The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The wrecking ball

Posted on June 01, 2019 by

Print Friendly

    288 to “The wrecking ball”

    1. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Rev. You were quite correct in warning us about today’s cartoon, on your twitter feed.

      But, still another brilliant offering.

      Mr Cairns has talent, he should consider becoming a cartoonist full-time.

    2. Clootie says:

      That sums it up 🙂

    3. jimnarlene says:

      Sums up the situation perfectly I like the branch office kennels especially.

    4. Conan the Librarian says:

      The kennel… *choking*

    5. Effijy says:

      The Wrecking Ball would get my vote before
      Brexit, Labour or the Terrible Tories!

    6. Luigi says:

      Aye, scary image indeed.

      The wee branch managers are certainly in the dog house at the moment. 🙂

    7. Breeks says:

      The UK is just too surreal these days. Literally nothing would surprise me.

      Its like experiencing an out of body experience for Countries Kingdoms. You’re floating above the table as they defibrillate a bloated hypoxic UK, and you’re just not sure you wanna go back because actually, this freedom feels kinda nice.

    8. Giving Goose says:

      Jo Swinson, Obergruppenführer Davidson & whoever is Labour branch office teaboy will be off picture fighting over who gets to swing the ball. Willie Rennie leant the butcher’s apron undercrackers to the clown, so had to go home for a clean pair.

    9. ronnie anderson says:

      Ah plethora of ill will on both their houses for generations to come .

      Weil done Mr Cairns .

    10. TheItalianJob says:

      Well depicted the shambles of Brexit and the demise of Labour and Conservatives especially here in Scotland.

      How an earth is that awful person Jo Swinson in the running for leadership of the Fibdems. I couldn’t even fathom how the voters of East Dumbarton voted for her in the 2017 GE.

      And how did the Brexit party manage to gain a seat in Scotland for the EU Parliament. Oh I forgot the disillusioned Unionists from especially Labour and the Conservatives voted for them. We have our share of Brexiteers here in Scotland too. Pity.

    11. Artyhetty says:

      Excellent, and also terrifying, the stuff of nightmares, or even daymares! When I saw the advance apology on Stuart’s twitter, for the horror awaiting us today on WoS, I thought, it’ll be Fabage, Trump, or the not so famous six or is it seven, Tory wannabes.

      The Fabage looks like he’s having a ball in his tiny Britnat flag undies, god, ( or someone) help us all!

      Have a good, nightmare free weekend all!

    12. mumsyhugs says:

      Ahhhhh!!!! My eyes! Horrible! (He’s doing a grand job for us though 🙂 )

    13. Marie Clark says:

      Thanks for the warning on twitter Rev. Wow, Chris, just wow.

      Well done sir, covers it all magnificently.

    14. John Alexander Ferguson says:

      The swinging berserker.

    15. Ken500 says:

      The sooner that crook is in jail the better.

      The Fibdem lying again. The ConDems cut Education £6Billion a year from 2015 to 2020.
      Incensed student fees elsewhere to £9000 a year. Clegg now making £Millions with the tax dodger.

      The Tories illegally cutting Scottish budget again.

    16. Brian says:

      why can’t anyone on here see that sturgeon is playing us all for fools.
      she can introduce as many bills as she wants but she still needs a section 30 to hold an Indyref2 and she is NOT getting one!
      whichever toerag gets the position of PM the answer will be the same….stop kidding us Nicola!

    17. starlaw says:

      And not a hoe of the chain breaking. Well done Chris.

    18. David Smith says:

      Fuck off.

    19. Marie Clark says:

      Brian, aye right.

    20. Famous15 says:

      The life of Brian!

      You are not the Messiah. You are just a silly boy!

      “Morning 77thStand by your beds!”

    21. Grouse Beater says:

      A wrecking ball indeed, Chris. Did you see the Governor of the Bank of England talk of Scotland’s GDP as at least a £1 trillion? England can’t afford Scotland to reinstate self-governance.

      Your essential weekend reading:

      ‘Collaborators’, what to do with them:
      ‘Arctic’ – a warm review of a cold film:

    22. Iain 2 says:

      The trolls are up early.

    23. Should have had `BBC` chiseled into the wrecking ball,

      whoever is really behind Farage is doing a great job of destroying the UK and the two cheeks of the Westminster erse,

      is it,

      Putin,American big business,money laundering banks,English nationalists,China

      to what ultimate purpose,


      let`s `get the hell out of Dodge` before the place implodes in an orgy of ruin and carnage.

    24. Abulhaq says:

      According to miscellaneous Anglomedia there are 70k Brits for that match in Madrid. Yet more appropriation.
      Obama came out in support of the status quo before indref#1
      Trump ‘endorses’ BoJo.
      Nothing changes, the US will meddle: currently meddling and stoking in the Arab world. Prepare for war against Iran sometime soon.

    25. winifred mccartney says:

      Perfect summary of the week.

      Here JC still not on board with second vote – this ‘democratic’ man still not listening to membership who voted for it.

      As for Swinson she’s just another one of these so called scots who want to ingratiate themselves to WM elite by bad mouthing Scotland just like Ruthie, Gove etc. I’m amazed they can’t see the reality and that their words/actions just make them look like the fools they are. She is one of the ‘dirty’ libdems who have raised lying to an art form especially in elections. Think Cole Hamilton and his leaflets saying an snp mother was going to jail and it fell into the hands of her daughter who was distraught. Very dirty players who would like you to think they are harmless but are really just gormless – talking down their own country will never get them respected.

      Unfortunately with the media we have, the lack of journalists questioning and the blatantly biased bbc they are getting away with it.

    26. Terry callachan says:

      To Brian. Your post at 8.19am 1st June

      You may be right about England’s Westminster not agreeing to a Scottish independence referendum not issuing a S30, no matter who is PM.
      Time will tell.
      I don’t think Nicola Sturgeon is playing us for fools or kidding us I don’t think that’s how she does things ,actually I’m certain of that, everything she does is honourable she is a very astute reliable and fair politician a shining light in today’s world.
      It’s frustrating for sure, a fair number of Scottish independence supporters just want her to hold a Scottish independence referendum now but as has often been said by the British nationalists of all colours they would not participate in such a referendum and would not recognise the result as valid so it would be difficult to move that situation forward.
      Personally I do believe that we have to do it by the book even if it is a book written by England’s Westminster, we can still win , it will just take longer, we need patience and trust and togetherness.
      Hang in their keep the faith in what we are doing, it will come.

    27. Orri says:

      Yeh Brian.

      Sturgeon is formalising the way referenda are held in Scotland and no doubt the idea of permission from our betters in Westminster will be raised by the opposition parties. At which point it’ll be made clear that none is needed.

      The next step will be to try another tack and outright ban or require consent on reserved topics. Once again a get to fuck will be the reply. As referenda doesn’t necessarily include legislation to implement the result a formal framework would leave the only avenue to object that if the people of Scotland give a verdict that somehow impacts on reserved matters.

      At some point unionists are going to have to put on record that their intent is to restrict the ability of the people of Scotland to voice their opinions and instruct or advise their elected representatives on a course of action.

      Specifically, Holyrood will be barred from asking the sovereign people of Scotland for the authority to act on their behalf in reserved matters. In other words we will be prevented from taking our sovereignty back from Westminster contrary to Scots Law.

    28. Robert Peffers says:

      Yes he’s a swinger right enough but isn’t that transphobic?

    29. Frank Gillougley says:

      Joseph Goebbels.

    30. Morgatron says:

      A classic Chris, Bonker on Conker. You’ve caught his mad eyes perfectly & smashing all before him on Sajid Davids head.Though I’m sure the wrecking ball would be in danger of serious damage if it hit tRuthless directly!

    31. Terry callachan says:

      To Winnifred McCartney your post at 8.54am 1st June

      Do you think it’s possible that the LibDems will take over where the Tories left off, in Scotland , will we now see a concerted effort by the media in Scotland to support Swinson and bring her to the fore as the new messiah will they claim her to be the next Scottish first minister and try and persuade all the British nationalists in Scotland to get behind her instead of Ruth Davidson.
      It looks like Ruth Davidson is a dead duck in the waters of Scottish politics.
      Lib Dem’s have an unshifting stronghold in a few parts of Scotland, I reckon we might now see a concerted effort by the British unionists to move disaffected Labour and Tory voters to Lib Dem purely as a British nationalist ploy to subvert Scottish independence at any cost.
      I do believe Labour and Tory British nationalists will more readily move to Lib Dem’s that to each other.
      What do you think ?

    32. Legerwood says:

      Robert Peffers says:
      1 June, 2019 at 8:58 am
      Yes he’s a swinger right enough but isn’t that transphobic?””

      No, not if it is just one ball.

    33. stu mac says:

      Mundell shooting his mouth of claiming education worse under devolution. What a surprise, he isn’t telling the truth, just being dishonestly selective with figures.

    34. Robert Peffers says:

      Brian says: 1 June, 2019 at 8:19 am:

      … why can’t anyone on here see that sturgeon is playing us all for fools.

      Well she is certainly playing you for a fool, Brian.

      ” … she can introduce as many bills as she wants”, yes that’s true.

      ” … but she still needs a section 30 to hold an Indyref2″ and she is NOT getting one!”

      Rubbish! holding referendums is neither against English law or Scottish law and there is no such thing as a UK rule of law.

      A section 30 has never been Westminster permission. Indyref1 was run under an agreement between Salmond and Cameron that both kingdoms governments would respect the result of only i8ndyref1.

      Thus all that getting a section 30 order for indyref2 means is a prior agreement that both of the kingdoms governments in the United KINGDOM agree not only to respect the result but also the wording of the question.

      Now here’s the real truth – Westminster is NOT the legal parliament of the Kingdom of England and there has been no legally elected parliament of the Kingdom of England since 1 May 1707.

      Do you imagine that Westminster wants all such illegal set-ups they have imposed that have broken the Treaty of Union since 1707 coming before international courts?

      Can you point out where the Treaty of Union between two equally sovereign kingdoms legally became, “A country”?

      Worse still can you show the legislation that made the Country of England the master race devolving English powers to the only Kingdom partner to England in the United Kingdom? Keep in mind that Westminster is legally the United Kingdom Parliament and there is no legal parliament of Either the kingdom or the country of England.

      You have clearly swallowed all the Westminster Establishment propaganda whole and have been unable to digest it. Westminster will do anything to avoid being taken to international courts.

    35. AlbertaScot says:

      Is it just me, but has Miley Cyrus aged a little?

    36. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      O/T but further indication of the real evil axis in the world
      Nils Meltzer is the professor of International Law at Glasgow University

    37. Was there not someone else who only had one ball too?

    38. Abulhaq says:

      If the ‘law’ or the ‘rules’ stand in the way of securing Scottish independence, we might pose the question whose ‘law’, whose ‘rules’?
      I am a ‘revolutionary’ and would ditch the hindering law and rules and just seize the day.
      A risk, given the ultimate goal, worth the taking.
      In Scotland, the residue of Calvinism maybe, the correct procedure informs thinking. Many bridle at the possibility that there is an alternative to the legalistic orthodoxy.
      In the great quest for independence there is no insurance, no belt and braces, no ‘no risk’.
      I suspect that the ‘revolutionary’ alt.route is not on the FM’s map but eventually, in view of what is unfolding in England, it might have to be.

    39. Auld Rock says:

      With all the Tory ‘Has-Beens’ asserting that they will NOT grant a Sect 30 order it is timely to remind them The Rules of Poker as set out by Alaska Black Jack, “A loaded .45 Colt pointing at you BEATS FOUR ACES!”

    40. McBoxheid says:

      I think you are giving Farage far to much credit. The tory and labour parties and their branch offices have wrecked themselves. Farage is just the opportunist that is claiming the credit fot it. He is nothing more than a chancer. Note that he never had a chance in Scotland, he only hoovered up one seat with D’Hondt, because of the propotional representation system.

      The only party that is truely working for and with Scotland, the SNP, has really outdone itself this time round. The evidence clearly shows that those that work for and with Scotland will come out on top. The unionists are never going to be sucessful in Scotland, not any more.

    41. kapelmeister says:

      Scotland in the Union.
      Scotland in the United Kingdom.

      Partners or Prisoners?

      Partners or Prisoners?


      Which are we?

    42. kapelmeister says:

      Smiley Virus on his wrecking ball. Truly an image for our times.

    43. galamcennalath says:

      Farage, campaigning for an independent Scotland! Probably not his intention but hey hoe, we certainly didn’t ask for his ‘assistance’ but it is entertaining to stand back and watch the various forms of BritNattery knocking bits off each other.

    44. Orri says:

      Apparently there’s a clause in the Scotland Act that allows Westminster’s heid bummer in Scotland to prevent Holyrood’s Presiding Officer from submitting a bill for Royal Assent. So Mundell or successor will have to do the not allowing bit rather than the PM.

      Or perhaps not as there has to be reasonable grounds and as the abortive attempt at May trying to exercise the Royal Prerogative in submitting the A50 letter to trigger Brexit shows it isn’t just refusing RA that’s covered granting it is too. Push comes to shove the FM could submit a Bill for RA.

      All that might seem arcane but it seems better than a full blown republic/presidency. If the UK had ditched the Queen and the PM really had the power they aspire to then Javid’s allow might have more bite. Look at Trump to see how wrong a president can go. As it stands the whole publicity around picking May’s successor smacks of a presidential election where the vast majority of the UK have no vote.

      The danger of that is it may further fuel Farage as another example of where the general public have no control. His solution will seem reasonable but probably be self serving.

    45. Famous15 says:

      Wish I had stayed awake in the International Law 101 class but I am guessing a Treaty such as the Treaty of Union is open to review by the courts. Court of Session initially then off to the Hague to examine if its terms are breached.

    46. Capella says:

      The BBC has already chosen the next saviour of the Union. And the winner is ……..Jo Swinson. She was all over the media this week and on QT where she told blatant lies about the pupils of Glasgow schools getting to University. So she has all the skills needed – a Scottish accent and glib facility to tell lies.

      The are also parading Rory Stewart but he is a harder sell being plain bonkers. Does have the Scottish accent and glib facility to tell lies. Not so photogenic, like Gove who has ….

    47. Frank Gillougley says:

      Just a passing thought, but not a nice one – more a vision of accents from hell.

      Can you imagine Rory Stewart, Jo Swinson, Fraser Nelson & Michael Gove all in the same room, talking at the one time? Mibbes throw in Neil Oliver for good measure?

      Ther, just had to get that off my chest.

    48. Col.Blimp IV says:

      No matter what you think of the Brexit Farago, it can’t be denied that it has brought Independence that wee bit closer, so perhaps this cartoon should be re-named…

      Dr. Strangelove or : How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Brexit!

    49. Graf Midgehunter says:

      Best image of Gollum oops Farage I’ve seen in a while “the eyes have it”.

      Mad as a fruit cake.. 🙂

    50. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      “I am guessing a Treaty such as the Treaty of Union is open to review by the courts.“ @Famous15 says at 10:33 am

      There is “The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is a treaty concerning the international law on treaties between states.”

      Article 62 is the one relevant to Scotland and the UK Union:

      “Article 62 of the treaty says that if there has been “a fundamental change of circumstances” following the conclusion of a treaty “which was not foreseen by the parties”, then the countries involved would be allowed to withdraw from the treaty.”

    51. Dr Jim says:

      Farage is being paid inordinate amounts of money to do this job…which is what he really really wants (Spice girl ref:)

      Jo Swinson, my MP and I tried folks I really did but once the *good* people of East Dunbartonshire were fed all the lies and homophobic garbage that Swinson poured out about a good man John Nicolson they couldn’t help themselves and being the Liberals (really want to be Tories) that they are they voted him out for a (what they thought) softer version of Ruth Davidson who would lie but not run away immediately after, trouble is that’s exactly what she does and always has

      This is a woman who claimed expenses for an entire flat refurbishing that she didn’t live in, right down to the teaspoons, an appalling woman with zero interest in politics exactly like Davidson, they just know how to game a system that allows them to extract vast sums of money from it and end up in the House of Lords which is the ambition of both of them as was their predecessors Lord (I know bad dirty men) Steele, or Annabel (never accomplished anything) Goldie

      Or take your pick from any *Scottish* Peer, is there a difference, as long as you hold Scotland in contempt

      Yer in!

    52. Dorothy Devine says:

      Frank Gilloughly,I can hear that hideous sound _ contorted vowels and bools in the mouth and I was a speech and drama teacher.

    53. kapelmeister says:

      Jo Swinson is Lady Macbeth cunningly disguised as a jolly Girl Guide.

    54. Clapper57 says:

      @ Capella @ 10.43

      Hi Capella , re Jo Swinson comment you are spot on…she is on Marr tomorrow ….obvs they have decided that born again Brexiteer Ruth D’s honeymoon period is over and they have found a new Unionist Scot to take on Nicola and the SNP…..why are they always so so bloody obvious….pathetic and desperate as per. She is the queen of remainers it seems…and she just loves to say how her party are the most remainer of all parties in the UKOK.

      One would think that the Lib Dem leadership was a one horse race…as the exposure she is getting is ludicrous..funny if she lost her seat in next GE….that is…before giving her the chance to once again go into coalition with the Tories.

      She was on Channel 4 last night and was asked if she would go into coalition with Bojo or Corbyn or never again on coalitions …she said not with Bojo or with Corbyn but she did not state that she would rule out going into any coalition in future Brexit they would definitely cosy up with the Tories again….using same lame excuse of doing this in order to harness the Tories…..because that worked out so well for them last time….not.

    55. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Jockanese Wind Talker

      Indeed :

      The European Communities Act of 1972 foisted a
      considerable and fundamental change of circumstances on
      Scotland, without either the people, the parliament
      (which was in recess at the time) or our elected
      representatives in the UK Parliament being asked to vote
      on it in the Scottish Grand Committee.

      We must act now…before The Faragists pull the plug.

    56. Street Andrew says:

      According to the popular song of the time Hitler also had only one ball 🙂

    57. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Oh I forgot…we have just had a vote on it (albeit somewhat belatedly) and we endorsed it.

      Godspeed Faragists…Pull that plug!

    58. James Westland says:

      That cartoon – brilliant. Its the fine detail -the string vest, the sock suspenders. PMSL. 🙂

    59. Orri says:

      There’s a unionist line of argument that says the Act of Union doesn’t read like an international treaty. Once corrected they pardon themselves and admit they meant the Treaty of Union.
      What they’re trying to convince us of is that somehow it’s not a real international treaty that could be referred to an international adjudicator.

      Failing that they try the idea that somehow it was an incorporation rather or a merger where the distinction of Scotland as a separate entity vanished despite evidence that that is not the case.

      That’s why meaningful devolution is anathema to unionists who seem hell bent on obliterating any difference between Scotland and the rUK. Years of treating our languages as dying or simply a dialect have failed as has fostering a love of tragic heroes who died seemingly for challenging England.

      Wallace, except he went beyond the pale and embarked on a reign of terror resulting in him being “betrayed”.

      Mary Queen of Scots, except she was ousted under the tenets of The Declaration of Arbroath.

      Bobby Prince Charlie, pretty much same again.

    60. Hamish100 says:

      jo swinson has a scottish accent-?

      ooooh yaaaa (Morningside or millingavvy?)

    61. Iain mhor says:

      The eyes and the kennels.. 😀

      Just a wee note on this S30. There can always be a referendum on whether Scotland wants an Independence referendum – since asking that does not violate any ‘constitutionally reserved’ matter.
      A YES in that vote, then supercedes any requirement for an S30 for a consequent Indyref. Why so? Because the current mandates are predicated on election results, which will and have been argued as not representing a majority of all enfranchised Scots. That is the leverage and reason for currenrly refusing an S30.
      A majority in pre-referendum or ‘confirmatory’ referendum, falls within the the majority of Scot’s ‘Claim of Right’ and that supercedes the ‘constitutionally reserved’ matter. Refusing the majority of enfranchised Scots their chosen referendum, under their Claim of Right, would itself be inherently unconstitutional.
      Or perhaps my logic is flawed.

    62. Breeks says:

      Jockanese Wind Talker says:
      1 June, 2019 at 11:11 am

      “I am guessing a Treaty such as the Treaty of Union is open to review by the courts.“ @Famous15 says at 10:33 am

      There is “The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is a treaty concerning the international law on treaties between states.”

      Article 62 is the one relevant to Scotland and the UK Union:

      “Article 62 of the treaty says that if there has been “a fundamental change of circumstances” following the conclusion of a treaty “which was not foreseen by the parties”, then the countries involved would be allowed to withdraw from the treaty.”

      And as of right now, is Scotland trying to quantify and codify our colonial mistreatment by Westminster into a meaningful test case to be brought under The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?

      What about the UN treaties on Human Rights and Colonialism?

      If not, why not? Who’s “job” would it be, should it be, to do this? If we’re not going test the Treaty infraction in law, then where are we at least attempting to codify this injustice into the pro-Independence strategy and policy? Why doesnt the whole of Scotland, Indy or Unionist, know that Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides Scotland with an alternative route for termination of the Union? Isn’t it a material factor in the case for Independence? It is surely a whole lot more relevant than the endless inane conjecture on what “the chance of a lifetime” actually means.

      Has there ever been a decisive and exhaustive audit of how many infractions of the Treaty of Union, whether deliberate and willful, or passive and inadvertant, which might nevertheless constitute a definitive breach of the Union, which could have rendered it defunct, but which actually passed into history with barely a moment’s regard? Wouldn’t that be relevant too?

      It would seem there are 50 ways to leave your your lover Union.

      Just slip out the back, Jack
      Make a new plan, Stan
      You don’t need to be coy, Roy
      Take your pick, Nic…

      Isn’t there a point worth making that so deep into an Independence campaign, already spanning decades, we shouldn’t still be “guessing” what these various Treaties “might” mean for us? We ought to know, and hold sacred, a list of all such Treaties which would strengthen and protect Scotland’s Constitutuion, and be word perfect on what they say, and all of us be of one mind on what they mean.

      Grassroots diversity is our strength, but it can be our weakness. We need to settle on one, central and definitive narrative we can all fight for.

    63. schrodingers cat says:

      If tory lab and bxp stand in orkney and shetland in the coming ge, the libdems will be up against it

      ORKNEY AND SHETLAND 2015 GE 65.8%
      LIB 9,407
      SNP 8,590
      LAB 1,624
      TOR 2,025
      UKIP 1,082

      LIB 7096 7440
      SNP 2562 2545
      TORY 435 405
      LAB 304 651
      IND 137

      ORKNEY AND SHETLAND 2017 68.1%
      LIB 11,312
      SNP 6,749
      LAB 2,664
      TOR 2,024
      UKIP 203
      IND 254

      ORKNEY EU 2019 SHETLAND EU 2019
      Electorate 16,804 t/o 38.3% Electorate 17,120 t/o 39.6%
      CUK 75 82
      TORY 499 342
      LAB 204 305
      LIB 2,144 2,001
      SG 724 756
      SNP 1,548 1,751
      BXP 1,035 1,330
      UKIP 157 151
      IND 16 23
      IND 5 9
      REJ 31 28
      TOT 6,438 6,778

    64. Robert Peffers says:

      @Famous15 says: 1 June, 2019 at 10:33 am:

      ” … a Treaty such as the Treaty of Union is open to review by the courts. Court of Session initially then off to the Hague to examine if its terms are breached.”

      Well you can stop guessing, Famous15:-

      Before going any further Westminster is the United Kingdom parliament and as such is illegally governing as the parliament of England and is illegally devolving England’s sovereign powers down to what it perceives as three English dominion countries as devolution. However there are only two partner KINGDOMS in the United Kingdom. Devolution and EVEL are clearly thus illegal.

      Their first problem is that the United Kingdom is legally a union of two only formerly independent kingdoms and not of four countries.

      Their second problem is that the two kingdoms in the United Kingdom are legally equally sovereign and had to be in order to enter into an international Treaty of Union.

      Their third problem is that the two kingdoms have fundamentally different, independent and incompatible Rules of Law as enshrined in the Treaty of Union that, (cough!), legally constitutes the United Kingdom.

      Forth problem is that while in the English kingdom the monarchy is legally sovereign but must legally delegate the Royal powers only to the now non-existent Parliament of England – in Scotland Holyrood is legally the reconvened old parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland and under independent Scots law the people of Scotland are sovereign and a majority of the people giving a mandate to their elected representatives at either, (or both), Holyrood and/or Westminster is legally binding under Scots law.

      Fifth and sixth can be combined – Westminster is the United Kingdom parliament it is not the parliament of England it can thus be ruled incompetent to act only for the non-existent English parliament against the legally elected existent Scottish Parliament because as the legal United Kingdom parliament it must speak for both kingdoms in the union.

      The seventh problem is a real killer – Westminster, and the supreme court have acknowledged the Scottish Claim of Right a.k.a. The legal sovereignty of the people of Scotland.

      Can you wonder why Westminster will seek to avoid these matters ever reaching the international court system at any cost?

    65. Valerie says:

      Great toon, if disturbing imagery, Chris.


      I get what you mean, Labour and Tory contributed greatly to their destruction, but that’s why Farage is dangerous, he identified the space, and set about occupying it. Now with the EU wins, he can claim legitimacy. It’s pure horror watching it, to think of the English MEPs off to the EU, cashing in, and disrupting decent elected members.

      However, the flip side is that, once again, Scotland has shown a very different face of Remain to the EU.

      Agree with all the comments on Swinson, as we witness her beatification. A horrible wee egotistical creature, on the make. How folk voted for her over John Nicolson is only explained by folk being Unionist Tories that like to be known as “Liberal”

      Still, we’re making sure folk are informed about her voting record on Twitter. Humza Yousaf has also shared his letter to her about her lies on QT.

    66. chicmac says:

      Mr Breaksit.

    67. Socrates MacSporran says:


      You are on fire right now, your post at 12.29pm is another cracker.

      I repeatedly wonder why, the SNP/Scottish Government, given they are about to be dragged out of Europe against the stated will of the Scottish people, are not following-up on every possible means of ending the Union, including the one or two you bring up in that post – or following-up on the points raised by Auld Boab below you.

      I am certain, if they did, all but the most hard-nosed Orange Unionists would see the light and vote for Independence; or, if the Union was found by a recognised international court to have been breached to the detriment of Scotland, accepted the end of the Union.

      We don’t perhaps hold all the aces, but, we hold most of them, so, come-on SNP, get moving.

    68. Abulhaq says:

      The SNP leadership must have no truck with Jo Swinson or her mendacity prone, heteroclite outfit.
      The remainer posturing, from her and others, should have no allure when set within the loyal Unionist context of British politics.
      Anti-Brexitism is just another SUKing* trap.
      *SUK….Save UK.

    69. schrodingers cat says:

      the only thing that farage is doing is splitting the unionist vote, Im unsure that even if bojo “no deal” becomes pm, he will not stand the bxp in the subsequent ge?

      in england, libs vs lab and bxp vs tory will produce a result that cannot be predicted

      in scotland, snp vs tory/lab/lib and bxp will split the unionist vote everywhere

      farage is wrecking the unionist vote, not the snp’s

    70. Orri says:

      I had a sneaking suspicion in 2015 that UKIP was a fraud/gambit designed to lure supporters from both Conservative and Labour and the last minute change in the Tories part to a referendum had the desired effect of drawing some of that support back to them whilst splitting Labour’s. Hence Labour petrified of the same happening again sticking to Brexit at all costs. Whether the Brexit party will play to lose at a coming GE or genuinely split the unionist vote is up in the air.

    71. Jack Murphy says:

      Off Topic.

      All Under One Banner [AUOB]

      March in Galashiels NOW on Independence Live:

      Just scroll back for earlier. 🙂

    72. Abulhaq says:

      The CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS waiting in the wings.
      Need subscription to view but paints an ‘aint seen nothin yet picture’.
      Scottish independence can well surf this!

    73. Colin Alexander says:

      @ Brian

      My undestanding is that it’s the position of the UK Govt that a S30 order is required for the Scottish Parliament to hold an indyref that would be legally binding on Westminster.

      However, the new referendum Bill is about allowing Scot Govt ministers the direct power to authorise referendums, so sidestepping the question of a S30 for the Scottish Parliament. The referendum/s according to this Bill would be “advisory”.

      Quite clever and worthy of praise. So, rendering the S30 question as largely irrelevant. (Though, some might argue it’s a question that should be answered).

      However, I will be suprised if the UK Govt don’t legislate to remove / prevent referendum powers for the Scottish Parliament AND Scottish Govt ministers.

      So, it becomes explicit in English law that Scotland’s people can only have democratic freedom when given permission by the Colonial Master: the UK state.

      Hopefully in that case even more of the “I’m a proud Scot, but” apologists for British Colonialism will realise that Scotland can no longer be treated as a colony of the English Crown.

    74. kapelmeister says:

      The unionist media are wanting to put Swinson on a pedestal. Same as Swinson wanted to put a statue of Thatcher on a pedestal.

    75. Dr Jim says:

      Edna Rennie says no matter what happens in the UK no matter how bad things get, Scotland stays (and fights for fair treatment from inside the UK) That’s exactly the same position as the DUP in Northern Ireland

      The fact that he has to even say (fight for fair treatment) says it all

      Edna has declared the Lib Dems are in Ruth Davidsons *No Surrender* party

    76. McDuff says:

      England v New Zealand women’s world cup warm up currently on BBC1, ie shown nationally at prime time.
      Scotland’s warm up against Jamaica was shown on Alba.
      The English are not interested in Scottish football or Scotland.
      We have got to get out of this Union or this country financially and culturally is finished.

    77. schrodingers cat says:

      big turnout in galashiels

      100s of yesbikers, 1000s of marchers

    78. HandandShrimp says:

      Is Swinson being subject to the same sort of hagiography that Col. Ruth used to get. Is there room for two or can there be only one…Highlander style?

    79. McDuff says:

      1-0 NZ

    80. Clydebuilt says:

      McDuff at 2.03pm

      Its not that the English don’t care about Scotland. The State broadcaster doesn’t want Scots to be inspired in anyway by their National teams (female and Male).

      Its about controlling hearts and minds.

    81. Abulhaq says:

      Ironically it may be what happens in England that will deliver, or not, on Scottish independence.
      It was in the aftermath of WWII and the consequently much weakened state of the UKGB that contributed to and facilitated the drive for independence in the imperial colonies.
      Perhaps hanging around waiting for the system to screw up might be the strategy the FM has in mind. Hmmmm!

    82. Jack Murphy says:

      It’s good to see the English Scots for Yes marching in the All Under One Banner AUOB in Galashiels today with some St George’s flags there as well via Independence Live.

      The National has an article today:

    83. schrodingers cat says:

      at least 5000 at galashiels

    84. Dr Jim says:

      England is Scotsphobic

    85. galamcennalath says:

      Dr Jim says:

      England is Scotsphobic

      I would say there’s more Scotsphobia in England than there is Anglophobia in Scotland.

      Neither are necessary, neither show exit. But alas both are being driven by English/British Nationalists’ obsession with retaining their Greater England aka Britain/UK. Scots are seen as an existential threat and thus become a focus of phobia.

      If only we could freely move along our different paths but remain good neighbours, there would be no excuse for phobias.

    86. Col.Blimp IV says:

      kapelmeister says:
      1 June, 2019 at 2:01 pm

      “The unionist media are wanting to put Swinson on a pedestal.”

      The Beeb had her on their “Who Do You Think You Are” program … it turned out that her 17th times great-grandfather was a pig.

      Needless to say, that episode was never aired.

    87. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Might have been funnier, if I had said “English Pig”!

      … Might even have been true.

    88. CameronB Brodie says:

      The embodiment of far-right political reason, that is. Vile, frankly.

      Neo-liberalism, Markets and Accountability:
      transforming education and undermining
      democracy in the United States and England


      Education in both England and the United States has undergone a profound change over the last two decades as part of neo-liberal and neoconservative political reforms. The reforms have been characterized by efforts to standardize the curriculum, to implement standardized tests in order to hold students, teachers, and schools accountable, to increase
      school choice, and to privatize education provision.

      While the reforms in both countries have similarities, differences in the structures of schooling and in the relative political strength of neoconservatives and neo-liberals help to account for policy divergence.

    89. CameronB Brodie says:

      Honestly folks, the BBC can try to sanitise what is happening in England, but you can’t fool all the people all of the time. The state was instrumental in enabling the full-English Brexit. The British state is an ambiguous democracy on the fast-track to failed state status.

      Neoliberalism and Right-wing Populism: Conceptual Analogies


      The paper compares neoliberal market-fundamentalism and right-wing populism on the basis of its core patterns of thinking and reasoning. Hence we offer an analysis of the work of important founders of market-fundamental economic thinking (particularly von Mises) and an established definition of populism (demonstrated by the example of arguments brought forward by leading populists, like Trump).

      In doing so, we highlight conceptual resemblances of these two approaches: Both assume a dually divided world that is split into only two countervailing parts. Right-wing populism shows a society split into two groups, fighting against each other. In a similar vein, neoliberal market-fundamentalists argue that there are only two possible countervailing economic and societal orders. We argue that the categorical analogies between neoliberal market-fundamentalism and right-wing populism could provide the basis for a new form of authoritarian neoliberalism.

      Keywords: right-wing populism, market-fundamentalism, Ludwig von Mises, Donald Trump, patterns of thinking

    90. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      What is it with British Nationalists and pretend Colonels?

      Honorary Colonel Yadaftie of the Const& Unionists from Scotland

      And now Col.Blimp IV, probably of the 77th

    91. Dr Jim says:


      We’ve been *othered* for so long by the hostility of successive regimes the average Joe in England thinks it’s real that we’re some kind of crazy people in the thrall of the evil mind altering wizards of the SNP

      Half my family are English on my Mum’s side from the Midlands and they all feel sorry for the Scottish branch of our family to the point I’ve been offered sanctuary, none of them rich but all vote Tory and Farage in the EU election and hate foreigners because everything’s their fault

      It doesn’t seem to matter to them that that’s how we vote and we rather like our political leaders and the FM is actually incredibly popular, in their minds we’re all under some kind of dictatorship from the evil Sturgeon and her Independence thugs

      They truly believe their British Nationalism is spelled *Patriotism* and ours is spelled Nazi

      They can’t conceive of it being any other way, it says so on the TV and in the Daily Mail so that must be the honest truth

      When a people won’t hear you there’s no choice but to leave them and hope maybe later they see they were wrong by results and future developments but in truth I don’t think that’ll ever happen soon because they still think of the Republic of Ireland as lesser mortals and much poorer than them and the Republic’s had Independence for a long time and come a long way yet still the English won’t see it

      The Royal media political force is strong in England

    92. Jock McDonnell says:

      Thing about Rory the Tory is he just seems to be prepared to say anything, its vacuous. He’s basically constructing a fable, hoping to beguile the electorate with some nebulous vision. He just wants to get elected PM & cobble some policy positions together later. Thats it.
      I suspect he knows he has little chance this time round, he’s planning for an enhanced profile & a shot at the title later as the Brexit-lite candidate after everything has fallen to bits.

    93. Jock McDonnell says:

      @Dr Jim, yeah thats the thing, you can’t get people to admit they were wrong. You might just convince people that the situation has changed or that they were previously duped, ie: being wrong was not their own fault.

    94. Col.Blimp IV says:


      Well, most definitely not of the 79th (Prince Alexander’s own) Regiment.

    95. Robert Peffers says:

      I see there was also a great turn out of Bikers for Independence and the usual dugs for independence at Gala today.

      Amazing isn’t it that even the dugs in the street can see independence is the way to go – how come the unionists can’t see it.

    96. England thumped at home by New Zealand in warm up to World Cup,

      their next game is World Cup group stage against Scotland in Nice on Sunday 9th June at 5 o`clock,

      England are 3rd in world rankings,Scotland are 20th,

      New Zealand were 19th.

    97. Ealasaid says:

      @ Robert Peffers

      Have you ever thought of posting in The National with all the precise information that you have. There is a real thirst for it. I have tried myself but I do not have the forensic analysis that you have and somebody else comes along with a different theory. Besides you are the undoubted Master.

      Many in the YES groups read and disperse the information from The National. Your information could reach and be spread by a slightly different audience. Or perhaps you could write a letter or even an article to get the information out there. Up to you. Just a thought.

    98. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Dr Jim

      If you want to better understand the inner workings of the small “i” Imperialist mind, you need to view the world as they do, no easy task you might think.

      … but this may be of some assistance to you.

    99. CameronB Brodie says:

      Here’s another insight into what is happening to English culture.

      The neo-fascist moment of neoliberalism

      How can we understand the simultaneous rise of the far right and the authoritarian evolution of neoliberalism? We need an antifascism that can highlight the latter’s role in this “neo-fascist moment.”

    100. Astragael says:

      Those kennels …. isn’t the one on the right a Wendy house?

    101. Robert Peffers says:

      Here is another Gala podcast:-

    102. handclapping says:

      Its Popeye the Brexit man!
      Also starring Ann Widdecombe as Olive Oyl

      Vince Cable as Bluto … ??
      /* end insanity */

    103. yesindyref2 says:

      Jings Almighty there’s some shite being posted today and I’ve only reached 2pm so far catching up. Here’s one by the usual suspect:

      The referendum/s according to this Bill would be “advisory”.“. Absolute crap.

      A scan shows no occurence of the word “advisory”. Not one. None. Zero.

      Zilch, nada, b*ll*cks.

    104. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Robert Peffers @ 12:54,

      Well, you repeat this kind of stuff at length and ad nauseam and it’s well and good that ordinary people become familiar with the historical background, but the big question (the “Breeks Question”, one might say) remains unanswered: if it is still relevant to the present day as we might hope, when is someone – anyone – going to do something with it and mount an effective legal challenge? Take it if necessary all the way to an international arena? Bring it to everyone’s attention, especially all those who don’t read WoS.

      And actually, why has anyone not done so already? (Besides the UKGov of all people getting legal advice – as yet untested in court – to try to protect their preciousss inheritance.) No-one in Scotland of any importance seems interested. Besides the Art.50 challenge, the action has solely been political. Why…?

    105. admiral says:

      And Yoons will swear blind and keep swearing that we’re better together” – I despair!

    106. call me dave says:

      Guardian: Archived. Austerity 130,000 deaths.

    107. Dr Jim says:

      Jweremy Hunt in his efforts to become Prime Minister and to appease the England and or Unionist voter describes his denial of an Independence referendum in Scotland in the most ridiculous of terms yet

      *Families were split up* he says *The bullying* he says

      Now we were all there I wonder how many of us witnessed this armageddon, I know I didn’t

      Of course I remember now, it was in all the English papers and reported widely by opposing politicians, so definitely true eh

    108. Abulhaq says:

      Was the so called Enlightenment so ‘enlightened’. Considering that libertarianism, anarchism, communism, Italian fascism, free market capitalism inter alia all suckled on its teats ‘I hae ma doutis’.
      Like the Renaissance, associated with increased anti-semitism, a rather mixed blessing, if blessing they be.

    109. Iain 2 says:

      Great work keep up the archiving,let the bastards wither on the vine.

    110. Capella says:

      @ Petra – Thx for the link to the Scottish Parliament Culture and Tourism Committee meeting on the Census Amendment Scotland Bill on 6th December last year.

      Giving evidence were Rosa Freedman, Professor of Law, Conflict and Global Development, Reading University and Susan Smith of For Women Scotland. The Chair is Joan McAlpine.

      The level and depth of information on this whole Transgender and sex issue is very helpful to anyone wanting to understand this issue. Given the febrile atmosphere being generated ATM then I would recommend listening to their evidence.
      Their contribution is from 9.04 to 10.07.

      There is also a transcript here:

    111. Marcia says:

      Good turnout on the Galashiels march, I watched it on Indy Live. Oban in two week’s time.

      If you spare a bob or two can you give some to our James Kelly at Scots Goes Pop as he has started a fundraiser.

    112. Balaaargh says:

      That’s a terrifying image, Mr Cairns. I’ve never been so glad to see a union jack!

    113. Liz g says:

      Robert J Sutherland @ 6.16
      Well obviously I can’t say for sure but,I suspect it’s because as 2014 showed the majority of the Sovereign People of Scotland haven’t yet gotten behind striking down the Treaty.
      Why would we got to court to have the Treaty ended and have the people then say they didn’t want to?
      It’s a bit of “chicken and egg” conundrum…. So ye take yer choice,and right here right now the choice seems to be that we ask the people first.
      It IMHO becomes a different story if the people are prevented at any time from a decision or their decision is not implemented!
      But a government,any government, should not just head to the courts to end a TREATY that the people want to keep,imagine they did that with the EU?

    114. Ron Maclean says:

      @RJS 6.16pm

      Try 31 May 2019 “The real inhibitors of the Yes movement – …”

    115. Sandy says:

      Listened to the Hunt interview on TV.
      Sweeping statements. Who are his researchers? Are those polled Conservative voters? Why, oh, why is he and his colleagues, for that matter, not quizzed as to where.their information comes from?
      If statements such as his are proved to be untrue then, as they were broadcast on a UK wide channel at prime time, shouldn’t they be retracted at prime time on these channels.
      God help us. We have enough scammers as it is.

    116. Robert Peffers says:

      @Robert J. Sutherland says:1 June, 2019 at 6:16 pm:

      ” … actually, why has anyone not done so already? (Besides the UKGov of all people getting legal advice – as yet untested in court – to try to protect their preciousss inheritance.) No-one in Scotland of any importance seems interested. Besides the Art.50 challenge, the action has solely been political. Why…?”

      In the first place, Robert, have you ever bothered to actually read the Treaty of Union? The original Scottish version was written in French and it is rather difficult to get a Scots translation into the original Scots. I have somewhere just such a copy but cannot find it ATM.

      So I’m not going to spell it out for you for that reason but there is one little bit that is very open to interpretation that could, give Westminster an way out.

      It runs along the lines of, “none the less is subject to necessary alteration by the United Kingdom parliament”, but that is not quite what the original said. However it does give Westminster an opening to contest any claims. My point is that Westminster has never actually operated as a UK parliament but just as a continued Parliament of England that had annexed Scotland. This, of course, is even more clearly seen today with devolution and the very fact that Westminster is devolving English powers down to Scotland and using EVEL to enforce them.

      Anyway, there is opinion that the United Kingdom can indeed be disunited – you may care to read this article:-

      Of course as soon as I post this I’ll find my copy of the original text of the Scottish Treaty of Union that I have several times posted to Wings. The other problem is, and is probably deliberate, when you Google for the Text of the Scottish Treaty of Union you get reams of copies of the text of the Acts of Union.

      They really, “don’t want us to know that”, about the Treaty of Union. Anyway, take it as read that The Treaty really is an International Treaty and, as such, can be rescinded as can any other international treaty.

      In fact several UK government minister have claimed every international treaty can be ended by a treaty partner at will. Mind you they were speaking about Brexit but in their minds there is always the Westminster proviso, ” Except for viewers in Scotland”.

      So the reluctance to take Westminster to court over the matter is probably that doing so would inevitably result in many long and expensive years of court action but I have no doubt Scotland would win for the ending of treaties between equally sovereign states actually requires no legal proofs other than a signatory state just wants it to end.

      However, the salient point is not actually the Treaty itself but the incompatibly different rules of law due to the different sovereignty where the monarchy in the Kingdom of England is still today legally sovereign and the people of Scotland are still legally sovereign under Scots law.

      Under both Scots and English law it is stated that simply by being sovereign a sovereign cannot give away their sovereignty. Which brings up the question of how then can Westminster claim overall sovereignty over Scotland and Scots and you may begin to see the complexities beginning to creep in that could tie things up in courts for who knows how long?

      As I’ve maintained all along the big sticking point is getting a majority of Scots to delegate their sovereignty to the SNP or to one or other of the Parliaments. Obviously without that Westminster falls back upon the Treaty of Union and claims that the Scottish parliament of 1706/7 delegated the Scots parliament their sovereignty to lend to Westminster.

    117. Iain 2 says:

      Robert Peffers, keep going you are doing a brilliant job.

    118. Golfnut says:

      @ Robert Peffers.
      ” The Scottish Parliament of 1706/7 delegated the Scots Parliament Soverienty to lend to Westminster.
      An argument that’s on a hiding to nothing, Lord Cooper was quite clear when he stated that ‘ Parliamentary Sovereignty is a English principle and one not recognised in Scots Constitutional law ‘. The Scottish Parliament had no authority to lend Scotland’s Sovereinty, because it wasn’t sovereign. A point you have made on more than one occasion. The people of Scotland are Sovereign, it there for follows that Westminster can’t be. I agree with your opinion that Westminster, though it does adhere to the principal Articles of the Treaty of Union acts illegally.

    119. manandboy says:

      Went to Galashiels (pronounced Gaully) today on the AUOB march. AUOB marches are the heartbeat of the Independence movement. Christine Graham MSP for Galashiels addressed the marchers, reminding us that the Labour and Unionist Party has been the enemy of Scotland for generations. Another brilliant day for the Yes movement. BTW, very impressed with Galashiels and its residents.

    120. galamcennalath says:

      CameronB Brodie says:

      The British state is an ambiguous democracy on the fast-track to failed state status.

      Yup, sums up UK-not-so-OK perfectly. We need out.

    121. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Robert Peffers @ 19:54,

      A voluminous reply, as is your wont, but one which alas fails to address the burning question. Where’s the action? We have lots of talk on the subject, but apparently no walk.

      As we are acutely aware, one of the favourite posturings of the BritNats, not least from their moputhpieces in the media, is that we are supposedly “impotent”. Leaving aside the obvious sawing off the branch they are sitting upon, it still rankles, because it contains a grain of truth. WM supposedly decides. Sajid David said so. =roll eyes=. Now, both you and I would be in agreement that this is by no means the end of the matter, and the game’s well afoot now as we have seen recently.

      But still, many of us do hanker for a more immediate and potent counter, and it seems the constitutional issue has heretofore been sadly neglected, despite the fact that it does, on the face of it, seem to offer great potential. We have a history of 300 years of infractions of the 1707 Treaty with which to illustrate our case, not least the most recent and pending ones. Even if the Treaty remains largely unread, and in fact is hardly available online or in print, even.

      If you read the American Declaration of Independence, although it starts with some extremely fine and resonant sentiments, it quickly resorts to a list of grievances against King George III as embodiment of the UK state. We have our very own list.

      Currently the US Democrats are trying to get Robert Mueller to testify before the US Congress, even though he clearly will add nothing to what he has carefully put in his report, because they know full well that the vast majority of Americans won’t have read a word of the 400+ word report, whereas hearing it stated in person on oath on TV will have widespread coverage and consequent potentially huge impact. Surely we need some equivalent? In a public forum, especially one able to make judgements and free of English bias and ignorance. The ECJ, for example, as with the Art.50 case.

      So we return to the question. Why not? If politicians are busy enough in their own field, why no crowdfunder, for example? Do people think it would have no legal merit, or no eventual public resonance, or are people too unadventurous, or what?

      I’m genuinely curious!

    122. galamcennalath says:

      Dr Jim says:

      They truly believe their British Nationalism is spelled *Patriotism* and ours is spelled Nazi

      That is one of the few things Orwell got totally wrong. The put down words (can’t be arsed finding them) when he contrasts the wholesomeness of British Patriotism with everyone else’s nasty nationalism. Actually quite surprising that even he was lulled into believing the UK was special and different.

      But you are right. BritNats, especially English ones, are convince their nationalism patriotism is good, wholesome, and virtuous. Is there anyone else on the planet who has taken exceptions so much to heart?

    123. Robert Peffers says:

      @Robert J. Sutherland says:1 June, 2019 at 6:16 pm:

      Further to my reply to you here is an example of how Some Articles of Union were worded that could cause neverending court arguments This is Article XVII and is worded:-

      “.??THAT from and after the Union, the same Weights and Measures shall be used throughout the United Kingdom, as are now established in England, and Standards of Weights and Measures shall be kept by those Burghs in Scotland, to whom the keeping the Standards of Weights and Measures, now in Use there, does of special Right belong: All which Standards shall be sent down to such respective Burghs, from the Standards kept in the Exchequer at Westminster, subject nevertheless to such Regulations as the Parliament of Great Britain shall think fit.”

      In the end this just would not wash because the stipulation is that the United Kingdom Parliament would be making those “Think Fit”, changes and that is the joint UK parliament and not that of England alone and the United Kingdom is a union of two equally sovereign kingdoms. Furthermore Westminster just continued on 1 May 1707 as if it were the Kingdom of England that had annexed Scotland and today that is even more clearly seen what with devolved English powers handed down to Scotland and the use of EVEL.

    124. Robert Peffers says:

      @Golfnut says: 1 June, 2019 at 8:10 pm:@ Robert Peffers.

      ” … An argument that’s on a hiding to nothing, Lord Cooper was quite clear when he stated that ‘ Parliamentary Sovereignty is a English principle and one not recognised in Scots Constitutional law ‘”

      Oh! For heaven’s sake talk sense. Lord Coopers statement has absolutely nothing to do with what I’ve posted. He only states that the concept of the parliamentary sovereignty has no place in Scots law.

      Which is just what I’m saying. In 1688 the English parliament rebelled and deposed their monarch and on replacing him changed English law to retain the monarch as legally sovereign but having to legally delegate the monarch’s sovereignty to the Parliament of England but in 1707 the parliament of England went into permanent recession.

      In Scotland the people were legally sovereign from 1320 but the people, in 1706/7 did not have the franchise but the landowners were the trustees of the people’s sovereignty and the monarch was the protector of the people’s sovereignty.

      However the monarch was now also the monarch of England and was not about to protect the people of Scotland’s sovereignty but instead do exactly what the parliament of England demanded they do.

      Which was why the people of Scotland were rioting in the streets and would have strung up any Scottish parliamentarian they could catch. It was a sell out from the very start.

      What is more the parliament of England went into permanent recess and it is still in recess today. Westminster is not the legal parliament of the Kingdom of England and neither was it on 1 May 1707.

      So that is what I’ve always said Westminster cannot be sovereign because it is not the parliament of England and no one in the Kingdom of England has voted for members of the non-existent parliament of England.

      In Scotland when we vote for an MEP, MP or MSP we vote to delegate them to exercise our legal sovereignty but until a majority of us give them a mandate to end the union they have no powers to do so. Neither have we mandated them to fight the matter in the courts.

      Why do you think Nicola has always said she needs a majority? It is not the same to be elected to parliament for it needs a clear majority of the voters and the SNP have never had that — yet.

    125. Ken MacColl says:

      It is already obvious that “our” media -print, radio and tv – are now going to saturate available space with favourable publicity about LibDem aspirant leader Jo Swinson and comments along the lines of Liberal Values and the importance of such in public affairs.
      It might be useful to reflect on examples of these Liberal Values in recent political memory other than just the example quoted above on the literature promoting Ms Swinson in the most recent General Election. Recent dramatisation of the Jeremy Thorpe affair, reports of the considerable efforts to avoid publicity about the late Cyril Smith’s activities, the lies perpetrated,without redress or censure, by Alastair Carmichael about our First Minister.
      Perhaps the most extreme example in this sorry catalogue was the much heralded success -in the sixties?-of Simon Hughes in a by-election in Bermondsey when the reputation of his Labour opponent was shamefully traduced by yje Hughes team The later revelations were more than revealing on Liberal Values.
      However, like Smith, he did secure a knighthood.

    126. Terry says:

      Apologies if already posted on here but ex first minister of Wales , Caerwyn Jones has been tweeting his support of scotland having another ref and citing our mandate. Now wouldn’t it be interesting if it’s the Welsh Labour Party that breaks for Indy before the Scottish one?

    127. ben madigan says:

      Here’s that article in the economist that Abulhaq referred to:
      1 June, 2019 at 1:59 pm

      The CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS waiting in the wings.
      The next to blow
      Britain’s constitutional time-bomb
      Brexit is already a political crisis. Sooner or later it will become a constitutional crisis, too

      Print edition | Leaders
      May 30th 2019
      Britons pride themselves on their “unwritten” constitution. America, France and Germany need rules to be set down in black and white. In the Mother of Parliaments democracy has blossomed for over 300 years without coups, revolution or civil war, Irish independence aside. Its politics are governed by an evolving set of traditions, conventions and laws under a sovereign Parliament. Thanks to its stability, Britain convinced the world that its style of government was built on solid foundations laid down over centuries of commonsense adaptation.

      That view is out of date. The remorseless logic of Brexit has shoved a stick of constitutional dynamite beneath the United Kingdom—and, given the difficulty of constitutional reform in a country at loggerheads, there is little that can be done to defuse it. The chances are high that Britons will soon discover that the constitution they counted on to be adaptable and robust can in fact amplify chaos, division and the threat to the union.

      On June 10th, three days after Theresa May steps down as Conservative leader, the race to succeed her will formally begin (see article). Some of the runners, including the favourite, Boris Johnson, vow that, unless the European Union gives them what they want (which it won’t), they will pull out of the eu on October 31st without a deal. The 124,000 members of the Conservative Party who will choose the next prime minister, an unrepresentative sample, to put it mildly, will thus take it upon themselves to resolve the question that has split the nation down the middle.

      Worse, Britain’s supposedly sovereign Parliament has voted against just such a no-deal Brexit on the ground that it would do the country grave harm. There will doubtless be more parliamentary machinations to stop a no-deal Brexit or force one through. The constitution is unclear on whether the executive or Parliament should prevail. It is unclear how to even choose between them.

      Behind this uncertainty lies the fact that Britain’s constitution is a jumble of contradictions scattered across countless laws, conventions and rules. As our Briefing this week describes, these can easily be amended, by a vote in Parliament or merely on the say-so of the controversial Speaker of the House of Commons—who this week vowed to stay in office in order to ensure that Parliament’s voice is heard. There was a time when most British lawmakers were mindful that playing fast and loose with the rules could undermine democracy. Perhaps that is why they used to practise self-restraint. But in recent decades, when liberal democracy seemed unshakable, Britain’s leaders forgot their caution. Instead, in a fit of absent-mindedness, they set about reinventing the constitution wholesale.

      Under Tony Blair and David Cameron, the Westminster Parliament ceded power to assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and to the people directly through referendums. These innovations were often well-meant and, in themselves, desirable. But nobody gave much thought to the consequences for the constitution as a whole.

      The resulting mess has already stamped its mark on Brexit. The referendum endorsed leaving the eu but left the details for later. It provided a mandate for Brexit, but not for any of the very different forms Brexit can take. It is unclear how mps should reconcile their duty to honour the referendum with the duty of each one of them to act in the best interests of their constituents. Other countries avoid that mistake. Ireland holds referendums, too. But Article 46 of its constitution is clear: the people vote on a change only after a bill has passed through the Dail with the details nailed down. Britain never thought to be so sensible.

      Brexit is itself sowing the seeds of further constitutional chaos, by threatening the integrity of the union. In the elections for the European Parliament (see article), the Scottish National Party (snp) won an increased share of the poll. Scotland voted Remain in the referendum, and the snp’s leaders can understandably claim that they have just won an enhanced mandate to leave the United Kingdom. Yet, at least one of the Tory leadership candidates is ruling out any further referendums.

      Breaking up the union would be a constitutional nightmare—if only because no process for secession is laid down. Merely choosing to hold a second Scottish referendum could be fraught. Mr Johnson is loathed north of the border. Plenty of English voters are calling for a second Brexit referendum. Mrs May told the snp to wait until Brexit had been resolved. Legally, could Prime Minister Johnson hold the line against a determined Scottish campaign? It is unclear.

      The very act of leaving the eu would also load the constitution with fresh doubts. The Charter of Fundamental Rights, which enshrines eu citizens’ rights in law, would no longer govern British courts. Some would-be Tory leaders, such as Dominic Raab, want to scrap domestic legislation that embeds those rights. If Parliament passed oppressive new laws, the courts might complain, but they could not stop it. Voters who moan about meddling European judges might start to have second thoughts. Cue calls for a British Bill of Rights and another fit of ill-considered constitutional innovation.

      And that leads to a final worry. Britain’s ramshackle, easily amended constitution is vulnerable to the radicalised politics produced by three years spent rowing about Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn and his colleagues on the hard left could not be clearer about their ambitions to revolutionise Britain. It is naive to think they would focus on the economy and public spending, but leave the rules alone. A Labour government under Mr Corbyn—or, for that matter, a Conservative government led by a populist Tory—would be constrained only by its ability to get its way in Parliament. Labour has already called for a constitutional convention.

      Most Britons seem blithely unaware of the test ahead. Perhaps they believe that their peculiar way of doing things always leads to stability. It is indeed just possible that their constitution’s infinite flexibility will permit a compromise that gets the country through the Brexit badlands. More likely, however, it will feed claims that the other lot are cheats and ("Tractor" - Ed)s.

      Brexit has long been a political crisis. Now it looks destined to become a constitutional crisis, too. It is one for which Britain is woefully underprepared.

    128. Golfnut says:

      @Robert Peffers.

      Try and contain yourself Robert. I’m struggling to see where we differ in our understanding of Scotland’s Constitutional position within the Union or indeed how you could read my comment and not interpret it as supportive of the basic tenets of your oft posted position. We may differ in our interpretation of some aspects of our history or even in its relevance today, but we are not so far apart that we should allow unnecessary friction to develop.

    129. Petra says:

      @ Liz g says at 7:00 pm ….. ”Robert J Sutherland … Well obviously I can’t say for sure but, I suspect it’s because as 2014 showed the majority of the Sovereign People of Scotland haven’t yet gotten behind striking down the Treaty. Why would we got to court to have the Treaty ended and have the people then say they didn’t want to? It’s a bit of “chicken and egg” conundrum…. So ye take yer choice, and right here right now the choice seems to be that we ask the people first. It IMHO becomes a different story if the people are prevented at any time from a decision or their decision is not implemented! But a government, any government, should not just head to the courts to end a TREATY that the people want to keep, imagine they did that with the EU?”

      Spot on Liz. Someone getting down to the nitty gritty and thank goodness talking sense. The same applies to approaching the UN to complain that we are being treated like a Colony when 55% of Scots voted to remain in the ”Colony”. What would / could the UN do other than say that after 300 years the Scots voted less than 5 years ago to maintain the status quo, with Nicola Sturgeon et al left with a big red face. In saying that it would be rejected right off. never see the light of day. Thankfully NS will most definitely know more about Constitutional issues than anyone who posts on here, hence she’ll not be left looking like an absolute fool.

      Robert Peffers is right when he states over and over again, ”As I’ve maintained all along the big sticking point is getting a majority of Scots to delegate their sovereignty to the SNP or to one or other of the Parliaments. Obviously without that Westminster falls back upon the Treaty of Union and claims that the Scottish parliament of 1706/7 delegated the Scots parliament their sovereignty to lend to Westminster.”

      Add to that the Scottish people delegated their (our) sovereignty to Westminster once again in 2014.

      The bottom line is that we REALLY need proof that over 50% of Scots want their country to be Independent before we can reach out to any EU / International Court for help. If and when we get to that place, (the over 50%) and Westminster’s still playing silly bu**ers Nicola Sturgeon will know exactly what legal route to take.


      Well worth listening to / reading Capella.

      @ Capella says at 6:54 pm – ”Petra – Thx for the link to the Scottish Parliament Culture and Tourism Committee meeting on the Census Amendment Scotland Bill on 6th December last year.

      From 9.04 to 10.07.

      There is also a transcript here:

    130. call me dave says:


      Your a tryer but I think Irish reunification & an independent Scotland are likely to arrive before an independent Wales.

      Good luck to them though!

      Really enjoyed the livestream(s) of the Galshiels march and found the interview link posted by the hot chilli Peffer a good listen.

      I remembered it’s a you tube link so hope it works. 🙂

    131. Welsh Sion says:

      Terry (and others) at 9.57 pm

      Here’s the story your looking for. (It’s a bit late for me to translate it for you personally, but the gist of what you say is right.)

      Don’t quote me as a professional translator, but just this once send it through Google Translate so you know more about what Carwyn is saying.

      (And perhaps tomorrow, I’ll translate it ‘properly’ for you. No charge.)

    132. CameronB Brodie says:

      This would appear relevant to the quote ben madigan refers too, which I had just coincidentally found, btw. Karma. 🙂

      The ethics of neorealism: Waltz and the time of international life


      This article addresses the question of what it means to think of a distinctly international ethics by developing a radical reinterpretation of Waltzian neorealism from a Derridean deconstructive perspective.

      The core argument of the article is that Derridean deconstruction effectively explains why there is an ethics of neorealism in the first place, and why this ethics cannot be easily overcome. Underpinning this argument is a notion in Derrida’s philosophy of survival as an unconditional affirmation of life, which finds an equivalent in Waltz’s theory of international life in the anarchic system. On this basis, I claim that Waltz’s theory is ethical, not despite its focus on the structural conditions of survival, but precisely because of it.

      Moreover, the article shows how this notion of ethics renders universal ethical ideals, beyond relations of violence, not only impossible, but undesirable. They are undesirable because to actually fulfil them would be to undermine the conditions that make international life possible in the first place. In this way, various attempts to theorize the meaning and implications of international ethics that hold on to the notion of ethical ideals beyond relations of violence become untenable.

      Instead of aspiring towards such ideals, the article concludes, international ethics should be thought of as an unconditional affirmation of the incalculable future that structures international life and inevitably exposes it to the worst forms of destruction, but also enables the making of responsible decisions.

      Keywords Derrida, international ethics, neorealism, survival, time, Waltz

    133. Liz g says:

      ben madigan @ 10.14
      Thanks for that ben…
      It’s an interesting read, but once again side steps the paradoxes in the UK so called Unwritten Constitution..
      As in how do they write one???
      To do so would need to recognise that the foundation document of the UK Westminster Parliament is the Treaty of Union.
      And That.
      The Treaty expressly forbids the TWO legal systems contained with in it to be joined.

      So… To write a Constitution the Treaty itself would need to end and be superseded by the new UK Constitution.
      To do that,would require to acknowledge that there is a TREATY and that it needs to be replaced…

      The British Nationalist establishment can never do this because it amounts to asking Scotland to sign back up to Westminster rule,and, now that we have full suffrage they daren’t.

      They didn’t dare for 300 odd year’s because it would raise a question they knew they wouldn’t want the answer to,and they cannot now ask,because they know….

      They haven’t yet (after 3 centuries) persuaded Scots this Union should continue.Hence the centuries of propaganda,restricted growth and hidden wealth all wrapped up in a pretty “royal” bow!!I

      We always, always, hear of new ACT’s of UNION and we must always reply with …… What about the TREATY….
      We should not concern ourselves with ACT’s the TREATY is where our interests lie!!!

    134. Robert Peffers says:

      @Robert J. Sutherland says: 1 June, 2019 at 8:35 pm:

      ” … A voluminous reply, as is your wont, but one which alas fails to address the burning question.

      Well it actually does but while it really is not a difficult concept to understand, once you get your head around it, it really is exceptionally difficult to explain. I’ve tried yet again on this thread but I’ve no more hope of getting the concept across than I had yesterday, and the day before.

      However, the facts are there before you. Nicola and the Sg and the SNP have said much the same things for years but they cannot be too explicit or they could give the game away.

      Now consider this, Nicola has always insisted that she needs not just a mandate, (and we have managed to give that several times, but she also needs a clear majority of the people of Scotland to give a clear majority for independence.

      Now I’m really only guessing but with a lifetime of studying the problems and I did get loads of good information from a real expert but I was just a boy and much of it went over my head.

      Anyway as I see it now the whole matter of the union was always a confidence trick and, as usual with confidence tricks the rely upon the inherent greed and ignorance of the intended victims and the union is no exception. In this case, though, the people conned were the then Scottish Landowners/parliamentarians but they were not the real victims for those were 312 year of Scotland’s peoples.

      The Union was plotted and aided by London Scots before the Union was even begun to be negotiated but Westminster’s plans were not without errors. The trouble for Scotland is that we have never yet managed to better the Westminster Establishment at propaganda.

      The union was an illegal thing from the start as it was not a free choice even by the Landowner/parliamentarians. \the fell for the Darrien Expedition Scheme and were bankrupted. Then were subjected to blackmail, coercion threats and bribery.

      The Westminster mistakes are there if only Scots could see them clearly. It was a forced and not a free agreement but the Westminster mistakes also made the union illegal from the start.

      Westminster sat and it is recorded in Hansard that the English Parliament put itself into permanent recession and has not sat as an English Parliament ever since. Scotland’s parliament was only prorogued and was then reconvened. So legally there has never been a legal parliament of England since the union began.

      Yet from day one Westminster has acted as if it were still the old parliament of England that had just acquired the Kingdom of Scotland as an English colony or perhaps an English dominmion.

      This then became much clearer as the truth when Westminster brought in devolution as that left Westminster Ministries running only England and devolving their powers to Scotland Wales and N.I. Now that was perhaps legally fair enough for Wales and N.I. as these were already parts of the Kingdom of England but Scotland was not but was the only fully equally sovereign partner kingdom in the United Kingdom.

      So it seemed to me that Scots would be up in arms and we would fight the case – but it seemed to go largely unnoticed in Scotland and the people were only too glad to accept the pitiful devolved English powers that Westminster handed down to them.

      Then Westminster began EVEL and I though, now the Scots will rise up and claim their birth right – but they didn’t.

      You know well the rest of the story and you know well the illegalities. The thing now is not what does the SNP or the SG or Nicola Sturgeon do about it. What do the people of Scotland do about it? For until the people give them not just a mandate to hold indyref2 but give them a clear and democratic majority that will win a vote to end the union there is little they can do.

      Yet all is not dependent upon getting a majority but attempting any of the legal paths via courts is fraught with the danger that no matter how good a case you have all forms of court actions are contests between legal eagles and often there are miscarriages of justice that can take forever to correct. Many an innocent person has died behind bars and only been exonerated after their death.

      There are

    135. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’m a bit of a post-colonial feminist, so that kind of places me in critical orientation to Marxist ideology. That doesn’t mean I’m a right-winger though, obvs. I am supportive of ethical self-determination and liberal democracy though.

      Global Capitalism and Human Rights


      NGOs are currently involved in attempts to bring International Financial Institutions (IFIs) in line with international human rights law. In this paper I argue that approaches to humanising global capitalism are not doomed by the nature of capitalism as such (as Marxists suppose). Indeed, the cultural politics in which NGOs and those sympathetic to human rights within IFIs have been engaged over the last twenty years has made some difference to the policies adopted by the World Bank.

      However, the geo-political structures of the IFIs and the nature of capitalist competition make it legitimate, necessary even, for sovereign states to pursue their ‘comparative advantage’. The difficulties of reforming global capitalism are due to economic competition between states as much as they are to capitalism as such, and to the inadequacy of global institutions to manage it in order to make equitable economic policy for the world.

      Economic and social rights; international human rights law; International Financial Institutions; cultural politics; ‘de-globalization’

    136. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      We watched the Galashiels march in our Forward Shop in Dunoon. Great turnout. Forward Shop has booked a bus from Dunoon to Oban for 15th June march. Leaving Dunoon at 12 noon. 01369 700132

    137. Golfnut says:

      @ Liz g 10:58.

      Good post. Reading the article I had similar thoughts. The mental contortions required to piece together such an article into some sort of coherent story is truly remarkable. Even so, the slippage is easily spotted.

    138. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Liz g @ 19:00,
      Robert Peffers @ 20:39, 23:09,
      Petra @ 22:29,

      “Chicken and egg” gets to the nub of it, I do agree. Another way of putting it is “Catch 22”. How then to break the stalemate?

      There’s no denying that one way or another, independence must gain the support of some kind of majority before we can achieve it. That’s the inescapable bottom line. Afterwards we may well be sure that the majority will grow as realities become clearer, but we have to pass the necessary hurdle first.

      Happily, it must be possible to achieve that goal because there has long been a majority of folk who believe that independence is inevitable. (Even if, rather like St. Augustine, not quite now!) So the question becomes, how best to break this vicious circle of Catch-22? How to convert the necessary number of pesky “sticky” indifferents or undecideds?

      The directly political method, of course, and we see it paying off, if rather slowly and intermittently. But even the success of that depends on changing enough people’s viewpoint. One way or another, you have to find ways of breaking into people’s consciousness. Farage is the master of this, even if what he is punting is completely self-serving and hollow.

      One potential way is to alert people to the fact that they (and their forebears) have been cheated of their birthright, and continue to be so cheated.

      Like it or not, people do like a show. Which would precisely be the point of a legal challenge. It doesn’t really matter how intricate the legal arguments may be, in fact, nor even what the outcome is, it simply brings the issue into everyone’s living room and gives them a previously-unsuspected dog in the fight. This is exactly what we need.

      A stushie. There’s nothing quite like a cause celebre to get peoples’ attention and alert them to salient issues that were previously obscure. Actively putting our opponents on the back foot and exposing their weaknesses. We had a taster of that already with the Gina Miller and Art.50 cases. Both even won!

      A poor reason for not pursuing such a challenge would be having insufficient imagination, insufficient self-confidence, or insufficient belief in the fundamental correctness of our case.

      The only good reason not to do so would be if cool calm reflection indicated that the constitutional question would not command traction with the only people who matter: those we wish to convert. In which case banging on about the issue at all would evidently be a total waste of effort, energy and time. Better then to find more effective ways of reaching out than preaching (what’s judged to be) fusty cobwebby old irrelevances.

      If the constitutional question is worth anything. it’s worth pursuing actively, otherwise it’s better left well alone. There can be no purposeful “middle way”.

    139. Patrick Roden says:

      I don’t normally pay much attention to newspaper or online polls for the obvious reasons, but I did do one in Dundee’s Tele the other day because it asked for your name address and also asked a number of questions about independence, such as how you voted in 2014 and how you would vote now etc.

      They ended up sampling 8,000 people, by far the biggest sample for Scotland in a long time.

      The headline is ‘Tele Poll of 8,000: Big swing in favour of YES’ with the sub header of ‘Major survey reveals huge indy support’

      Headline figures:

      75.7% Yes (although Dundee was a Yes voting city, it certainly wasn’t anything like 75%!

      Nearly one in five No voters would now vote Yes! (20% swing from no to yes!)

      3% rise for independence since Brexit! (saw this switch a lot on Revs twitter feed but 3%, wow! )

      Disappointingly Nearly one in ten Yes voters would now vote No! (nowt strange as folk!, although these voters may change their minds when the effects of Brexit are felt in their own lives a bit more)

      Only 40% of No voters say they would vote No again and wanted to leave the EU, while 83% of Yes voters say they would vote Yes again and wanted to remain in the EU (This confirms that Brexit is causing people to change how they would vote, more than anything else)

      No wonder their is an attempt to deny our democratic and EU human right to self determination!

      PS. These figures appear in the paper version of
      (Dundee’s) Telegraph dated June 1st 2019, but I’m not sure if it can be found on the ‘on-line’ version.

    140. twathater says:

      To all who took part in the Gala march and all who took part in the organising , THANK YOU , I couldn’t make it but just watched on yatube and you have done US all proud

    141. Breeks says:

      Petra says:
      1 June, 2019 at 10:29 pm

      The bottom line is that we REALLY need proof that over 50% of Scots want their country to be Independent before we can reach out to any EU / International Court for help. If and when we get to that place, (the over 50%) and Westminster’s still playing silly bu**ers Nicola Sturgeon will know exactly what legal route to take.

      No we don’t.

      Robert Peffers says:
      1 June, 2019 at 9:44 pm

      …In Scotland when we vote for an MEP, MP or MSP we vote to delegate them to exercise our legal sovereignty but until a majority of us give them a mandate to end the union they have no powers to do so. Neither have we mandated them to fight the matter in the courts.

      That’s where I think you’re wrong Robert. If a murderer is taken to court for murder, it is a consequence of a crime being committed and the law of the land being enforced. It doesn’t require a popular democratic majority to authorise the law to proceed.

      If the terms of the Union Treaty are being abused, or our interests subverted, then disputing the departure from lawful legitimacy can be instigated by one voice, no electoral majority is required.

      As you say, we the people are sovereign. Always. There is an argument the Sovereignty “lent” to Westminster is no more permanent than the franchise “lent” or the power we delegate to our MP’s or MSP’s for their period in office. They are elected as our delegated administrators to exercise our sovereignty under temporary licence, not remove power from us but exercise it on our behalf. Wherever that protocol is unlawfully abused, the abuse can be tested by appeal to the law, not an electorate.

      Let me ask you a question. We are Sovereign Robert, we have no superior. So if Scotland decided to amend this quasi-fealty to Westminster, and change our commitment to the Union to an annual subscription that required an annual endorsement by democratic majority, what is to say we couldn’t vote to elect and renew a continuance of UK Union Membership exactly the same way we have programmed elections and fixed tenure in office? We could if we wanted choose to renew Scotland’s commitment to the UK annually, or say maybe once every four years.

      We are Sovereign. We can make Scotland’s place in the UK as fragile and tenuous as we like, and our exit contingent upon not a vote to leave, but the absence of a vote to remain. At the moment the protocol says we are permanently in the Union and must choose to leave, but supposed we altered our Union fealty to a process of annual subscription?

      To be clear, I’m not saying we do that, but Constitutionally, with specific regard to our sovereignty, who could actually stop us? For a parallel, suppose Brexit had never happened yet, but the UK had instead chosen to hold annual referendum on whether to stay in the EU or Brexit, wouldn’t you acknowledge as sovereign, it could easily have done so? Who would have the Constitutional jurisdiction or power to overrule the UK’s decision? Nobody.

      If Scotland has the power to hold one referendum, then Scotland has the power to hold any number of referenda and with whatever frequency it chooses. If we wanted to have an annual IndyRef, and treat our commitment to the UK as an annual subscription, it would be our sovereign prerogative to do it.

      Where does this principle draw its power Robert, – that Scotland is trapped and emasculated in the Union until it votes to leave, but yet Westminster can ostensibly ride roughshod over Constitutional protocol with impunity? We…. are…. Sovereign. We are just afraid to use it.

    142. Sinky says:

      On Radio Scotland GMS this morning without anyone pointing out to Lib Dem spokesperson that in current polls SNP would have more seats than Lib Dems while SNP Euro results played down

    143. Golfnut says:

      @ Breeks.

      The Queen of England lends her sovereignty to Parliament, it resides in Parliament, English MP’s exercise that Sovereignty in Parliament, but it does not make them sovereign. The monarch remains Sovereign. The Queen of Scots has no such authority, she cannot lend our Sovereignty to Parliament, Scots Sovereignty is lent to our MPs and they exercise that Sovereignty on our behalf in Parliament. It does not make them sovereign, we remain sovereign, cradle to grave mirroring the sovereignty of the English crown. Scots Constitutional law does not recognise Parliamentary sovereignty, therefore Westminster does not have legal Sovereignty over the whole the UK, it can only govern by consent. I suppose that is where I depart from RP’s position. Consent can be removed at any time by the people of Scotland. The SG and Holyrood are limited by the devolution settlement, but we are not. We don’t need permission to exercise our Sovereignty.

    144. Breeks says:

      Golfnut says:
      2 June, 2019 at 9:04 am

      “…The SG and Holyrood are limited by the devolution settlement, but we are not. We don’t need permission to exercise our Sovereignty.”

      Agreed. To contest an unlawful infringement of a Treaty does not require a constitutional mandate or popular majority. In theory, nevermind having a democratic majority and mandate, it needn’t even be a Scot to test whether Westminster has acted unlawfully. It is an issue of law and legal principle, not democratic principle or mandate.

      What democratic mandate did Gina Millar have to test whether Westminster could be compelled to seek Parliamentary approval of Article 50? She had absolutley no mandate other than the letter of the law being breached.

      For those democrats who break into a cold sweat at the prospect, democratic principles can be thoroughly and exhaustively addressed later, through confirmatory referendum or ratification plebiscite long after the issue of sovereignty is resolved.

    145. galamcennalath says:

      ” Why Brexit could quickly bring down Britain’s next prime minister “

      The next Tory PM might not see the end of 2019 in power!

    146. starlaw says:

      If Boris becomes next Prime Minister, follows Trumps advice goes of to brussels to assert his authority, we could be looking at empty shops, mass riots and an emergency General Election by Guy Fawkes night.

    147. mike cassidy says:

      Via the Rev’s twitter page.

      The strange death of Labour Britain

    148. mike cassidy says:

      “The Strange Death Of labour Britain”

      “Piketty’s prediction was that the old unwritten laws of politics, of a system organised neatly around left and right, would give way to a system organised around the highly educated and high-income globalists versus the low-educated and low-income nativists. Britain is rapidly approaching that point ”

      Of course the elephant in the room is

      The so-called low-educated and low-income nativists are not voting for parties formed and financed by low-educated and low-income nativists.

    149. Scozzie says:

      I am reminded that Alex Salmond said that a referendum is only one route to independence (I can’t find a link to it, perhaps others can). And of course there has been other examples across the world where independence was achieved via other means.

      I know the current Scottish Government has nailed their colours to a referendum mast, but I seriously think we should look at alternative options.

      I really don’t see why a Holyrood election could not be used to begin independence negotiations / dissolution of the Treaty of Union. If the arithmetic results in pro-independence parties winning the election (provided the dissolution is clearly stated in their manifestos) then I believe that is a democratic and justified mechanism to begin the dissolution process. Scotland did not design the electoral methodology so it could not be argued we ‘rigged’ the plebiscite.

      If there are constitutional restrictions to a Holyrood plebiscite being enough to enact independence negotiations; then surely a GE election then is enough to begin independence negotiations (again if it’s in the manifesto of the winning party using the FPTP system).

      Elections the world over are seen as the ‘will of the people’ so I can’t see why this would not be a democratic method for achieving independence and recognised as such internationally.

    150. Clootie says:

      I’ve just read Gerry Hassan’s latest drivel in the National. I would sum it up as “please return to Labour, they are the party of the left who will save us”.
      The message is dressed of Indy supporters. It pretends to be balanced and thoughtful. It is none of these. It is simply the same od Hassan crap he has been spinning for years.

      This man has never supported Independence and never will. He is simply a false friend of our movement.

    151. Abulhaq says:

      Article in the National
      [Independent Scotland will be a bridge to Europe for what is left of UK]
      By Stephen Gethins
      Two things wrong here. First, without Scotland there is no UK or even rUK. Second, why has an independent Scotland to be anything other than an independent EU state. This SUK (save the UK) stuff from some in the SNP is tedious. A new political order is emerging in England whether some in the National party like it or not. Let the Unionist rump get on with looking after itself.
      I sometimes wonder whether the likes of Mr Gethins feel guilty about Scottish independence. A betrayal perhaps, hence the attempt to justify it? I expect steelier stuff from nationalist ‘deputies’, not this conciliatory ‘wet’ drool. Remainers are not our allies, they’re just another brand of Unionist.
      Some SNPers need to grow a pair.

    152. Clootie says:


      You spun that so hard that you lost yourself.

    153. Abulhaq says:

      @Scozzie 10:33.
      Is the UK a democratic and egalitarian state? By modern criteria rather eficient.
      As to alternatives, depends on how open minded the nationalist element in the Scottish electorate is to seizing opportunities, any opportunities. The cautious, conservative strain in the Scottish temperament can sometimes amount to self-harming.

    154. Robert Peffers says:

      @Liz g says: 1 June, 2019 at 7:00 pm:

      ” … Well obviously I can’t say for sure but,I suspect it’s because as 2014 showed the majority of the Sovereign People of Scotland haven’t yet gotten behind striking down the Treaty.”

      Aye Liz g, you have the right of it. I’ve been attempting to deal with several things all at the same time so missed out what I though to be obvious things. Anyway. After sleeping on it and clearing up some of the other things it occurred to me that perhaps some of the less aware may not have caught on to the obvious things.

      Back in 1688 when the English parliamentarians rebelled against their rightful monarch and deposed him religion played a big part of what followed, the invite of Billy & Mary still reverberates today.

      Remember that in The English Kingdom the Rule of Law was still The Divine Right of Kings, that is the religious belief that God chose the Monarch by having the Monarch born in a Royal womb. The evidence in the Treaty of Union is that religious sectarianism was behind what was going on. The people were ruled by religious beliefs.

      Even today The House of Lords has Church of England Archbishops sitting in that, “Upper”, chamber. So let’s consider the legal/religious setup in The Kingdom of England at that time.

      The Parliament would not even dream of treading upon God’s toes by denying God’s Devine right to choose the next in line to the throne but they had already deposed a monarch and the church ruled the people. So it would not have been accepted if the Government had just taken over and declared themselves sovereign. Bear in mind that the people of the English Kingdom were not sovereign, (even today they still are not legally sovereign), and neither was the Government of England.

      So that is the reason for the fudge of the Royal person having to legally delegate their sovereign powers to the parliament while still remaining legally sovereign. This, combined with putting the English parliament into permanent recess, was the Westminster Establishment’s big mistake.

      On 30 April 1707 the English Kingdom’s parliament ceased to exist but on 1 May 1707 the New United Kingdom Parliament just carried on as if it were still the old Parliament of the Kingdom of England with the addition of what they saw as an annexed Kingdom of Scotland.

      There is the legal flaw in their thinking for the Treaty of Union is clearly legally a union of two equally sovereign kingdoms and not legally a take over of the Scottish Kingdom.

      Then Westminster made things even more clearly an illegal set-up by introducing Devolution in response to pressure from the EU on how Scotland was being treated, (perhaps due to Scottish complaints and the Scottish Claim of Right.

      The devolution set-up made the actuality of Westminster parliament more clearly the de facto parliament of the COUNTRY of England as the master race and highlighted that the COUNTRY of Scotland was just a part of England with devolved English Powers and Westminster continuing to run only England directly via the Westminster Ministries. Furthermore it highlighted the truth that the Barnett Formula was daylight robbery.

      So here’s the legal bit- in England the Monarch of England is legally sovereign but not ever going to be what she/he is legally under Scots law – defender of the sovereign people’s sovereignty. Under English law the monarch of England has delegated the monarch’s legal sovereignty to the Westminster Parliament and the English Monarch dare not attempt to interfere. However that English law delegated the legally English sovereign powers only to the Parliament of England that no longer exists.

      In Scotland Holyrood was reconvened as the old parliament was only prorogued and thus Holyrood was delegated the legal powers of the people and not of the monarch who dared not do the job Scots monarchs are given by the legal sovereignty of the people of Scotland.

      To sum up – The people of England have no legal right to delegate their powers to the Westminster parliament and the Queen of England will remain silent. In Scotland we do not have enough MPs at Westminster and will always be over ruled but at Holyrood the people have delegated their sovereignty to the MSPs and if a majority of the people give the MSPs a mandate to end the Union, (independence), then that is the sovereign will of the people.

      Legally Scotland is a Kingdom in union with the Kingdom of England and both kingdoms are equally sovereign but Westminster is treating Scotland as an annexed part of the country of England which is not what Scotland is.

      Sorry it is such a long explanation of what is really a simple legal concept that is difficult to explain but none too hard to visualise.

    155. galamcennalath says:

      mike cassidy says:

      Via the Rev’s twitter page.
      The strange death of Labour Britain

      The analysis is probably accurate.

      By ignoring traditional workers, who are culturally conservative, the door is being opened to populists and even fascists.

      The reason why Labour have moved to representing more educated liberal voters, rather than their traditional skilled working voters, is because the latter now only represent 20% of the electorate.

      IMO The real underlying problem is actually WM’s dreadful FPTP system which encourages large broad church parties which in today’s complex society fail to please enough people. Also, they are inherently unstable with internal conflicts. If WM had a PR system then their would be multiple parties. Among them would be a true left wing party representing traditional workers PLUS a left wing party for the educated liberal urban voters. Similarly, the Tories would split into cultural inward looking conservatives and educated internationalist conservatives. And so on.

    156. schrodingers cat says:

      Robert J. Sutherland

      good post

      time changes votes, the old die off and younger voters with different views replace them. eg, see thatchers tories slow and relentless demise in scotland through 3 ge’s

      sudden and swift change in voting paterns is relatively rare, the libdems volt face on tuition fees in 2010 ge caused such a tsunami. snp support jumped to 45% and we have been there or there abouts ever since

      the tories are about to swing to the right and back a no deal brexit, I believe this will cause the next tsunami in scottish politics. even if it starts like a small ripple, the damaging effects of brexit will amplify it.

      our time is coming, very very soon.

    157. schrodingers cat says:

      a word of caution

      when this happens, you will be faced with a new phenominine

      angry unionist yessers

      when talking to or canvassing them, best avoid mentioning wm or the tories, better to focus their ire against the 1922 commitee, the erg, farage etc.

    158. Col.Blimp IV says:

      re the cerebral ding-dong anent treaties, international law, sovereignty and the like.

      Everyone seems to agree that in Scotland sovereignty resides with “The People”, as claimed in The Declaration of Arbroath 1320.

      If this is so and as there are still one hundred of us alive, it must be.

      We The People(or the Toffs acting on our behalf), handed it straight back to King Robert and his successors, we re-claimed it from Mary, before giving it to her son James.

      Who carted it to of to his new home in London where Cromwell assisted by the army of the people who controlled Scotland, pinched it and English Sovereignty, then tucked them away in The English Parliament, where they have, apart from a brief spell when we changed our mind about Cromwell and appointed CharlesII king, been ever since.

      To me a better solution to the problem would be to have a SUPER-REFERENDUM with a better question than the last two, along the lines of.

      I believe that all political decisions and laws pertaining to Scotland and her people, be made by or endorsed by an elected Parliament in :

      1) Scotland.
      2) U.K.
      3) E.U.

      Or as somebody said a long time ago … WILL YOU VOTE FOR YOUR COUNTRY … OR ARE YOU A SHIT?

    159. Robert Peffers says:

      @Robert J. Sutherland says: 1 June, 2019 at 8:35 pm:

      ” … A voluminous reply, as is your wont, but one which alas fails to address the burning question. Where’s the action?

      As I’ve several times pointed out the situation is not what you, and many others think it is, but Liz g has nailed it so I’m not the only one who gets it right. I’ve said it till I’m getting blue in the face.

      The SG cannot act until the majority of the legally sovereign people of Scotland give their own government a mandate, not to hold indyref2 but by winning an indyref2 give them the mandate to end the union.

      No one but the people of Scotland can end the union and then only if a majority of them mandate their own Scottish government to do so.

      A majority of the people vote to end the union and Holyrood instructs the Westminster contingent to announce the Union is over and to then walk out and come home, (I think they practiced that a while age).

      I’d hope that they would then become the upper house in a form of bicameral legislature.

    160. Colin Alexander says:

      Robert Peffers

      Nice post which I largely agree with. However, Holyrood is not the re-convening of the old Scottish Parliament, no matter what Winnie Ewing said at the time.

      Holyrood is a devolved assembly whose power is delegated from the English / GB Pariament, whose sovereignty comes from the English Crown in the English / renamed GB Parliament.

      The pre-union Scottish Parliament acted with the sovereignty of the people of Scotland not from the sovereignty of the Crown of England.

      So completely different.

    161. Robert Peffers says:

      @Golfnut says: 1 June, 2019 at 10:18 pm:

      ” … Try and contain yourself Robert. I’m struggling to see where we differ in our understanding of Scotland’s Constitutional position within the Union …

      Yeah! Well put yourself in my shoes for a brief moment, Golfnut.

      Ever since I came to comment on Wings I’ve been attempting to explain the real situation and as I already posted, it is a simple concept in fact but hellish hard to explain – then it suddenly hits you and you wonder why you didn’t get it long ago.

      I think Liz g just hit the nail on the head, though.

      It goes, more or less, like this.

      The SG cannot declare the union is over until they get a majority of the legally sovereign people of Scotland telling them to end the union.

      It simply is not enough just to have a mandate to hold indyref2. They have to win indyref2 before they tell the United Kingdom that the United Kingdom is ended and they cannot move to end it unless they have a majority of the people wanting it.

      It really is that simple. Now here is a fact – even without all the history and legal/illegal event over the past 400 years or so – in the modern World the large powers and the international organisations rule that any recognisable group of people have the human right of self determination.

      However the history and the Treaty of Union make Scotland’s case even more ironclad – but only if a majority of the people of Scotland want it to be so – but we have not as yet got a majority of those people demanding independence.

      No matter what else we do we would look bloody stupid claiming our independence unless we can show that the people want to be independent.

    162. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Of course the United Nations Charter (ius cogens)has a very different view about the sovereignty of the Scottish people and by extension the rights of its elected Parliament to express it.

      I’ll go with that. Politics always eventually trumps law.

      What we approach is the question whether the UK Parliament will disgrace itself in the eyes of the world – and whether it would actually get away with such behaviour. Reegardless of the final result in this Brexit shambles the rUK would exist in an interdependent world and cannot survive any other way.

    163. Sarah says:

      Spot on, Liz G and Robert P. The frustrating part is that virtually all the media and all the “powers” are conspiring to prevent Scottish voters from seeing the truth – that the precious Union is, and always has been, a way of throttling Scotland out of existence.

    164. cassandra says:

      If only Nicola Sturgeon would read BTL here.

      Why does she not make some of the wise men here her SPADs? I mean all that sagacity, all those repetitive posts on someone else’s blog, all that effort shouting at people to acknowledge you. All those years in the SNP toeing the line and knowing your place, waiting patiently. You know you have all the answers and yet, it seems, no one of any importance is listening to you.

      Maybe she isn’t that daft after all?

    165. Robert Peffers says:

      @Robert J. Sutherland says: 2 June, 2019 at 1:26 am

      ” … One potential way is to alert people to the fact that they (and their forebears) have been cheated of their birthright, and continue to be so cheated.”

      Sorry, and all that, Robert, and I’m ever the optimist, but to that one particular view I’m become a pessimist.

      I thought that when Westminster espoused devolution in such a manner as to regulate the Kingdom of Scotland to no more than an English annexed possession my countrymen and women would rise up in indignation at the slight to their ancient proud kingdom and demand their kingdom end this dreadful union, but no one turned a hair.

      I thought that when the sheer indignity of the Barnett Formula became known the Scots would demand fair play or the union’s end, but no chance of that either.

      Then I read of the Westminster commissioned paper where two Westminster claimed experts said the Treaty of Union had ended Scotland as a kingdom and made England’s Kingdom the United Kingdom and that Scotland just a part of it there would be riots in the streets but not even letters to the Scotsman letters page on the subject. This was followed by the Secretary of State for against Scotland saying on national TV, “The Treaty of Union EXTINGUISHED the Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England as The United Kingdom”, and I looked for my old Dad’s tin helmet from WWII but I needn’t have bothered for no one seemed to have noticed.

      So let me ask you just what it is you think will wake Scots up to react? Now remember we Wingers and the entire YES movement have worked hard explaining how the, “United Kingdom’s Extra Regio Territories”, robs Scotland of every penny og oil & gas revenue and sends it directly to London, we have told Scots how the National Grid Connection Charges not only rob Scotland but use the some of the cash stolen from Scots to subsidise London generators and how every penny of Alcohol Duty, tobacco Duty, Road Fuel Duty, betting tax and VAT goes right to Westminster and all the reaction amounted to a big sigh and the claim, “But Scotland is too wee, too poor and we are no able tae rin wir ain kintra withoot the inglis tae dae it fir iz”.

      So no, I don’t think even a stick of dynamite stuck up certain smelly orifices is going to shift many, “Proud”, Scots to react.

      It is going to take the sharp chock of finding the dinner plate empty, the shortages in the shops plainly seen in empty shelves and the Cheap European holidays in warmer climates out of the average, (reduced), range of the average Scottish wallet before most Scots begin to notice. Even then there will be those who think it is all the fault of those foreign immigrants and those unelected European parliamentarians and of course the Fenians will be behind it all.

      Or perhaps I’m just becoming just an cynic in my old age.

    166. galamcennalath says:

      Trump want the UK to walk away from EU, no deal, no payment of what’s owed and therefore have no prospect of a future EU trade deal.


      ” US Ambassador to Britain Woody Johnson …… said he would expect Britain to be open to US agricultural products, and when asked about access of US firms to Britain’s cherished state-run health service, said “all things that are traded would be on the table”.”

      They want a panicked UK, cut off from its main EU markets to accept a real shite US deal.

      And know what? Most of the Tory prospective PM candidates would fall into the trap.

      Nicola, get us out of this!

    167. Scozzie says:

      Allbuhug at 11.03
      Well that’s the problem really we are a very cautious nation it seems. But we need our government to seize whichever opportunities presents itself.
      To me Brexit is is the ‘opportunity’ to re-assert our national interest. Much like happened with the break up of the USSR, counties like Estonia, Latvia ‘seized the day’ so to speak. We as a country need to re-assert ourselves.

      I’m not suggesting by violence just by political will. We needs our government to act assertively. Yes, I know they’re pushing through referendum(s) legislation but we need additional assertive action. We need to fight fire with fire; and set the cat amongst the pigeons.

      When the SNP say that we will not be taken out of EU against our will I hope they have a plan, because it seems that’s exactly what’s going to happen in October 2019 and that long before their planned 2020 referendum!!!!

    168. Scozzie says:

      abullhaq sorry that probably seemed like I was questioning your post, but was actually in agreement 🙂

    169. Clootie says:

      Colin Alexander @12.05

      If that was the case the Empire would be intact and the World map would still be pink. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc. Would just have accepted that they only had delegated authority in their parliaments. Yet strangely they are all now Independent.

    170. Clootie says:

      Trolls pushing hard on the “SNP needs a plan” and what a surprise they are agreeing with each other’s view.

    171. Colin Alexander says:

      Dave McEwan Hill

      If the sovereign people of Scotland want to make Holyrood MSPs the representatives of their sovereignty I’m all for that.

      It’s something I’ve openly suggested on many occasions whether there is full independence or not.

      In fact, that’s the reasoning behind the indy-lite SNP campaign of 2014: a Scottish Parliament that exercised Scotland’s sovereignty but remained in a revised economic/political union with England, Wales and N.Ireland.

      But, I always get shouted down by those who insist that’s against Westminster’s rules, so cannot be done.

      But, isn’t the whole basis of sovereignty that you don’t have to follow any other country’s rules, we are the bosses?

      Of course it “could” be done but, the English Crown would never accept a Union where Scotland is able to exercise sovereignty as part of that Union. That was made explictly clear in 2014 and ever since.

      So, I accept independence is the only route forward.

    172. sassenach says:

      Robert Peffers @1-27pm

      Excellent post, like you I do not understand what it will take to shift certain Scots out of their ‘love’ for the union.

      Being English, but choosing, many moons ago, to come and live and work in Scotland – it simply astounds me that people up here cannot see what Westminster is ( and has been) doing to them for generations. It simply beggars belief! Open your eyes before it’s too late.

    173. Welsh Sion says:

      (In translation – WS)

      Scotland (and Wales) have every right to hold an independence vote

      Former First Minister Carwyn Jones has responded vigorously the Home Secretary Sajid Javid’s remark that he would not “allow” a vote on another on Scottish independence.

      Although he argues that he is personally in favour of stronger devolution rather than independence, he says that Sajid Javid has no right to obstruct a referendum.

      Sajid Javid is one of the 12 [now 13 – Translator] Tory MPs trying to be elected as Prime Minister to succeed Theresa May.

      “Does he have an idea of how arrogant he sounds?” he said in a tweet. “The people of Scotland, and the people of Wales in that respect, have every right to hold a referendum on independence if they support a party calling for that.”

      “Anyone has the right to campaign against independence, but not to prevent a vote.”

      His comments have been warmly welcomed by the SNP.

      “I welcome Carwyn Jones’s support for Scotland’s democratic right to hold a referendum on independence – and press the rest of the Labour Party to join us to stand against the Tories,” said Ian Blackford, leader of the SNP at Westminster.

      “It is not for the Tory Party to enforce the conditions on our future and to express arrogantly that they will not allow the people of Scotland to hold a referendum.”

      A Referendum (Scotland) Bill was introduced in the Scottish parliament this week.

    174. Col.Blimp IV says:

      This word “Troll” gets an inordinate amount of airplay here.

      I wonder if any of you knows what it means?

    175. Col.Blimp IV says:

      That last comment could be construed as “Trolling” …

      … but for the fact that it is pertinent to every thread I have ever read on this website.

    176. call me dave says:

      Gerry Hassan in ‘The National’ there administering to the ‘Scottish Labour’ party invalid now in high dependency care.

      Where have all the followers gone, long time passing? he muses, hoping that applying a distinct Saltire bandage will restore some life back to the wounded patient.

      But anxiously guddling in the shallow pools of the North for new talent to revive his Labour party. 🙁

      Blair Jenkins back too knock knock knocking on the door. ??

      All a bit bland in The National today. 🙁

    177. Robert Peffers says:

      @Breeks says: 2 June, 2019 at 7:53 am:

      ” … That’s where I think you’re wrong Robert. If a murderer is taken to court for murder, it is a consequence of a crime being committed and the law of the land being enforced.”

      Indeed so, Breeks, but you are talking of criminal law and even with criminal law there is often a requirement that a victim must officially file a complaint that a law has been broken.

      What crime is it that the law of either Scotland or England has been broken? Furthermore, no matter if a crime has been broken and no one has filed an official complaint the police force are restricted in what they can do. By that I mean a policeman’s job is twofold. One is to investigate reported crime or in some cases, like unexplained or sudden death, to investigate if a crime has been committed.

      Often the police only investigate, while the coroner examines the body to see if there has actually been a crime but neither the police, a forensic scientist or whatever decides if there is a crime to be taken before a court and the people who decide that are the Procurators Fiscal.

      So just what is the crime you think the law should prosecute? What Westminster does is passed as law by Westminster or by one of the devolved parliaments and they can have any bill they want to become law and put before Her Majesty for the royal signature objected to by Westminster.

      In short you can only get criminal charges brought before a criminal court if the Procurators Fiscal, (Scotland), or Crown Prosecution Service, (England), bring them and constitutional law is not criminal law. So yes I agree Westminster has robbed Scotland blind for centuries but they did so legally and the idea of constitutional law is to change the constitution. Not to convict a government of crimes. The exceptions being such things as genocide, war crimes or illegal wars and big nations often get away with those anyway.

    178. galamcennalath says:

      Welsh Sion says

      Carwyn Jones … “Anyone has the right to campaign against independence, but not to prevent a vote.”

      Good that he put on record his view that there should be no external vetos.

      However, specifically about the above line, definitely yes to the second bit, but sort of no to the first bit.

      Sajid Javid born In Rochdale and representing the seat of Bromsgrove should have absolutely no say in the Scottish independence debate. It is none of his business.

      Home Secretary Sajid Javid in the UK cabinet may be a slightly different matter. Should the UK government and cabinet get involved in the debate about Scotland’s future? I would opine, NO. However they will inevitably take a different view.

      The debate on Scotland’s future and our place in the world should be for Scots only. Like IndyRef1 it won’t quite work out like that.

    179. Dr Jim says:

      I’ve never had the slightest notion that Unionists love the Union, I don’t think they do but there are reasons for some and excuses for others as to why they don’t want to let it go

      In Westmister it’s power and money, the thing that drives all dictatorships, people are an irrelevance to Westminster otherwise they would never have slaughtered so many to create their empire, better to kill the people and burn the village than let the land go, you can always get more people and you can always build, but you can’t always get more land

      In Scotland we suffer from the same sectarian annexed blight upon us that Northern Ireland does, we don’t want it but Westminster makes damn sure they didn’t waste their time on creating and nurturing it only to lose one of their greatest acquisitions to people with the will to resolve it

      So on pain of torture and death there are Unionists in Scotland who will never stop using sectarianism as their main tool to fight against something that isn’t fighting them, but they’ll insist that it’s so to their last breath

      Some people in the North of Scotland will say they don’t see evidence of this, and they’re correct, because you’re not supposed to, but it’s there alright or Ruth Davidsons whole campaign strategy of no surrender would have failed instantly and more people would have voted for the proposition of self determination in 2014

      In England they use the othering of Muslims and people of colour for the division part of the agenda as it’s always been, My God is superior to your God therefore I claim the divine right to rule ….everywhere!

      Every tool they can employ they have done and will do to keep hold of what they believe they own for the good of their own status and power

      Politicians in Westminster don’t run anything, they’re just the mouthpieces for the people who do, no matter which colour of politician is *in charge*

      Remember during the 2014 referendum we had all sorts of interventions from civil servants we’d never heard of before, in *positions* we’d never heard of, but it turned out these faceless people were the people who were really running things

      Power will have to be taken from Westminster publicly and obvious to the world and with the world’s approval because Westminster will never ever acceed to giving it away

    180. CameronB Brodie says:

      Clootie @10:42am today
      re. Gerry Hassan. Spot on, Hassan is a British Labour diehard who’s work has been published more than once by the Fabian Society. I wonder if he still self-identifies as British rather than Scottish? He certainly doesn’t appear to have a clue re. constitutional or human rights law, that’s for sure.

    181. TD says:

      Robert Peffers at 2:33 p.m.

      “Often the police only investigate, while the coroner examines the body to see if there has actually been a crime but neither the police, a forensic scientist or whatever decides if there is a crime to be taken before a court and the people who decide that are the Procurators Fiscal.”

      I’m confused Robert – there are no coroners in Scotland and there are no Procurators Fiscal in England. So what part of the world are you describing?

    182. Robert Peffers says:

      @Golfnut says: 2 June, 2019 at 9:04 am:

      ” … We don’t need permission to exercise our Sovereignty.”

      Ah! Yes! Golfnut, but who are these, “we”, you speak about? Are they the Scots people who say, “YES”, or the Scots people who say, “NO”?

      There is the problem – what is it that the majority of Scots want and how do you know which is which? That is exactly where we are just now and there is no definitive way to tell which is in the majority. Now do you remember what happened during the last attempt to find out?

      Let me jog your memory – The YES group were shown, (in earlier opinion polls), to be rising and overtaking the previously leading by a long way, “NO”, voters. At this the unionist parties, (and that included the current UK Government), panicked and pulled out all the stops, (mostly dirty tricks). Then came a very suspicious announcement by MS Davidson that the NO support had suddenly gone ahead but only the postal voters papers had been submitted. Now how did Ms Davidson know that NO was leading?

      Come voting day and Yes had been pipped at the winning postal. I do not suppose we will ever know the truth but there are lessons to be learned. Yes started way behind and sprinted into the lead only to lose in the finishing straight.

      Now I read of YESSERS claiming that as we are starting much closer to NO to begin with that it will be a breeze to increase our vote as we did the last time – but will we?

      The truth is no one knows and we really shouldn’t take the chance until we have a good lead and even then we cannot be sure of winning.

      However, here’s a thought, if we have a really good lead and then offer a decent deal on post independence relations between the two kingdoms, (and that would benefit both former partners of the union), w3ould Westminster grab it with both hands if they though they would lose? I believe they would especially if they were out of the EU and were thus facing the possibility of being surrounded by hostile neighbours.

    183. Col.Blimp IV says:

      galamcennalath says :

      “The debate on Scotland’s future and our place in the world should be for Scots only. Like IndyRef1 it won’t quite work out like that.”

      Here Here!

      That is why I made the suggestion that IndyRef2 should take a slightly different tack.

      In my view it would make interventions from outwith Scotland, appear to all but the most blinkered unionist, a bit like King Edward’s Army marching across the border.

    184. CameronB Brodie says:

      re. constitutional legal theory.

      Secession and Self-Determination:
      A Territorial Interpretation

    185. Petra says:

      @ Sarah says at 1:00 pm …. ”Spot on, Liz G and Robert P. The frustrating part is that virtually all the media and all the “powers” are conspiring to prevent Scottish voters from seeing the truth – that the precious Union is, and always has been, a way of throttling Scotland out of existence.”

      It’s not just ”the media and all the “powers” that are conspiring to prevent Scottish voters from seeing the truth”, Sarah. There are some people on here attempting to do so to, imo.

      As Robert Peffers says once again, ”However the history and the Treaty of Union make Scotland’s case even more ironclad – but only if a majority of the people of Scotland want it to be so – but we have not as yet got a majority of those people demanding independence. No matter what else we do we would look bloody stupid claiming our independence unless we can show that the people want to be independent.”

      It’s not just about taking cases to Court to prove one thing or another, or not, it’s about the practical reality of the situation and that is that there are many sovereign Scots who have indicated that they want to remain in the Union. At this point in time more so than those who want Independence. Can you imagine how they would react (and Westminster, the MSM, International communities, etc) to what they would see as an undemocratic attack to undermine their position? And when I say ”react”, I reckon that it could lead to the type of trouble that we have seen in Ireland previously.

      Additionally how would the Courts react to such a (premature) move? Would they even consider taking such a case (s) on board at all? And if they did so there would be one of two outcomes. We win with all the trouble that would ensue, with no moral support from anyone Nationally / Internationally, or we lose with the Scots being left feeling totally undermined once again: left with egg on our faces … iterum. The latter outcome of course could also lead to many Scots (fence sitters) being so scunnered with it all that they lose all interest in supporting Independence in future.

      So I say, why even contemplate going through with this at such a time, and castigating Nicola Sturgeon for not doing so, when we are REALLY close to achieving our objective of over 50% of sovereign Scots actually wanting Independence? When that materializes we’ll have the Law on our side and no doubt the approval (blessing probably) of the EU/UN to take Westminster to the cleaners, if need be: And of course we’ve got a wealth of evidence to further our claim (s).

      Patience is all that we need now and of course for people to realise that achieving our independence = 50% plus support = backing the only person / party, Nicola Sturgeon / the SNP (and others), who are capable of doing so. Attacking her constantly is detrimental to us getting over that line, imo, so I ask myself why some Independence supporters on this site are so inclined to do so?

    186. CameronB Brodie says:

      And some International Relations theory. Remember, “internal sovereignty” is the most widely supported human right.

      Does Self-Determination Entail an Automatic Right to Secession?

      Beyond Decolonisation? Human Rights and ‘Remedial Secession’

      The aforementioned international instruments suggest that, in principle, self-determination extends beyond the colonial context – at least in its internal form. This remains true irrespective of the huge limitation on secession that the principle of territorial integrity entails. A more controversial question is whether secession would be lawful in circumstances where a state denies the internal form of the right to a people – violating their fundamental human rights….

    187. Robert Peffers says:

      @Breeks says: 2 June, 2019 at 9:29 am:

      … What democratic mandate did Gina Millar have to test whether Westminster could be compelled to seek Parliamentary approval of Article 50? She had absolutley no mandate other than the letter of the law being breached.”

      Oh! Aye! And what independence was it that Gina Millar won? What exercising of sovereignty did she contest and win?

      There is massive difference of contesting a legal matter within the same parliamentary system and seeking the completely walk away from what will be contesting it holds sovereignty and has done so for centuries.

      It is like the difference between saying that you were illegally convicted of a criminal offence by the state you are a citizen in and providing proof the court had acted illegally and telling the court that you just don’t recognise the authority of the court and the state you are a citizen in.

      There just is not a comparison between the two events.

      I’ll tell you this, though, when a bull charges a gate the bull is certain to get a sore head and even if the gate gets damaged it doesn’t feel a thing.

    188. CameronB Brodie says:

      @Gerry Hassan
      This might be a bit left-field but I just thought of a way to describe residents of Scotland, if we acquiesce with the full-English Brexit. As a professor of cultural studies, I wonder whether you might agree?


      Some Greek states had servile populations which were not privately owned chattel-slaves or douloi (see slavery), but, because their status seemed superior in important respects, came to be categorized as ‘between free men and (chattel) douloi’ (Pollux 3. 83). Unlike the latter, they were not imported individually from outside but enslaved collectively as a national group. Very little is known about any of them except the helots of Sparta, but the evidence even for the helots is such that scholars have come to diametrically opposite conclusions both as to the timing of their enslavement and as to the nature of their servitude….

    189. kapelmeister says:

      Jo Swinson on the Marr Show trying to get kudos by saying her opponent Ed Davey is a London MP whereas her constituency is 400 miles away.

      She omitted the fact that her home is 400 miles away from her constituency.

      Whereas Ed Davey lives in Surbiton in his constituency.

    190. call me dave says:

      Another Jeremy ‘Hunts’ for a good Scottish place name for his PPB punt for PM and decides on Culloden… Aye! 🙂

      That’ll go down well!

    191. Robert Peffers says:

      @Colin Alexander says: 2 June, 2019 at 12:05 pm

      ” … However, Holyrood is not the re-convening of the old Scottish Parliament, no matter what Winnie Ewing said at the time.”

      Sorry to contradict you Colin but it is. Who says so you may ask? Well for starters Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. Now this may be one of those little known facts but such things are ratified differently by the Queen under Scots law.

      Now here is a wee bit from The Treaty of Union, (Scotland version), you will find this in the original text, “The Articles of the UNION as they passed with Amendments in the Parliament of Scotland, and ratified by the Touch of the Royal Scepter at Edinburgh, January 16, 1707, by James Duke of Queensbury, her Majesty’s High Commissioner for that Kingdom:-

      There is no requirement for the Queens signature. So many people thought, as nothing was signed the Queen was being disrespectful to Scotland, but not so. She touched with the Sceptre and that ratified what Winnie Ewing had said. No royal signature was required.

      Why is it, Colin, that the Holyrood Parliament has forced through several other things that Westminster has had no option but accept? None of the other two devolved Parliaments have dared try to enforce such things? Has not Holyrood just introduced a bill that will allow Holyrood to bypass the Westminster threats to prevent referendums by Holyrood?

      Mind you I have no doubt that Westminster will try – and fail to prevent Holyrood doing so. You had better believe, Bolin that a major constitutional battle is about to begin.

      What did you imagine Ian Blackford and Joann Cherry were doing by telling Westminster to their face that Scotland would not be dragged out of Europe against her will. Did you think they were kidding?

    192. Abulhaq says:

      @Scozzie 1:32pm
      We have the advantage. We must seize it. I assume the FM has a plan to seize ‘our day’.
      Can’t come quick enough….
      Scotland is the world’s best kept secret. Time to reveal!

    193. Welsh Sion says:

      call me dave @ 4.22 pm

      Re: Hunt and Culloden

      Which he can’t even pronounce correctly!

      Hunt, stunt … twunt.

      See his Twitter feed. (Dunno how to cunt and post the link here.)

    194. galamcennalath says:

      ” Who are the candidates vying for Prime Minister Theresa May’s job and what have they said about Brexit? “

      Who’s who in the Tory leadership Brexit zoo ….

      Quite honestly, could any of them be trusted to go doon the street fir a bottle o’ Irn Bru an’ twa bridies?

    195. CameronB Brodie says:

      Welsh Sion
      Oops. 🙂

    196. Dr Jim says:

      Grandmaster David Clegg Political editor and DUP representative of the Daily Record says the SNP are ludicrous
      in their replies to Jo Swinson’s lies about Scottish education

      It used to be on Labour’s side now it’s everybody but the SNP

    197. mike cassidy says:

      Careful, Welsh Sion.

      You’ll set off the transphobe alarm!

    198. Confused says:

      this is a good article, about deep shit that really matters, not too long and quite grokkable

      – and this is the payoff, the real lottery payout from independence – you get to setup things better, differently at a fundamental level – and this can therefore take maximal advantage of our enormous resources and potential – energy, water, hydrocarbons, space, human capital, under-populated, under-utilised … hitch this up to our own wagon and there is no limit

      – OR you can keep paying interest to bankers forever and be owned by an international oligarchy

      ps – fuck all trannies … let us speak of this no more – it’s all an unfunny joke that is too boring to even satirise; there’s probly about 100 of these sad wretches in the whole of Scotland – we could simply bribe them to STFU or fuckoff till indy

    199. Culloden and Canary Wharf – what is Jeremy Hunt going on about!!!

      Carnoustie, Cullen, Cockenzie, Caithness, Cromarty, Coldstream, Carter’s Bar, Crathie, Cruden Bay, Charlestown of Aberlour, Coatbridge, Corpach, Clydebank, Cumbernauld, Cambuslang, Cramond village, Carlisle even…. why Culloden!!!!!!!!!

    200. Doug says:


    201. Lochside says:

      Petra quoting the Constitutional guru RP:
      As Robert Peffers says once again, ”However the history and the Treaty of Union make Scotland’s case even more ironclad – but only if a majority of the people of Scotland want it to be so – but we have not as yet got a majority of those people demanding independence. No matter what else we do we would look bloody stupid claiming our independence unless we can show that the people want to be independent.”

      How about the General Election of 2015?: 1,454,436 SNP plus 39,205 Green = Total of 1,493,641 representing 51.3% of the total vote. Add in the fact of 56 seats seats out of a total available of 59. If this was not a mandate for Independence and a demand to dissolve the Union, then what is?

      This was the year after a Referendum consisting of every dirty trick in the book of the UK’S compendium of dirty tricks: breach of purdah; postal votes that were patently interfered with e.g. Ruth Davidson’s criminal comments about having knowledge of the result plus some of the Argyll and Bute case study confirming impossible ‘world record ‘ returns of postal votes; Evel etc etc.

      Despite 100,000 plus new members expecting a demand by the SNP to dissolve the Union by challenging the endless breaches of the Treaty…nothing…4 years of playing the English/Unionist game and allowing our Sovereignty to be reduced to the level of a county council in the English midlands. And now we continue on the merry go round of playing by English rules for our (non)Sovereign rights over Brexit and the ‘people’s vote (which can only mean the English majority’s decision, not ours).

      Unless we understand that democratic dictatorship, such as we have suffered for the past 100 years of the franchise and feudal dictatorship for the previous 200 years can only be ended by challenging the bogus contract called the ‘Union’ by asserting our sovereignty by stating how jt has been traduced and imprisoned by the Westminster cartel of crooks.

      We will lose the next Referendum for the same reasons as the last: by reducing our freedom down to witless arguments such as which banknotes we use instead of our irreducible right to rule ourselves. Instead, we should be challenging England’s right to control us via a public legal forum at the highest level such as the ECJ or the UN, in order for the undecided and uneducated blinded by the hegemonic lying media , to be enlightened about the big picture. And then the majority of Scotland’s people must grasp that our freedom that is held in thrall. That is the only way out, not petitioning for our freedom from charlatans and global criminals

    202. jfngw says:

      After seeing Jo Swinson my first thought is the LibDem’s have found their own Kezia, vacuous and a somewhat nebulous connection to the truth.

      Another Scot that will spend endless time deprecating Scotland to ingratiate themselves to those in England. Of course she was in coalition with Michael Gove, they have this attribute in common it would seem, and enthusiastic for Tory policies at the time. She is really just a Remain Tory to my mind, pretty much sums up the LibDem’s after all Rennie is just a minnie me Davidson.

    203. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Lochside at 7:31 pm.

      You typed,
      “How about the General Election of 2015?: 1,454,436 SNP plus 39,205 Green = Total of 1,493,641 representing 51.3% of the total vote. Add in the fact of 56 seats seats out of a total available of 59. If this was not a mandate for Independence and a demand to dissolve the Union, then what is?”

      The SNP did NOT have in their manifesto for the 2015 GE, any mention of a majority of seats (or votes) giving them a mandate to immediately start independence negotiations or the right to dissolve the Treaty of Union.

      If they had done so, with 55% voting to remain in the union just 8 months previously, there would have been hell to pay.

      It MUST be in a manifesto so people know what they’re voting for. Otherwise, you are throwing democracy in the recycle bin.

    204. wullie says:

      if you are not born and brought up in Scotland.
      At what point in time does Sovereignty get bestowed upon a visitor.

    205. schrodingers cat says:

      Lochside says:

      How about the General Election of 2015?: 1,454,436 SNP plus 39,205 Green = Total of 1,493,641 representing 51.3% of the total vote. Add in the fact of 56 seats seats out of a total available of 59. If this was not a mandate for Independence and a demand to dissolve the Union, then what is?

      except the snp didnt run on an indy ticket in that election, deliberately so.

      check out tommy shepard’s maiden speech 7.30 in

      so no, it was not a mandate for Independence nor a demand to dissolve the Union

      wake up at the back there 🙂

    206. jfngw says:


      I agree the decision at the next referendum needs to be Holyrood or Westminster as who governs Scotland, those we elect or those England elects (sorry Wales & NI but it’s the truth). Everything else is just a distraction thrown up by unionist or those that only want independence on their own terms.

      In 2015 the SNP campaigned that you were not voting for independence, maybe a bad choice but so soon after the referendum I suspect they wanted to bolster their support as the MSM and opposition thought it would be the end of them as the major force in Scotland.

    207. Abulhaq says:

      THE reason to protest against Trump’s America. Suspect few will give it a thought.

    208. CameronB Brodie says:

      The bestowal of sovereignty is a product simply of residency in Scotland. Unlike England, Scotland’s sovereignty resides in the people. Subsequently, the Scottish public is master of the Scottish government. Residency in Scotland also bestows a legal EU personality, which is also embodied within the legal Scottish person. The full-English Brexit show total disregard for this legal doctrine, imposing English legal doctrine and Parliamentary sovereignty as justification for English despotism (see the full-English Brexit and Britain’s constitutional crises). 😉

    209. CameronB Brodie says:

      P.S. Scotland only lent its’ sovereignty to Westminster. We can take it back whenever we want. No permission required.

    210. Robert Peffers says:

      @Col.Blimp IV says: 2 June, 2019 at 2:03 pm:

      ” … The word “Troll” gets an inordinate amount of airplay here.
      I wonder if any of you knows what it means?

      Yes. But it would seem you do not. Mind you many Wingers seem not to know either.

      I’ll assume you refer to the internet slang term and not to that of mythology so here is the definition:-

      “In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll’s amusement or a specific gain.

    211. Robert Peffers says:

      @Brian Doonthetoon says: 2 June, 2019 at 7:50 pm:

      ” … The SNP did NOT have in their manifesto for the 2015 GE, any mention of a majority of seats (or votes) giving them a mandate to immediately start independence negotiations or the right to dissolve the Treaty of Union.”

      If they had done so, with 55% voting to remain in the union just 8 months previously, there would have been hell to pay.
      It MUST be in a manifesto so people know what they’re voting for. Otherwise, you are throwing democracy in the recycle bin.”

      Thanks, Brian Doonthetoon, but I will add that the SNP cannot demand independence unless with a clear majority of the people specifically demanding it.

      It is the people who are legally sovereign – not the SNP.

    212. Terry callachan says:

      John Curtice on LBC radio today speaking about what “the country” voted and what “the country” wants.
      Clearly when he referred to “the country” he was talking about England Scotland wales and Northern Ireland but the whole conversation nay the whole programme was about England and brexit.

      Not surprising really.

      What is surprising at first glance is why a Scottish university employs John Curtice ?
      the principal is Jim McDonald once of RBS Rolls Royce and SSE.
      He currently chairs the Scottish governments energy advisory board with Nicola Sturgeon
      He is currently a director with the WEIR group
      and Scottish Power
      And the ORE catapult group for offshore renewable energy a company that links training and capital with its aim of ensuring renewable provides a third of UK energy
      He is also a current visiting professor of a university in New York called the Tandon engineering university which has 400 staff for 5000 students
      Famously this uni was gifted one hundred million dollars by an Indian couple who live there
      The board of this uni does have a lot of links with Israel
      Donald trumps uncle studied there and helped invent the so called van de Graf generator which you may remember was the name of a rock band but was actually a mans name the invention was a radiological machine

      The chancellor of Strathclyde university is Lord Kelvin former governor of the BBC
      He is currently chairman of
      the UK governments green investment bank
      Alliance trust
      Forth ports
      And after the NO to Scottish independence vote of 2014 he was appointed by David Cameron to chair the Scottish devolution commission
      He also used to work for RBS and the WEIR group

      Dame sue Bruce is the chancellor of the university court
      She is also a commissioner with the electoral commission
      And she too used to be a director of SSE

    213. @CameronB Brodie,

      The aristocracy/establishment of England/UK model themselves on Sparta,

      through the children being given to boarding schools as young as 5,

      where they learn at an early age that the State comes first above everything else,

      then on to public schools (Eton,Harrow,Westminster) where they make life long friends and are educated into the rituals and ceremonies of being the elite,

      then to Oxbridge where they join clubs like the Bullingdon club where the are initiated into the new elite and establishment,

      where loyalty and obedience to the English/UK State comes before self, family and friends,

      we are nothing but farm animals to supply the needs of the English/UK elite,

      been going on for hundreds of years.

    214. Robert Peffers says:

      @wullie says: 2 June, 2019 at 7:50 pm:

      ” … if you are not born and brought up in Scotland.
      At what point in time does Sovereignty get bestowed upon a visitor.”

      It doesn’t get bestowed upon anyone, Wullie, particularly visitors.

      A very long time ago I was told the definition of what were, “The people of Scotland”, and I have never forgotten it – it went like this:-
      “Anyone of any colour, creed or country of origin who mainly resides in Scotland. Who pays tax as a Scot and is registered to vote in Scottish elections.”

      That, for example includes those of Irish descent who came to Scotland during the potato famine.

      It includes those Jews who were expelled from England:-Blockquote>The Edict of Expulsion was a royal decree issued by King Edward I of England on 18 July 1290 expelling all Jews from the Kingdom of England. Edward advised the sheriffs of all counties he wanted all Jews expelled by no later than All Saints’ Day (1st November) that year. The expulsion edict remained in force for the rest of the Middle Ages. The edict was not an isolated incident, but the culmination of over 200 years of increased persecution. The edict was overturned during the Protectorate more than 350 years later, when Oliver Cromwell permitted Jews to return to England in 1657.[

      There have been Jewish families in Edinburgh and Glasgow ever since. It includes the Italians who came to Scotland and brought with them Ice Cream Parlours, Milk Bars, Chip Shop and set up garage business’. It includes Free French and Free Poles who flew Spitfires and fought against the NAZIs in WWII. It Includes the Vikings who settled in the Northern Isles and the hard working Pakistanis, Indian and Chinese families who built up corner shops, restaurants and other business and contributed much to our Scottish diet and our heritage.

      We do not hand out Scottish nationality to just anybody – they mostly come here and earn it. Some as Doctors, Nurses, care workers, engineers and scientists. Scotland is better and richer for their presence as new Scots.

    215. CameronB Brodie says:

      Here’s one for folk who still consider Britain a liberal democracy worth saving. Remember, the ‘Supreme Court’ felt the Brexit referendum unconstitutional to the point of criminality. Despite this, the Prime-minister has decided to settle internal party differences by exposing the British constitution to the poor judgement of a racially primed and charged electorate traumatised by austerity.

      Subsequently, the full-English Brexit is the authoritarian exploitation of constitutional power, by an unrepresentative executive who appear to have lost all sense of political reason and respect for the rule-of-law. Britain/England is heading in a very scary direction if this comes to pass, and British constitutional and administrative law will have become a tool of crises capitalists (see dark money).

      If the full-English Brexit wasn’t planned as a fascist coupe, it’s unfortunate that it certainly looks like it was, IMHO.

      Political constitutionalism versus
      political constitutional theory:
      Law, power, and politics

      This essay juxtaposes political constitutionalism with a political constitutional theory that is mainly based on the work of Carl Schmitt. It claims that the former understands politics as consensual government and correspondingly the constitution as a set of principles and institutions that allows for the management of arising conflicts.

      Political constitutional theory, on the other hand, acknowledges the ever-present potentiality of conflicts as essential to the political nature of the constitution. The potential conflicts occasionally actualize as exceptional constitutional violations that, at the same time, reaffirm the sovereign constituent power that accounts for the radical democratic foundation of all constituted political and legal institutions.

      The position of occasional constitutional violations as expressions of constituent power is further illustrated in relation to the separation of powers as actualized conflicts between the judiciary and the elected branches. Exceptional constitutional violations that transgress the constituted limits of the respective branches of government are an indication of the political nature of the constitution, including the separation of powers, and not as an anomaly that constitutional theory cannot explain.

    216. Petra says:

      @ Robert Peffers says at 8:44 pm …. ”Thanks, Brian Doonthetoon, but I will add that the SNP cannot demand independence unless with a clear majority of the people specifically demanding it. It is the people who are legally sovereign – not the SNP.”

      What’s not to get about this, folks?

    217. CameronB Brodie says:

      P.S. Remember, the British constitution derives its’ rational legal force from natural law. As such, the Yoonyawn is justified only by the “justice” it delivers to British subjects. The British constitution is being used by the New Right to deny Scotland natural justice (see the full-English Brexit). This might have something to do with the fact that Scotland is one off the world’s most naturally wealthy nations, per capita. I might be heading towards ‘grudge nationalism’ there though. 😉

    218. CameronB Brodie says:

      Scot Finlayson
      Totally, that Aristotle was a right back-to-front. 😉

    219. Petra says:

      @ Terry callachan says at 8:46 pm …. ”Glasgow University.”

      Thanks for the info Terry. Very interesting, however we still know very little about Curtice. Practically nothing at all in fact for someone who’s never off of the TV this weather. Someone who has no time for the SNP / Independence and can barely conceal it.

    220. Ealasaid says:

      @Mt Peffers

      Sorry for the misunderstanding. I actually meant as well as WoS. But you have been doing a great job. Would you object to your posts being copied and pasted if attributed to you?

    221. galamcennalath says:

      Scot Finlayson says:

      children being given to boarding schools

      Through my life I’ve known a few people who have been through the private boarding school system. A few quite well. No artisocracy, just with parents with more money than sense. Parents motivated by social climbing.

      Basically all have had their brains well and truly f’cked around with. They have had real emotional issues. It’s usually disguised behind a facade of learned artificial confidence. The real person is in there screaming.

      I just did a google and in CameronB Brodie style here something I discovered.

      ” Sufferers’ symptoms are often hidden behind a brittle façade of competence. “…. Jeez, that’s just what I wrote above before I read the article. It is so true.

      It’s hard to show much sympathy for posh boy Tories … but as you listen to them, think of boarding school syndrome, these people are also victims of the system in their own way. They have been socially engineered to rule with the minimum of emotional impedance.

    222. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Robert Peffers says

      :”It is the people who are legally sovereign – not the SNP.”

      So far as I am aware Robert, “the people” have been inordinately circumspect in the exercising of this sovereignty, save when some parliament or other acts as our proxy.

      In the close on 800 years that we have had it, we have deposed Queen Mary because God told us to, hired Charles II, with gods approval as king because we found out that sucking up to Cromwell wasn’t the good idea we thought it was and that’s about it.

      When in the aftermath of the 1979 referendum, our expressed sovereign wish was denied by the Labour Government, we er … voted Unionist by a margin of almost 5/1.

      Which is why I opine that in the next referendum we should settle the sovereignty issue asking the people to make a declaration along the lines of.

      I believe that all political decisions and laws pertaining to Scotland and her people, be made by or endorsed by a Parliament elected by :

      1) The people of Scotland

      2) The people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & N I.

    223. Fairliered says:

      Robert Peffers 9.17pm

      You have posted many posts on here, Robert. That was one of your best! Thank you.

    224. Welsh Sion says:

      Let me try to make amends for last time (not that I’m apologising to Mr Rhyming-Slang, you understand.) But here’s a wee tale re-affirming the sovereignty of the Scottish people. I hope the constitutionalists (and others) enjoy it.


      57. (of 60.)

      Scott, Dr Sturgeon and Indyref Two Gel

      Scott walked into his doctor’s surgery in the town of Essennpee. He was a little anxious but he had been feeling a pain in his right shoulder for some time and thought it best to visit his doctor. Dr. Sturgeon had quite a reputation for treating various ailments in town and was always ready to listen to her patients.

      “If anyone can cure my pain,” thought Scott. “It will be Dr. Sturgeon.”

      Scott then, like all the good townsfolk of Essennpee, felt he could trust Dr. Sturgeon and she would be able to help alleviate his pain.

      “And what seems to be the problem today, Scott?” asked Dr. Sturgeon, when his turn came.

      The good doctor always adopted a very friendly manner and her patients were happy to be called by their first names. This did not diminish in any way from Dr. Sturgeon’s exemplary professional conduct.

      “Well,” replied Scott. “It’s just that I’ve been having this awful pain on my right shoulder. I think part of the affected area is inflamed and is causing me agony on a daily basis. I thought it right to come and see you about it.”

      He grimaced at the doctor. Dr. Sturgeon returned Scott’s smile.

      “Let me see if I can help you,” she said. “Please take off your shirt and I’ll examine you.”

      Scott did as he was asked and Dr. Sturgeon bent down to look at the shoulder. She noticed a large red, white and blue patch on the skin. Dr. Sturgeon frowned.

      “Hmmm. Just as I thought, really”, she said. “You have a very unpleasant case of Unionitis there, Scott. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s of the Mundellis Vulgaris strain. A lot of people are suffering from that at the moment.” She smiled, almost wistfully. “Too many, in fact.”

      “I’ve heard of that,” said Scott. He paused. “Is there any cure?” he added fearfully.

      “Unionitis is a strong and persistent condition,” replied Dr. Sturgeon. “I’ve seen it in many of my patients and in some cases it can indeed prove to be intractable. I’m sure you’re familiar with our neighbouring town of Larkhall?”

      Scott nodded. Larkhall had a reputation and any sensible inhabitant of Essennpee always gave the place a wide berth. Not for nothing was it known as “Orange County.”

      “I’ve seen patients from there – and even beyond. They’re suffering from a particularly bad strain of Unionitis,” went on Dr. Sturgeon solemnly. “In fact, some are absolutely covered in a malignant blue rash. This form of Unionitis, which we in the medical profession have identified as being of the R. Davidsonii variety, is particularly worrisome. It is also an awful irritant to those suffering from it. Sometimes, it is so ingrained nothing works to remove it.”

      She was silent for a while and the tension in the room bore down heavily on Scott.

      “But what about me?” he asked nervously.

      “Well, your case of Unionitis is not so well-advanced,” replied Dr. Sturgeon. I’m pleased to tell you that I can prescribe something for you.” She was smiling.

      Scott couldn’t resist returning her smile and sighing a deep sigh of relief.

      “Oh, thank you. Thank you, Dr. Sturgeon!” he gushed. “What are you going to prescribe?”

      “I have the very thing,” smiled the doctor.

      She wrote on her prescription pad. Then she handed the paper to Scott.

      “I’m recommending that you apply this Indyref Two Gel to the affected areas. Apply it first thing in the morning and last thing at night. I can assure you that Indyref Two Gel will work wonders on your Unionitis and that the irritation will clear up in a pretty short time. The pain will also go and you will be left with unblemished skin when the red, white and blue stain disappears.”

      Scott couldn’t thank Dr. Sturgeon enough.

      “You’ve made my day, doctor,” he beamed. “I’m going to the nearest pharmacy as soon as possible to get my prescription and apply Indyref Two Gel to my affected areas. You really are a marvellous doctor! I’m going to recommend you to all my friends, too!”

      “And thank you, Scott for your confidence in me,” replied Dr. Sturgeon. “But you see, it’s not really me,” she added modestly. “It was really down to you coming to see me about your painful affliction. I am, as a doctor, only a facilitator in helping my patients get over their aches and pains.”

      “I can’t thank you enough though, doctor.” Scott smiled. “I want to get over this Unionitis as soon as possible – and I’m sure the good citizens of Essennpee do too. No more Mundellis Vulgaris! You can keep your R. Davidsonii! Oh, what a wonderful day that will be!”

      “Go forth, my friend,” smiled Dr. Sturgeon. “Go, and tell your fellow citizens suffering from Unionitis that they too can be free of it by applying Indyref Two Gel to their afflicted areas. Tell them that as you will feel far better as a result of taking it, that they can too. Face the future with confidence without pain, rashes and nasty irritants.”

      “You can be sure I will,” replied Scott, beaming from ear to ear.

      And with that, he strolled out of Dr. Sturgeon’s surgery into the sunshine.


      Parables for the New Politics

    225. CameronB Brodie says:

      Am I becoming predictable? 🙂

      Post-neoliberalism and the politics of sovereignty

      The crisis of neoliberal globalisation has made the issue of sovereignty the centre of contemporary political discourse. If the Left is to conquer post-neoliberal hegemony it has to construct a progressive view of sovereignty.

      N.B. The progressive view of sovereignty is that it is embodied in the individual. Britain is simply stuck the clutches of a medievalist mafia and kept dumb by far-right media tycoons. British nationalism denies the Scots public “distributive justice” and access to their “Right to Development”. British nationalism is not compatible with the principle of universal human rights.

    226. Phronesis says:

      Scotland know your rights- these are hard won;

      Scotland is not sick of referendums- only referendums where Scotland,the country, is treated as a colony, protectorate, suburb of Lincoln to be exploited and controlled by those representatives of a feudal class system. More of the same dimensions of power – unevenness and exclusion. If Farage and Widdicombe (dearie me) are the answers to your difficulties then you are indeed opting for more of the same- the ghettoization of whole strata of citizens.

      Scotland’s ideological emancipation is a collective imagining of social change, working diligently towards that. The kindest act of mercy for a WM parliamentary system at the end of its life is that Scotland exits with a clean break, takes its independence and let what’s left of rUK to journey on without Scotland.

      “What do [nations] lack to be free? What? The very desire to be so. Do not ask me to analyze this sublime desire, it must be felt… One must give up on making this comprehensible to mediocre souls who have never felt it.”
      — Alexis de Tocqueville

    227. jfngw says:

      I don’t see myself as a Cybernat, more a Yoon Whisperer.

    228. Polscot says:

      OK, time to let rip on who qualifies to be a Scot. I left Scotland 20 years ago to make my way in the world and settled in an EU country. I do not pay tax in Scotland, I pay tax in the country where I have my home and family. I visit Scotland on occasion with my family to visit friends and other family members, therefore I am a visitor when I visit the country of my birth. I consider myself a fully-qualified Scottish person.

      My children were born in my country of residence, they have dual nationality and consider themselves to be Scots as well as Polish. They are equally proud of their Scottish and Polish heritage and enjoy sharing their lives and their interests with their cousins in Scotland on their Instagram posts and pages. They are also planning to study in Scotland when and if the circumstances allow.

      I have a close friend here in my country of residence who was born in England to Scottish parents. I have been with him to many pubs here in Warsaw to watch and support Scotland in six nations rugby games and we were also present in the National Stadium supporting the Scottish football team when we played against Poland.

      No one can tell me I am not Scottish because I don’t reside in Scotland and don’t pay tax in Scotland. No one can tell me my kids are not Scottish because I don’t reside and don’t pay tax in Scotland. No one can me that my friend, born in England to Scottish parents, is not Scottish because he doesn’t pay tax in Scotland and lives in Poland with his wife and family. We are all Scottish.

      Being Scots is not a sole preserve of those who live, work and pay tax in Scotland. How much tax is required to be paid in Scotland and over what time period to qualify as Scots anyway? There are many of us Scots who have emigrated and have families who are proud of their Scottish heritage and we will and do call ourselves Scots. When the passports are issued following independence, we will be first in line to apply for Scottish passports.

    229. Orri says:

      The SNP and the unionist parties are well aware that the people of Scotland are sovereign.

      That’s why the SNP are nailing down what that means and the process for asking what they want.

      That’s why the unionists will throw everything they can at preventing a framework being created that removes their ability to silence us.

      Make no mistake about what’s going on. The only way they can prevent indyref2 is to nip in the bud the groundwork for it. If they don’t then an S30 becomes academic as in the case of independence, or any thing else for that matter, the SNP will be bypassing Westminster and referring to a higher authority namely the very source of any claim to sovereignty our elected representatives have in Scotland namely its people.

      Unfortunately the optics on that one are bad enough that the attempt may very well push independence over the finishing line. It’d also be contrary to the UK’s commitment to the U.N. Charter regarding self determination in that there’s no such thing if permission to exercise it must be sought from another body.

    230. CameronB Brodie says:

      Talking of Tocqueville, time for some International Legal Theory?

      To what extent does international law challenge state sovereignty?

      International law is constructed on the notion of state; however the state is based on the core principle of sovereignty, which can be referred to as “the supreme power over a body politic or autonomy from external control”.

      If we look upon the idea of state sovereignty, it is as old as the concept of state itself. International law is the product of excessive cooperation between the sovereign states. This development has been made possible after years of collaboration between states. For example: the European union allows the states to proclaim sovereignty in certain ways: determined opposition to the construction of a customary rule of international law; nuclear hazard in a world of overall embargo of the use of force; and above all, the unaffected notion of territorial sovereignty.

      On the other hand the development of international law has conceptually challenged the idea of state sovereignty, causing a state of tension between both paradigms. Some political analysts suggest that sovereignty is being eroded by the aspect of growing international system.

    231. Orri says:

      For purposes of referenda an important part is the willingness, regardless of ability, to pay taxes. No Taxation Without Representation leads to No Representation Without Taxation. This not a Poll Tax as there’s no payment required in addition to what your earnings would entail.

      The issuing of Scottish Tax Codes has made implementation far easier. It’d cut down on postal votes from out with Scotland.

    232. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Phronesis says:

      “… One must give up on making this comprehensible to mediocre souls who have never felt it.”
      — Alexis de Tocqueville

      … or how can you tell when a man wearing a kilt is a Unionist?

      He won’t be wearing any balls underneath!

    233. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Scot Finlayson (8.59) and galamcennalath (9.42) –

      Great comments, and thanks for highlighting a really basic fact that many either don’t acknowledge or cannot get their heads around i.e. that the majority of these privately-schooled characters are profoundly damaged, psychologically. And it’s deliberate.

      One of the best ways for normal people to try and get a handle on their mind-set is to read the work of John le Carre. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is more about repressed/thwarted sexuality than espionage.

      The breeding of these sociopaths was required when there was a vast empire to manage. (Scotland specialised in supplying plenty of meenisters to send forth with the ‘Good News’) Now that there is no ’empire’ to speak of, we shouldn’t require them, but the families involved – represented by ‘The Firm’ – have become accustomed to the kudos and cash and won’t lightly surrender their status because of some malcontents north of the border.

    234. @galamcennalath,

      and yet they (knowing the bullying,abuse and psychological trauma) send their own poor wee souls into the English/UK public school system,

      fricken sickening,


      @CameronB Brodie,

      `that Aristotle was a right back-to-front.`

      absolutely no idea what that means.

    235. Capella says:

      @ galamcennalath – well it is obvious that such damaged individuals (public i.e. private school boys and girls) should be barred from public office. That would save us a lot of grief.

    236. schrodingers cat says:

      Robert Peffers says:
      2 June, 2019 at 8:44 pm
      @Brian Doonthetoon says: 2 June, 2019 at 7:50 pm:

      ” … The SNP did NOT have in their manifesto for the 2015 GE, any mention of a majority of seats (or votes) giving them a mandate to immediately start independence negotiations or the right to dissolve the Treaty of Union.”

      It MUST be in a manifesto so people know what they’re voting for. Otherwise, you are throwing democracy in the recycle bin

      from 2015 till now, the snp has stood on manifestos which specifically did not have the goal of independence, indeed it was reiterated frequently by the SNP that a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence

      the time has come for this to change, a GE is coming and independence must become the only thing on an SNP manifesto

      bollox to britain,

      vote YESNP for an independent scotland.

      nothing else

    237. robbo says:

      Jist watched debate night .Only fool not to debate apart from Snp bad and indy was guess,your resident arse from Stirling. Whats wrong with Stirling folk that they would vote in an absolute zummer like him as MP Jist don’t get it??????.

      Every time i hear that man its SNP bad- he has no respect for his country. It doesn’t matter what debate is its always snpbad. A twat and a cunt of a man.

    238. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’m sorry if you felt my explanation of popular sovereignty made you feel excluded from your Scottish heritage. That was not my intention.

      Sovereignty, Human Rights, and Self-Determination:
      The Meaning of International Law


      This Essay contends that popular sovereignty and the other rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) are inextricably linked. When popular sovereignty is criticized, what will become of the other rights?

      The principal goal of this Essay, then, is to examine the concept of sovereignty as it relates to the practice and protection of human rights issues grounded in international law. This examination should reveal the existence of more than one kind of sovereignty: that of the State and that of the people (the nation or nations).

      This Essay’s goal is to demonstrate that a State is not the sole possessor of sovereignty under international and domestic law. To be properly understood within the framework of international law, sovereignty is a compound doctrine that is best understood by examining the relationship between the sovereignty of a State and the sovereignty of peoples, i.e., the sovereignty of nations.

      While a sovereignty-exercising State can be a totalitarian regime, it can also be a democratic one in which the sovereignty of the people confers and controls the sovereignty of the State. And, these people exercise their sovereignty in the implementation of their basic human rights.

      Unfortunately, as this Essay shall demonstrate, the sovereignty of peoples is being challenged in a particular exercise of “human rights” that disregards and compromises the role of families in rearing their children-a subject with which the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic Social, and Cultural Rights are concerned.

    239. CameronB Brodie says:

      Some ethics to highlight how the full-English Brexit is an exercise in totalitarian despotism.

      Human rights and democracy in a global context: decoupling and recoupling

    240. CameronB Brodie says:

      Scot Finlayson
      An attempt at humour, that’s my excuse anyway, 😉

    241. Petra says:

      IndyRef2 Gel Welsh Sion? Good one and free on prescription in Scotland of course. The ideal remedy, tried and tested, for getting rid of the “Cringe”, which is a most debilitating condition normally passed on from one generation to another in Scotland. Difficult to get rid of but not impossible. Symptoms include an abnormal stance, poor eye contact, depression, anxiety, confused or cloudy thinking, a severe lack of confidence / self esteem and the holding of a strange belief system. A week of applying the gel however will see your stance improve with you getting off of your knees. Week 2 results in your cap being thrown in the bin which with you now standing upright and with no cap obscuring your eyes leads to you being enabled to look others straight in the eye. Week 3 will see your depression and anxiety lift. Week 4 will result in your head clearing and following advice from others who have taken the Gel to visit the Wings over Scotland site. Week 5 will see your blood pressure rising and you feeling really irritable, even extremely angry, but don’t be deterred from using the IndyRef2 gel. The setback in relation to your health, as you see it, means that you are beginning to see the light. Week 6 results in you feeling extremely confident due to your newfound knowledge. Week 7 sees you shedding your old (Westminster, Establishment, MSM) belief system. Week 8 leads to you becoming an Independence activist and from then on you’ve joined the club: One that will lead to Scotland becoming a free Nation again. A feeling of happiness or even euphoria will now kick in. What a Gel, what a cure and more than anything, with the nasty symptoms now gone, you can clearly see that a brilliant future lies ahead. IndyRef2 Gel is therefore deemed to be a miracle cure which you should absolutely recommend to family members and friends, strangers even. And a wee bit of a promotion on here now. IndyRef1 Gel is now available in Wales and don’t forget that you heard the news on here first. Wings over Scotland that is. Next up Wings over Wales. Flying off, up and away from the despicable “Union” together. Roll on.


      Wow, BBC1 actually broadcast a great one hour programme on our female National football team. And what a team! Fabulous players and alround decent girls whom we should feel extremely proud of. Made it to the World Cup. Let’s all get behind them.

    242. Cubby says:

      Terry Callachan@1st June 9.06am

      “What do you think”

      I’ll tell you what I think Terry old boy. You are an English hating racist who is a phoney independence supporter who cannot answer questions put to him but disappears and then reappears a few threads later hoping everyone has forgotten he couldn’t answer the questions.

      You are a Britnat tosser Terry old boy.

    243. Petra says:

      Another great article from WGD:-

      ‘Vileness in waiting.’

    244. Petra says:

      Professor John Robertson:- ‘The Prospectus for an Independent Scotland from the Centre for Scottish Constitutional Studies.’

      And the rest. Well worth a read.

    245. Petra says:

      Oh well off to bed for me now. An early night, lol. Last post.

      Craig Murray:- ‘The incredible disappearance of Shai Masot.’

    246. Mac says:

      @Polscot 10:42

      Of course you are Scottish. You were born in Scotland. I cannot imagine anyone is arguing with you?

      Had your parents been born in Scotland, you’d been born in Timbuktu, you’d still be entitled to a Scottish heritage and passport.

      Interestingly, whether you like it or not ALL people born in Scotland would be entitled to a British Passport as well as a Scots passport. This is fact.

      So I wouldn’t be too worried about your heritage. Or that of your friends. There are international rules that ensure your entitlement to the land of your birth or forefathers.

    247. Breeks says:

      Petra says:
      3 June, 2019 at 2:12 am
      WGD:- ‘The Brexit Party and Jeremy and the C word.’

      Was that a genuine gaff, or a disgruntled script writer showing how easily they could get Jeremy Hunt to mention Culloden in a speech meant to woo the Scots?

      I honestly can’t decide if it’s the work of a complete roaster, or a satirical genius.

    248. Robert Louis says:

      Schrodinger cat at 1156pm,

      I totally agree. Any forthcoming GE MUST have independence as first and foremost in the manifesto. Not wishy washy terms like “we’ll ask to be allowed a referendum”, but a simple majority of pro independence MP’s elected.

      I have in the past seen some folks say, it needs to be a majority vote, but of course that is NOT how the government of the UK is determined. Westminster is determined by number of seats. You can of course argue that such a system is wrong and archaic, but that is the current system, so that is what will be used. This will start with the ending of the existing union treaty on day one. The process will then begin to re-assert Scotland’s full independence.

      Besides, all my life, until very recently, it was common knowledge in Scotland, that if we wanted to be independent, all we had to do was elect a majority of pro indy MP’s. It was the SNP (and not Westminster) who said they needed a referendum.

      Things are getting worse in England, and I honestly would no longer be surprised if England elected Farage as PM. Time for Scotland to get out of this nonsense AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

    249. Dorothy Devine says:

      Petra , I watched BBBC Alba on Rose Riley and the team trying to get recognition in Scotland. She ended up playing in France and Italy , bringing the women’s game in Italy to a successful win of the world cup.

      It was a superb programme and the ladies involved were equally superb .But what a wonderful example of determination and grit was Rose Riley , a fabulous lady indeed.

    250. Ken500 says:

      It is impossible to organise a poll with all people of Scottish heritage. A 40million diaspora. Where do you start or finish. A Scots/Euro passport should cover it. Ie free movement. Scotland has been depopulated by Westminster economic policies. Monies taken from Scotland and spent in London S/E. £Billions of Oil revenues wasted on illegal wars, financial fraud and tax evasion.

      The population in Scotland has hardly changed since 1900. The historical Clearances etc. It has only increased since the year 2000 Devolution. There are reports people are no longer coming from the EU. Scotland needs migrants to work in the healthcare system, farming, fishing etc. Brexit destroying the Scottish economy.

      In the rest of the UK migrants coming are only 50,000. Less now coming from the EU and more from Asia. The Tories include foreign students in the numbers. They are self funded and go home after studying. They bring economic benefits. The Tories are fiddling the figures. To cause the Brexit mess.

      The reason why more migrants are coming to Europe is because of the Westminster illegal wars. . The UK/US have caused the migrant crisis. EU counties have to clear up the mess. It costs them £Billions.

      The Tories are toast. The Brexit mess. The LibDem/Condem liars. Facilitated the Brexit mess.

      Just vote SNP/SNP. Vote for Independence. Do the world a favour.

      People are fed up with the trans nonsense on the twitter thread. There is no need for it. Wings is supposed to be about Independence. Not people genitals.

    251. Ken500 says:

      The best time to have an IndyRef is when it can be won. 2020. It is not the SNP fault people went out and voted Tory. It was some of the electorate. They voted Tory. They were warned and warned. Some people never learn. Labour reps illegally telling people to vote Tory.

    252. Robert Louis says:

      Hard to believe the nonsense coming out of SKY ‘news’ this morning.

      Their female so-called ‘journalist’ enthusiastically telling us that since the leadership of the Tory party is underway, this state visit by TRUMP is an unprecedented opportunity for TRUMP to influence who is the next Tory leader and Prime Minister.

      Just think about that, then let me re-phrase it for another world leader.

      Their female so-called ‘journalist’ enthusiastically telling us that since the leadership of the Tory party is underway, this state visit by PUTIN is an unprecedented opportunity for PUTIN to influence who is the next Tory leader and Prime Minister.

      Given the accusations of Russian influence on their selection of president in the USA, it is ironic to hear SKY ‘news’ cooing about TRUMP openly influencing who the next PM of the UK is.

      Quite, quite surreal. Do these so-called ‘journalists’ employed by the likes of SKY ‘news’ even realise what they are saying???

      For the first time in my life, I actually feel sorry for auld Lizzie saxe coburg, being forced to meet again with this racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, thick clown called TRUMP. The ‘man’ is an odious, thick as mince, w*****.

    253. Petra says:

      @ Breeks says at 6:53am ……”Hunt.”

      What a cracker, eh! I reckon it may be down to a disgruntled script writer, Breeks. Now out of a job, lol, but well worth it. Meanwhile as we can see Hunt is not on a par with the Adam Smith’s of the World.


      @ Dorothy says at 7:30am .. .”Rose Riley.”

      I didn’t manage to see that programme Dorothy. I hadn’t even heard of her previously …. “blushing.” Amazing don’t you think that Scotland is chockablock with such talent, people that we rarely hear about. I’m hoping that this will change when we get our Independence and our own broadcaster. When that comes to pass the “cringe” could be lifted overnight for some. Gobsmacked right enough that the BBC broadcast these programmes last night. Maybe realising that the Scots have had enough of suppression of relevant info and that loss of £340million a year will impact on their bonuses and perks.


      Trump the nutter is seemingly arriving in the UK, at 9:00am with his wife, costing us all £18 million. His weans and their spouses are in London already. Making a meal of it while advising Big T in advance of what to do next, such as giving Farage a job. You couldnae make this stuff up.

    254. Dorothy Devine says:

      Petra , you may be able to see it on catch up on BBBC Alpha Bravo Alpha – as opposed to ‘Caesar’!

      Well worth seeing for all .

    255. Abulhaq says:

      Is Trump here checking the Brits will be onboard for his proposed war with Iran?
      Having sorted Somaliland, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria? We gotta get those nasty ayatollah guys, kinda stuff…
      During the slow and in some respects regrettable decline of the Ottoman empire ‘the West’, England in particular, has interfered in the Near East, dividing and destablizing with its many ‘lines in the sand’ and the imperial legatee continues the work of the regional great game.
      I would pray that the foreign policy of an independent Scotland would run counter to this blood drenched neo-imperialism. If we must have lines in the sand let them be between ourselves and the global ‘hegemonists’.

    256. Ken500 says:

      Trump is ignorant on EU policies. At least Trump has not started a 111WW yet. Like the rest of them. Trump tries to talk with Russia, North Korea etc.

      The Russian saved the West in the 11WW. 26millions Russians died. The British/European Royals caused the 1WW. Victoria’s grandchildren. Inbred cousins married cousins. The ‘divine right to rule’.The Royals engage in illegal wars killing other people’s mothers. They cause mental health problems. Illegal austerity has killed 130,000.

      Boris Johnstone would not be PM for long because of all the lies and skeletons in the cupboard. A habitual liar. Murdoch even sacked him for telling lies. An imbecile. The Tories will prevent him being PM.

    257. IZZIE says:

      O/T Bit of a slip from Nicky Campbell on 5 Live when referring to Jeremy Hunt. I have a feeling broadcasters are praying he doesn’t become Prime Minister.

    258. Ken500 says:

      Adam Smith – The Wealth of Nations Is just a book suggesting people should work and save a bit for later. It is just a simple theory. Taken totally out of context. A bit like the Communist Manifesto.

    259. Iain mhor says:

      @mac 3:41am
      Not quite sure there are a simple set of rules for that.
      Being born in a country, does not automatically qualify you for citizenship of that country, in very many places.
      It seems to be purely dependent on each individual country’s policy; but, more often than not, residency and citizenship of parents over the birthplace of a child is the defining factor.

      Certainly there’s nothing to stop an Indy Scotland adopting a ‘free policy’ of citizenship though – like the fitba – if ye can find a Scottish granny and all that…

    260. galamcennalath says:

      A new week begins and who will do the most to promote Scottish independence this week?

      Chances are they will be Tories. Last week we had Javid making proclaimations on Scotland’s future, then Hunt referring to a mispronounced Culloden in total ignorance of it’s historical meaning.

      Who will put their foot in it this week?

      Makes you believe buffoon-in-chief Johnson could be a real asset to the Indy cause.

    261. Mac says:

      @Iain 0923

      Not quite sure there are a simple set of rules for that.
      Being born in a country, does not automatically qualify you for citizenship of that country, in very many places.

      Iain, I wont argue that the rules are not simple overall, nor is every country the same.

      Never-the-less, there is a framework under International Human Rights that guarantees individuals the right to a state. In the UK you are entitled to citizenship if your parents are settled here and you are born here.

      In addition, it is enshrined in Human Rights that just because you live in an Independent Scotland doesn’t mean you lose your UK passport either. It is a fact. And confirmed unnecessarily by UK border control.

    262. Clootie says:

      Boris is being kept very quiet. They obviously don’t want to spoil his chances by letting him speak.

    263. Clootie says:

      It appears that some parts of the Empire were more equal than other!

      The Balfour Declaration of 1926, issued by the 1926 Imperial Conference of British Empire leaders in London, was named after Lord President of the Council (and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) Arthur Balfour. It declared the United Kingdom and the Dominions to be:

      … autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

    264. Terry callachan says:

      To polscot your post at 1042hrs 2nd June

      I agree with all that you said.

      Paying tax has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with nationality , worldwide, there is not a country in the world that uses the payment of tax to decide nationality.

      Unfortunately there has been an effort by some on this site to exclude and guarantee inclusion to the right to vote on Scottish independence based on whether or not a person pays tax in Scotland.
      Silly souls but I think their reasoning is probably a misunderstanding of taxation and of nationality.
      I do not profess to be an expert on either but I have worked for H.M. Inland revenue and H.M.Passport office so I know a bit about both.

      Nationality is well defined across the world, it has to be for obvious reasons, all entitlements to vote in ELECTIONS in UK define very clearly who is allowed to vote and who is not allowed to vote and being a taxpayer is irrelevant in all elections in UK..

      Referendums are a bit different because they are only advisory and government is not obliged to carry out whatever is decided in referendums ,we are seeing an example of that right now with the brexit referendum but even in referendums you will never ever see a requirement to pay tax as a qualification to vote.

      The electoral commission play a role in how referendums are conducted and one of them is to ensure that people are not excluded incorrectly but there are always people who are excluded for valid reasons.
      Recently Holyrood passed a referendum bill that contains details about who is allowed to vote and who is not allowed to vote.

      I hope very much it is a Scottish passport you apply for next time you renew your passport.
      All the best.

    265. Dan says:

      I see the Hair Farce Wan huz landed.
      Seems an ideal day to spend outside, away from the inevitable fawning shitefest that the UK media will be broadcasting.

      So for health reasons head to the hills for a walk, or lookout your earplugs and fire up some power tools to ensure you’re out of earshot from the buffoon’s mindnumbing warblings.
      If you unexpectedly find yourself caught in the close proximity of an orange doofus, it is believed milkshake makes a good repellent.

    266. Iain mhor says:

      @Mac 9:41

      Not quite sure Human rights are quite as specific as that, but they do lay down provisions about statelessness, the revoking of nationality and the like.
      The UK has a very complicated set of citizenship laws (primarly due to its Imperial past) but yes, pretty much holding another citizenship does not automatically revoke UK citizenship.

      The topic has led me to the concepts of ‘jus sanguinis, jus soli and leges sanguinis’ (loosely right of blood/soil/lawful blood) Interesting stuff, especially when applied to that vexing phrase “blood & soil nationalism. That phrase is somewhat an oxymoron and straw man – most countries lawfully operate a form of one or the other, sometimes both. Occasionally a state will give “leges sanguinus’ – which is basically: “Ach we’ve decided to legally confer ‘right by blood’ upon you” Something like that might apply to returning diasporas for Scotland, in a similar fashion as some other countries use the principle.

      Every day is an education on here, if one takes the time to engage. Ta.

    267. Breeks says:

      Be interesting to see if MacDonalds are doing the catering for the Prez.

      Oh God, did I say interesting? I’m going to have to shut my fingers in a drawer a couple of times now.

    268. mike cassidy says:

      Even the BBC’s Douglas Fraser is beginning to get it.

      Holyrood tax: the devil’s in the data

      Or, as Richard Murphy puts it

      Scotland is being shafted by dodgy data from Westminster

      “Scotland is being reduced to the economic status of the giant local authority, but will be blamed for failure to deliver core services that are way beyond those that any local authority is required to supply in the UK, and which are absolutely core to the very well-being of the people of the country “

    269. Sarah says:

      55 minutes left to drop some cash into Dumfries & Galloways Indy hub on Crowdfunder. They are on £2900 and need at least £4000 to buy the van they need as a mobile billboard/pop up stall etc.

    270. Robert Peffers says:

      @Polscot says:2 June, 2019 at 10:42 pm:

      ” … OK, time to let rip on who qualifies to be a Scot.”

      You can let rip as much as you like but you are way down a blind ally.

      You confuse being, “a Scot”, with being, “one of the people of Scotland”.

      My entire immediate family, except for my wife, children and myself, left for Australia in 1962. My mother, father, sister and her children became part of the people of Australia and mother and father are now part of the soil of Australia and my sister, her children and their children’s children are all part of the people of Australia. They remain, though, of proud Scottish descent.

      I, and my family are part of the people of Scotland as are my near neighbours who, one and all are proudly of French decent but are also, very proudly, part of the people of Scotland.

      Got it now, Polscot?

      I already posted the definition learned long ago of what are, “The People of Scotland”, and it has absolutely nothing to do with where they were born or where their parents were born.

      “Anyone, of any colour, creed or country of origin who is mainly resident in Scotland, pays tax as a Scot and is registered to vote in Scottish elections”, is one of the people of Scotland.

      By the way a Scot is anyone, no matter where they are born or live, who identifies as Scottish. I have family and friends all over the World who identify as Scottish. Thing is, unless they qualify as, “One of the people of Scotland”, they get to vote in the country they live in but not in Scotland because they ate Scots but not one of the people of Scotland.

      Hope that clears it up for you. As an aside, if we gave a vote to all who identify as Scots we wouldn’t be able to count the votes in under a decade. Good grief I had six cousins, all married and with children, who emigrated, mainly to Canada, in the 1960s. I got a letter from one cousin, soon after he and his family arrived in Alberta. In it he was delighted to say that the area he lived in, “Were all Scottish”, but in subsequent letters it turned out most of those, “Scots Canadians”, had never set foot on Scottish soil.

      So there you go. It is a case of confused terminology.

    271. Dr Jim says:

      Scotland, the country where Unionists complain about the government in England by blaming the Government in Scotland for not mitigating the effects of the Government in England that they voted for

      England, the country that keeps over 40% of Scotlands income then tells Scotland their parliament is the most powerful devolved parliament in the world

      England, the country that borrows money decides what it’s spent on then assigns a portion of that borrowed debt to Scotland even if the money’s not spent in Scotland

      The EU UK wide vote that never was, was a population vote of the British isles where if England had voted for a pop up cartoon character sookin a lolly it would still have won by weight of population
      Even if the population of Wales had voted against Brexit by the opposite percentage they voted in favour the UK would still be exiting the EU

      Esther McVey, There’s a serious risk that people mistake this woman as a politician and forget her career peaked as a childrens entertainer in around 1991 and her political life has been one of failure in every position she’s ever had leading to sackings from each department in which she’s served
      A friend of Anne Widdicombe and believer in the same things such as *cures* for *different* people such as LGBGT, legislation to which she voted against
      Esther McVey has been found guilty of contravening rules of parliament on several occasions, there was even a lynch Esther McVey campaign at one time because her behaviour was so ridiculous

      So how is it possible Esther McVey is still in any kind of post in the UK parliament when the rules have clearly stated she should have been gone a very long time ago

      Who does Esther McVey know?

      That’s the most polite way I can describe it

    272. Robert Peffers says:

      @schrodingers cat says: 2 June, 2019 at 11:56 pm

      ” … It MUST be in a manifesto so people know what they’re voting for. Otherwise, you are throwing democracy in the recycle bin”

      Well not exactly, schrodingers cat, The SNP were, as usual, at least one jump ahead on that matter and had thought it out long, long ago.

      The formation of the SNP in 1934 by the amalgamation of the then two existing registered political parties in Scotland that both had as their raison d’être Scottish independence must always carry, by implication, that any vote for the SNP is a vote for independence.

      Which is the thinking behind the SNP SG doing its level best to be head and shoulders above all the unionist parties running everything from local councils to being the party in power at Holyrood and the largest party by far at Westminster.

      So they can always argue the point both ways to suit the immediate problem.
      from 2015 till now, the snp has stood on manifestos which specifically did not have the goal of independence, indeed it was reiterated frequently by the SNP that a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence
      the time has come for this to change, a GE is coming and independence must become the only thing on an SNP manifesto
      bollox to britain,
      vote YESNP for an independent scotland.
      nothing else

    273. Robert Peffers says:

      @robbo says: 2 June, 2019 at 11:59 pm:

      ” … It doesn’t matter what debate is its always snpbad. A twat and a cunt of a man.”

      Ah! robbo, you’re jist no getting the psychology behind all this.

      Have you never wondered why the SNP don’t do what you are doing in this post, calling out the opposition’s SNP Bad mantra?

      The psychology is that after a bit the public, that’s the voters, begin to get the message? Thing is the message that the majority of the voters get is exactly the same one you show here in your comment.

      They realise that the never ending SNP bad mantra from such people just isn’t true and that’s another unionist vote lost.

      Then, of course, the unionists step up their SNP bad attacks and the public becomes even more of what is going on. This is why the dead tree press is dying on its feet and the TV & radio channels are slowly losing people to social media on the internet.

      These overblown attacks become self defeating quite quickly.

    274. Skintybroko says:

      Am feeling so sorry for Chris, only Monday and already he has a plethora of subjects for his next toon – how will he choose from such a spectacularly good selection of pure fuckwittery

    275. Welsh Sion says:

      Thanks for your support as always, Petra. And also for inspiring you to a follow-up. Indeed, look forward to IndyRef1 being available at Price’s the Pharmacist very soon!

    276. CameronB Brodie says:

      re. Human rights. Right-wing extremists would have you believe the legal-scientific perspective is intrinsically Marxist in nature and leads to totalitarianism. Well, here’s one from The Heritage Foundation, a well-known right-wing think-tank in the USA. These dudes are no friends of socialism.

      From Natural Rights to Human Rights-And Beyond

      The Antidiscrimination Principle: A Preliminary

      The United Nations’ commitment to the antidiscrimination principle appears first in Chapter 1 of the U.N. Charter, declaring the organization’s purpose to promote and encourage “respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” That directive quickly hardened into a specific right, articulated in Article 2 of the UDHR: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind.”77

      It may seem a simple principle: Equal rights for all, based on our common humanity. Yet the antidiscrimination principle is fraught with difficult questions, the most important of which, for the present purpose of elucidating third-generation rights claims, can be framed in general terms as follows:

      – Which groups or sorts of groups are to be designated
      for protection against unjust discrimination?

      – What sorts of actions, committed by what sorts of actors, encroaching upon what specific rights or liberties and inflicting what sorts of harms, constitute unjust discrimination?

      – What are the proper remedies for unjust discrimination,
      and what specific measures are required to enforce them?

    277. Terry callachan says:

      To Robert peffers your post of 1143 3rd June

      I can’t speak for your family members in Australia it’s their decision to decide what nationality they wish to be , of course they can have dual citizenship ( nationality).

      the UK allows Australian citizens who do not also hold a British passport to enter UK to visit as tourists for up to six months you can even come to work in UK for up to five years provided you have a close relative parent brother sister grandparent who is a uk citizen .

      Australia will only allow you entry to Australia without a visa if using an Australian passport and that applies to UK citizens with dual nationality too.

      Your post to polscot is of course completely wrong
      “Scot” and “one of the people of Scotland” are two terms that have no bearing whatsoever on nationality or entitlement to a visa they are terms that are more confusing than helpful and can be rather insulting to some people , I’m not sure if your intention was to insult but the way you started your post suggests it was.

      There are many people across the world who are of Scottish descent but are themselves a nationality other than Scottish and there are also many people across the world living in other countries who are still Scottish nationality
      unfortunately( in my view) their passport says British .

      Once again you try to convince people that nationality does not exist or has no importance but you are incorrect nationality is very very important .

      Your last sentence was correct , it was a case of confused terminology but the confusion was on your part.

      Nationality determines who can be in UK short term and long term ,
      being “a Scot” or “a person of Scotland “
      has no relevant meaning when you enter this country only your passport and visa are relevant.

      People already living in UK have certain rights , not all of them are entitled to vote in elections

      just because you are living here in uk or paying tax here in uk does not entitle you to vote in elections

      , you have to be a british , Irish or qualifying commonwealth citizen to vote in uk elections

      To get british citizenship there are qualifying conditions one being that you have to have lived in uk for five years , three years if you are married to or have a civil partnership with a uk citizen then you have to sit a test

      REFERENDUMS in UK have different rules about who can vote in them compared to elections but again there is nothing in those rules whatsoever that says you can vote if you are
      “a Scot” or “a person of Scotland”
      those are terms in your mind, nothing wrong with that unless you are trying to put the point in the way you have to polscot.

      Many people who are Scottish and have a british passport and are living overseas feel annoyed that Scottish independence is being determined without them having a vote,
      Understandable in my view
      But it would be controvertsial to allow everyone who is Scottish and had a british passport and lives overseas to have a vote on Scottish independence because it raises questions about how long they should be allowed to live away or what proportion of their life they should be allowed to live away for and still be able to have a vote .

      Would it be fair for example for a twenty year old born in Scotland and holding a british passport who has lived outside uk for the last nineteen years to have a vote.
      Or a ninety year old who has not been to Scotland for seventy years.

      The other side of the coin is that the Scottish government are actually allowing people to vote in the Scottish independence referendum
      who were not born in Scotland
      Their parents grandparents brothers sisters husbands wives were not born in Scotland
      They in fact have no relatives who are Scottish
      They do not hold a british passport
      Are not british citizens
      Do not pay tax in Scotland
      Do not work in Scotland
      Etc etc etc

      The only qualifying condition is that they are living here

      For sure I can see why Scottish people living outside Scotland perhaps just for a year , are annoyed that they are not allowed to vote

      There is no practical answer that pleases everyone

      Personally I would have preferred proof of at least five year residence in Scotland
      However , it may be that not having a five year residence requirement provides more votes in favour of Scottish independence. . ? Who knows
      The Scottish government won’t even know this for sure

    278. Dan says:

      Re. Defining The People of Scotland.
      Maybe only people living in Scotland who Self ID as Scottish should get a say in determining Scotland’s future…

      If you don’t want to ID as one of The People of Scotland, then you’re not. Simples.

    279. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Robert Peffers @ 11:50 (02.Jun),

      You don’t seem to have understood what I was fundamentally getting at. I was not referring-to the SG at all, so I don’t know why you brought that up. It has plenty enough to be getting on with, what with Brexit and the continuing “day job”.

      We all know that it’s a turning of the tide among the soft-no’s and undecideds that will create the necessary tipping point. The work of the SNP and the SG is undisputably the prime component of that effort, but I’m sure that they would be as glad as anyone of whatever helpful assistance is available from any other quarter, including alternative forms of raising public awareness. The AUOB marches are but one example.

      Another method as yet sadly neglected, IMO, is comedy. When people start to laugh at the performance of a government, it’s all over politically, and the current ongoing farce of a UKGov is just asking for a generous dose of satire and mockery.

      Another potential route worth considering must surely be the constitutionl one. Gina Miller sent a metaphorical Exocet into the plans and reputation of the UKGov, as well evidenced by the ballistic over-reaction of the Leaver tabloids. She had the advantage of some well-heeled support, I expect, but she was still willing to give it a go. Here in Scotland we have been significantly more traduced, yet so far at least we don’t seem to have anything like the same gumption. (The present site excepted.) Why not? Why should we be expecting the SG to do it all?

      The constitutional issue, if pursued with vigour, has the potential to wake people up to the realities of our predicament, and provide a useful antidote to the “impotent” argument used to sustain the BritNats’ last hope: voter disengagement and disllusionment. The reverse is what will give us the win, a cause to attract attention, raise the temperature, rally support and create momentum. Theatre.

      I may be wrong. If the constitutional issue isn’t likely to provide the necessary traction, we would then be better served by not wasting time and effort blethering on at length about it, and find other ways to help “put wind in the sails” of our leaders.

      However it may be achieved, give people the feeling that we’re not merely pawns at the mercy of events created by others, but principals well able to create our own events, and on our way to a win. As the old saying goes, “nothing succeeds like success”.

    280. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      mike cassidy @ 09:57 (02.Jun),

      This thread may be “well past its prime” now but I’ll tack this response on anyway, since there’s nowhere else for it to go.

      I find Michael Goodwin a rather dubious figure, personally. He seems to have a singular fascination with the populist right, “Tommy Robinson” and all, that tends to the suspiciously flirtatious rather than the dispassionately academically neutral. Just a whiff of the David Irvings there, methinks.

      That’s not to deny at least some of what he’s saying, though of course he totally ignores the decades-long insidious propaganda effect of right-wing media anti-EU propaganda and a Labour Party attempting to triangulate the impossible but instead only succeeding in validating the isolationist right.

    281. CameronB Brodie says:

      As the British constitution derives its rational legal force from natural law, it really does come as a bit of a foundational shock to my perceived personal security, that minds trained in Scots law can be ambivalent about the full-English Brexit. In particular, the direct assault on the natural law justification of the British constitution.

      Without a defensible legal identity and constitutional rights defined through natural law, individual liberty and well-being is impossible. The British constitution defines such rights but the British constitution is apparently considered optional documentation by the New Right.

      Where is the legal defense of my EU legal personality? Shall we crow-fund one?


      The concept of “natural law” is central to the western tradition of thought about morality, politics, and law. Although the western tradition is not united around a single theoretical account of natural law, its principal architects and leading spokesmen – from Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas to Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther Kinghave shared a fundamental belief that humanly created “positive” law is morally good or bad-just or unjust-depending on its conformity to the standards of a “natural,” (viz., moral) law that is no mere human creation.

      The natural law is, thus, a “higher” law, albeit a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.’ Saint Paul, for example, refers to a law “written on [the] heart[]” which informs the consciences of even the Gentiles who do not have the revealed law of Moses to guide them.2 Many centuries later, Thomas Jefferson appeals to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” in justifying the American Revolution.’

      Most modern commentators agree that the American founders were firm believers in natural law and sought to craft a constitution that would conform to its requirements, as they understood them, and embody its basic principles for the design of a just political order. The framers of the Constitution sought to create institutions and procedures that would afford respect and protection to those basic rights (“natural rights”) that people possess, not as privileges or opportunities granted by the state, but as principles of natural law which it is the moral duty of the state to respect and protect.

      Throughout the Twentieth century, however, a lively debate has existed regarding the question of whether the Constitution incorporates natural law in such a way as to make it a source of judicially enforceable, albeit unwritten, constitutional rights and other guarantees. 4 In my remarks this evening, I will discuss two significant “moments” in this debate: (1) the exchange between majority and dissenting Justices in the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v.
      Connecticut;’ and (2) an important effort by a distinguished constitutional law scholar, the late Edward S. Corwin of Princeton University, to specify, and draw out the implications of, the rootedness of American constitutional law in natural law concepts….

    282. Hugh says:

      Just watched the debate with Jo Swinson and that other bloke on The EBC. She hasn’t got a clue. On Indy Ref 2 her answers were totally untrue. No wonder they are known as the Lying Dems. Nothing changes it seems.

    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

    ↑ Top