currently as we stand ,to vote SNP.

Another route may open up in the fullness of time, but not for now.

Bob Mack

@Dadsarmy,

I take your point unreservedly

dadsarmy

@Bob Mack
I know I know, I shouldn’t labour the point. But with the UK GDP at £2,000 billion, to get over 30% Scotland would need over £600 billion GDP. According to the stats, our GDP is actually around £180 billion including offshore (I couldn’t bother looking it up for the exact figure.).

So to be over 30%, someone would have to invent anouther £420 billion of GDP – 250% more than our actuals.

Ah but, someone will say, there’s the oil, extra regio, look at Norway …

NO NO NO

link to ogauthority.co.uk

Look at the amount of oil produced in 1 year – 1.7 million BoE per day average = 620 BoE @ £50 per barrel = £31 billion, and that’s the absolute maximum it adds to our GDP. So where the feck is the other £390 billion to come from, not even bothering to consider that the £180 billion of our announced GDP already INCLUDES offshore GDP?

There’s so much shite going around and it makes us look silly at best, total fecking imbecilic liars at worst.

dadsarmy

Just in case anyone says “Ah but the URL says 17 million”, here’s a quote from that page:

UK oil and gas production rises to 1.7 million barrels per day in 2018“.