The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

To James Kelly MSP, our congratulations

Posted on April 02, 2019 by

So there was a football match at the weekend.

At least three people were stabbed, one very seriously, in violent incidents the likes of which haven’t been seen around Scottish football for years.

But it was probably just a random, unforseeable one-off, right?

Well, no, not so much.

Curiously, though, the primary reason given by David Hamilton of the Scottish Police Federation (in an interview with the BBC’s John Beattie on Monday) for the recent dramatic escalation in bad behaviour at football – which has also seen fans throwing bottles and coins at players and invading the pitch to attack them – didn’t make it into the pages of any of the newspapers which headlined his comments.

So in case you missed it, here’s what he said.

(The John Beattie Show, BBC Radio Scotland, 1 April 2019)

“Personally I believe the repeal of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act has had an impact, because I think that some people feel wrongly legitimised to behave in a way that they wouldn’t otherwise behave.”

Who could ever have imagined, eh readers?

The papers curiously neglected David Hamilton’s view because reporting it might have caused them at least a small pang of conscience over the reckless and negligent way they consistently misrepresented public opinion about the OBFA, a law the Scottish public overwhelmingly supported and believe should never have been abolished.

Not one Scottish newspaper, not even one columnist, spoke up for the views of the Scottish people during the years the Act was in place. Politicians of every opposition party ignored the views of their own voters and of football fans. James Kelly, the man chiefly responsible for repealing it, utterly failed to deliver his promised alternative anti-sectarianism plan last year and hasn’t said a word about it since.

It is perhaps the least surprising occurrence in Scottish history that after the authorities sent two large groups of knuckle-dragging bigot thugs the message that sectarianism was fine again, they reacted by ramping up their hatred.

But it’s an occurrence in which every opposition MSP and every member of the media, along with imbecile bigots like Labour activist Jeanette Findlay, was knowingly complicit, all driven by their own sectarian tribal hatred – in this case of the SNP.

Every one of them has blood on their hands today. We can only hope that they don’t also have to answer for a funeral.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 02 04 19 14:56

      To James Kelly MSP, our congratulations | speymouth

    571 to “To James Kelly MSP, our congratulations”

    1. handclapping says:

      But it was one in the eye for the SNP so thats allright then

    2. Robert Louis says:

      And let’s NEVER forget the Scottish greens, who also joined in with the other clowns in voting down the legislation.

      I do hope Patrick Harvie is overjoyed with the well predicted results. This was bound to happen. Patrick was told over and over again, but his ‘principles’ meant he had to vote down the OBFA, regardless of the damage caused.

      Slow handclap for Patrick Harvie and his oh so important ‘principles’, the Scottish green party and the various other imbeciles in Labour, libdems and Tories who fought hard to allow football sectarianism and violence to increase in Scotland again.

      Blood on their hands, each and every one of them.

    3. Joe Soap says:

      Ban the fixture, distribute the points evenly and only reinstate the fixture once the fans have shown that they can behave themselves.

      I know the majority of fans are not involved but this can’t be allowed to continue.
      Civil upheaval due to a sporting fixture just because it’s the Old Firm has to stop.

      My daughter works in a shop and there was fighting outside the shop, the shoppers inside were terrified and scared to go outside.
      What other society in the world just shrugs of stuff like this?

    4. David R says:

      And every one of them will demand that the Scottish Government must act.

    5. I am on record many times during the cynical campaign to have the OBFA legislation scrapped as stating that I would hold James Kelly, Professor Two Jobs WATP Tomkins, and Murdo 7 Times Failure The Queen’s Eleven Fraser, and Patrick Harvie and his very own Green Brigade as culpable should any poor soul lose his or her life now that tens of thousands of thugs have had their behaviour ‘decriminalised’ just so that the Brit Natsis could get one over on the hated EssEnnPee, and Harvie could indulge his James Cagney neurosis and flex his power broking muscles at Holyrood.
      You are an absolute disgrace, all of you.
      People are dying, the festering animal mob has been unleashed on our streets, and our Dead Tree Scrolls and broadcasters, in the pay of their Unionist Masters and Colonists celebrate the SNP getting a ‘bloody nose’, but hide the violence, death, and psychopaths that now thrive unchecked in our midst.
      Fuck Rangers; fuck Celtic.
      Fuck the tens of thousands of idiots who follow them to satiate their violent hate-filled death wish.

      The sooner we get rid of d’Honte, and return to sanity and Self Determination the better.
      I note that the Dead Tree Scrolls and the telly are blaming Scott Brown for it all.
      What fucking evil people we have writing this evil bile for Anglo Brit Nat loot.
      It is time for the peole of Scotland to rise and drive them all from our country.
      We deserve better that psycho racist bigoted thugs ruling by violence and threats.
      Kelly, Tomkins, Harvie, Fraser, the Boards of Rangers and Celtic, you stand condemned.

    6. Doug says:

      I was directed here to this report by a friend of mine because he knows how much I despised repealing of the OBFA.

      I wrote to my constituency MSP who happens to be Alex Cole Hamilton where I made it clear that I could NEVER vote for anyone who supported repealing OBFA. There might have been issues with it that could be revised but a straight repeal was disgraceful. Surprisingly he wrote back to tell me in his own words how wrong I was and how terrible the OBFA was. I think he even argued that the symbolism of the OBFA wasn’t of any value.

      I am incandescent with rage at the actions of those who repealed this law without a replacement in place. I don’t even care about football but I do care about sectarianism and thuggery which live arm in arm and are a blight on too many families.

      To read what happened at the weekend to see that photo of the clenched fist outstretched claimed to be a shove… It is in dark times like those my thoughts don’t care about independence for Scotland, I just want to leave my home country and move to a better nation without such behavior, as there is no space in any civilised nation for that to stand. NONE.

      And to all those who voted for repeal. I don’t care what party you are in, this shouldn’t be a party political issue, you personally will never NEVER get my vote.

    7. jfngw says:

      It’s the Kelly consequentials, Labour not too keen on FOM but right on with FOB.

      I hold the Labour/Tory/LibDem/Green politicians directly responsible for Sunday’s events, they gave the green light to the bigots. They literally now have blood on their hands.

      Relieved I resisted the temptation to give a second vote to the Greens, having a few more Pro-Indy MSP’s at Holyrood is not worth it if the result is the Green’s grandstanding with the unionists.

    8. Robert McNaughton says:

      Richard Leonard described it as a Labour success when interviewed. Sad.

    9. starlaw says:

      To James Kelly MSP.
      You stated the OBFA was not fit for purpose and that Labour would bring forward a paper on a better way of dealing with crowd trouble at football matches.
      All Scotland is watching and waiting for this magic paper to be produced. Is there any intention of producing such a document or was it all just fine words on the day, we are waiting Mr Kelly, waiting and watching, this will not go away.
      Produce the paper.

    10. Doug @ 1:28
      I omitted the Yellow Tories from my post because they are of no relevance to Scotland whatsoever.
      They are five placemats sat at the back, who have done nothing for Scotland in 20 years.
      Our Parliamentary system needs radically and immediately overhauled from Day One of Free Scotland.
      Presumably if I encountered Willie Rennie in the street and I gave him a hearty shove like a Rangers player used during Sunday’s Hatefest, then I’d get away with it?
      The Brit Nat Establishment, The Anglo Scot Media and Oligarchy Up Here sanction this barbaric nonsense in the sure knowledge that if chaos and violence reigns, the population of Scotland will be cowered into perpetual servitude for fear of their lives and Northern Ireland style carnage?
      Scum voted to allow scum licence to maim and kill.
      I love the game of football.
      This is not about football or passion for anybody’s team.
      This is engineered to spread civil unrest and hatred among Scots.
      It will not work.

    11. yerkitbreeks says:

      I commented about the previous post – that Ian Murray’s approach reflected the first past the post system at Westminster, which I believe is outdated. Placing Party over Population.

      On the other hand, the OBFA repeal shows that even with improved representation the Holyrood system isn’t perfect either cf. the opposition to the minimal alcohol pricing.

    12. winifred mccartney says:

      That labour success (as described by RL) is proof if any is needed that labours hatred of the snp and determination to get one over on them is the only thing they care about. They are not fit for any kind of public office.

    13. Bob Mack says:

      These are not football fans. These are scum bigots who use football as an arena to vent their hatred. You only need to look on the Internet at their fan forums to know this.

      They are a millstone on Scotland move to the future. They are aided and abetted by newspapers and media commentators who are also fans of these clubs,though mainly at Ibrox.

      Strict liability at all grounds.
      Stricter sentences for football related crime and especially sectarianism.

      Strict liability for incendiary media articles.

      I am sick of this all over Scotland not just in the West. It is going back to the behaviour when I was young, over religion that not too many of them believe in.

      They are the lowest of the low,with many politicians playing the sectarian card for votes right beside them.

    14. robertknight says:

      I thought that Jimmy McDiddy, aka James Kelly, was unable to go out in public unless accompanied by Ken Dodd.

      Was he a boys’ club boxer in his youth? Years spent suffering blows to the head would certainly explain a lot.

    15. Mogabee says:

      Most of us knew there’d be a reckoning after the repeal but I did think(crazy I ken) that Labour would have realised that it would have been in their best interests to come up with a better plan.

      Of course it was a forlorn hope as Kelly really does not care but I bet you anything he’ll be fucking all ‘concern’ for the victims and the tv studios…

    16. Artyhetty says:

      Just no words, utterly despicable those who wanted the SNP’s OBFA, revoked.

      I was having a chat with ‘proud Scot but’ neighbours recently, full of the cringe, but thankfully managed to inform them about why the OBFA was scrapped and who insisted on that happening. I hope they remember that when watching the BBC and other Britnat media reports right now.

    17. Confused says:

      “kwallity polis”- burnistoun style – from the beeb

      It is understood that one line of inquiry is that the incident was connected to the earlier match at Celtic Park.

      – do you think?
      – but “correlation is not causation”, so nothing to see, move along; lots of “incidents”, maybe not all football related, but let’s not kid ourselves, most will be – the massive uptick in street violence after a rangers defeat is no coincidence

      – the shooting is being framed as an attempted robbery
      – a guy got slashed waiting for a taxi
      – a guy in bathgate got bashed
      – some guy got his door kicked in and was slashed – not being connected to any “football” cause – but … it was in LARKHALL … if this guy is the only catholic in the street, you might have your reason

      wonder if any of these “incidents” will get classified under “hate crime” – it is certainly hateful and its certainly sectarianism – but the proponents wont like it

      – hate crime typically offers special rights and protections to special classes of people, judged by the commissars to be better than the rest of us – these people are few in number, but upsetting them is seen as being heinous – thus if you annoy them, the law can throw the book at you

      – so, we get a lot of mostly trivial stuff – name calling, “bullying”, being classified as “hate”, while ordinary, serious, violence, done to the undeserving normal is swept under the carpet; offence now trumps injury

      – having the sectarian thrown in with the hate is disliked – because it offers protections to a class of people who don’t count, are not special, according to the id politics victimisation olympics – and because there is genuinely a lot of it, it makes the numbers look bad

      if someone plugs you with a kitchen knife, severing your large intestine, attacking you on the basis of – you were the nearest celtic fan to the door – is this not a hatecrime?
      – even if you live, you needed a bowel resection and now live with a colostomy bag

      – the celtic fans were stabbed in the back, by surprise – this shows premeditation, and also a lack of any justification by provocation, self defence, banter that went too far – it was deliberate and murderous, planned

      but the crime of last night will be investigated as if it was an isolated “some guy attacks another guy in a pub” – and yet it is so much more

      – a gang entered that pub, armed and with common purpose – this is a criminal conspiracy and as such, this -racket- should be investigated as such – networks, associates, affiliations, soldiers and bosses, funding attacked – if the law worked in this country and was not applied selectively – the whole fucking lot – sevco, fans clubs, the orange lodge, the apprentice boys, the black lodges – they would not be marching anymore, because they would be shut down

      – scotland needs a RICO act

      – to add further insult to the serious injuries – I would expect a number of celtic fans to be charged with assault for refusing to be stabbed, when requested
      – that way it looks even-steven – 6 rangers fans for assault and say, 4 celtic fans, with a couple for breach of the peace (“screaming while stabbed, in a public area, causing general alarm”)

      according to the Evening Times, the cops are investigating SCOTT BROWN for his “goading” behaviour – this shows entirely the outlook and priorities of the police, which leads onto …

      NB celtic fans objections to the OBFA were based on this – the law in this country is APPLIED SELECTIVELY – so giving the cops another stick to beat you with is a bad idea; celtic fans know there will never be mass arrests at ibrox or anywhere else of rangers fans – but they will be.

      – still, the OBFA was better than nothing and it made the “civilians” feel a lot safer; there is the argument that by stamping down on minor behaviour you prevent more serious behaviour – but I am not sold on this, just because I cannot shout “fenian bastards” in the ground, doesn’t stop me plugging some poor bastard 3 hours later.

      – if anyone still thinks celtic fans are bad people, or at least partially to blame (this is how the media plays it) – go back to the george sq attack – that shocked many out of their complacency, and also think of Arkan, the notorious serb hooligan and his “tigers” – in the balkan war they formed a paramilitary unit, known mostly for attacks against civilians
      – this whole unionist structure, rangers/sevco club, the fans, the affiliates – this is not simply about football, a problem for their rivals esp. celtic – its a problem to our entire nationalist project

    18. Bob Mack says:


      Celtic fans in the Green Brigade attacked the Toby Jug pub on Saturday. It used to run a Rangers bus. Maybe still does.

      What made them do that?

    19. galamcennalath says:

      This sad event is being used by BritNats to try to prove Scotland is just like England in regard to knife crime. Disgusting.

    20. Jamie says:

      Sadly even if OBFA was in place this tragedy would still have occurred. Stabbing someone is far in excess of offence and the culprit is being charged with murder quite rightly. It seems to me the laws are working well.

      Unfortunately we can not let the behaviour of a mindless minority take us on a march to fascism. It starts off as OBFA but before you know it it’s something else that is a problem.

      I really doubt OBFA would have much impact other than needlessly increasing convictions over petty issues. Charging someone for being offensive is a little bit like charging frankie boyle for telling a joke.

      If someone crosses the line there is breach of the peace. If someone stabs someone there is a murder charge.

      For context, Neil Lennon was punched in the face and verbally abused by many hearts fans live on TV and the culprit walked free.

      Sadly this happened while OBFA was active. The truth is it would not help and it did not help. It only served to needlessly alienate fans whilst achieving nothing.

    21. Petra says:

      We know that the only reason Labour MSP’s are sitting in Holyrood, other than to lift their fat pay cheque, is to carp from the sidelines and attempt to destroy everything half decent that the SNP politicians try to do: no doubt following orders from their big boss in London. Try searching for anything constructive that they’ve done for Scotland over the years. You won’t find it.

      James Kelly, number one culprit in repealing the OBFA, promised to deliver an alternative plan. So where is it? We should all be contacting the Scottish Parliament to put pressure on him to reveal his anti-sectarian ”works to date.” He in fact should have been forced to work on and produce an alternative plan before he scuppered the OBFA. Then again just scroll back and take a gander at his glaikit looking face. Listen to him. The man’s not capable of stringing a coherent sentence together far less formulating any kind of a plan. A total embarrassment for Scotland, in fact.

      The Greens played a part in this too; could have put a stop to it but didn’t. Suffice to say that they won’t be getting my vote again either.



      We haven’t heard from Robert Peffers recently (or maybe I’ve missed something?). Last time he posted he seemed to be recovering from another illness / condition. Anybody know if he’s ok? Just taking a well-earned rest?

    22. CameronB Brodie says:

      British nationalism is a harmful social pathology that is damaging to tolerance and peace. Does the Church of Scotland still pledge allegiance to Westminster, Crown and Parliamentary sovereignty. Then they will deserve their passing as a social irrelevance, if they neglect the best interests of their congregation.

      Unionism, Nationalism and the Scottish Catholic Periphery, 1850–1930

      In the late 1960s, H. J. Hanham, a New Zealander who went on the become Professor of History at Harvard, published his seminal book, Scottish Nationalism. It was a book that would force a reappraisal of the character of the nation and provoke a more critical consideration of nationalism as an experience rather than simply as a movement with defined boundaries.2 He engaged, to a limited extent, with an idea of Scottishness that was broader, that extended beyond the dominant Presbyterian experience to the social and religious periphery and he recognised that there were connections and tensions between ethnicity and nationalism within the Catholic community.

      This book helped to expose some of the more nuanced elements of the Scottish national experience and place them within a more general discussion about nationalism and expressions of identity. Scotland is a stateless nation that exists through its people, their activities and their loyalties. Despite being traditionally viewed as a peripheral population, Scottish Catholics played a very real and very defining role in the development of this modern nation. Hanham’s observations were pioneering, but they were also perceptive because rather than distinguishing between religious affiliations, Hanham made a distinction between indigenous and non-indigenous:

      The story of the Catholic Church in Scotland is . . . the story of the fight of the native Scottish clergy to retain control over their own church – if you will, one of the earliest struggles of Scottish nationalism against domination from outside.3

    23. Macjim says:

      You can image my horror when I saw the reports of this dreadful act of violence and insanity.
      I, like many others, had gone into Glasgow on Sunday for an afternoon out, and had no idea that an old firm match was on…
      I have no interest in football and prior to the OBFA, had hated to be in Glasgow when any match was scheduled to be on, often avoided the city on those days, but when the OBFA came into force I was happy to be in Glasgow as it had become a much safe place to venture into especially when an old firm match was on… even to the point where I was happy to venture into the Merchant City on those days.
      But when James Kelly and his cohorts, for no other reason than to score a political point against the SNP, got the ball rolling to have the law removed many ordinary people, and many fans too for that matter, new that the bad old days of football violence would return… little did we think it would return is such a violent and devastating way.
      I had no idea that there was a match to be played on Sunday when I ventured into Glasgow, to simply to wonder around with my camera to while away that lovely day, and a lovely day it was too with dry weather and sunshine.
      Not thinking that anything unto-wards would happen, based on previous experiences of going into a good establishment in Blackfriars Street after the OBFA’s introduction, I decided to have a pint and a relaxing read but when I looked into the pub, it was full to the gunwales… so rather than squeeze in, I decided to head up to the north west end of town instead… not long before this insanity began.
      I count myself lucky that I made that decision as it took me away long before it all unfolded… and shocked that because of political point scoring, someone is now fighting for their life because of that.
      Those that fought to have the OBFA removed should hold their heads in shame… shame on them.

    24. Thepnr says:

      It’s time for the bodies that run football to get their own house in order. The SFA and the SFL need to introduce strict punishments for the clubs when their fans display sectarian or any other type of violence at their grounds.

      If they were to do so then the majority of fans who are decent people would soon sort out the minority of bigots that bring shame to their clubs.

      If the football authorities and the clubs won’t police themselves then the government must do it. They could start by making the governing bodies responsible for the costs of cleaning up any mess left by them such as in policing and taking the perpetrators through the courts.

      It’s about time that the clubs started taking responsibility for the behaviour of their fans and accept the there will be a price to pay if they don’t work to stamp out such behaviour.

    25. HandandShrimp says:

      I said at the time repeal that Kelly et al now owned this problem and they better pray that the bad old days don’t return. It looks like they neglected their prayers.

    26. Dr Jim says:

      Both clubs charge entry into their gardens of remembrance, if they were a disco the police would remove their licences, so maybe the repealers shot themselves in both feet with their anti SNP garbage because now they’ve left it wide open for the Scottish government to take much stronger action and what political party is going to argue the toss with them in the full knowledge that whatever the SG do now a massive percentage of the population is going to agree with them

      Except the decent supporters of both teams that is, although the decent supporters should have shown the clubs their displeasure at this behaviour and voted with their feet a long time ago and there are more of them than the numpties so maybe too late to moan now

      Just when crime is at a record all time low and the police are getting on top of other kinds of crime these Baams want to use our taxpaying money to pay more police to run around after them because they’re a bunch of nut jobs

      It was quietish for a few years because Rangers were out of things but everybody and their dug knew perfectly well they’d be back and the my Irish christianity is better than your Irish christianity would get itself going again, time to up the SKY payment for more controversy, pay up Sky they can do this every week for the right money

      C’mon it’s tradition!

    27. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’m certainly not trying to defend James Kelly, but not everyone views religious bigotry as anti-social. This is partly why it is so hard to make progress in dealing with sectarianism in Scotland.

      The drivers of perceptions of anti-social behaviour

      Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is a confusing term which has been variously applied to a wide spectrum of activity, from serious criminal violence and persistent ongoing intimidation and harassment at one end of the spectrum, to subjective feelings of unease caused by relatively minor and perhaps occasional environmental disturbances, such as litter, at the other.

      In this report the authors analyse ASB in terms of the seven-strand definition used to measure perceptions in the British Crime Survey (BCS). This definition of ASB tends towards a focus on the less serious end of the ASB spectrum. The report proposes that perceptions of ASB (‘PASB’), in the technical BCS definition mentioned, are a matter of interpretation. There is frequently a mismatch between an objective measure of ASB, and perceptions.

      Based on a review of available research studies, the authors model two processes of interpretation that seem to be fundamental in driving this, and suggest that the reason why people make different interpretations of behaviour rests in social connectedness. Consequently, interventions that hold the potential to deliver long-lasting reductions in PASB are rooted in processes of engagement targeted at building empathy and mutual respect.

    28. Giving Goose says:

      It’s difficult to be dispassionate when commenting on these events.
      It’s probably easier to look at the motivation of James Kelly.
      What drives this man?
      Where do you start in putting together a pen portrait of James Kelly?
      He is most definitely unpleasant in character.
      He’s also a coward.
      He has, through his actions, mobilised a small army of nasty people to fight his battles.
      Because he does not have the skills to frame a rational argument in support of British Labour, he uses other people to enact his fantasy.
      He is like the school bully who manipulates others to do his dirty work.
      It’s easy to pigeon hole James Kelly as thick and of low intelligence but he does fully understand what he is doing.
      It’s a thoroughly unpleasant form of cleverness that James displays. Unpalatable to reasonable people, yet effective.
      So why is he doing this?
      Well, James self identifies as British and this is important to him.
      So important, in fact that in his mind he sees British and Brutishness as supremely important to his world view and personal standing.
      Brutishness is his point of reference and one of the things that he sees is that this Brutishness, his British way of life, is under threat.
      James is acting out like a cult member, because being British is a cult. James is a cultish obsessive. It’s irrational to us but completely rational to James.
      His little British world is under threat.
      It doesn’t matter that the threat consists of solutions to social ills, that the threat will see people gaining access to employment, health care, education, housing.
      Britishness in all its London Bus red, blood soaked, xenophobic, unfair, empire worshipping, ghoulish glory is going down the khazi.
      So what’s a Loyal Brit to do.
      Well, James has several hundred years of Brutish, British behaviour to draw upon. Hell, it worked in India and Africa, so what’s wrong with a little blood spilled on the streets of Scotland? Got to keep that Union Jack flying, after all and if that means a little more blood red in the dye, then that’s ok.
      GSTQ, eh James? Hopefully a knighthood is on its way from Buck Palace.

    29. Robert Peffers says:

      @Petra says: 2 April, 2019 at 2:33 pm:

      ” O/T We haven’t heard from Robert Peffers recently (or maybe I’ve missed something?). Last time he posted he seemed to be recovering from another illness / condition. Anybody know if he’s ok? Just taking a well-earned rest?”

      No, Petra, I’ve decided to now just be a lurker and am washing my hair. The problem is I’m having a real hard job finding that hair.

    30. Bob Mack says:


      I wish I could agree, but what you cannot dismiss is that the very day after OBFA was rescinded, football hooligans disguised as fans felt they had a license to pursue the same old hatred.

      I am a Celtic fan of many years standing. My son in law and others are Rangers fans. We can watch the game together.No hassle.

      I read the fan sites and boy oh boy, it has been a little while since I’ve read such hatred. It’s primal.

      What lies behind it? History and the affiliation with Ireland North and South. Affiliation to religion, to organisations of the troubles, and to a myth of being better than them.

      It is living for the past,in the present. The stabbings happen because the bitterness becomes overwhelming, or the superiority becomes intoxicating.

      Football is not the root of these evils but it is the symbol many wear as a justification to carry out these acts. Football must cleanse itself of these associations or have someone do it for them.
      Lip service is not enough. People die because a team won or lost. That is important.

    31. CameronB Brodie says:

      Robert Peffers
      I hope you didn’t think I was trying to exclude you Robert, I was just being straight up. I’m sure there were a lot of folk who disagreed with me. Please keep on posting.

    32. auld highlander says:

      It’s good to see that you are still with us Mr P.

    33. Sarah says:

      @Robert Peffers at 3.03 – 🙂 🙂

    34. K1 says:

      The greens can go fuck themselves too over this…they aided and abetted if memory serves…but even if I’m incorrect, they can still fuck off 🙂

    35. Terry callachan says:

      Make both clubs pay financially.
      It’s a good way to get the clubs to deal directly with their customers.
      Fine them both huge sums that will affect them severely and do it with increasing amounts if subsequent repeats occur.
      Following incidents of bad behaviour make them play several matches against each other with no fans in the ground and no tv or radio coverage live or recorded even if their next meeting isn’t for weeks or months implement these rules and punishments so that they don’t get a chance to forget the last time it happened.

      Stop referring to “the good fans” or “ the well behaved fans” let’s face it everyone knew there would be trouble at last Sunday’s match so all those who attended were negligent in supporting it and attending it.

      Refuse supporters entry if they have a flag or scarf or football shirt on and eject them if they smuggle one in, make it as plain and neutral on the eye as possible.

      Force tv and radio to give equal time in minutes or hours and equal attention to each match so we can move away from the current abomination in Scottish football where everything else is relegated to little importance and Celtic Rangers hoardes all the money and coverage.

      Stop treating Celtic and Rangers as businesses legislate if necessary, they are not businesses like any other.

      Prosecute harshly and enforce bans rigorously .

    36. Terry callachan says:

      Following this incident on Sunday past close all licensed premises on the day of the next match between Celtic and Rangers and don’t allow televised coverage or highlights that day.
      And hold the game behind closed doors no fans allowed to watch either in the ground or on tv or radio anywhere.
      The general public will be affected but that is a good way to ensure that Celtic and Rangers fans change their ways.

    37. Bob Mack says:

      @Terence Callachan,

      I take your points, but doing all of this means the general public have to put themselves out to accommodate football fans. I million Glaswegians punished to accommodate 60,000.

      It should be the other way round

    38. CameronB Brodie says:

      Time for some reflections on theology and stuff?


      I shall state in summary form the thesis of this lecture. It is very tempting in our cultural era to isolate Christian theology and ethics from critical external points of view in order to maintain the uniqueness or historic identity of Christianity. I call this a sectarian temptation, not because it is always associated with classic Anabaptist ecclesiologies, though in part it is, but because the separation of theology from other ways of construing the world in the culture is somewhat similar to the sharp separation of the Christian community from the world that has always characterized sectarianism.

      In contemporary theology we have very sophisticated defenses of such a separation. I shall note and explain some of them all too briefly. The effect is that theology becomes a descriptive rather than normative discipline, and ethics becomes fidelity to the ethos of a particular historic community rather than participation in the patterns and processes of interdependence of life.

      I shall then compare my account of contemporary proposals with what, to me, are better defended forms of ‘confessional’ theology in the recent past to show where I think a critical difference lies in contemporary proposals. Next I shall argue that assumptions underlying new sectarianism in theology are untenable sociologically, philosophically, and theologically. Finally I shall briefly state what readers of my recent work already know, namely what I believe is necessary in theology and ethics, and the risks that are involved.

      With this summary of the lecture in mind, I shall now proceed to develop my analysis and argument more fully, regretting that within the time constraints of one lecture it cannot be done with full adequacy.

      The Search for Peace: How Toleration Defeated Sectarianism

      Moral Conflict and Legal Reasoning

      Sectarianism Without Perfection? Quong’s Political Liberalism

    39. Liz g says:

      I’m actually very tempted to say leave them to it…
      And use the Stadium to do it

      Let the fan’s who want to fight stay behind,remove the police and cameras then lock the fucking gates for an hour.
      That will reduce the numbers one way or another!!!
      We’d see then, how many parents instilled this poison into their kid’s for generations!Because if we’re honest nae wean is born a “bigot”

      But then I come back into the real world (except for the parent bit)in which,I freely admit to knowing nothing and caring less about football.

      I do however care about the sectarian blight on Scotland which I consider social engineering….
      Maybe a different approach is needed.
      We could start asking,what would we do if this type of behaviour surrounded a music band…. EG.. Queen,back in the day till Beyonce now…
      What steps would have been taken and what steps could be taken now…
      The band’s would be demonized not lionized as would any other Stadium events that attracted this kind of behaviour, authorities would act parents would be warning against getting involved with “that lot”.
      There wouldn’t be this “whit will wi dae” hand wringing going on, a decision would be made and followed through!

      So my question is..
      Why is football getting a free pass?

    40. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      I have a suspicion that the BritNat parties rather secretly wanted this kind of disturbance to happen. For them, the mayhem “proves” that we are ungovernable all by ourselves, and we need a nice calm overseer to keep the Queen’s peace.

      Except that the OBFA repeal has sent a signal to those fractious dullards who have been impatiently straining at the leash for some time, with all-too-predictable results. Kelly & Co have blood on their hands.

      We could wait until hell freezes over for Idiot Kelly to do anything about it as promised. If the SFA and the clubs do nothing appropriately radical now, the SG should, as a matter of urgency, step up to the mark and get the job done. And properly this time.

    41. K1 says:

      Ah would proffer that it is fear. Fear of the backlash if they the football clubs involved, took a stance against their fans?

      Also ‘vested interests’, Kelly and his ilk have a dug in the fight wi this.

      Always been of the attitude that corruption is a top down phenomenon and gives a ‘free pass’ to the ‘lower orders’ to ensure the blame doesn’t travel too far up the pole where we would see clearly who ‘gains’ from this continuing.

    42. Sy Nicholl-Faighean says:


      ‘This sad event is being used by BritNats to try to prove Scotland is just like England in regard to knife crime. Disgusting.’

      Well, it might not be as bad in terms of the number of murders directly attributable to ‘knife crime’, but when you stay not 5 minutes walk from a set of shops which are the haunt of the local troupe of ‘stabby wee cunts’ and you know two people who’ve been stabbed there for no reason other than one had the temerity to actually want to buy something from the main shop, the other was just walking by on his way to his aunts house, you do have to wonder.

      Unlike the majority of the reported knife-crime down South, this isn’t knuckledragger-on-knuckledragger (for different values of knuckledragger) crime we’re talking about here (though i will admit that there is an element of it ) this is knuckledragger-on-everyone. It’s very obvious that people locally are worried about it, as soon as the streetlights come on, the streets empty.


    43. Breeks says:

      Keep the heid everybody.

      Ask yourself who benefits from the sectarian “Ulsterisation” of Scotland… There is nothing sacred to the British Establishment, and unfortunately in Rangers and Celtic football clubs we have two patsies only too willing to provide that Establishment with an open door to agitate trouble and divide us along sectarian lines. Divide and conquer is the BritNat way, and the two clubs make it so easy, don’t they?

      Do yourself a favour, and before you get upset, watch The Miami Showband Massacre on Netflix, and ask yourself whether or not it is credible that the current resurgence of violence might just be the consequence of certain strings are being pulled to illicit desired responses. Don’t bite. We are nearly there.

      Think too, just how long it would take Kelly to actually come up with an idea, any idea, when left to his own devices. He didn’t think this up. He’s just the useful village idiot who is thick enough to carry the can as frontman. He’s not the puppet master pulling strings but the imbecile having his strings pulled.

      Once we’re independent, I hope Scottish politics will never again be afflicted with the number of thick f___ks who somehow manage to get a seat in Parliament. When you can shine a torch in one ear and see light coming out the other side, maybe such people should be excluded from positions of responsibility.

    44. jfngw says:


      That’s not Jamie Kelly by any chance is it?

      It was a green light to bigots by politicians. And as been mentioned before, Mr Kelly was going to bring something forward that was better than the OBFA. But to quote Nick Robinson, when queried where these proposal are, there comes no answer.

      It was merely a bit of politics to reverse a SNP piece of legislation, they had no concern about any outcomes, defeating the SNP was their only objective.

    45. Effijy says:

      Dick Leonard and that Ned Kelly wouldn’t give a toss about the old firm violence.
      They know it’s been there for all to see for over 100 years and they are happy to continue.

      In Rutherglen Celtic Bars Kelly is know to have a wee song about the Tic and who they hate
      And thrown in a wee ballad about the Irish defeating the English to gain Independance.

      Fellow half wits in these events will vote for Kelly and bond through bigotry.

      Again the point is made that there is no journalism in Scotland,
      Just those who are happy to hide, distort, or take matters out of
      Context to drive home the owners propaganda.

      Yet another waste of space Champaign socialist in it for himself
      And to hell with the good people of Scotland

    46. Republicofscotland says:

      The unionist shits at Holyrood want to keep us divided so we don’t vote for independence.

    47. Ahundredthidiot says:

      I used to joke that parents taking their children to celtic or rangers to watch football should be subject to interview by social services.

      Half joked.

    48. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Initially, James Kelly and his fellow members of the Socialist Political wing of the Celtic Family were all for OBFA – as they thought it would only affect “the other lot.”

      They would Surrender, Derry’s Walls would collapse, wearing your father’s sash – or at leat singing about it – would be verbotten, and wading up to your knees in Fenian blood would also be banned, as would reminding the “Plastic Paddies” at the other end of Celtic Park, Hampden or Ibrox that the Famine was over, and they could now safely return to Ireland.

      What Kelly and his ilk didn’t reckon on, was that some of their Party Songs and some of their unacceptable behaviour would also be cracked down on. And when that happened, suddenly, OBFA wasn’t such a good idea and would have to be got rid off.

      The Old Firm are twa cheeks o’ the yae erse and Scottish football would be well rid of both – except, nobody else will have them.

    49. CameronB Brodie says:

      Religion and political theory are inexorably linked in the battle to define the nature, extent, and justification of political authority.

      Religion and Political Theory

      The Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Political Thought

      Law as Deliberative Discourse: The Politics of International
      Legal Argument – Social Theory with Historical Illustrations

      Causation in Legal and Moral Reasoning,%20Lagnado,%20Gerstenberg,%202017.pdf

    50. Clachangowk says:

      Jack Collatin

      Says “The sooner we get rid of d’Honte”

      What system would you prefer, Jack. IMHO the problem with D’Hondt is not the system but the standard of candidates put up by Labour and Tories.

    51. K1 says:

      I agree wrt to the party’s themselves putting forward wooden posts as candidates, and I think they are doing it on purpose! 🙂

    52. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Clachangowk @ 16:47,

      A fair point. And it’s not “D’Hondt” anyway. Sounds suspiciously foreign, so must be bad. But it’s just a method of calculation – a piece of maths – and a perfectly sensible one for what it is designed to do.

      The actual system is called AMS – Additional Member System. It grafts (guess what?) some additional members onto FPTP to attempt to undo the worst of the latter. A typical British bodge on a long-outmoded system designed for illiterates.

      And even worse, the system bequeathed to us by those daring radicals in the Labour party adds an extra degree of confusion – the list vote to choose the parties who will choose these additional members. A bodge on top of a bodge on top of a bodge.

      So replacing it with something reasonably rational and understandable should be one of the first priorities of an independent Scotland. On that, I think, we can all agree.

    53. Liz g says:

      Socrates McSporran @ 4.38
      Well…. Just because no one else would have them doesn’t mean Scotland needs to keep them.
      Tis an option!!!

    54. Douglas Mitchell says:

      Agree with many of the above sentiments, the OBFA should not have been repealed without a suitable replacement. Perhaps, as the football season is about to close, pressure should be put on James Kelly and his cohorts to draw up a suitable replacement plan for implementation for the new season. If not, then the SG steps in to set the agenda – surely that would help concentrate a few minds (though JK’s would probably explode!!!).

    55. Liz g says:

      Robert J Sutherland @ 5.08
      Well I certainly agree…
      There’s no reason to go forward in an Indy Scotland with an electoral system that was picked for us.
      And picked by politicians of whom it cannot be demonstrated,that their motives were to get the best possible system for Scotland.
      We should at the very least look at what would suit us..

    56. CameronB Brodie says:

      @James Kelly
      Pin your ears back lad, time you got edumicated.

      The Concept of Public Policy in Law: Revisiting the Role of the Public Policy Doctrine in the Enforcement of Private Legal Arrangements


      There is a peculiar thread that links vast and incongruent cases: the man who restricted his own freedom to trade, a fellow who bet on Napoleon’s life,1 a parent who fettered his estate for perpetuity, a married man who proposed to another woman while he was still in the process of divorce,2 a company that appointed an employee as trustee in an insolvency proceeding to make the company a creditor of itself,3 and an arbitral award delivered in favor of a country with strained political relation with the country of the court’s proceedings.4

      In most instances mentioned here, contracts or awards were found to be unenforceable. Yet, these cases—and many more similar ones—hardly shed any light on this peculiar thread called public policy. It is only through redefining and revisiting the concept of public policy that we can finally begin to make sense of this historically convoluted and often-neglected doctrine.

      Overview Of Public Policy: The Public And Its Policies

      Rhetoric and The Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning

      Rules and Principles: A Theory of Legal Certainty

      P.S. Westminster obviously doesn’t give a stuff about Scoland’s public policy, nor the rule of law.

    57. Josef Ó Luain says:

      A first-step in the average Scot’s understanding of this problem might be to drop the convenient idea that “one side is as bad as the other”. All of the evidence, over the years, simply does not support that assumption. Scotland’s sectarian-problem is many times more insidious and much, much darker in nature than its common portrayal of one crowd of bampots opposing another crowd of bampots. Unfortunately, the necessary debate on the true nature of Scottish sectarianism has yet to take place.

    58. mr thms says:

      The Scottish parliament should have ensured there was alternative to the OBFA before voting to abolish it. This is now an emergency. All the parties must put their political differences aside and come up with a solution to protect the public.

    59. Donald anderson says:

      The OF Christian Festival is not worth one life or injury, even for bams.

      Findlay, Kelly and McMahon, Reid, Wilson, etc, etc all play the old Brit game of divide and rule. The Green Brit Brigade are just as repulsive as the Orange Brigade.

    60. twathater says:

      Like Liz G and others on here and elsewhere I have to ask , are footballers in general outwith the law , do they not face the same criminal charges and penalties that we do

      As others have reffered to , when you or I are out socialising and for some reason you feel like punching or kicking someone do you really expect to walk away and not be charged with assault or affray , or do you expect the polis to stand idly by and not intervene when the place erupts

      Is there something sacrosanct or untouchable about the 4 walls of a football stadium that allows these prima donnas to act with impunity , I have watched many incidences of blatant assault on televised games , as evidenced this weekend yet nothing is done about it , these games are televised and recorded yet the AUTHORITIES maintain ( we seen nothing guv ) these cretins incite and encourage the bampots to act even more recklessly and inflame tensions

      If the police directed by the CCTV commander stopped the game and arrested and charged these idiots for blatant assault a few times that would send a message to the clubs , players and fans that they are NOT above the law

      It is a mindset not only in Scotland but throughout the UK that footballers , their clubs and supporters are above the law , that the so called beautiful game should not have to be constrained by laws for mere mortals

      I also agree that the unionist gstq political parasites are deliberately inflaming religious fervour and should be exposed and demonised for their blatant encouragement to divide Scotland’s people

    61. Harry mcaye says:

      Slightly off topic but I probably bought my last ever National on Saturday. Five pages on the Old Firm game taking place the following day and ALL other matches ignored. They did the same thing last year before the cup semi finals. Aberdeen v Motherwell completely blanked on the Friday and day of the game, all about the two arse cheeks game, again on the Sunday. They didn’t have a Sunday paper then but it was still an absolute disgrace and I’ll be amazed if any Aberdeen or Motherwell fan bought it after that. I gave them another chance but after Saturday that’s it! They now have a Sunday paper of course, so that over the top preview could have waited a day. Do they suppose Rangers supporters are buying the paper in their droves?

      As for the main topic, OBAF should maybe have been tweaked ( there were too many stories of daft wee boys getting lifted for very little) but scrapping it definitely sent out the wrong message. That said, the alleged offences took place outside the grounds and in the city and there is already legislation to deal with that. Stiffer sentencing is one answer. But there are some nasty, evil bigots around us who will always do what they do and make life unpleasant for the good people, the 98% of us dare I say!

    62. If a Hopeful stands in the Constituency ballot, and fails, he or she should not be on a Magic Party List to get in at the back door, as Fraser has done, SEVEN TIMES, Professor Two Jobs Tomkins and James Kelly the Boy From Killane have.
      They are ‘unelected’ placemats there on the Jobs for the Boys Gravy Train.
      The electorate rejected them at the ballot box.
      Tomkins stood in my constituency and he came in an inglorious 4th.
      The choice should be stark. Stand for a constituency Seat or get on your Party’s Golden Ticket unelected list.
      We wouldn’t have had to put up with Kezia in The Jungle and at the dock if Constituency Failures got the Big E.
      It’s called d,Hondt after the Furriner who devised it, btw.
      The system should not allow failures and millionaire farmers and businessmen to beat democracy.
      I favour armed rebellion now.
      That’ll get me in trouble.

    63. Petra says:

      Big T due to make a statement within the next 15 minutes.

    64. PS I’m looking out my old tennis racquet now.
      Allons, enfants.

    65. CameronB Brodie says:

      Josef Ó Luain
      Here’s a wee contribution to that much needed debate. 😉

      Sectarianism in Scotland: A ‘West of Scotland’ problem, a patchwork or a cobweb?


      Drawing on research carried out for the Scottish Government in 2014, this article explores how people experience sectarianism in Scotland today. For some, sectarianism is manifestly part of their everyday experience, but for others it is almost invisible in their social world. The article sets out a metaphor of sectarianism experienced like a cobweb in Scotland; running strongly down the generations and across masculine culture particularly, but experienced quite differently by different people depending on their social relationships.

      Using the examples of song and marching, the article suggests that sectarian prejudice should be conceived of as much as a cultural phenomenon as in social and legal terms. A multidisciplinary and intergenerational approach to tackling sectarian prejudice would help emphasise its cultural and relational construction. Much can also be learned from examining the broader research on prejudice worldwide, rather than treating Scottish sectarianism as if it is a unique and inexplicable quality of the national character.

      The Protective Role of Group Identity: Sectarian Antisocial Behavior and Adolescent Emotion Problems

      ‘Sectarianism’ and Scottish football: Critical reflections on dominant discourse and press commentary

      The limits of identity: ethnicity, conflict, and politics!/file/2jenkins.pdf

    66. Hamish100 says:

      Question to presiding officer. When is Kelly MSP submitting new proposals for voting on? Postcards at the ready.

    67. manandboy says:

      TM announces moves to gain a longer extension to WA deadline. Easier said than done.

    68. K1 says:

      Or at least there should be some ‘time limit’ that bars a candidate from repeatedly being placed on the List year after year and getting into Holyrood on that basis, having failed to get through on the constituency vote time and time again.

      Surely being rejected by the electorate repeatedly only to fallback into a job because you are on the fallback list is utterly corrupt practice?

      Also, anyone who has succeeded in doing so, there should be a change every 2 years for those that have entered the parliament in this way, go to the electorate again for the List vote every 2 years?

    69. call me dave says:

      Coalesce round something… Help me Jeremy!

      I’m going soft on Brexit.

    70. manandboy says:

      According to Gordon Ross in Indycar, 2.4.2019, an Independent Scotland’s retirement pension could be set to double under new EU directives.

      Just watch the BritNat propaganda machine hush that up.

    71. Robert Louis says:

      So, yet again, Theresa May insists it is her deal or no deal. That is what just happened. It simply will NOT get passed.

      If I were Jeremy Corbyn, I would absolutely play no part in this charade. It is a freaking joke.

    72. gus1940 says:

      Which blindfolded cretin came up with the oxymoronic term ‘The Beautiful Game’?

    73. Corrado Mella says:

      A football match is nothing else than a pantomime, a conceited battle in an ongoing war, with the posh troops fighting to violate the door of the enemy’s house, and their honour.
      Onlookers rile the rich fighters while they play the act.

      But because the spectacle is too delicate, with the warriors falling into spasms of conjured pain when an adversary dares to fleetly touch them, the unexpressed violence transmigrates into the spectators, accumulating in frustration, and spills over after the match – on the street, at the pub, at home.

      Why all this insane hooliganism doesn’t infect other – much physically violent – sports like Rugby, Martial Arts, Boxing, etc.?
      Because such sports themselves satiates the gory need for blood some sub-humans need and crave.

      Religious bigotry, ethnic rivalry and historic grievances are just adding fuel to the mix, but this happens around football everywhere on the planet. Glasgow isn’t special.

      Remember: there’s a lot of money floating around football and the press can make a dime riling the stupid.

    74. Marcia says:

      It would be good if the previous scrapped Bill could be replaced sometime soon.


      Theresa May gave the usual underwhelming speech to the ‘nations’. I think should she have given that to the H o C first or is she scared that Ian Blackford would give the right response to it?

    75. HYUFD says:

      Courageous speech by the PM putting the nation first, saying she will request a further extension until a Deal is agreed, though it may require we contest the European elections

    76. jfngw says:

      Theresa May is inviting Jeremy Corbyn to talks, this is to try and con him to agreeing to her WA, she stated he must agree to the WA. If he doesn’t agree she will then clam it is Labour’s fault, Corbyn would be a fool to take part on May’s terms.

      Claims it is for national unity but ignores the largest party in Scotland, looks like an England only invite then.

    77. jfngw says:

      Just watched BBC Scotland report, they seem to have watched a different statement to me. They seem to be stating the WA has been ditched, not what I heard.

    78. HYUFD says:

      Jfngw The SNP may still be involved, May did not specifically exclude them and of course plenty of Scottish Tory and Labour MPs and MSPs

    79. Robert Louis says:

      Prime minister requesting a further extension until HER deal is agreed. HER deal that has been rejected three times.

      She should do us all a favour and resign. She is utterly incompetent.

    80. jfngw says:


      Very amusing, are you applying for a spin doctor role or just practising.

    81. Robert Louis says:

      Even if the SNP were invited into Liar Theresa May’s charade, they should refuse to get involved. This is just a ploy to be able when it all falls apart, to blame Lablour.

      Utterly pathetic by a lying conniving disgrace of a prime minister who is not fit to hold high office. They should put her in jail, for the damage she has caused.

    82. yesindyref2 says:

      There are flats in Merchant City, people actually live there, including Albion Street.

    83. Davosa says:

      Well lets hope James Kelly feels proud of his hard work – the thick, moronic piece of shit.

    84. SilverDarling says:

      In the absence of a real war, wasn’t sport devised to keep the armies of the ancients battle ready and loyal to their tribe?

      We may have developed different skills and the immediate threat of war is hopefully far away but some seem stuck in that war mentality with a historical enemy, reliving the battle every weekend.

      Then again it’s just a game to the rest of us.

    85. John says:

      This is just a part of a political game. This is NI history being deployed in Scotland. A gang of british nationalists executed a premeditated attack after a football match. That is the beginning, middle, and end of the story regarding motive.

    86. Scottish Steve says:

      I’ve never liked football anyway (I don’t like sports) but the behaviour of the fans is disgusting. Just makes me dislike the game even more.

    87. CameronB Brodie says:

      “Courageous speech by the PM putting the nation first….”

      Which nation would that be? Certainly neither Scotland nor England, Toryboy.

    88. gus1940: Pele, I believe.

    89. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      @ Corrado Mella

      That’s an astute observation. I like it.

    90. Baldeagle58 says:

      manandboy says:
      2 April, 2019 at 6:20 pm
      According to Gordon Ross in Indycar, 2.4.2019, an Independent Scotland’s retirement pension could be set to double under new EU directives.

      Manandboy, this was known about, along with the tax evasion laws that the EU planned to bring in, around the time of the EU Referendum. It was suitably hushed up by the British State Broadcaster then, and has been ever since. It’s no wonder that it nobody knows about it.

    91. yesindyref2 says:

      @RP “No, Petra, I’ve decided to now just be a lurker


      Sounds like one of those NY resolutions to me.

      Robert, some people can NOT just lurk. I can’t for instance, and you … ?

      Do me a favour! 🙂

    92. yesindyref2 says:

      Anywas, back to topic, perhaps the first thing that needs to be done is to prosecute players and managers for offences that if committed in the street, would be arrested and charged.

    93. jfngw says:

      Last time I saw Theresa May at that podium she was trying to move the blame onto MP’s. This time she has tried to narrow it down to just Labour. Her own MP’s were obviously upset and wanted the record set straight, it’s not the fault of the Conservatives.

      SNP not invited, that’s one poisoned vessel avoided. ‘The pellet with the poison’s in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true!’

    94. Hamish100 says:

      Once a fud always a FUD.

    95. manandboy says:

      Donald anderson says:

      “The OF Christian Festival is not worth one life or injury, even for bams.”

      In my lifetime, I’ve never before heard a game between Glasgow’s 2 biggest clubs described as ‘The OF Christian Festival’.

      I couldn’t have been paying enough attention while the hymns were being sung.

    96. David says:

      All opposition parties voted it down .
      And it would not have mattered anyway on Sunday given the idiotic behaviour of both sets of players And their comments after the game and again Tuesday night .
      The day is coming sooner than we think when the cops will start hauling in players to help them with their inquiries
      And PMS statement to tv what happened to making statements in Parliament

    97. Albert Herring says:

      FAO any polis monitoring this site, why have Morelos, Kent and Halliday not been charged with assault?

    98. CameronB Brodie says:

      This isn’t OT. Still don’t think the nation of Scotland faces an existential threat? Not from tubes like Kelly, but from institutional British nationalism. Time for a bit more Legal Theory?

      Legal Certainty, Proportionality and Pragmatism:
      Overriding Mandatory Laws in International Arbitration

      C. Overriding mandatory laws as public law

      The unpopular effects of overriding mandatory laws on party autonomy, however, must be placed in the context of their public law nature of market regulation. As illustrated by the Ingmar case, they are exceptional key vehicles for implementing (only) the market’s most important policies, that is, those deemed so fundamental that a materially diverging outcome cannot be tolerated, irrespective of the international implications.

      If one wishes to conceptualize party autonomy as the outflow of fundamental or even human rights of the individual against the State,20 then it is equally necessary to recognize that overriding mandatory provisions are the constitutionally allowed – and, indeed, warranted – legal limitations to those underlying fundamental rights, enacted in the public interest. The State has a duty to regulate to ensure that all stakeholders in the market, and affected by it, can equally enjoy and develop (at least the core of) their fundamental rights.

      The law regulating private relations in particular hinges on the State ensuring a level playing field that is ‘so regulated that it reflects the objective order incorporated in the fundamental rights.’21 The arbitrages that become necessary in the policymaking process, the balancing of interests, and the drawing of lines between them, through the (re-)definition of rights, is primarily entrusted to the political legislative process.22

    99. yesindyref2 says:

      You beat me to it. Yes, a footballer scoring a goal and going straight over to the other side’s supporters giving them a V sign or fist-pump elbow – breach of the peace. Repeated offence, higher fine + commnunity service. Repeat? Jail.

      Manager spitting at other manager? Breach of the Peace. Manager or player in football inciting violence? Breach of the Peace.

      One of the arguments against OBFA was that there was existing legislation. Well then, USE IT.

    100. wull says:

      It was often said, not least by lawyers and legal experts, that OBFA was bad law. Mostly on the grounds that, theoretically, it was difficult to implement. That may well be true, in terms of both legal theory and legal practice.

      But what it indisputably did do was this: it gave the right message. And equally indisputably, that message was effective. The offensive behaviour associated with football matches did very much decline. Because those who had become accustomed to behaving in such ways, and who would have liked to continue to do so, were afraid of the possible consequences.

      True enough, how far they could go without being arrested was not clearly defined. Or – for the law professors and other theorists – insufficiently defined. It was difficult to say (and maybe too much a matter of subjective opinion on the part of the police) what exactly could, or could not be adjudged ‘offensive behaviour’.

      If that made the legislation bad law, it also made the potential perpetrators wary – and less likely to offend. In other words, the effect of the legislation, and maybe even of its very ambiguity or its not fully defined nature, was socially positive. Very positive, in fact. Not only in regard to what actually went on during football matches but also in regard to the spill-over from them before and after they were played.

      The legislation therefore served the common good, not just for those who enjoy watching football matches but, more widely, for the general public as well. It should have been praised by all concerned, including all politicians who are in the service of the common good, and – granted that it could be improved upon – it should have been taken as a starting-point or foundation which, in the light of experience, could be further built upon.

      Which is very much needed, since the issue being addressed does not simply affect football. I once heard of an African country which introduced legislation, soon after independence, to the effect that citizens were entitled to promote their own religion but not to attack that of other people. They could disagree with religions other than their own, of course, and obviously would do. They could politely point out where they thought them wrong, but they were not entitled to attack them directly or vitriolically, especially in public places.

      I don’t know how the legislation worked in practice, or if it was ever or often implemented in the African country concerned (I think it was Tanzania, but I may be wrong). But whatever the actual outcome of the legislation, there are some principles there that are worth considering. Even more broadly, for the question for the Scotland of today and tomorrow, even after independence, will be this: how do you create a tolerant society when members of the population often hold clearly different fundamental beliefs?

      This is not a question which is confined only to religion. As we know, the problem which the ‘Offensive Behaviour’ Act was addressing is not solely, and some would say not primarily or fundamentally religious in any case. At the very least, it has all kinds of other ramifications, social, political, historical and so on. Most of the people who indulge in offensive behaviour are not generally the most religious or church-going that you ever encountered.

      How do we create a genuinely tolerant and pluralistic – and therefore genuinely free and equally respectful – society in Scotland? People have a right to their fundamental beliefs, whether they be philosophical or religious or socio-political or whatever. No one should get his throat slit or his ribs knifed for sincerely holding these, whatever they are. And we all have a duty to respect and actively tolerate those others whose beliefs are different from our own.

      You may promote what you believe in a sane and positive and basically polite manner. You may not attack vitriolically those beliefs you disagree with, especially in public places – far less may you threaten or act violently towards those who hold them. We want an independent Scotland where everyone living here can feel genuinely at home, and be confident that he or she is safe. Our nationalism is not only civic, but civil.

      This commitment to civility must be written into our future constitution, and steadfastly upheld. What the OBFA legislation only touched upon ultimately concerns constitutional issues of a wider and deeper nature. We should take heed, and take note … if only so as to be ready for the challenges ahead.

    101. yesindyref2 says:

      “Manager or player in football inciting violence?”

      In the newspaper or on TV. Same for the broadcasting pundits.

    102. defo says:

      Scotlands shame. Step up J. Kelly, its champion.
      For a few votes more.

    103. manandboy says:

      The game has moved on.

      Once, it was mainly about the football, with a little bit of ‘tension’; now it’s about the ‘tension’, with a little bit of football.

      The PR created denial of the death of RFC and the birth of TRFC hasn’t helped.

      Nor has the SFA being part of the same Establishment as the Ibrox club, eased matters any.

      In any event, it’s all about the money now. Big money.

    104. Petra says:

      @ Robert Peffers says at 3:03 pm … ”No, Petra, I’ve decided to now just be a lurker and am washing my hair. The problem is I’m having a real hard job finding that hair.”

      Glad to see that you’re OK Robert and forget about searching for hair to wash, LOL. Just stick on your Yes badge bedecked bunnet (or a See You Jimmy Hat) and get back on here. Then again maybe you’re due a wee break. Come back to us when you’re ready. More than anything, I hope you’re keeping well X

    105. jfngw says:

      Interesting dilemma for the DUP now, if Corbyn backs Mays WA do they withdraw their supply & demand agreement and vote to bring down the gov if Labour bring no confidence motion. Either way they are screwed, their only hope now is with Corbyn rejecting offer. DUP now relying on Labour, every cloud has a silver lining.

    106. Reporting Scotland. That was the ‘appearance’ of a punch. What?
      How can they sleep?

    107. K1 says:

      That’s from the 19th March Robert…we’re not quite there yet wrt current shitstorm 🙂

    108. HandandShrimp says:


      You show more loyalty to May than most of her Cabinet.

    109. K1 says:

      Are we about to ‘witness’ a ‘unity government’ scenario, Corbyn’s playing his ‘big boy pants’ card wrt to meeting hashtag Mayunhinged.

    110. Petra says:

      twathater / yesindyref2 says …. ”You beat me to it. Yes, a footballer scoring a goal and going straight over to the other side’s supporters giving them a V sign or fist-pump elbow – breach of the peace. Repeated offence, higher fine + community service. Repeat? Jail. Manager spitting at other manager? Breach of the Peace. Manager or player in football inciting violence? Breach of the Peace. One of the arguments against OBFA was that there was existing legislation. Well then, USE IT.”

      That’s it in a nutshell. What’s good for the goose (us) is good for the gander (them). And if a player assaults another player, they should be sent off by the referee and charged by the Police in the dressing room to avoid riots on the pitch. Two assaults and they should be sacked (written into their contract). They’ll no be long in cleaning up their act if they think that their criminal behaviour is going to hit them in their pocket. And then of course wee James Kelly’s imminent anti-sectarian plan, to be released any day now, will include dealing with the supporters. Done and dusted.

    111. CameronB Brodie says:

      @James Kelly
      You still got your ears pinned back lad?

      Revisiting the Regulatory State: A Multidisciplinary Review Establishing a New Research Agenda


      This paper provides a comprehensive literature review of the ‘Regulatory State’ through the lens of utility regulation. The review is multidisciplinary with it bringing together the insights available from the political science, economics, legal and management science literatures. It is clear that while the term ‘Regulatory State’ is essentially missing from the economics literature a vast array of economics papers provide valuable insights for debates about the Regulatory State within political science.

      In addition to reviewing the existing literature, the paper identifies opportunities for future research. The literature is grouped into five topics: (i) Consumers, (ii) Courts, (iii) Ideas, Experts and Expertise, (iv) Governance and (v) Assessing Regulator Performance. Apart from (iv), we believe all of these areas have been under-researched in relative terms. In particular, a key finding is that compared to the information available on Public Utility Commissioners in US States, very little information has been collated on the background, characteristics and careers of individual utility regulators working within Europe.


      “Down the rabbit-hole”: The projection of the public/private distinction beyond the state

      Sovereignty in the 21st Century

    112. Petra says:

      Lol, looks as though you got some of that shampoo in your eyes, Robert. In saying that I reckon that an announcement is imminent.

      @ Robert Peffers says at 7:37 pm …

      @ K1 says at 7:39 pm …. ”That’s from the 19th March Robert…we’re not quite there yet wrt current shitstorm ?”

    113. Robert Peffers says:

      @K1 says:2 April, 2019 at 7:39 pm:

      ” … That’s from the 19th March Robert…we’re not quite there yet wrt current

      Try this then:-

    114. Mad Unionist says:

      As if legislation will change the mindset when we have sectarian taxpayer funded schools. The polis cannot be on every street corner in Glasgow and Strathclyde towns after a fitba match. People have been pushed onto the Glasgow Subway and main line train Stations tracks because they wear colours. Such is the downside of Irish immigration into Scotland post the famine and industrialisation.

    115. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      O/T Looks like Maybot is now prepared to rope-in closet-Leaver Corbyn to save her from her maddest opponents in her own party.

      So goodbye PV, goodbye revocation of Art50, and goodbye an early UKGE. Hello yet again to her “deal”, this time with Labour connivance.

      The majoritarian BritNat Cartel at its most crudely visible.

    116. Mad Unionist says:

      RJS, well done Corbyn if he helps get us out of the fascist EU. I would never vote for him but he could atone for his lip service to the IRA and Islamic fascists.

    117. call me dave says:

      What the SNP wanted will be stitched up as Corbyn and May gather round the table each trying to remember what Joanna Cherry said.

      The pellet with the poison’s in the vessel with the pestle; while the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true! 🙂

      What a farce!

      PS: A read if you like.

    118. torquil fflufington smythe says:

      Looks like Ruth Davidsons Storm Troopers were flexing their muscles in preparation for future upcoming events.

    119. Dr Jim says:

      This’ll be Corbyns SNP plan that Labour voted against (Bain principle) and the media will help them out by keeping their mouths shut about that because if Mrs May rejects it Brexit will be the total fault of the SNP because the FM’s been planning it since she was eight years old

    120. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Sectarianism is religious Divide and Rule.

      Divide and Rule is a British Establishment classic tactic.

      Keep the ‘natives’ fighting amongst themselves so they don’t stick together and fight the British Establishment or compete trade wise with the UK.

      Balfour Declaration 1917, Palestine/Israel.

      Partition of Ireland 1921.

      Partition of India 1947, India/Pakistan.

    121. jockmcx says:

      gus1940 says:
      2 April, 2019 at 6:33 pm

      Which blindfolded cretin came up with the oxymoronic term ‘The Beautiful Game’?

      Um, i think that was the one and only Pele!

    122. Us Oldies recall Terry Butcher, Graham Roberts, Frank McAvennie, and Chris Woods getting red cards during a Battle at Ibrox in 1987 and ending up in court.
      Woods and Butcher got fined, but the other two let off.
      Will the PF be looking at Morelos Kent Halliday and Brown this week?
      Thot not.

    123. Jockanese Wind Talker says:


      Proposal for a Bill to repeal the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012.

      Lodged on Tuesday 29 November 2016

      Total Supporters: 61

      30 Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
      22 Scottish Labour
      5 Scottish Liberal Democrats
      4 Scottish Green Party

      For Supporters’ names see:

    124. galamcennalath says:

      call me dave says:

      the chalice from the palace

      Knew I had heard that, but didn’t know where.

      The Court Jester, 1955. Not that I have any recollection of that movie!

      Problem would be …. which of the many halfwits at WM would stand out sufficiently to be one official Court Jester?

      Johnson would be my first choice 🙂

    125. K1 says:

      Paywalled on the Tele Robert, can’t read it to archive and re post. But got the drift in the first couple of para’s.

    126. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Link isn’t working:


    127. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Still not working.

      Cut & Paste it into your browser and you’ll get the Pdf with all the rouges listed.

    128. CameronB Brodie says:

      Mad Unionist@8:10pm
      Your head is full of mince and you appear disinterested in securing reasoned compromise. That might be why you support the Yoonyawn, in spite of the impending threat it poses to your biological security. Here’s some Educational Theory and stuff to get your head around.

      The historical and contemporary debate about the relation of Catholic schools in Scotland and the social problem of sectarianism


      There have been claims that contemporary Catholic schools in Scotland are related to sectarianism by the Church of Scotland, academics, the secular lobby, the press and media and public figures, at various points in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. These individuals and groups have all highlighted the anomaly of state funded educational institutions being allegedly related to a serious social problem – sectarianism. This article presents a close examination of these claims and argues that there is very little empirical evidence to substantiate the alleged relation between contemporary Catholic schools and sectarianism.

      Keywords: faith schools, Catholic schools, Scotland, sectarianism, social problems

      Report confirms Catholic schools are not the root of sectarianism
      Government advisory group says issue has had its day in Scotland in report welcomed by the Church

      Sectarianism and state funded schooling in Scotland. A critical response to the final report of the Advisory Group on Tackling Sectarianism in Scotland.

      Catholic Schools and Sectarianism in Scotland: Educational Places and the Production and Negotiation of Urban Space

    129. K1 says:

      It’s the dot pdf that is not highlighting as part of the link that is causing it to fail when ye click on it. No idea why though…def part of address when copied and pasted from address bar but reverts to blacked out on posting…weird.

    130. Lenny Hartley says:

      Wull @1926 well said.

    131. Robert Peffers says:

      @K1 says:2 April, 2019 at 8:51 pm:

      ” … Paywalled on the Tele Robert, can’t read it to archive and re post. But got the drift in the first couple of para’s.”

      Well I’m adding 2+2 and perhaps getting five, K1, but that is the time when, if May gets her way, the Westminster Government will be announcing that the United Kingdom, (Including the Kingdom of Scotland), will be exiting the European Union.

      Meanwhile the leader of the SNP at Westminster has been becoming more and more insistent that Scotland will not be dragged out of the United Kingdom against the will of the legally Sovereign people of Scotland’s wishes.

      Nicola has also claimed this more often recently and now she seems anxious that at the time when Theresa will be announcing the United Kingdom will be exiting the European Union that the Holyrood Parliament will be sitting instead of being in recess.

      Would that not be the perfect time to hit Westminster with the Scottish Claim of Right that has been upheld by the international courts? – Or am I, perhaps, getting 2+2 to equal 5?

    132. K1 says:

      Indeed it would Robert…I’m hoping as ever that 2+2 is still equaling 4, but wi this shower and their shenanigans we can never be sure of anything, especially right now.

      I have no doubt that our SG and FM have indeed factored in…all the scenarios.

    133. Sarah says:

      @Robert Peffers: here’s hoping!!

    134. Gary says:

      Sectarianism/The Old Firm are something I see as ‘Our Great Shame’

      But Labour actually promoted themselves as the ones resurrecting it as they battled with the Conservative & Unionist Party for the ‘Orange Vote’

      THIS is what it’s all been about.

      They’ve been trying to grab a few extra votes, those votes come at a price. Every hundred votes they got represents someone affected by Sectarian violence. Perhaps a football fan stabbed to death, a fan attacked and injured, a wife of a fan who comes home and attacks her because his team lost, or the child who can’t go to school on Monday because (this time) the bruises are visible after daddy’s team lost. With no one to challenge their behaviour, and in fact they’re telling them it’s perfectly fine, these ‘fans’ take it to the level beyond verbal abuse and become violent. Usually it’s where no one can see it, at home, behind closed doors.

      They don’t care about the human consequences of trying to scrape up votes from human trash by becoming their enablers in violence. They aren’t fit to hold office.

      Hopefully soon, someone will wake Scottish Labour up and they might find their conscience again…

    135. velofello says:

      To the sports fans posting here – what is more detrimental to your sport – cynical provocation, unpunished by the referee, or instinctive retaliation punished by the referee?

      i once played in a rugby match where an opponent punched one of our team.The referee called the pair together, and warned them to behave. After the game we questioned the referee on his failure to discipline the the opponent – “Your player deserved it” was his reply.

      Regards D’Hondt, maybe some sort of straightforward % gearing the winning candidate’s votes total to the other candidates may be an answer. I recall a few Tory MSPs are sitting as List MSPs having secured just 10% of the winning candidate’s total. 10% reads like a fail to me.

    136. Kenny says:

      I have just emailed Mr. Harvie to tell him I was very unhappy, being generous, with this situation. To think I stood outside polling stations telling voters they should give their list vote to the greens.
      And now there is a guy from my neck of the woods could be on his road out. Knifed in the neck, you don’t do that if you don’t mean to kill.
      And I contributed to Weightman’s fund-raiser

    137. Brian Powell says:

      On May inviting Corbyn for ‘talks’. Corbyn is a mediocrity of of a few of decades standing, never been in government nor shown a spark of leadership. He was made leader because people mistakenly believed he represented them and would protect their place in the EU (the young believed that).

      He and a psychopath are going to decide the further of 65 million people. Though if ‘we’ get our heads out of ‘our’ arses, he won’t be deciding anything for 5.3million people in Scotland.

      But I’m not sure folk really understand how catastrophic that situation alone is.

    138. Robert Peffers says:

      @Sarah says: 2 April, 2019 at 9:25 pm:-

      ” … @Robert Peffers: here’s hoping!!”

      Well, Sarah, it has been obvious for some time that the Westminster contingent of the SNP have been ramping up the, “Scotland will not be dragged out of the EU”. In fact they have been quite bold in that respect. Not only that but the FM has told the members that her announcement about indyref2 is getting closer.

      Thing is I’ve had the feeling that perhaps there may be no need for another indyref. People like Alyn Smyth and Joanne Cherry have been using legal terms and involving the courts and the courts seem to be upholding The Scottish Claim of right.

      What’s more the Westminster propaganda that people of Scotland are legally sovereign is, “Popular Sovereignty” is mince. It has been an integral part of Scots law since at least 1320 and the Declaration of Arbroath. Popular Sovereignty it is not – it is Scottish Law.

      So it is Scots law and has been upheld by the international courts then Westminster are on a hiding to nothing and if the Scots Government invoke The Claim of Right and the EU go along with it there is no good reason why the EU should not simply say:-

      As the United Kingdom is obviously a united kingdom just as the title, “The United Kingdom”, indicates it is then the Kingdom of England can have what it voted for and the Kingdom of Scotland can have what it voted for and the Kingdom of Scotland is now the legacy member state. We wish you well The Kingdom of England and goodbye. Hello The Kingdom of Scotland – we kept the light on for your return.

    139. Thepnr says:

      O/T Maybe no deal really is off the table for good?

      It matters little now I’d think, the damage is done.

    140. Iain mhor says:

      Posted same before.
      What do Labour want?
      Some sniff of government.
      How can they achieve that?
      Not by a GE.
      How else could they achieve it?
      A state of emergency and a National Unity Government.
      How could that be brought about?
      I have no idea…

    141. Thepnr says:

      You really have to ask yourself a serious question. “Are these people for real?”.

      According to ministers, defining issue was that if there was a no-deal Brexit “we’d have to go to direct rule in Northern Ireland” says one. “Disaster. Huge risk. Of all legacies, the break-up of the Union [of the UK], the worst for a PM. She’ll never do no deal now”. And…

      I am told that “Andrea [Leadsom] requested that we go ahead with the risk of direct rule but call it something else”.

    142. Nana says:


      A few tweets spotted this evening

      According to ministers, defining issue was that if there was a no-deal Brexit “we’d have to go to direct rule in Northern Ireland” says one. “Disaster. Huge risk. Of all legacies, the break-up of the Union [of the UK], the worst for a PM. She’ll never do no deal now”. And…

      Ministers in absolute ANARCHY tonight. Some want Mrs May gone within 24 hours. Meanwhile backbench strike talk is back. And also a huge amount of anger from leavers in government at the ERG.

      Sources in EU institutions v clear tonight that Brexit extension to May 22 (which was first offered at the last EU summit & is back in play if TM can convince EU that her new plan can deliver the deal) is ONLY an option if the UK commits to European Elections. /1

    143. twathater says:

      Yesindyref2 @ 7.25pm
      That’s the point I was trying to make, it disgusts me that these overpaid posers and these clubs can get away with this criminality , I would love to see the police stop these matches immediately and arrest the offenders and march them off the pitch that would set the cat amongst the pigeons

      If this happened a few times maybe they would think twice about the impact on the pitch

    144. Robert Peffers says:

      @Thepnr says: 2 April, 2019 at 9:54 pm:

      ” … O/T Maybe no deal really is off the table for good?
      It matters little now I’d think, the damage is done.”

      Never ever forget, Thepnr, that the unionists are, and always have been, “The Westminster Establishment”. What’s more it was always thus. The UK goes to war and the very first thing that happens is that, “Her Majesty”, The Queen of England, summons her choice of leader to her presence and commands that person to form Her Majesty’s , cross-party, Wartime Cabinet.

      Of course we know that it isn’t really Her Majesty’s choice but that of Her Majesty’s Privy Council. The point is that all unionist parties are one and the same. The party system is just to fool the public. his goes right back to when the Parliament of England, then the aristocracy, rebelled against their real monarchy in 1688 and upon inviting William & Mary to become their monarchy they forced then to legally delegate their Divine Right, (a.k.a. sovereignty), to the English parliament.

      Which is why, today, Westminster illegally claims sovereignty over Scotland. There is no legal rule that the Scots ever gave up their legal sovereignty. Furthermore there is no Parliament of England but Westminster, on 1 May 1707 just carried on as if there were.

    145. Terry callachan says:

      Mad unionist…trouble at the match on Sunday had nothing whatsoever to do with what kind of schools there are in Glasgow .
      For the last few years there hasn’t been any trouble .
      Is that because Celtic won everything ?
      Is it because rangers were in the lower league ?
      I would say yes to both but the cause of it all is the hatred that some people have for celtics Irish history.
      There used to be a team called Celtic that played in the Irish league in Northern Ireland ,it was based in Belfast .
      It had to cease play ,it’s existence ended because some people there hated its Irish identity, those people were people who identified as British .
      They harassed and attacked celtics supporters and started to attack celtics players, on the pitch,that was the end,it was too dangerous for them to continue so they folded.
      The law didn’t help them.
      The government didn’t help them
      In fact the attacks on Celtic in Belfast played into the hands of the British governments suppression of Ireland’s identity.
      The people who hate Celtic are also people who identify as British and hate celtics Irish history.

    146. CameronB Brodie says:

      I just hope folk in Scotland realise just how vulnerable their human rights are under the British constitution. Somehow, I don’t think the corporate media will help in reaching this understanding, nor an understanding of its’ significance. The BBC in particular.

      Going global, turning back national: Towards a cosmopolitan administrative law?

      Ten years ago, the global administrative law project represented a new promised land for administrative lawyers, escaping the crisis that was affecting the fundamental pillars of administrative law at national level. In these ten years, the global administrative law scholarship did a very good and hard job. It discovered new lands, challenging cognate disciplines and refreshing the mind of a scientific community traditionally enclosed in the national boundaries.

      From this point of view, global administrative law pushed for a significant renewal of national administrative law: sometimes you have to go to the moon to have a better and more comprehensive view of the Earth. Another important contribution of the global administrative scholarship was the rebirth of comparative studies, beyond the traditional cross-country approach.

      That is why going to the global level and turning back to the national one with a stronger comparative approach can open up a new frontier of cosmopolitan administrative law, which is everywhere concerned with the double task of empowering public authorities and controlling the bureaucratic
      behavior and dominated by functional needs and the logic of collective action.

      International Administrative Law and National Sovereignty

      Global Administrative Law: The Quest for Principles and Values

      Global administrative law: The state of the art

    147. Terry callachan says:

      Mad unionist…trouble at the match on Sunday had nothing whatsoever to do with what kind of schools there are in Glasgow .
      For the last few years there hasn’t been any trouble .
      Is that because Celtic won everything ?
      Is it because rangers were in the lower league ?
      I would say yes to both but the cause of it all is the hatred that some people have for celtics Irish history.
      There used to be a team called Celtic that played in the Irish league in Northern Ireland ,it was based in Belfast .
      It had to cease play ,it’s existence ended because some people there hated its Irish identity, those people were people who identified as British .
      They harassed and attacked celtics supporters and started to attack celtics players, on the pitch,that was the end,it was too dangerous for them to continue so they folded.
      The law didn’t help them.
      The government didn’t help them
      In fact the attacks on Celtic in Belfast played into the hands of the British governments suppression of Ireland’s identity.
      The people who hate Celtic in Glasgow are also people who identify as British and hate celtics Irish history.
      It’s a carbon copy of the situation in Belfast a political creation fed by all those who support England’s control of Scotland including the British government the Labour Party the Conservative party the Lib Dem’s the newspapers across the uk the BBC STV the SFA and all the other britnats we know about.
      Yes there are rangers supporters who support Scottish independence but they would have to be blindfolded to not see the britnat identity of their club ,they are a minority and that is probably why they do nothing about it, the dangers of complaining about the britnat badge their club wears are very serious indeed.
      Only Scottish independence will eradicate it because it’s a created tool of britnat colonial control.

    148. Breeks says:


      Black 47 is now available on Netflix.

    149. Sarah says:

      @Robert Peffers at 9.52 p.m.

      I am of a very nervous and superstitious disposition so am inclined to say “Oh no, of course I don’t really think that Scotland can be restored very soon and very easily.”

      I don’t walk under ladders either!

    150. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Robert Peffers at 9:52 pm.

      You (again) mentioned the phrase “Popular Sovereignty” and, again, misconstrued it, as I pointed out a week or so ago.

      The use of “popular” in that phrase denotes (from Apple’s dictionaries),
      “3 [ attrib. ] (of political activity) carried on by the people as a whole rather than restricted to politicians or political parties.”

      That is the meaning that I believe is being intended in discussion btl here. What is NOT being implied are the other definitions in Apple’s dictionary:-

      1 liked or admired by many people or by a particular person or group: she was one of the most popular girls in the school | these cheeses are very popular in Europe.
      2 [ attrib. ] (of cultural activities or products) intended for or suited to the taste, understanding, or means of the general public rather than specialists or intellectuals: editorials accusing the government of wanting to gag the popular press.
      • (of a belief or attitude) held by the majority of the general public: many adult cats, contrary to popular opinion, dislike milk.

      “Popular Sovereignty”, ie carried on by the people as a whole, is what we Scots have.

    151. wull says:

      Haven’t seen TM’s statement on the tv. But it sounds like she just wants to blame everyone else for a mess that is entirely of her own making. It will be Jeremy Corbyn’s fault for either not turning up to speak to her or not complying with her wishes. And it will be the EU’s fault for not giving her an extension to which she has no right, and about which they have already been very clear she will not be getting.

      And, oh yes, she forgot about the SNP.

      Well, it’ll be their fault for not turning up to the meeting she never invited them to.

      And the same goes for anyone else she forgot about as well. In fact, it will be the parliament’s fault that we are now to be ruled no longer by the parliament but, instead, directly – by a new channel called ‘Teresa on the Telly’.

      Argentina had Evita, and we ‘You Kay-ers’ got our Tessa. ‘Don’t cry for me, UK’ she will sing (in her new song and dance act – live on your telly in every living-room in ‘the nation’). ‘I’m OK, You’re OK’, she will sing, ‘because I AM the UK’.

      That she is ‘for us’ and ‘truly ours’ (Yours Truly, says she) can now never be denied by any of us … She has proved it, because ‘Her Deal’ (or ‘No Deal’) IS the People’s Vote. Because she is FOR and with ‘The People’ – by being ‘AGAINST’ and opposed to all these horrible people in the Elected Parliament.

      Our Tessa is a populist. And – simple logic – anyone who is against her deal is against the people. Argentina had Evita, and ‘we’ have our Tessa – all ‘enemies of the people’ (starting with those at Westminster) must be eliminated.

      Get ready for the shots ringing out at dawn.

      Don’t cry for me, Argentina:
      We Neo-Cons won the Day.
      Sing up! To my new concertina –
      ‘We Brits will be true to our May!’

      ‘My Deal or No Deal –
      That is MY WAY
      I AM the PEOPLE –
      They WILL have their Say.

      ‘For my voice is their voice
      I and They – We are ONE:
      Together we dance, together rejoice:
      Westminster WE have OVERCOME!

      ‘We don’t want a parliament,
      Filled with such fools!
      All these mad crazy arguments
      Stop here! I impose Direct Rule.

      ‘I’ll govern by telly,
      Appear day after day:
      With no Parly above me,
      I’ll make MY BREXIT bear sway.

      ‘And the People will love me:
      I’m THEIR Mrs May!
      No ("Tractor" - Ed)s can shove me
      Out of THEIR WAY.

      ‘I’ll just announce what they need
      For they know that’ll save them.
      By ME they’ll be FREED:
      I’ll give them my MAYHEM!

      ‘They voted for pain,
      And that’s just what they’ll get.
      Can’t vote again,
      Lest they end up Brexit-bereft!

      ‘I am the people:
      They love me true:
      The UK’s Evita,
      Drenched in Red, White and Blue.

      ‘I’M FOR the nation:
      Parliament’s AGAINST YOU:
      Be Gone, Representation!
      So say I – and BRITS True.

      ‘I love MY UNION
      And so must you all!
      To your telly keep tuned in,
      And heed ye my CALL:

      ‘Brexit, MY Brexit,
      This alone is the Way:
      And whoever wrecks it …
      With their lives they WILL pay!

      ‘The parliament has ended:
      You – the people – now rule! …
      The law’s been suspended,
      So please don’t be offended
      When you find FREEDOM upended:
      For YOU … don’t forget! … are MY TOOL!’

    152. CameronB Brodie says:

      I must say that I agree with Prof. Doonthetoon. 😉

      History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau


      Hegemonic sovereignty: Carl Schmitt, Antonio Gramsci and the constituent prince

      The Theory of Popular Sovereignty

    153. CameronB Brodie says:

      More on the administrative state and popular sovereignty.

      The Very Idea of Popular Sovereignty: “We the People” Reconsidered


      The sovereignty of the people, it is widely said, is the foundation of modern democracy. The truth of this claim depends on the plausibility of attributing sovereignty to “the people” in the first place, and I shall express skepticism about this possibility.

      I shall suggest as well that the notion of popular sovereignty is complex, and that appeals to the notion may be best understood as expressing several different ideas and ideals. This essay distinguishes many of these and suggests that greater clarity at least would be obtained by focusing directly on these notions and ideals and eschewing that of sovereignty. My claim, however, will not merely be that the notion is multifaceted and complex.

      I shall argue as well that the doctrine that the people are, or ought to be, sovereign is misleading in potentially dangerous ways, and is conducive to a misunderstanding of the nature of politics, governance, and social order. It would be well to do without the doctrine, but it may be equally important to understand its errors. Our understandings and justifications of democracy, certainly, should dispense with popular sovereignty.

      The Concept of Sovereignty Revisited

      The incoherence of strong popular sovereignty

      Reclaiming Sovereignty: Constituted and Constituent Power in Political Theory

    154. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi CameronB B.

      The bit I didn’t bother pasting from Apple’s definition 3 was,

      “a popular revolt against colonial rule.”

      A tad apropos, nicht wahr?

    155. galamcennalath says:

      Breeks says:

      Black 47 is now available on Netflix.

      Excellent. A cracking action movie, but also a harrowing tale of England’s inhumanity to Ireland.

      I saw it in the cinema, but that was difficult. Very few places showed it. I’m suspicious when an anti UK Establishment themed movie isn’t on wide release.

    156. Liz g says:

      Cameron B Brodie & Brian doonthetoon @ 10.44

      I think Robert is pointing out that Scottish Popular Sovereignty is embedded in Law.
      Which is different and stronger than the mear definition!

    157. galamcennalath says:


      Peterloo is in a similar vane. Not shown widely. Wonder why? Touch a raw nerve, even today? Especially today!?

      The movie is perhaps too long, too much of a build up. But I still enjoyed it. Highlighted the horrendous attitudes among the regional ruling class.

    158. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Liz G.

      What Robert Peffers actually typed (at 9.52pm) was,

      “What’s more the Westminster propaganda that people of Scotland are legally sovereign is, “Popular Sovereignty” is mince.”

      I believe Robert is wrong. The fact is that being, “of the people”, Scots Sovereignty is “popular” – “carried on by the people as a whole” – in the strict sense (3) that I cited.

      I don’t believe “popular sovereignty” is “mince”, as Robert alleges.

    159. CameronB Brodie says:

      Liz g
      And I’m just pointing out the contemporary understanding of popular sovereignty and its’ ramifications. Popular sovereignty is an idealised notion that does not translate well in to public policy and administration. That’s why effective (written) constitutions are required to limit abuses of political power (see Brexit).

    160. Liz g says:

      Brian doonthetoon @ 11.12
      Oh I see what yer saying….
      Well yes,but where ye have to be careful is with Westminster,their word use has as many different interpretations as they care to conjure!
      Which is why I think Robert always makes the distinction!
      Although having said that the Court’s do the playing with words thing too,so being only from the “people” has its merits ,because when they back it up…. No court could stand against it….

    161. Mad Unionist says:

      callachan and Brodie. Defenders of religious segregation and no doubt the Jew / Protestant hating fascist Catholic Church.
      A referendum on Scottish Catholic school taxpayer funding should be held immediately. We the real Scottish people demand this.

    162. Liz g says:

      Cameron B Brodie @ 11.13
      Totally agree about needing a Written Constitution to define and protect our Sovereignty.
      But we’re not there yet and the paradox is that we need to claim and establish it first…. Or do we ?
      So round and round it will go,suiting the establishment just fine.

    163. call me dave says:

      I hear a caller on radio 5 saying that the latest from Brussels:

      (EU) will reject a request for a short extension and are asking for at least 1 year and the UK must run EU elections for UK candidates.

      Maybe tomorrow morning’s news. 🙂

    164. Golfnut says:

      We should refrain from allowing establishment smoke and mirrors defining and limiting our understanding of what and who holds sovereignty. Sovereignty is power, it is that simple. Do the people of Scotland have the power to decide their form of government, Yes. Do the people of Scotland have the power to decide who wears the crown, Yes. That is the kind of power the establishment don’t want you to know about far less use. Let’s not aid them in their endeavours.

    165. CameronB Brodie says:

      Mad Unionist
      You’re a bit of a bigot I see. That fits the British nationalist identity to a tea, frankly.

    166. Liz g says:

      Anyone reporting to the Rev that Mad Unionist is now insane
      Can add my name…

    167. Liz g says:

      Golfnut @ 11.29
      Well said..

    168. Graf Midgehunter says:

      CBB – BDTT

      The phrases “Popular Sovereignty” and “Sovereignty of the People” are for me two sides of the same coin.

      “Sovereignty of the People” is the legal fact, such as written in a Constitution.

      “Popular Sovereignty” is dependent on the fact that the people KNOW that they are Sovereign, only then can it be carried by the people..!

      I can understand very well why BREEKS hammers away at the “Popular Sovereignty” question and I think the SNP are starting to try to get the message out to ALL Scots what it means, see Ian Blackford at the HoC yesterday.

    169. Bill Hume says:

      There’s the old mad unionist trying to stir up religeous bigotry again.
      What a sad wee mad unionist he is.

    170. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Terry callachan at 10.29

      Straight to the point. And the bigots are the stupid pawns that have always been used by the UK to divide and rule

    171. Mad Unionist says:

      Actually callachan my grand faither was a Belfast man and was a wise political man. Belfast Celtic were just like Glasgow Celtic who had fans promoting Irish independence and anti Protestant religious bigotry. It was Irish Catholics in Scotland who were responsible for religious sectarianism. Before they arrived in the Broomielaw there was no problem. All children went to the same schools.

    172. Dr Jim says:

      Black 47 is a good movie, sore but good

    173. CameronB Brodie says:

      I hope to help emancipate Scotland’s popular sovereignty but I think it helps to understand popular sovereignty can be dangerous, if political power isn’t sufficiently limited through EFFECTIVE constitutional law (see Brexit).

      Reflexive Democracy as Popular Sovereignty


      Jean-Jacques Rousseau throws down a gauntlet for theories of popular sovereignty. After announcing his distress at the modern condition and confessing that he has no idea how things got that way, Rousseau strikes a more confident tone, saying that he does know what could be done to render such a condition legitimate. The project, he says, is to,

      Find a form of association which defends and protects with all common forces the person and goods of each associate, and by means of which each one, while uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before.1

      This formulation, like so much of Rousseau’s writing, is delicious precisely because of its daring juxtaposition of conflicting ideas. The normative standard set down here is “obeying only oneself and remaining as free as before.” Rather than situating it in a romanticized state of nature, however, Rousseau frames this criterion as a basis for finding a “form of association” — that is, a politically organized society. This is not just any politically organized society, of course, but the type characterized as putting men everywhere in chains. The chains are uniquely modern ones — not those of despotism, but simply of modernization itself.

      The complex social, bureaucratically organized character of modern life is precisely Rousseau’s target. Against this background, it is especially striking that he describes his inquiry as seeking a form of association in which each associate can obey only himself and remain as free as before.

      Political Practice Democratic Theory Political Agency Political Equality

      The concept of sovereignty in contemporary continental political philosophy

      Political Theology
      Four New Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty

      Is there any relationship between democracy and sovereignty of a country?

    174. John MacRae says:

      BddT, 11:12.

      No he is not. Read it again. He is quoting “the Westminster Propaganda”.

    175. Bob Mack says:

      @Mad Unionist,

      How dare Catholics come to stay here causing the locals to form gangs to intimidate them and deny them employment and education.

      You are English to the bone right enough. You have that sneering superiority.

      You make me sick.your an idiot with no more knowledge of Glasgow history than my dog. At least he is not a bigot.

    176. CameronB Brodie says:

      Graf Midgehunter
      I’m also very much a fan of anyone who bangs on about about the state of Scotland’s sovereign national identity and the sovereignty of her people, and the way in which that sovereignty is impinged upon by the British state. All thanks to the supremacy and immutability of English legal doctrine, apparently 😉

    177. yesindyref2 says:

      I am told that “Andrea [Leadsom] requested that we go ahead with the risk of direct rule but call it something else

      How about “Remote Dominion”?

    178. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      CameronB Brodie @ 23:13,

      One of the two European countries with a similar cultural-historical background to Scotland is The Helvetic Confederation, more commonly known as Switzerland. The democratic impetus that came from our shared religous traditions has arguably been far more influential in our thinking than (say) 14th century events, iconic in their way though they may be.

      However, Switzerland has been able to develop untramelled by centuries of occupation and cultural suppression, and as a consequence its democratic practices are far better developed than ours. The Swiss don’t grumble about being asked to vote on something, for example, they just treat it as a normal everyday thing that occasionally needs doing, like mowing the lawn or washing the car.

      I’m not arguing that we should adopt a similar form of direct democracy – it does tend towards the small-c conservative – but once we are free to go our own way again, hopefully we can rediscover some of our better traditions. Not least having a well-informed electorate as a bulwark against mendacious exploitation anf adventurism.

      In the meantime, if there is a day to be had in court to assert our ancient constitutional rights, let’s get on with it. If this finally rouses a far-too-somnolent population as to how they are being traduced by those they have presumed to be their “betters”, then all the better.

      (And I can think of one of our number who will feel vindicated, at that.)

    179. geeo says:

      Mad Unionist 11.40pm

      Post reported.

      Enough anti english bigots on here in recent months, certainly not entertaining your type.

    180. Mad Unionist says:

      Bob Mack got a call from his local Opus Dei lodge to defend the faith. A break from self flaggulation Bob. Are our children safe Bob?

    181. K1 says:

      So whit dae we think?

      Did May actually play right into the EU’s hands wi this?

      And by doing so destroy the Tory party?

      Ever get the feeling there’s a massive stitch up underway?


      Def GE coming up. I repeat LOL.

    182. K1 says:

      Bob, don’t let him get tae you. Not worth it friend.

    183. Bob Mack says:

      @Mad Unionist,

      My kids are but not sure about your household arrangements.

      Touched a sectarian nerve did I ?

    184. Graf Midgehunter says:


      People who know what Po. So. is, understand better what power means as well as having the self-confidence to use it.

      The “cringe” results mainly from this lack of knowledge and the Brit.Nat propaganda machine makes sure you don’t find out.

    185. Liz g says:

      Thank you geeo 🙂

    186. Graf Midgehunter says:

      yesindyref2 says: 11:51 pm

      “I am told that “Andrea [Leadsom] requested that we go ahead with the risk of direct rule but call it something else”

      How about “Remote Dominion”?
      Or ” Hey, you lot over there, just shut it.. 😉

    187. Liz g says:

      K1 @ 11.56
      Aye there’s something brewing with Westminster.
      She’s (May) not done this without the nod from somewhere..

    188. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      K1 @ 23:56,

      I don’t agree that a UKGE is on the way, though I was reckoning it as virtually unavoidable with May’s increased slippage of control until tonight’s little homily from the Great Leader. It seems to me that the new contortions are specifically designed to put off that eventuality, because neither May nor Corbyn actually fancies their chances in such a contest, and they can both see that the SNP will surge. An election won’t solve the Euro problem at hand anyway, merely move the chairs around the deck a little as the ship continues to sink. Besides, Corbyn doesn’t want to inherit this poisoned chalice until May has fully drained the contents.

      This is the Cartel in action, both cheeks working to preserve whatever shred of influence they have managed to retain after a 2-year-plus debacle by both.

      I reckon a stitch-up is on the cards now. To save themselves from a popular deluge of derision and contempt.

    189. CameronB Brodie says:

      Graf Midgehunter
      By Po. So., did you mean Political Sociology? 🙂

      Sovereignty transformed:
      a sociology of human rights


      This paper examines how global interdependencies and the consolidation of a human rights discourse are transforming national sovereignty. Social researchers frequently address the supremacy of state sovereignty and the absoluteness of human rights as mutually exclusive categories. However, rather than presupposing that a universal rights discourse is necessarily leading to the demise of sovereignty, we suggest that an increasingly de-nationalized conception of legitimacy is contributing to a reconfiguration of sovereignty itself.

      Through the analytic prism of historical memories – which refers to shared understandings specific pasts carry for present concerns of a political community – we provide an explanatory factor for the salience of human rights norms as a globally available repertoire of legitimate claim making.

      While states retain most of their sovereign functions, their legitimacy is no longer exclusively conditioned by a contract with the nation, but also by their adherence to a set of nation-transcending human rights ideals. Legitimacy is
      mediated by how willing states are to engage with ‘judicial memories’ of human rights abuses and their articulation in cosmopolitan legal frames.

      Empirically, we focus on war crime trials and how legal inscriptions of memories of human rights abuses are recasting the jurisdiction of International Law. The readiness of states to engage with rights abuses is becoming politically and culturally consequential, as adherence to global human rights norms confers legitimacy.

      Keywords: Collective memory; human rights; sovereignty; cosmopolitanism;
      international law; nation-state

    190. SilverDarling says:

      I wonder if May reached out to Jeremy before the last indicative votes, suggesting he could play a greater role in the process if he scuppered Joanna Cherry’s revoke A50 motion why refusing to whip for it?

      Might be why those outside the Corbyn circle voted for it but those close to Jeremy knew this was coming.

    191. SilverDarling says:

      By* refusing to whip for it

    192. Mad Unionist says:

      Bob Mack. The Holy fathers got no where near me, my children or my grandchild. You have to listen to your ancestors about this perverted Catholic mafia. And how true they were. Now aff tae yer bed Bob. Oh Bob there were rumours that lots of child bones were uncovered in ground next to a convent just under a mile east of a certain football ground. It was hushed. Late fifties early sixties. Oops!

    193. Dunx says:

      @ Breeks, @ Galamcennalath etc
      Agreed ref Black 47, excellent film, excellent cast and very nuanced portrayal .
      For those that aren’t aware already it is based on an earlier (10 Min short) called “An Ranger” from ‘screen Ireland’
      Worth watching for a wee taster.
      Caution it is mostly in Gaeilge with subtitles but only lasts ten minutes.

    194. Graf Midgehunter says:


      Po.So. …?? Establishment – Poncy Society

    195. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      me @ 00:12,

      If May and Corbyn can reach an accord, between the two of them they can probably amass enough party votes in the HoC to pass May’s “deal” with a promise to have some kind of trade arrangement with the EU that doesn’t involve FoM, which both of them hate. Together they can probably afford to see-off their respective rebels (pro-EU and hardline Leaver alike), not to mention the DUP, SNP etc.

      And most importantly of all, save mutual face.

      That’s the kind of stitch-up I expect to see.

    196. Liz g says:

      Bob Mack
      Don’t let him goad you
      The Rev will not want that shit on his site,give him the chance to deal with it.
      Hang fire my friend…

    197. CameronB Brodie says:

      Brian Doonthetoon
      Hi Brian, I wasn’t ignoring you. 😉

      “The bit I didn’t bother pasting from Apple’s definition 3 was,

      “a popular revolt against colonial rule.”

      A tad apropos, nicht wahr?”

      Political Theories of Decolonization: Postcolonialism and the Problem of Foundations


      Recent scholarship in political theory has focused on the treatment of colonialism in the writings of canonical thinkers such as Locke, Burke, Mill, Diderot, Tocqueville, Smith, and Kant, revealing the extent to which the subject of colonialism and imperialism dominated the minds of great thinkers as the colonial project took place. While such scholarship provides fascinating insight into the possible problems of enlightenment thought, it tends to ignore the voices of thinkers who spoke from the position of the colonized.

      This book fills a gap in postcolonial political critique by serving as an introduction to theorists who struggled with the question of how to found a new political order when the existing ideas and institutions were implicated in a history of domination. Looking at the writings of Gandhi, Ngugi, al-Afghani, and Mariategui, among several others, the book aims to explain how the work of these thinkers engage in thematic continuities—constituting “postcolonial political thought”—and add to liberal democratic understandings of political power, as well as illuminate how many of the central questions of political theory are imaginatively explored by postcolonial writers.

      Keywords: postcolonial, comparative political thought, Gandhi, Ngugi, al-Afghani, Mariategui

    198. Graf Midgehunter says:


      Forgot 😉

    199. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Mad Unionist @ 00:18,

      You still here, cranking out the same old scratchy record? =yawn=

    200. Bob Mack says:

      @Mad Unionist,

      Classic mate classic. Rumour becomes truth. Truth becomes what your warped imagination conjures up. We can all tell stories about the goings on of ministers and priests if you like. I have as many stories as you.
      However I am not as stupid as you to believe them all.

      You console and puff yourself up with stories about lesser beings. Find comfort in your “superiority” It’s what bigots like you do to feel better. Actually, it’s all you have. You are more to be scorned than taken seriously.

      You keep posting mate. You remind us of the detritus we need to keep off our shoes.

    201. Liz g says:

      Robert J Sutherland @ 12.24
      I’m still mindful that May was asking the EU to give no leverage to Scottish Independence in the Withdrawal agreement.
      As far as I can tell it’s only the DUP that have an issue with the back stop,N.Ireland’s coming under the EU umbrella and why wouldn’t they go along with that?
      So how would a May/Corbin partnership play out for us,is the worry?

    202. CameronB Brodie says:

      Graf Midgehunter
      “Establishment – Poncy Society”
      My mistake. Can I interest you in a bit of Political Sociology anyway?

      Overview of Law and Politics the Study of Law and Politics

      Abstract and Keywords

      This book deals with the interdisciplinary connections of the study of law and politics. It discusses jurisprudence and the philosophy of law, constitutional law, politics and theory, judicial politics, and law and society. The book reviews three prominent traditions in the empirical analysis of law and politics and, indeed, politics more broadly: judicial behavior, strategic action, and historical institutionalism. It also focuses on questions of law and courts in a global context and on how law constitutes and orders political and social relationships.

      Moreover, the book: examines how courts, politics, and society have intersected in the United States; reviews several recent interdisciplinary movements in the study of law and politics and how they intersect with and are of interest to political science; and offers personal perspectives on how the study of law and politics has developed over the past generation, and where it might be headed in the next.

      Keywords: United States, politics, law, jurisprudence, judicial politics, constitutional law, judicial behavior, courts, society, political science

    203. K1 says:

      If they stitch it up in the manner you describe Robert J, then even they must know that they have lost Scotland?

      If they stitch up a CU, Boles already revealed that by doing so it takes away their big (fantasy) weapon against Indy? Also given that FoM is absolute must for our SG compromise, how on earth does this prevent ‘Union’ collapse?

    204. Graf Midgehunter says:


      Graf Midgehunter

      “Establishment – Poncy Society”

      My mistake. Can I interest you in a bit of Political Sociology anyway?
      Tomorrow after my tooth doctor appointment..! 😉

      Gute Nacht.

    205. jockmcx says:

      I just woke up in a cold sweat,was being chased through a
      field by a giant jobby with two heads,one looked like May
      and the other looked like corbyn!

      luckily i was able to hide behind an old looking wall,it
      looked inda roman!

      Is this normal?

    206. Mad Unionist says:

      Well Bob Mack the truth is excavations have been ongoing in the Republic of Ireland. And if our host wishes to delete my comments that is at his descretion. I will not lose sleep but feel sorry for the victims and truth. You certainly have no concern about truth.

    207. Liz g says:

      K1 @ 12.33
      That’s the worry,and the fact that the information about the
      “Main Argument” got leaked!

    208. CameronB Brodie says:

      Graf Midgehunter
      All the best.

    209. jockmcx says:


    210. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Liz g @ 00:29:

      So how would a May/Corbin partnership play out for us,is the worry?

      The immediate danger for us is that many folk will utter a massive collective sigh of relief that it’s finally “over”. (Though in fact it’s only beginning, with massive and tricky trade talks to come over an extended period. And there are always “unforseen consequences”.)

      On the plus side, it will make visible the true nature of the Cartel, just as Better Together did. Scotland’s wishes trampled over by an uncaring English Establishment which is only looking-after its own interests to our disadvantage.

      In the medium term, the great danger is Brexit normalisation, especially with a 2-year “phoney war” during the agreed transition period.

      But I anticipate something considerably more proactive from the SG long before then. The increasingly-explicit comments from Ian Blackford seem to signal this.

    211. Liz g says:

      Jockmcx @ 12.37
      What’s India Roman ?

    212. jockmcx says:

      Roman india gloaman!
      cant believe u asked.

    213. Bob Mack says:

      @Mad Unionist,

      Oh I have concern about truth. I have dealt with many victims ( survivors) of abuse. I have enough experience though to understand that someone like yourself will only see one half of a story. The one you like and prefer.

      Whilst you excite yourself with reading about revelations of abuse by “Catholics”, you ignore what happens in your own backyard. Try reading about the abuse in the Protestant church. Very good report in 2016. That may cool your fervour to feel superior.

      Your on a loser with that argument. Probably never even crossed your mind to find out. Truth you see.

    214. Liz g says:

      Robert J Sutherland @ 12.44
      I’d say the Scottish Government are good to go as soon as our exit is confirmed as happening.
      We (the Yes movement ) are ready,and the mandate conditions have been met.
      We are no dependent on what kind of trade arrangements get negotiated it’s the being a member that matters.
      Although they will no do much negotiating with our resources off the table 🙂

    215. Liz g says:

      Jockmcx @ 12.47
      Well start believing,cause I’m still askin????

    216. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      K1 @ 00:33,

      They must keep some kind of occasional beady eye on us, since as Liz g reminds us, they insisted on explicitly writing us out of May’s “deal”. But maybe more-presssing issues keep distracting them right now. Like an impending black hole. Both of the “two amigos” wanting to keep “no-deal” in play would seem to indicate their desperation to force a dirty deal through. Afterwards they will have more time to pick over the bones.

      One step at a time. That’s all they can manage right now. Maybe they reckon we will mostly just go back to sleep again afterwards.

      But now, when they are most distracted, would seem to be precisely the right time to strike, whatever is planned.

      Don’t give them time to rally and set a new normal.

    217. yesindyref2 says:

      There are some who will adopt whatever view they think will cause division and extremism, and try to bring a very popular blog into disrepute. They’d be just as happy taking the “other side”.

      They’re called trolls.

    218. CameronB Brodie says:

      That took some nerve. 🙂

      Liz g
      Think of song titles. 😉

    219. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Liz g @ 00:51,

      Absolutely, Liz. On all counts.

    220. Bob Mack says:

      This blog will never come into disrepute. The Rev would never allow that to happen. Only some of the idiots who expose the depth of their ignorance and stupidity will suffer in that sense.

      Mad Unionist is of that ilk.

    221. Liz g says:

      Cameron B Brodie @ 12.56
      I don’t know many giant jobbie songs,in fact I don’t know any jobbie songs??

    222. Clapper57 says:

      jockmcx says @ 12.37am

      jockmcx, Was it a field of wheat ?

      And if so did you manage…in your dream…to separate the wheat from the chaff ?

      Trust me, in comparison to Brexit…your dream was normal.

      Keep having dreams but stay off the nightmares.

      Sweet dreams…don’t let the Mayflies bite….or be bugged by Corbyn.

    223. yesindyref2 says:

      @Bob Mack
      Hopefully the Rev will take care of it.

      @Liz g / @CBB
      Means nothing to me either. Maybe someone would be actually helpful and explain …

    224. jockmcx says:

      Liz the word was kinda… not india
      as the wall looked kinda roman

      as in H_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ‘s wall,
      now where’s my spellcheck!………Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!

    225. CameronB Brodie says:

      Liz g
      This is what happens to cultures that are not empowered with political authority. They are open to abuse and re-imagination by those with political power but little empathy for the affected culture (see Brexit).

      Jeannie Carson, Jimmy Durante – Roamin’ in the Gloamin’, 1954 TV

    226. dakk says:

      @ mad unionist

      Just try to comprehend one thing.

      Papist british nationalists such as Jacob Rees Mogg and most of the brinat papists of Scotland look down their britnat noses at wee proddy neds like you.

      Wise up man.

    227. Mad Unionist says:

      Bob Mack, I am not a Protestant. However if you have evidence that this Cult has been doing worldwide abuse on the scale that the Vatican has then produce your evidence. Take them to court!

    228. jockmcx says:

      Smmetimes ye stert sumthin ye wish ye hudnae stertit bit
      cause ye stertit it yiv goat tae feenish it n then aw ye
      kin dae is go…Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!

    229. geeo says:

      Mad Unionist post @12.18am


      They just never learn !!

    230. CameronB Brodie says:

      Back OT. What happens if you mix Administrative Law with Political Sociology? 🙂

      On Law, Politics, and Judicialization
      Political Jurisprudence

      This paper was originally published in the Kentucky Law Journal in 1964, and it is the first of two that elaborate a relatively general approach to judicial politics, which emphasizes the underlying social logics not only of law and courts but also of politics and government.

      It gives an account of the then new movement of political jurisprudence, which is described as essentially an extension of certain elements of sociological jurisprudence and judicial realism, combined with the substantive knowledge and methodology of political science. The foundation of the movement is the sociological jurist’s premise that the law must be understood not as an independent organism, but as an integral part of the social system; it is, in one sense, an attempt to advance the earlier movement of sociological jurisprudence by greater specialization.

      The new movement seeks to overcome the earlier one by concentrating on the specifically political aspects of the law’s interaction with society and describing the concrete impact of legal arrangements on the distribution of power and rewards among the various elements of a given society. Rather than presenting a general analysis of a purportedly complete new philosophical system, the paper attempts to describe it by means of a survey that suggests a general tone and approach as well as indicating some differences, conflicts, and weaknesses.

      Keywords: courts, distribution of power, distribution of rewards, judicial realism, law, political jurisprudence, political science, social science, sociological jurisprudence

    231. yesindyref2 says:

      I did a cracker last week. Opening post of a thread with lines from “Giant” by Calvin Harris amd Rag’n’Bone Man, at the bottom, but without the “I am a giant”. Being clever like, my superiority and a troll trap for the unionists in there. Duly caught one and at the appropriate time just repeated the lines:

      “Stand up on my shoulders,
      tell me what you see”

      his reply?

      “A chip”.

      He sunk my battleship!

      Told my wife who’s non-political, and she was hysterical,

    232. Clapper57 says:

      jockmcx says @ 1.22am

      Lol…….you made me laugh !

    233. geeo says:


      Good point there, i could absolutely see there being some traction in that.

      Ukexit is, and has been for quite some time, more about how to do it and not lose Scotland from their ‘precious union’.

      That pesky SNP keep refusing to make the mistakes treeza and Corbyn are desperately hoping to goad us into making.

      Anyone would think that SNP are doing so, deliberately (haha) !

    234. CameronB Brodie says:

      What happens next with that mix, is you end up with an informed perspective of Constitutional Law.

      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.

    235. jockmcx says:


      I make lot’s of women laugh tae…

      …maybe i should do one of those charles atlas courses!

      Dusty will get me back to sleep…lovely song

    236. Liz g says:

      Jockmcx @ 1.22
      Noo ahm utterly confused…
      Is it a song like Cameron thinks
      Is it spell check
      It it Indian
      Is it Italian
      Is it Roman
      Is it secret jobbie speak

      You really need to be on Theresa Mays Brexit negotiating team
      You’d run rings roon them 🙂

    237. yesindyref2 says:


    238. jockmcx says:

      Liz R U drunk? lol
      the only team i’d be on is her firing squad!

    239. yesindyref2 says:

      @Liz g
      “Roamin’ in the gloamin’ wi’ ma jobbie by ma side”

      I may have that wrong all the same.

    240. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’m a tease myself but if your not going to do the decent thing. 🙂

      Liz g 😉

      Roman india gloaman!
      Roamin’ in the Gloamin’

    241. Mad Unionist says:

      jockmcx. I think Liz g wants to lick your magic lollypop.

    242. jockmcx says:

      but not your mmagic carpet!

    243. CameronB Brodie says:

      Mad Unionist
      That’s a bit sexist and misogynistic, frankly. Going out in style? 😉

    244. Liz g says:

      Jockmcx @ 1.52
      Noo that I understood…LOL
      I jist felt you’d have her signing a Withdrawal agreement that included a section 30,but she’d never know it 🙂

      Thanks Cameron & Yesindyref2… I get the meaning now..duh…

    245. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Liz g @ 01:02,
      jockmcx @ 01:22

      Oh there is, I just remembered. But I’m too faux-polite to mention it here =grin=:

    246. jockmcx says:

      Question no.1 mr speaker
      was the recent marathon a result of statements in the house
      by the snp leader? is not the time

    247. Breeks says:

      SilverDarling says:
      3 April, 2019 at 12:14 am
      I wonder if May reached out to Jeremy before the last indicative votes, suggesting he could play a greater role in the process if he scuppered Joanna Cherry’s revoke A50 motion why refusing to whip for it?

      Might be why those outside the Corbyn circle voted for it but those close to Jeremy knew this was coming.

      May isn’t reaching out to Corbyn. All we are seeing is the blue voice of the Establishment colluding with the red voice of the Establishment, to create the illusion of two opposing sides working together in common purpose, when in reality there is only ever one Establishment.

      The Establishment wouldn’t dream of accommodating Joanna Cherry’s proposals because first, she is not owned by the Establishment, and second, she is a threat to the Establishment. She is a heretic to the Establishment and the heresy she represents must never be allowed to gain traction.

      It is the same Establishment which tries to manipulate and control Holyrood.

      It is the same Establishment which protects the BBC from criticism and competition.

      The Bain Principle is an Establishment principle.

      Labour and Tory are two cheeks of the same British Establishment arse. The whole game of Westminster is rigged. The Establishment owns both horses in a two horse race, but in its complacency and arrogance, it has failed to notice both its horses are clapped out old nags who have really dropped the ball with Brexit. The Establishment is properly up shit creek.

      The irony is, the whole Brexit debacle has its origins in the fact that European method and law constricts the British Establishment’s capacity to deal from the bottom of the pack and get away with rigging the game. That’s why it has to get out.

    248. jockmcx says:

      Thank goad, noo ye kin sleep sound,lol

    249. Liz g says:

      Jockmcx @ 2.21
      I certainly will
      Right back at ye my friend and mind nae mair dreaming noo..
      At least none ye wil be sharing… 🙂

    250. yesindyref2 says:

      @Liz g
      I am in the presence of an expert. Tag!

    251. geeo says:


      Don’t know about ‘in style’ but i expect ‘out’ will be his direction.

      I do not believe one has survived 3 reported posts of such nature previously.

    252. Patrick Roden says:

      Imagine having such a lack of self awareness that you would attempt to condemn child sex abuse, while at the same time support Scotland being ruled by Westminster.

      Westminster! the willing home of child sex abuse, that has been going on unchecked and covered up, for as long as the place has existed.

      Big Maggie knew!

    253. Nana says:

      First two lots of links not appeared, not sure why. Best wait and see if they show up later.

      Plans by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to rethink the disposal of radioactive waste from 27 defunct nuclear submarines have come under fierce fire from campaigners

    254. Nana says:

      Jo Maugham has turned the Joanna Cherry Motion into a Bill –
      Links are here

      Jo Maugham says
      I have now published, for the benefit of journalists, the Electoral Commission’s secret report (unchanged, save that I have removed the investigator’s names):
      Link here

    255. Nana says:

      EU orders UK to recover illegal tax aid from multinationals

      Brexit: a laboured retreat

      Not the whole of the UK mate

    256. Nana says:

      The Plot to Murder an MP
      A few moments ago a trial finished at the Old Bailey. Now that the trial is over, we’re able to finally tell the full story of how HOPE Not hate smashed the banned terror group National Action and foiled a murder plot.

      ‘What kind of a dictatorship is this?’ Max Blumenthal on Venezuela cops protecting coup leader

      Four lots of links missing. May appear later.

    257. Nana says:

      Ian Blackford on newsnight

      After spending 8 hours in Cabinet yesterday, #Brexit Secretary @SteveBarclay will spend this morning in front of this Committee. Watch live from 9.15

      LoganAir’s Managing director confirms the flight was cancelled due to the NATO exercise but in order to make Angus appear to be lying this is how they report

    258. Ken500 says:

      Electoral fraud is being committed on a vast scale with monies obtained illegally. Westmibster politicians, DUP are committing vast crimes on a massive scale.Why are the Police not investigating and putting them in jail. It is an absolute scandal.

    259. Sinky says:

      The Scotland In Union green ink brigade are seriously worried about the rise in Snp popularity as papers full of letters blaming the SNP for the Brexit shambles

    260. yesindyref2 says:

      With this in the news (dismantling), also similar in the Herald

      I think this was posted before, but yrtis again:

      Contrast with this:

      and draw our own conclusions – whatever they are.

      Dive! Dive! Dive!

    261. yesindyref2 says:

      I seriously think they’re part of the SAPS – Sturgeon’s Anti-Propaganda Service!

    262. Nana says:


      Christopher McEleny says

      Not one Nuclear submarine that’s lying rotting in Scotland has been safely decommissioned since 1980. Surely in a democracy it’s also alarming that the state media don’t even know if nuclear material has been removed

    263. Ken500 says:

      Why doesn’t the MOD sort out the Trident mess. Subs left to rot for years. Parasites. Instead of carrying out these wasteful, unecessary NATO excercises in Scotland. The Westminster illegal wars have caused enough havoc, waste and death in the world. Causing the worse migrant crisis in the world since the 11WW. They should be donating funds and resources to sort that out. Dirty, stinking, greedy liars.

      British arms firms/dealers have been illegally bribing Saudi Princes for years to legally sell British Arms. Murdering, killing illegal weaponry. With Westminster Gov illegal support. An International crime. Starting in the 1960’s Harold Wilson till now. Kept secret under the Official Secrets Act. ‘D’ notices. Destroying the world and causing poverty.

      May still selling Saudi illegal arms and other illegal contracts to benefit her husband’s and other associates firms. Graft and corruption. Unfair trade. Breaking International free trade rules.

    264. Nana says:

      Nuclear submarines: MoD criticised over submarine disposal

      FM in Westminster today

    265. yesindyref2 says:

      The ones ar Rosyth were defuelled thank goodness. Devonport isn’t so lucky, 7 of them still have fuel.

      One at Rosyth is being dismantled, the first in the UK, and the feeling is that there have been problems found so the MOD is looking for another plan – having managed to get everyone to agree to the old one.

      It’s not a good look.

    266. Nana says:


      no it’s not a good look. Stewart McDonald wants a public enquiry

    267. yesindyref2 says:

      Yes. I just hope the SNP MPs / MSPs double-check their facts, they – and others – tend to make booboos with detail at times, which can weaken a strong case.

    268. yesindyref2 says:

      Oh God, I just read the comments on that Scotsman article linked by S McD. Luckily the ones on our side are OK 🙂

    269. Golfnut says:

      @ Cameron B Brodie.

      I read your responses on sovereignty with interest, and to be honest they confirm the point I was making. Reclassification, pigeon holing, downgrading, has been going on for some time, to such a degree that people, ordinary people have lost any sense or understanding of the basic tenet of sovereignty, unqualified authority. We have to keep the message simple.

    270. stu mac says:

      @Terry Callachan

      They hate Scottish history too. Listen too them, it’s all about Northern Irish “history” – Derry, Boyne, 1690. 1690 is about the only date they know. They probably wouldn’t even know the significance of 1560 despite what they chant about. Or even what happened in 1689 in Scotland. Then there’s the England flags flaunted by many of them. And “We hate the SNP” simply because it believes in independence for Scotland. OK, you’re a unionist but isn’t independence a valid viewpoint? No because their views aren’t based on logic or consideration but on the biases and bigotry they’ve been brought up in. That kind of thing leads to violently attacking political opponents as we saw happened in George Sq.

    271. yesindyref2 says:

      Mmm, that was fun. Time for some shuteye it was a long night!

    272. Tackety Beets says:

      GMS circa 8.15

      I caught the last statement regarding iScotland from what sounded like Paul Mason ?

      I hope others heard it & better still a link set up.

      Sorry & sadly I canna dae such things.

      Jeezuz , what weather oot there, take care folks.

    273. Nana says:

      @Tackety Beets

      I don’t have a link to his interview but he has an article today in the guardian

      and he has this to say on twitter

    274. yesindyref2 says:

      @Nana / @Tackety Beets
      Random thought. Maybe May is wanting talks with Corbyn to further undermine him with Labour.

    275. Willie says:

      Maybe James Kelly should be stabbed in the neck by a sectarian chanting bigot.

      Or better still maybe one of Kelly’s family should get it in the neck. Some nice life destroying injuries. I mean getting oneself up to their knees in Fenian blood is an absolute right Mr Kelly.

      I make these comments to express my utter revulsion at those who repealed the OBSA which was introduced to try and eradicate the scourge of sectarianism. This terrible attack on a football fan on the day of an Old Firm was sectarian.

      By your name Kelly, it could have been you. Maybe it should have. At least it might have changed your mind about the wisdom of letting the mindless chant themselves into a fever with sectarian songs.

    276. Nana says:

      Re missing links from around 7am, hoping they turn up as there are some interesting ones including Nicola’s article Reuters, Alyn Smith’s latest blog on citizens rights, plus a few on government incompetency, Brexit. NY times opinion piece is worth a read.

      I’m off out and from the looks of it, I may need waders!

    277. Robert Peffers says:

      @Brian Doonthetoon says:2 April, 2019 at 10:35 pm:

      ” … You (again) mentioned the phrase “Popular Sovereignty” and, again, misconstrued it, as I pointed out a week or so ago.”

      I do no really wish to get into any contentious debate, Brian Doonthetoon, I’m attempting to be a lurker but your theory is total rubbish for the very simple reason that the people’s Sovereignty is a pivotal part of Scots Law.

      Thus, whether the people find it popular or not is totally immaterial, it is enshrined in the independent Rule of Law of Scotland.

      An eminent legal person (a judge I think but I cannot be bothered Googling which one), stated that the concept of royal/parliamentary sovereignty has no place under Scots law. i.e. under Scots law it simply cannot exist.

      It is thus totally immaterial whether it is popular or not with the people for, like it or not, they are legally sovereign.

      I’m an old guy blessed with a very good memory and I know that this concept of, “Popular Sovereignty”, is, and always has been Westminster propaganda and has always been pushed by Westminster to imply that Westminster, and not the people of Scotland, hold sovereignty over the entire United Kingdom.

      For heaven’s sake they have always even claimed they are the British Government. They are not as the United Kingdom does not govern the whole of Britain.

      Don’t bother attempting to argue the point as i will not engage further. I’m away back to lurking as I’m fed up arguing claptrap with people who claim to support independence but who hold unionist mantras close to their hearts.

    278. Willie says:

      Yes, and while we’re at Labour and the Conservatives seeking to allow sectarian chanting isn’t it refreshing to know that these Unionists are more than happy to have the Orange Lodge on side fighting for unionism.

      Fabulous too I thought the BBC’s stalwart Question Time audience plant Billy Mitchell having headed of to Loyally lead a flute band out of the Westminster Parliament on the day that the UK was supposed to leave the EU.

      James Kelly MSP must have been so proud to see the Livingston True Blues in action.

      Now I know not of Mr Kelly’s religion, nor do I care, but his name along with the now venerated right to use sectarian singing suggest to me that he may be of Tim origin as opposed to Billy origin. And on that maybe our Mr Kelly might like to reflect further that his Unionist chums who were on their way to London to play music were on the day of travel musing that they only Tim they would be nice too in London was Tim Wotherspoon – aka Tim Martin arch Brexiteer.

      Yes Mr Kelly, you maybe need a dose of the medicine you and your odious Labour Party promote.

    279. Republicofscotland says:

      BBC Newsnight reporter tells how the PM blocked the Common Market 2.0 deal by voting it down, because it wouldve strengthened the case for Scottish independence.

      They’re petrified of us leaving the union, and leave we must.

    280. galamcennalath says:

      Republicofscotland says:

      PM blocked the Common Market 2.0 deal by voting it down, because it wouldve strengthened the case for Scottish independence.

      Sounds right. It would seem they only have one argument left in defence of their Union, i.e. That Scotland’s trade with England necessitates a close union between the two. They intend to argue that iEngland outside the EU would pose problems for an iScotland inside the EU.

      If that’s the best they can do they don’t have much!

      Post Brexit (whatever form) there will be trade between England and the EU. There has to be. They will starve without it. Their lights will go off without energy trade, Their manufacturing will fail without it. And they will have no bog rolls.

      iEngland will trade with iScotland and Ireland just like the rest of the EU.

    281. mike cassidy says:


      Paul Mason seems to think May has put up the white flag.

      And Corbyn and the Labour Party are now the bees knees.

      ” The Tory party’s moral collapse is under way. I don’t know what new formation will emerge. But even its enemies must acknowledge that Corbyn’s Labour party has ground May’s project to dust by drawing on the one thing that outsiders to the labour movement can never quite understand: the discipline and solidarity that come from being vilified and ignored ..”

      I’m the sort of cynic who suspects its more of a tory pre-emptive strike to share the political blame if it all goes nipples up and a GE is needed.

    282. call me dave says:

      @tackity beets

      Paul Mason it was he said (paraphrasing)

      “In 2014 I thought that within a generation Scotland would be independent. I’m more certain of that now!”


      Radio 5 lots of hopefully remain voices today.

      Still expect stitch up from May and Corbyn and the FM soon to be chapping on No10’s door asking if anybody’s at home.

    283. Robert Peffers says:

      @Liz g says: 2 April, 2019 at 11:04 pm:

      ” … Cameron B Brodie & Brian doonthetoon @ 10.44
      I think Robert is pointing out that Scottish Popular Sovereignty is embedded in Law.
      Which is different and stronger than the mear definition!”

      Correct, Liz g. The reason I’ve moved to lurking is because I find it a very uphill task attempting to shake Westminster propaganda out of those who claim to be independence supporters but who fight tooth and nail to uphold Westminster propaganda.

      I’ll point out yet another that sticks out a mile but has been picked up by no one here on Wings.

      Theresa May is in some kind of alliance with a group that really doesn’t represent the majority on Northern Ireland but that, in itself is not the very much more obvious thing about it. Yet where are the Scottish Independence supporters shouting their heads off about it?

      Now I say, “the more obvious”, but it obviously cannot be so or they would see the obvious. The obvious thing is that Northern Ireland, along with Wales, is part of the Kingdom of England that signed the Treaty of Union and thus neither N.I. or Wales has the same case to fight as has the Kingdom of Scotland. Yet May/Westminster, 9and the EU), have fallen over itself to negotiate upon the Good Friday Agreement.

      The correct legal situation is that Westminster is not legally sovereign over Scotland and The United Kingdom is legally a two partner union of kingdoms and Westminster has pointedly ignored The Kingdom Of Scotland and her legally sovereign people.

      There is the thing that should be getting shoved up Westminster’s nose – The United Kingdom is NOT a country it is a united kingdom and it only has two partner kingdoms and Westminster is NOT the parliament of The country or the kingdom of England. Furthermore Westminster has no legal sovereignty over the people or the Kingdom of Scotland.

      There really are no grey areas as these things are all written in the Treaty of Union and if they are not being complied with then the legally sovereign people of Scotland have the sovereign right to simply tell Westminster the Treaty of Union is over. End of the union and end of the problem as far as Scotland is concerned. Let the Kingdom of England, that legally has no legally elected parliament, sort its own problems out.

    284. call me dave says:

      Morning hot chilli Peffers!

      You keep on keeping on posting your history stuff lots on here appreciate it and many new lurkers need to learn.

      Stay fit, how’s that bike thing working out?

    285. Dr Jim says:

      Direct rule for Northern Ireland if the Brexiters can force a no deal Brexit

      This story began seeping out of Whitehall last night, no doubt someone will confirm or deny if the news media are allowed to report it

    286. Breeks says:

      Robert Peffers you simply seem to be misreading the word popular.

      The -ular suffix broadly denotes “pertaining to”. Molecular pertains to molecules. Muscular pertains to muscle. Angular pertains to angles. If it was all a load of bollocks the word would be testicular.

      Popular simply means it is “of the people”. Popular Sovereignty is Sovereignty of the people, as distinct from unqualified Sovereignty which typically has a single sovereign by default, like a monarch. A well loved sovereign monarch might be described as popular among the people, but he doesn’t have popular sovereignty because by literal definition, he can’t.

      In this context, popular doesn’t mean it’s Sovereignty that becomes “popular” through widespread acceptance or folklore, like music can be described as popular because it appeals to a wide cross section of opinion. I suppose you might describe that as subjectively popular. But popular sovereignty is an objective distinction defining the type of Sovereignty, and the sovereignty itself still has fully potent, watertight legal legitimacy.

      You seem unnecessarily worried that a popular sovereignty is somehow watered down in principle, but the point being made is that it isn’t the case. It absolutely fine to embrace popular Sovereignty with both hands. We invented the principle 700 years ago.

    287. Firstly I hope the Celtic fan makes a full recovery from the injuries he sustained.

      As for Kelly, Leonard, Rennie, Harvie and the rest of the opposition MSPs who voted to repeal the OBFA act, I don’t believe there are words in any language which would adequately describe the contempt I hold for them.

    288. laukat says:

      I think yesterday was effectively trying to say ‘I’m willing to avoid no deal so much that we’re willing to form a government of National Unity to find a way through and honest we’ll try our best but we can only do that if the nasty EU allow us time to do it’

      In her mind I think she is hoping the UK population view her comments yesterday as she has tried everything to prevent no deal but because the EU say no to an extension unless there are elections she has no alternative but to go for no deal?

      In my opinion yesterday increased the chances of no deal as it was the start of the PR campaign to get the population on board.

    289. Giving Goose says:

      Re direct rule for N Ireland.
      It won’t stop there, I’m afraid.
      Direct rule will be imposed on Scotland.
      The mood music from Westminster, including Mrs May signals this.

    290. Dr Jim says:

      Peter Lilley to Adam Boulton on Sky news *We will leave on WTO rules and *FORCE* Ireland to do what we want*

    291. Bob Mack says:

      Nicola apparently on way to meet Mrs seems Mrs May might actually be relying on Corby and Nicolas to achieve some sort of deal given that 75% of her party want a no deal Brexit.
      Imagine that for a minute. A PM relying on opposition to pass her legislation.

      If by any chance the SNP did vote for it and it succeeded, I can state without doubt this Union would crumble overnight.
      The English public or at least 50% of them would be apoplectic with rage.

      Worth the risk?

    292. Breeks says:

      Come on Robert. More Coffee while you lurk… You are a wee bit off target with this too…

      “An eminent legal person (a judge I think but I cannot be bothered Googling which one), stated that the concept of royal/parliamentary sovereignty has no place under Scots law. i.e. under Scots law it simply cannot exist.”

      You are referring to the McCormack vs Lord Advocate Case in 1954 in which Lord Cooper stated that “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law”.

      He actually didn’t say what Scottish (popular) Sovereignty was, just obliquely said that English Sovereignty had no equivalent.

      It is the central essence to why the Union cannot properly exist, because the unitary Sovereignty of the “one” is irreconcilable with popular Sovereignty of the many. The two into one simply do not go. The Union of the United Kingdom is a Constitutional nonsense; a paradox which cannot be properly reconciled… ever. It can only be fudged, and has been a fudge since its inception.

    293. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Robert Peffers at 9:34 am.

      You typed,
      Thus, whether the people find it popular or not is totally immaterial
      It is thus totally immaterial whether it is popular or not with the people for, like it or not, they are legally sovereign.

      The phrase “popular sovereignty” means “Sovereignty of the People” or “The Peoples Sovereignty”, “popular” meaning “carried on by the people as a whole rather than restricted to politicians or political parties.” It defines that the populace or people are legally sovereign.

      It has nothing to do with whether or not enough people like their popular sovereignty to make it popular in a different sense of the word.

      Popular has three meanings in the Oxford Dictionary:
      1 Liked or admired by many people or by a particular person or group.
      ‘she was one of the most popular girls in the school’
      ‘these cheeses are very popular in Europe’

      2 attributive (of cultural activities or products) intended for or suited to the taste, understanding, or means of the general public rather than specialists or intellectuals.
      ‘editorials accusing the government of wanting to gag the popular press’

      2.1 (of a belief or attitude) held by the majority of the general public.
      ‘many adult cats, contrary to popular opinion, dislike milk’

      3 attributive (of political activity) carried on by the people as a whole rather than restricted to politicians or political parties.

      You are suggesting that “popular sovereignty” is sovereignty that is “Liked or admired by many people” to make it popular (sense 1).

      I disagree. I am suggesting that “popular sovereignty” is sovereignty “carried on by the people as a whole”. (sense 3)

      Finally, you typed,
      …arguing claptrap with people who claim to support independence but who hold unionist mantras close to their hearts.

      I respectfully suggest that your implying that my input indicates that I am one of those “who hold unionist mantras close to their hearts” is simply MINCE!

      Have a nice lurk. 🙂

    294. mr thms says:

      The PM blocked the Common Market 2.0 option just as North Sea oil reached $70 a barrel.

    295. K1 says:

      Peter Lilly is a complete horror along wi Redwood, these were the bastards back in the 80’s that stood on a platform of reducing child/other benefit/s for single mothers and attempted to make out that single mothers were somehow ‘less than’. Didn’t get their way, but I recall the slime emanating from them during that period.

    296. Iainmore says:

      Why isn’t he in jail for conspiracy to commit murder along with those others that repealed the OBFA?

    297. Liz g says:

      Breeks @ 10.24
      Again… I think Robert is making the distinction between the Popular Sovereignty ALL people’s can exercise,because of sheer weight of numbers and the,at the time,globally and currently on these islands,unique position of Scotland,in having Legal documentation to give it agency!

      E.G. While N.Ireland have an international Treaty saying they can have a vote to unite their country,they still have to convince a UK minister to grant permission.That’s NOT Sovereignty.Scotland has no need of such permission,we have Sovereignty.
      In fact it could be argued that a section 30 is Westminster having to give ITSELF permission to recognise Scotland’s decision,and is not infact to have any affect on Scotland taking a decision!

    298. Willie says:

      Re direct rule for Northern Ireland and then Scotland.

      Absolutely on the cards. The Assembly in Ireland is suspended and the GFA set aside. Indeed, no lesser a man than Michael Gove has declared so when he said the the need for the GFA has passed.

      And so too the devolved Scottish Parliament. The need for that to has passed. The repatriation of powers to Westminster together with the further lans to reduce the SP powers tell you exactly how it is going to go.

      In fact just consider the 62 to 38 Scottish vote. Totally and utterly toileted by Westminster. Or the 51.6% who in 1979 voted for devolution only to have it rejected. Or to quote the Sacred Vow by Gordon Brown and the Triplets, the Jockos are still getting it stuffed up them.

      Spun a tale, bought with baubles, at least we can take pride in being world class at shooting the breeze. Strong and stable, who’s like us?

    299. CameronB Brodie says:

      Robert Peffers
      “I do no really wish to get into any contentious debate, Brian Doonthetoon, I’m attempting to be a lurker but your theory is total rubbish for the very simple reason that the people’s Sovereignty is a pivotal part of Scots Law. ”

      That’s the problem Robert, you appear to think Scots law matters in this debate, when Westminster only recognises and stands under the authority of English law. It is the assumed supremacy of English legal doctrine we must overturn in order to liberate Scotland’s popular sovereignty. The Claim of Rights remains notional until that day.

    300. Capella says:

      @ K1 – you’re right about Peter “I have a little list” Lilley. Sinister right wing character. He also owns the company which has the contract to collate the results of our elections and referendums.

    301. Liz g says:

      Cameron B Brodie @ 11.24
      That’s not strictly true Cameron.
      Scottish law is and always had,had to be “catered” for within the UK Union. It’s always been parallel legislation.
      They have never had the ability to enact UK legislation.
      The Lockerbie trial is probably the best known example,that Westminster is as bound by Scottish law as it is English!

    302. SilverDarling says:

      @Liz 11.36

      Liz is it not the case this is just for criminal cases? Civil Law issues are dealt with by the UK Supreme Court which takes both into account.

      With regard to Constitutional Law:

      “The Supreme Court also determines “devolution issues” (as defined by the Scotland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006). These are legal proceedings about the powers of the three devolved administrations—the Northern Ireland Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales. Devolution issues were previously heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and most are about compliance with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, brought into national law by the Devolution Acts and the Human Rights Act 1998.”

    303. CameronB Brodie says:

      Liz g
      Agreed but the unwritten nature of the British constitution means that is purely convention that dictates the boundaries of executive excesses. As we see with Brexit, any tin-pot dictator can chose to ignore Scots law if they wish.

    304. McDuff says:

      Cameron Brodie
      Absoutely right.
      And it’s not just the legalities,every aspect of Scottish life is completely dominated by England to the extent that they really don’t recognise Holyrood regarding it rather as a joke.

    305. SilverDarling says:

      I didn’t explain that well. With criminal cases, Scots Law will be the final destination for any appeal of offences committed in Scotland.

      However, for Civil Law the UK Court is the final destination as it is with Constitutional legal matters. Whether English Law takes precedence or not is the absolute crux of the matter.

    306. Bob Mack says:

      Claim of right is NOT NOTIONAL. Indeed it was used to remove James v11 from his position. It is still retained in Scots Law, and was indeed reasserted in Westminster not long ago.

      It is there. We just need to know how to maximise it’s potential

    307. galamcennalath says:

      ” People are exhausted by Brexit, with 83% fed up of seeing it on the news every day “

      Well, there’s news for them they won’t like – unless it’s revoked completely the arguments are going to continue for many years.

      If there is a ‘soft deal’ then the negotiations with the EU over the relationship are going to be much more complicated than the WA.

      If there is a ‘hard deal’ then there will be trade negotiations with the EU and the world.

      If there is ‘no deal’ then the EU have already said the details in the WA still apply before they will talk trade. The WTO talk so aren’t going to be easy. Then there’s also trade deals with the world.

      Any way is going yo drag in for years and if the exit is ‘hard’ it’s going to take place against a self imposed recession!

      So, they ain’t seen nothing yet!

      Equal numbers want to cancel or ‘no deal’ (high 40%ish). There is no compromis between those extremes!

    308. CameronB Brodie says:

      OK, the British constitution is written down, it’s just written down in numerous documents which can be interpreted to political advantage. It needs to be codified in a logical, structured fashion that is capable of interacting with international law in a just fashion. No more supremacy of English legal doctrine or the English school of International Relations for me please.

    309. CameronB Brodie says:

      Of course, England is entitled to their cultural integrity just as much as Scotland, so divorce seems the logical solution to an unequal and increasingly unhappy marriage.

    310. Mike Cassidy says:

      As historian David Hennessy said the other day

      The British Constitution is what happens.

    311. Clapper57 says:

      @ DrJim & K1

      Peter Lilley is a slimeball.

      But more worryingly he is a director with IDOX the company that controls postal voting in elections in Scotland…..I, like many others, have serious reservations about such a right wing slimeball being anywhere near our democratic process.

      I rank him as one of the many ultra right wing nut jobs alongside Forsyth , Tebbit , Redwood and some recently elevated Tory Mp’s who pre Brexit were non entities but have now reached non deserved elevated status….such as Mark Francois, Andrew Bridgen and some of the other rebels with a right wing cause.

      Personally the air time they are given to spout their extreme fake self serving sh**te is the most undemocratic exercise on a policy that was supposed to have been based on a democratic process ( not in Scotland)…..and if I hear one more Scottish Tory MP claim that the SNP want Brexit chaos I will scream …..of course they, the Scottish Tories, are desperate to avoid a GE as they will need to backpedal and present an argument for their dire performance in the Brexit charade THEIR party has instigated , controlled and tried to implement………….failing badly on all fronts.

      Never trust a Tory and especially never trust a Scottish one to do anything other than actively work only for the benefit and maintaining of the Union and the Tory party to the detriment of Scotland.

    312. geeo says:

      The Treaty of Union is the only written document which would qualify as a written united kingdom constitution.

      The Treaty of Union is internationally recognised, so all we need to do is ensure that we stand up for our rights afforded by it, and we are home and hosed.

    313. Liz g says:

      Silver Darling @ 11.40/45
      I don’t think it can be only Criminal Law..
      The Court of Session is still in place.
      And they couldn’t impose car clamping and other civil penalties here.
      Nevertheless I don’t think the issue around Scottish law is which court can enforce it…. It’s about who can write it..
      And there is no “body” with the authority to write – UK – law the Treaty doesn’t allow for that…. Law might be written in Westminster but it has to be written separately for Scotland and the rest of the Island …

      Apologies….. Can’t continue with this conversation,duty calls 🙂

    314. SilverDarling says:

      PMQS where May and Corbyn are going through some charade where they pretend they are on different sides and nobody must mention Brexit!

    315. CameronB Brodie says:

      Time for a bit more Polotocal Sociology?

      Towards a Political Sociology of Brexit

      Although sociology usually deals with heavy theoretical software and protocols of empirical research, the knowledge accumulated also makes it possible to quickly react to events and to history in the making by giving an alternative perspective. This is particularly important because the European Union has been insufficiently theorized in societal terms (and by sociologists), and also because, in such a so-called “unpredictable” situation, commentators on Brexit have attempted a sort of sociology in talking about British and European societies. It is therefore important to involve sociologists in the debate and for them to offer more consistent and critical models or hypotheses than the “wild” or amateur sociology which has dominated the debates (1).

      What is needed is a multi-causal perspective on an event combining history, social structure, identity constructions, the dynamics of political supply and demand, the media and interpretations of Europe and also of migration and possible futures. The context and more specifically the social conditions that led to the Brexit vote must also be related to other processes (globalization, cosmopolitization, Europeanization, macroeconomic and social transformation in times of crisis). which have implications for other processes than Brexit and in other countries such as France….

    316. CameronB Brodie says:

      Or some Political Sociology even.

      The political (micro) economy of the Brexit referendum: an application of public choice

    317. IZZIE says:

      Corbyn in General Election mode. Doesn’t auger well for this afternoons talks.

    318. galamcennalath says:

      CameronB Brodie says:

      England is entitled to their cultural integrity just as much as Scotland, so divorce seems the logical solution to an unequal and increasingly unhappy marriage.

      Very much so.

      England is being stopped from having the type of Brexit they think they want because England is not the UK. That fact appears to be a revelation for many Brexiteers.

      They never considered NI, the Belfast Agreement, peace and how it all related to EU membership.

      Those among the Brexiteers who are also Unionists have been in denial that anything other than a very soft Brexit is incompatible with the Scotland-England Union.

      NI MUST stay close to the EU, and it is the democratic wish of Scotland that she stays in the EU.

      IF the democratic wish of England is to Leave, then they must be allowed to do so.

      It could all be resolved very easily!

    319. SilverDarling says:

      @Lizg 12.09

      Appreciate you are going or gone. As I have had it explained to me by lawyers (and I am not a lawyer), a civil matter can be appealed outwith the Scottish Courts but a criminal matter cannot.

      Yes, there is no UK Law but the UK Court has judges from Scottish Law, English and NI Law who together come to a judgement taking into account the legal system the matter comes under, offering their ‘wisdom within that legal system.

      Constitutional Law is a different beast with Scottish and English Law competing in areas of dispute and who comes out on top is the entire point of the matter.

    320. Clapper57 says:

      Apparently a BBC female journalist Interviewed Dawn Foster of the Guardian….introduced her and said ” from the Guardian a left wing paper”.

      So the right wing BBC feels they have to highlight to viewers the media that is left wing but NEVER EVER mention journalists as being right wing from Tory rags . It’s almost as if they are inferring the journalist’s opinion is biased towards Labour and anti Tory before the journalist even speaks while presenting others they interview as impartial by NOT indicating their political persuasion…wink wink.

      Also they give a platform to twats from Think Tanks with no mention of their political affiliation……..yeh that sounds about right for the BBC…….laughable that many in England have now come late to the realisation that the BBC are biased Tory enablers…we , in Scotland, realised their game and bias a long time ago.

    321. Breeks says:

      Liz g says:
      3 April, 2019 at 11:15 am
      Breeks @ 10.24
      Again… I think Robert is making the distinction….

      Fair comment Liz, but why do we need any distinction? We are not creating a “new” Sovereignty (popular or otherwise) by democratic secession away from UK Sovereignty, nor are we proposing to use modern doctrines of human rights and self determination to establish our sovereignty,… although, yes, under UN Human Rights doctrine, we could pursue that path if we chose to …

      But there is no need. We are not seeking to create anything new, but merely resurrect a former condition where Scotland’s Sovereignty was recognised, stable, undisputed, and ascendant. There is nothing faulty or remiss with our Sovereignty. The Constitutional flaws and improprieties we wish to sweep away lie in the Treaty of Union which professes to do that which cannot be done.

      We don’t need need to establish our Flag or our Borders, define our national origins, or establish the legitimacy of our Constitution. We are perhaps the only ancient nation in the world which can produce its own Constitutional birth certificate together with the accordant recognition. We don’t need to create anything, merely affect a “mini Brexit” of our own, and terminate the Union by having it recognised as a contrived absurdity which does not warrant the international sovereign recognition which it currently enjoys. Job done. But then the real work begins…

    322. call me dave says:


      Stewart Hosie with a new pinstripe suit asking the PM obliquely if she has set a trap for the leader of the British Labour party.

      Maybe they have both set a trap for the SNP and Scotland with their customs union (without a single market option) ?

      That trap might boomerang if they have,

      Suddenly we have nuclear subs that need decommissioning after 35yrs.

    323. Phronesis says:

      Sulky, gormless, ignorant. A WM parliamentary system in terminal decline and unable to address the big issues. Isolated and hostile at war with the EU, at war with itself, subliminal threats of war against its own electorate, its institutional intelligence atrophying daily.

      The British state cannot repair the damage to its political system which is outdated, rooted in ignorance. ‘Unity’ on its terms is a unity of exclusion.
      Scotland has a very positive future as an independent nation state but not as the dustbin of Westminster and its toxic policies.

      ‘Sulkily, gormlessly, ignorantly, Parliament is shuffling towards a deal worse than either remaining or leaving. We shall lose our veto in Brussels, but allow Eurocrats to set our technical standards and control our trade deals with non-EU states. This idiocy is being pursued for the most sordid of reasons. Some MPs want to stay as close to Brussels as possible on principle, even in areas where there is no conceivable argument for doing so. Some want to stick the other side in the eye. Some simply want the whole business to end, and will vote for a dreadful deal out of ennui’

      ‘… European problems from multinational tax avoidance to climate change, social dumping and injustice require not national but also European solutions. He added that a new Social Contract should be established based on new economic policies that boost sustainable growth for all citizens, in line with the climate, environmental and social justice principles, and prioritising social needs as well as social demands’

    324. Breeks says:

      CameronB Brodie says:
      3 April, 2019 at 11:43 am
      Liz g
      Agreed but the unwritten nature of the British constitution means that is purely convention that dictates the boundaries of executive excesses. As we see with Brexit, any tin-pot dictator can chose to ignore Scots law if they wish…

      But surely not when challenged in an International Constitutional Courtroom…

      Just for a bit of pot stirring, I would love it if Scotland asked the ECJ whether it might use its Scottish Sovereign prerogative to revoke Article 50 unilaterally and stay in the EU by choice, because I think the ECJ would have to say yes…. (insert wee devil ? emoji)

    325. galamcennalath says:

      Nicola …. “If anything can come of this process now, what it will be is a cobbled together, least bad option rather than the best option for the country, an option that it won’t take too long for people to realise satisfies nobody, makes the country poorer and potentially could be unpicked by a new prime minister such as Boris Johnson. “

      Sounds to me like preparations for saying, “enough!”.

    326. CameronB Brodie says:

      As Phronesis suggests, Brexit has brought about a diminution of political intellect in Westminster, and a psychological breakdown in traditional political identities in Britain.

      Brexit identities: how Leave versus Remain replaced Conservative versus Labour affiliations of British voters

    327. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi SilverDarling and Liz g.

      “The High Court of Justiciary is the supreme criminal court in Scotland. The High Court is both a trial court and a court of appeal.
      As a trial court, the High Court sits on circuit at Parliament House or the former Sheriff Court building in Edinburgh, or in dedicated buildings in Glasgow and Aberdeen. The High Court sometimes sits in various smaller towns in Scotland, where it uses the local sheriff court building.
      As an appeal court the High Court sits only in Edinburgh. “

      That’s from,

      As far as civil cases go, it used to be that the House of Lords (law lords) was the final court of appeal. The following is from,

      “The Court of Session is Scotland’s supreme civil court. It sits in Parliament House, Edinburgh, and is presided over by the Lord President, Scotland’s most senior judge. The second most senior judge is the Lord Justice Clerk, who can deputise for the Lord President.
      Certain decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, either with the permission of the Inner House or, if the Inner House has refused permission, with the permission of the UK Supreme Court.”

      Also, from,

      “The Court of Session is the supreme civil court of Scotland,[21] and it shares concurrent jurisdiction with the local sheriff courts over all cases with a value of more than £100,000 (including personal injury claims.)
      Unlike in the High Court of Justiciary, there is a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom of cases from the Inner House.
      The right of appeal only exists when the Court of Session grants leave to this effect or when the decision of the Inner House is by majority.
      Until the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 came into force in October 2009, this right of appeal was to the House of Lords[2] (or sometimes to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council).”

    328. ronnie anderson says:

      I’ve reported Mad Unionist re his comment at 2 am but as we’re well aware on here DONT ENGAGE WITH HIM/HER .

    329. Wullie says:

      and who in Scotland is going to ask the ECJ. Never hear any legal eagles bumping their gums for Scotland. Never heard a peep when 6.000 square miles of sea were stolen from us. Not a peep about the ex region status of our oil. Nah yer oan yer own Scotland and no one in it or outside it gives a monkeys.

    330. call me dave says:

      Applause in the house (for a good cause) goes without comment from the speaker.

      Except he has a rant of his own in support!

      See, rules can be applied or not as does the unwritten UK constitution

      🙂 Funny old world.

    331. Dr Jim says:

      The *British* constitution is based on the Whitehall interpretation of *Democracy is what we say it is* at any given time

      Why would a dictatorship write things down they might later be forced to agree with and prove themselves wrong

      Fluidity that’s the secret of dictatorship, when at a moments notice a *National crisis* can be invoked and you can do whatever the hell you like under absolute law

      All this *will of the people* nonsense is flim flam, the people of England are not sovereign and never have been since their own Monarchy ceded that right to the English parliament, the HOC makes law and ignores the people when it suits them

      This time it doesn’t suit them, they could have fudged and interpreted the Brexit vote any way they wanted, they CHOSE not to, that’s why David Cameron ran away, remember he promised to stay on and see the Brexit vote through originally, found out what they were going to do and headed for a beach and sunnier climes

    332. CameronB Brodie says:

      I must say, I do have to wonder about the moral probity of our Yoon leaning legal fraternity in Scotland. They appear to lack moral foundation to their professional practice, so the term “chancres” springs to mind.

    333. SilverDarling says:


      Thanks for that. Trying to reconcile different legal systems in one Court is a can of worms. I suppose it beats the HoL making decisions though.

    334. Stravaiger says:

      To those of you who think that Treeza is caving in and leaning towards a softer Brexit, think again.

      If she gets her way, the short extension rules out the people’s vote option and any other option which requires negotiations with Europe as they require taking part in the Euro elections which we would not have prepared for.

      She’s once again trying to narrow the possibilities down to her deal or no deal. The only two options which keep the Tory party together.

      Most of the UK commentary says ‘no deal’ is getting less likely. Most of the EU commentary says ‘no deal’is is getting more likely.

      Who do you believe?

    335. CameronB Brodie says:

      re. the need for a new Social Contract.

      Democratic Justice and the Social Contract
      Justice, social contracts, and democracy

      Within all modern democracies political controversy arises over property and justice. One important tradition of political theory addresses these questions by reference to the idea of a social contract. Social contract theory is a procedural theory of justice, and so links to democracy, which is a procedural theory of government. Among modern contract theories, there is an important distinction between contractarian and contractualist approaches.

      The theory offered in this work builds upon the idea that a democracy is a political system in which power is distributed equally, and models a social contract for justice. The theory can thus be designated as democratic contractarianism. Societies can be regarded as an implicit contract, involving a balance between individual and collective interests, in which bounded rational individuals have to come to an agreement. This links in turn to the long-standing ideological controversy between individualism and collectivism.

      Keywords: justice, property, social contract, deliberative democracy, democratic contractarianism, bounded rationality, individualism, collectivism

      A New Social Contract

      Rethinking Social Contracts: Building Resilience in a Changing Climate

      Theoretical Underpinnings of a Global Social Contract

    336. Breeks says:

      CameronB Brodie says:
      3 April, 2019 at 1:12 pm
      I must say, I do have to wonder about the moral probity of our Yoon leaning legal fraternity in Scotland. They appear to lack moral foundation to their professional practice, so the term “chancres” springs to mind.

      A lot more mibees aye, than mibees naw, but the Super 6 who tested the Article 50 revocation principle came home with the result the went after, and landed a wee bump on the nose for the UK Supreme Court into the bargain.

      That’s why I suggested seeking clarification from the ECJ, because a) by hearing the original case it has established immediate legal personality, b) we seek clarification of an ECJ judgement where we know the overriding outcome, c) by enquiring whether Scotland could exercise a sovereign prerogative unilaterally, wouldn’t the inevitable affirmation that it could constitute a degree of lawful recognition of Scottish Sovereignty? And if the ECJ sets a precedent to recognise Scotland’s right to sovereign autonomy, then where does that leave the EU?

      Oh yes… and we get actually to revoke Article 50 unilaterally… news which Westminster will take very well I’m sure. Something to break the Brexit logjam…

    337. DervalDam says:

      OT Is it just me, or is anyone else watching Theresa May’s desperate moves put in mind of a certain Friends sketch?? Pivot, PIVOT!! (And in my mind NS is Monica.. freakishly strong, yet not asked to help!)

    338. Petra says:

      I see that wee Kelly is hiding away in a cross-party group. What happened to HIS anti-sectarian plan?

      James Dornan SNP, Convenor of the group, is really up against it, lol.

    339. galamcennalath says:

      DervalDam says:

      Theresa May’s desperate moves put in mind of a certain Friends sketch?

      I was thinking more of Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote. One seems content to run down the road and the other not savvy enough to avoid the cliff himself. 😉

      Either way, classic comedy!

    340. SilverDarling says:

      @Breeks 1.40 pm

      I posted a similar question on the Oliver Notwell thread:

      “When Joanna Cherry and co went to court to find out if article 50 could be revoked unilaterally was that a precedent that could be used?

      Could an action be raised to find out if the Treaty of the Union can be unilaterally revoked by the Scottish Parliament? Is that something that has been done before?

      If the answer was yes, then surely that would be the step to take next? Then, if so and it is confirmed in law, the Indy parties would have a solid legal basis to campaign on if we go beyond the next elections and no referendum is on the horizon.”

      I got absolute dog’s abuse for even asking from certain quarters. Glad to see someone else thought it worth asking.

    341. cearc says:

      Looks like the EU will give UK gov until next friday to sort themselves out.

      I wouldn’t put money on them managing it.

    342. CameronB Brodie says:

      Here’s one for all the non-yoon lawyers out there, who previously voted No. Yoon lawyers are beyond redemption as thier moral foundations are missing in action.

      Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-DeterminationMoral Foundations for International Law
      Introduction: The Idea of a Moral Theory of International Law

      Explains why a moral theory of international law is needed, refutes several prominent views that purport to rule out the possibility of such a theory, sets out the criteria that the needed theory should satisfy, previews the main outlines of the theory developed in the remainder of the book, and explains and supports the thesis that institutional moral reasoning is needed to develop such a theory.

      There are nine sections: I. The Need for a Theory; II. Curious Neglect—the neglect of international relations in contemporary moral philosophy; III. Institutional Moral Reasoning; IV. The Realist Challenge; V. The Moral Minimalist Challenge; VI. Legal Nihilism; VII. The Moral Legitimacy of the State System; VIII. The Nature and Scope of a Moral Theory of International Law; and IX. An Overview of a Proto?theory—a summary of the moral theory of international law presented in the book, pointing out its limitations and theoretical essentials.

      Keywords: institutional moral reasoning, international law, international relations, Legitimacy, minimalism, moral philosophy, moral theory, Nihilism, realism

    343. Petra says:

      I see that the Holyrood anti-sectarian cross-party group consists of one Tory, five SNP politicians and James Kelly.

      No one from the Green Party that was heavily involved in repealing the OBFA? No one from the wee Wullie Rennie, “I’m never off of Police Scotland’s back”, Lib-dem party? One Tory? Par for the ”OO supporter”, course. And Kelly only from the Labour Party? Forced, between one thing and another, to take part no doubt. What a bunch of fly, lazy charlatans leaving it to the SNP to do the hard graft as usual and we can take it that it will all be in vain when they tear the end result to shreds.

    344. Ottomanboi says:

      Had a dream that the SNP had morphed into a hard line nationalist party, then I woke up to hear Nicola being ‘emolient’. This is not the time for the pointless application of Scottish oil to troubled English waters or is she planning to set it on fire?

    345. CameronB Brodie says:

      @Scottish Greens
      The trade-off between public interest and individual liberty requires a balanced perspective and good judgement. It is not possible to take care of social justice without taking care of moral responsibility. Subsequently, I don’t think you have displayed good judgement in this matter.

      A Moral Underpinning for Legal Ethics


      This paper explores the ideal basis, qua moral theory, for legal ethics. It favours David Luban’s interpretation of Fuller’s theory of natural law. Luban’s theory offers a pragmatic moral standard that is flexible in nature, with the primary aim being the protection of human dignity. The advantages of Luban’s theory are fleshed out by contrasting it with those of Kant and Mill. An examination of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, and Mill’s Utilitarianism illuminates the need for a less rigid moral underpinning of legal ethics.

      Luban’s theory serves as a more convincing moral compass as opposed to a strictly prescribed principle. It allows for subjective moral values, autonomy, and personal judgement in its overarching pursuit of safeguarding human dignity. If there is to be a moral theory as the foundation for legal ethics, it must be one that is practical and attainable, whilst allowing for the revision and evolution of laws. Luban’s theory does precisely this.

      On the Moral Foundations of Legal Expressivism

      Moral Foundations of Liberal Democracy, Secular
      Reasons, and Liberal Neutrality toward the Good

      The Moral Foundations of Criminal Liability

    346. Dorothy Devine says:

      Petra , when I clicked on that petition site the counter started up and my name popped up , albeit with a wee pencil at the side presumably meaning I should sign rather than I had signed . It also looked as though I had joined Unite which I have never done nor will do.

    347. As Kelly was the instigator of the repeal of the OBFA act and promised Labour would bring in an new strategy to tackle sectarianism.

      Then what better place for him to hide, than in a cross party group.

      What are the odds that he will claim credit the for not only bringing the other parties together to produce better legislation in tackling sectarianism.

      But he will also see this as a win,win situation for him, Where he may attempt to claim that if he hadn’t managed to get the OBFA repealed, this new improved legislation wouldn’t have happened.

    348. Robert Louis says:

      Brian doon the toon at 101pm,

      Yes, and of course, under the treaty of union, even civil matters could NOT be appealed to the (then) house of Lords. The idea of civil appeals to London was a change unilaterally introduced post 1707 by the house of Lords in London.

      It was on of the first breaches of the treaty of union by England. One of many.

      The UK supreme court is a pretendy court, claiming legitimacy, yet it was a political creation of Tony Blair just a few years ago. It and its predecessor the house of lords should be playing no part in Scottish appeals, civil or criminal.

    349. Robert Louis says:

      Lizg at 1136,

      You are correct. The fact that Westminster chooses to ignore Scots law, or its constitutional principles, does not mean they do not exist. Indeed, that they exist is abundantly clear.

      And as you state, all laws coming from westminster have always been adapted to accomodate Scots law. Their is no such thing as ‘UK’ law, no matter how many times the BBC and Westminster try to pretend their is.

    350. Robert Louis says:

      Giving goose at 1034am,

      I think you are correct. Although, unlike N.Ireland, imposing direct rule over Scotland again may prove somewhat harder. In fact, only an utter fool would even attempt it.

    351. Petra says:

      @ Dorothy at 2:53pm ……..”Petition.”

      When I came across the petition Dorothy no one had signed it hence me posting, “He’s really up against it, lol.” After I’d posted it and checked it out it had over 2,000 signatures. I don’t know what’s going on with it (or us, lol).


      Breeks I posted a number of names with contact data previously that, if used, would have helped you to get sound legal advice re. your sovereignty issue. It looks as though you didn’t take the offer on board. You seem to be impressed with Joanna Cherry’s “revoke A50” actions, so wouldn’t it make sense for you to contact her; through writing to her, emailing her, tweeting her or better still attending one of her talks, which include a question and answer session?

    352. CameronB Brodie says:

      What gets me is all the allegedly conservative voters who continue to support the yoonyawn, despite Brexit. It’s probably British nationalism that is impairing their moral judgement and rational self-awareness.

      The 12 Item Social and Economic Conservatism Scale (SECS)


      Recent years have seen a surge in psychological research on the relationship between political ideology (particularly conservatism) and cognition, affect, behaviour, and even biology. Despite this flurry of investigation, however, there is as yet no accepted, validated, and widely used multi-item scale of conservatism that is concise, that is modern in its conceptualisation, and that includes both social and economic conservatism subscales. In this paper the 12-Item Social and Economic Conservatism Scale (SECS) is proposed and validated to help fill this gap. The SECS is suggested to be an important and useful tool for researchers working in political psychology.

      Individual Liberty and the Rule of Law

      What is moral foundation theory good for?

      A straw man can never beat a shapeshifter: Response to Schein and Gray (2015)

    353. SilverDarling says:

      @Robert Louis

      As a political creation therein lies the danger of the UK Supreme Court and why Alex Salmond railed against it. Also why I would agree to go to the ECJ over their heads in matters of the constitution pertaining to the EU.

    354. CameronB Brodie says:

      Here’s one for lawyers practicing Scottish law and who are still to move to supporting sovereign statehood for Scotland. As you will no doubt agree, the avoidance of “harm” is the most compelling argument in legal reason. Do you think any consideration was given to the harm that the full-English Brexit will do to Scotland?

      Making lawyers moral?
      Ethical codes and moral character

      This article argues that professional codes of conduct cannot perform the important task of ensuring that lawyers uphold high ethical standards. Instead, moral behaviour by lawyers requires the development of fixed behavioural attributes relevant to legal practice – what may be called a lawyer’s professional moral character.

      At the same time, however, along with other factors, professional codes are important in that they can either contribute to or detract from the successful development of professional moral character. If so, it is argued that in order to have the best chance of assisting the character development of lawyers, codes should neither take the form of highly detailed or extremely vague, aspirational norms, but should instead guide ethical decision-making by requiring them to consider a wide range of contextual factors when resolving ethical dilemmas.

    355. ronnie anderson says:

      LoL 15.45 Flashed up on the tv on the commons channel ( this channel is not authorised contact your Virgin media on 150 ) .

      I could quite happily stop watching HoC but only upon Scottish Independence .

    356. Legerwood says:

      Robert Louis says:
      3 April, 2019 at 3:06 pm
      Brian doon the toon at 101pm,

      “”Yes, and of course, under the treaty of union, even civil matters could NOT be appealed to the (then) house of Lords””

      The Treaty of Union is actually ‘silent’ on the matter of appeals on Civil cases to the House of Lords. The Treaty is quite specific on the matter of appeals in criminal cases – no.

      Therefore appealing Civil cases to the Lords was not a breach.

      As matters evolved in the House of Lords Scottish law lords sat in the House and heard appeals from Scottish Civil cases while their English counterparts heard appeals from the English courts.

      This was pointed out by senior legal figures in their submission to the consultation leading to the Supreme Court being set up.

      I have posted the relavant references before when this subject has come up. I am sure you can find them if you look for them.j

    357. ronnie anderson says:

      And again at 16.00 This channel is not authorised ? does Virgin Media not want us to see a Public Broadcast from the HoC.

    358. Meindevon says:

      Sorry if this has been shown already but I haven’t caught up on any of the thread today.

      The English Democrats are going to the High Court to declare that we have already left the EU on 29th March. It’s getting some publicity in the right wing papers down here. Lots of people commenting who have never heard of them and maybe realising there is a party for English Independence. Will do all to all to encourage them.

      See their website for details. (Not good at posting links)

    359. Breeks says:

      Petra says:
      3 April, 2019 at 3:21 pm

      ….so wouldn’t it make sense for you to contact her; through writing to her, emailing her, tweeting her or better still attending one of her talks, which include a question and answer session?

      Did. Twice. Fobbed off with not in her constituency. I find the SNP don’t do interaction as a rule, but at least Joanna ‘s office has the courtesy to reply. Our Joanna is quite exceptional. 😉

      Got a nice reply from Guy Verhofstadt though.

    360. CameronB Brodie says:

      More on the moral foundations of law, a concept that appears alien to the Prime-minister and the British constitution.

      Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law


      This book articulates a systematic vision of an international legal system grounded in the commitment to justice for all persons. It provides a probing exploration of the moral issues involved in disputes about secession, ethno?national conflict, ‘the right of self?determination of peoples’, human rights, and the legitimacy of the international legal system itself. The author advances vigorous criticisms of the central dogmas of international relations and international law, arguing that the international legal system should make justice, not simply peace, among states a primary goal, and rejecting the view that it is permissible for a state to conduct its foreign policies exclusively according to what is in the ‘national interest’.

      He also shows that the only alternatives are not rigid adherence to existing international law or lawless chaos in which the world’s one superpower pursues its own interests without constraints. This book not only criticizes the existing international legal order, but also offers morally defensible and practicable principles for reforming it. After a Synopsis and Introduction, which discusses the idea of a moral theory of international law, the book has four parts: I: Justice (3 chapters); II: Legitimacy (3 chapters); III: Self?Determination (2 chapters); and IV: Reform (2 chapters). The book is one of the titles in the Oxford Political Theory Series.

      Keywords: ethno?national conflict, foreign policy, human rights, international law, international legal system, international relations, justice, legitimacy, moral foundation, moral theory, national interest, reform, secession, self?determination

      Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy

      Popular sovereignty over natural resources: A critical reappraisal of Leif Wenar’s Blood Oil from the perspective of international law and justice

      Sovereignty and Migration in the Doctrine of the Law of Nations: An Intellectual History of Hospitality from Vitoria to Vattel

    361. Petra says:

      @ Breeks says at 4:38 pm …. ”Did. Twice (contacted Joanna Cherry). Fobbed off with not in her constituency. I find the SNP don’t do interaction as a rule, but at least Joanna ‘s office has the courtesy to reply. Our Joanna is quite exceptional. ? Got a nice reply from Guy Verhofstadt though.”

      She travels all over the country Breeks. You don’t have to live in her constituency to attend a meeting. And I have to say that every time I’ve contacted any SNP politician, and that includes Nicola Sturgeon, I’ve received a reply.

    362. yesindyref2 says:

      OT – rusting nuke subs!
      There are some minimising the problem with dismantling the 7 subs at Rosyth by waffling about the half-life of iodine, strontian and even polonium. Totally irrelevant – the fuel rods have been removed.

      What’s left is the reactor itself, containment and the pipes to actually generate power, pipes, pumps, compressors if any and generators. Probably with a lot of iron, all of which has been irradiated. And perhaps corrosion after being left rotting for 30 years or more. Plus perhaps the compartment itself. Add on cramped conditions and not a job I’d want to do.

      No idea what isotopes of iron are present, but the half-lifes run from 5 years up to a couple of million years, depending on isotope. THAT’s presumably the problem.

    363. IZZIE says:

      Can the brains on this forum answer this question. Does it have to be the Leader of the Opposition who tables a vote of no confidence in the Government?

    364. yesindyref2 says:

      OT – nukes again
      Incidentally, the nuke sub reactors are all PWR, whereas apart from Sizewell, all civil reactors in the UK are AGR. Hence any plan to involve the civil dismantling services means a complete change of reactor type.

    365. Thepnr says:

      Score draw in parliament LOL

    366. Thepnr says:


      “Does it have to be the Leader of the Opposition who tables a vote of no confidence in the Government?”

      No, but any vote of No confidence tabled by any other MP (such as Ian Blackford) can just be ignored as has already happened. She cannot ignore the tabling of a VoC by the leader of the opposition and must out it to a vote.

      I’ve no idea why that is the case but it seems them are the rules.

    367. Republicofscotland says:

      Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesperson has confirmed that it is Labour policy to end freedom of movement once the UK leaves the EU.

    368. IZZIE says:

      Thank you Thepnr. Perhaps a Vote of no confidence tabled by SNP plus others would be symbolic we are eyeing Indy ref 2 and hopefully a GE.

    369. Thepnr says:

      9 Labour MP’s voted against having further indicitive votes on Monday. An amendment proposed by a Labour MP but once again some in labour choose to support the Tory party instead.

      Tory enablers is what they are, just like with Better Together.

    370. Phydaux says:

      A deadly serious article, subjecting James Kelly to proper scrutiny, where all other public commentators have failed to do so. Mr. Kelly said he was “ deadly serious” about solving the problem of sectarianism and even pledged to do so. His apparent failure, to date, won’t be forgotten at the next vote. I am deadly serious about this much, Mr. Kelly, you won’t be missed.

      galamcennalath: 2:07pm

      Classic comedy indeed and one of my favourites from Loony Tunes. No dialogue ever except “ Beep-Beep! “ from the Road Runner who must stay on the road. Gravity becomes Coyote’s greatest enemy. It doesn’t seem to become a threat to him until he notices it, which is why we have that now-classic cliche in which he doesn’t start to fall until he realises he’s no longer standing on the cliff. Coyote NEVER catches the speedy bird!.

      We have an outstanding group of SNP MPs who will have a critical role to play in helping to achieve effective good governance in an independent Kingdom of Scotland. Hats off to each and every one of them for doing their damndest to fight our corner, in an intensely hostile working environment. Their welcome home will be awesome.

    371. Stravaiger @ 1.14

      seems that if Jeremy thinks that the deal is going his way he’ll be happy to agree and not insist on there being a confirmatory/people’s vote.

      Apparently if so, his party will go ballistic.

    372. Nana says:


      Not sure if the following have been posted

      FM speaking outside Westminster after her meeting earlier today
      video here

      Ian Blackford: “In all eventualities, there must be a people’s vote”

    373. call me dave says:

      VAR replay on the main motion shows that:

      The business motion is approved by 312 votes to 311, meaning MPs can now start debating Yvette Cooper’s bill aiming to prevent a no-deal Brexit.

      Bill Cash Tory overuled by Bercow when his intervention fell.

      Fascinating! HoC reminded me of this.

    374. CameronB Brodie says:

      The btl comments on that video Nana posted of FM speaking outside Westminster, give an indication of the ignorance and hatred directed towards Scotland by many of our English neighbours. Lots of these English bigots are British Labour voters.

      British Labour are an English nationalist party who must ape the Tories in order to get elected. They offer no hope for Scotland’s future. BLiS___d’s Richard Leopard is London’s place-man and doesn’t know the first thing about Scotland, let alone hold genuine empathy for Scotland’s people or culture.

      Richard Leopard is a smarmy conman.

    375. twathater says:

      Just watched Gordon Ross indycar video just now , he has explained another possible avenue that could be put to Treeza

      Lets be honest brexshit is not working out the way treeza thought it would so the jerm has been called in to shoulder some of the blame , everyone and their dug knows that if brexshit doesn’t go ahead both the tories and liebour will suffer at the hands of their voters

      What Gordon says and I paraphrase , is that Nicola should give the jerm and treeza an out ,she should say lets cut the bullshit , everyone knows that Scotland WILL BE INDEPENDENT and the polls are showing this more and more , what I am proposing is that wastemonster agrees to the dissolution of the treaty of union , and for that we will agree to allocate a minimal portion of oilfields to be under the control of wastemonster

      We all know that wastemonsters finances will be severely impacted ( decimated ) by Scotland leaving the UK but if that severity can be cushioned or lessened it may offer them a fig leaf

      This would allow engerland ,wales , and NI to exit without us pesky Scots hindering them

      Gordon says that we also have adopted the wrong mindset , we are arguing as supplicants when in fact we should be arguing from a position of power and strength , we should not be discussing what we will accept but instead what we will offer

    376. sandy says:

      Maybe a wee bit OT.

      I have asked this question before.
      On Scotland’s declaration of dissolving the UK, who represents the rUK in negotiations? Are there those with some aqumin “dern seth” making plans in light of their massive, massive cock-up over Brexit? How can they immediately hold an election? Surely the powers that be would have to reconstruct the complete WM electoral conditions? How long would this take? What would be the UN’s take on this. Similarly, the World Court?

      WM is not even a comedy. IMO, it’s on a par with the governments of some middle eastern states.

      Forget GSTQ, more GSrUK.

    377. Nana says:


      Here’s Gordon Ross’s latest’s video

    378. geeo says:

      “The SNP don’t do interaction as a rule”

      Totally bollocks in my experience.

      I have had responses by lots of individual SNP politicians over decades, including Joanna Cherry, usually within less than a week, occassionally 10 days, often same day.

      I am a decade and counting, waiting on a response from the last LABOUR politician i contacted.

      The SNP are by far the best party to respond to queries in my experience.

    379. robbo says:

      Way O/T but need to get it out-fizzing

      Michelle Ballantyne I’m sure was a nurse in a past life for Dr Mengele during the caring assistance he gave to disabled children during the Holocaust .

      No fecking way would I let that wumen near me in any hospital.

      Bloody rocket of a wumen. Why does the Scotpar allow for such horrible people to grace our parliament- mind boggles

    380. geeo says:


      Why the hell would we give WM a single fecking dime, far less a handful of money printing Oil rigs, which are OURS?

      When SCOTLAND dissolves the Treaty of Union, it is OVER.

      What WM/England/ etc think about that is 100% irrelevent, as it will be a done deal, so why would WE pay THEM off with a ‘Golden goodbye’ exactly?

      Dissolve the Treaty and demand 45 years of SCOTTISH OIL REVENUES are returned with immediate effect or we will close the taps and put out the lights darn sarf.

      We already ARE in a position of power.

    381. Robert Peffers says:

      @CameronB Brodie says: 3 April, 2019 at 11:50 am:

      ” … OK, the British constitution is written down, it’s just written down in numerous documents which can be interpreted to political advantage.”

      So you didn’t want to be contentious, Eh? So here you are being just that – and it is utter and complete piffle. There is no such thing as a British Constitution, unwritten, written or carved in stone. This is because there is no such state, country or kingdom called Britain. Britain is an archipelago and there are eight distinct countries within it and only four of them are parts of the United Kingdom. hat is excepting for the Queen of England personally who has 7 of the eight in per personal United Kingdom and three of them are not under Westminster rule.

      BTW: There is also no such thing as United Kingdom law either. there is English law and Scottish Law. Plus Irish Law and I have no real knowledge of Jersey, Guernsey or Manx Law. Not even if they are all the same. Irish Law will, of course, be Irish Law, except in the partitioned north of the country of Ireland.

      And no, I will not be arguing/debating this with you.

    382. yesindyref2 says:

      @twathater )Gordon Ross)
      and for that we will agree to allocate a minimal portion of oilfields to be under the control of wastemonster

      Absolutely not, no way. Get lost.

    383. Breeks says:

      twathater says:
      3 April, 2019 at 6:33 pm
      ….. what I am proposing is that wastemonster agrees to the dissolution of the treaty of union , and for that we will agree to allocate a minimal portion of oilfields to be under the control of wastemonster…

      I don’t think that’s the biggest sweetener. I think Scotland staying in the EU would be in a strong position to cite traditional UK trade links to present the EU and England with an Indy Scotland functioning as a buffer / transitional state to facilitate some free trade concessions between the two bodies..

      I think that arrangement would represent a more meaningful incentive to tempt Westminster than a handful of oil rigs.

    384. Cactus says:

      Big evening tonight for the future of the United Kingdom

      Just seeing Hammond waltzing oot of the commons there

      The place was empty 5 mins ago:

      Getting busier now

    385. call me dave says:

      England can have the Scottish (Not Argentine) oil share round the Falklands… er Malvinas!.

      Sounds fair to me. 🙂

      Shurley schome mishtake there, it is a weakness to even admit to giving any Scottish natural resource away before negotations even begin. 🙁

      Naw! I’m back to HoC for more punishment.

    386. Robert Peffers says:

      @Mike Cassidy says: 3 April, 2019 at 11:57 am:

      ” … As historian David Hennessy said the other day
      The British Constitution is what happens.”

      Some Historian! I say this as there is no such thing as, “A”, British State.

      There are in fact eight of them and the United Kingdom contains but two kingdoms that between them contain four countries with two and a bit of them countries of the Kingdom of England.

      There are four states that are not under Westminster rule. The Republic of Ireland, The Bailiwick of Jersey, The Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Isle of Man are not under Westminster rule but are Crown Protectorates. i.e. parts of Her Majesty’s own personal united kingdom.

      When Scotland ends the United Kingdom Government by ending the Treaty of Union then Scotland will also remain as a crown protectorate, but seeing as The Queen of Scots has done nothing to protect the people of Scotland’s sovereignty I would hope it would not be long before Scotland too becomes a republic.

    387. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      RE: comments about North Sea oil.

      Scotland’s maritime borders are already delineated.

      You can see a map here:-

      ALL oil and gas installations within Scotland’s waters would be under the jurisdiction of an independent Scotland, by the International Law of the Sea. No need to gift any of them to any “foreign” country!

      Then there is the matter of the 6,00 square miles of Scottish waters reallocated to England, on the eve of devolution in 1999.

      More on that at these two links:-

    388. Petra says:

      Give England some of our oilfields. EH! Not one of Gordon Ross’s better ideas, imo. Surely a country that has been subsidising the scrounging Scots, for hundreds of years now, is financially viable enough to go it alone without anyone else’s oil? Or has someone been telling us porkies?

      Additionally Westminster wouldn’t be happy with a ”minimal portion of our oilfields.” They want the blooming lot AND somewhere to ”house” their nuclear subs plus dump their toxic waste.

      And there’s a bit of an anomaly here in relation to what Gordon is saying: ”Gordon says that we also have adopted the wrong mindset, we are arguing as supplicants when in fact we should be arguing from a position of power and strength, we should not be discussing what we will accept but instead what we will offer.”

      Approaching them to offer our oilfields in return for our Independence isn’t a show of power and strength at all, but rather a sign of weakness, imo. A sign that we still have the mindset of the cringing supplicant. However I do agree that we should offer them something, for example a minimal portion of our electricity which they can pay the going rate for to keep their lights on.

    389. Robert Peffers says:

      @Clapper57 says:3 April, 2019 at 12:35 pm:

      ” … laughable that many in England have now come late to the realisation that the BBC are biased Tory enablers”

      Almost right, clapper57 but that bit about the BBC being Tory enablers is wrong. The BBC are, and always have been, government enablers.

      You see when governments change to different political parties the BBC, a private Corporation, find themselves with different paymasters. They get an annual government grant from general taxation. Now their propaganda is that the Licence fee payers pay for BBC programmes but that is a downright lie.

      As the BBC grant comes out of general taxation everyone pays for the BBC and the licence fee money does not go to the BBC it goes to the treasury – the BBC, are charged by the government to collect the licence fee but the actually do not even do that.

      They farm that task out to, “BBC Licensing”, a part of CAPITA and Capita is a private company. Back in the day the head honcho of Capita was none other than Denis Thatcher, the husband of Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher.

      So there you go – when the Tories lose the election the BBC paymasters will be Labour.

    390. Thepnr says:

      Pretty sure Indycar Ross suggested something similar last year though at that time he thought to gain our Independence we should give Westminster ALL the oil fields.

      Everybody is entitled to their opinion I’ll admit. That one is a bit out there mind you.

    391. Lenny Hartley says:

      Petra, agree re oilfields, aint watched Gordon Ross since he broadcast that nonsense, he lost all credibility with me.

    392. Graeme says:

      Not sure if any of you guys have seen this but I love it, I think she’s brilliant’ I’ve always said it’s her and thousands of other young Scots like her who will win our independence

    393. Petra says:

      It won’t be long now until Dirty Money Davidson returns. I wonder what she makes of Joanna Cherry QC MP, Angus Robertson former SNP leader at Westminster and Alyn Smith MEP vying to unseat her at the next Holyrood Election?


      Joanna Cherry QC MP:-

      ”@IanMurrayMP is underestimating the intelligence of Edinburgh voters….”

    394. Bill Hume says:

      I’m with Gordon Ross on this one. Let’s get our independence even if it requires a wee bit of bribery.
      After the first Scottish election we say “Of course an incoming government cannot be bound by anything the previous government has negotiated”
      Let’s face it, the bastards have done it often enough to us.

    395. jfngw says:

      You can never bribe the empire minded with concession, they just want more. They would also want their grouse moors, castles and sub bases. It’s as much about possession as money, if it was purely money they would have abandoned NI some time ago.

    396. K1 says:

      It’s looking like if they (May and Corby) can get a ‘CU with the EU with access to the SM’ through and have Coopers bill, now being rushed through without any amendments for a ‘confirmatory/second eu vote’ then Corbyn isn’t going to go for confirmatory/eu ref at all.

      It’s a stitch up underway and as far as I’m reading it they are probably going to go for this to stop Scotland/SNP going for second indy, as they will claim that SNP’s compromise position is on the ballot CU + SM. Thereby (so they think) protecting their ‘precious Union’

      Reading from Guardian’s live thread:

      ‘Labour’s Emily Thornberry abstained in the Cooper vote, as did Labour MP Karen Buck, another ardent campaigner for a confirmatory referendum, which is another sign that People’s Vote campaigners fear that the potential ruling out of no-deal could make it unlikely for Jeremy Corbyn to support a referendum.’

    397. Mike Cassidy says:

      Robert Peffers 7.11

      You know that

      And I sort of know that.

      But I think the point Hennessy was making is that there is no Constitution out there somewhere.

      The “Constitution” is a process.

      eg Bercow says the May deal cannot come back without substantive change.

      Oh that’s the Constitution.

      But it did come back without that level of change.

      And Bercow didn’t object.

      And it could be back again.

      And he hasn’t raised any pre-emptive objection.

      Oh that’s the constitution.

      Whatever the individuals who happen to be in office at the time decide to do.

    398. jfngw says:


      Davidson vs Cherry, surely this is a no contest. One of the most intelligent MP’s from Scotland against someone who is no more than a PR machine with no policies. I’ll leave it to you to work out which is which.

    399. CameronB Brodie says:

      Robert Peffers @6:55 pm
      “There is no such thing as a British Constitution, unwritten, written or carved in stone.”

      To put as politely as I can, you don’t appear to have much of a scooby about UK Constitutional Law. Learn to live with it.

      United Kingdom Legal Research Guide
      UK Constitutional Law

      The United Kingdom has never had a written constitution embodied in a single document. The foundational constitutional text for what is now the UK is the Magna Carta issued by King John of England in 1215. Since then, the constitution has evolved organically over time in response to political, economic, and social changes.

      The present constitution encompasses both statutory law and landmark judicial opinions, as well as many conventions or unwritten rules of constitutional practice. For example, the residual powers of the monarch and the relationship between the monarch and Parliament are still governed largely by these unwritten but nevertheless binding conventions…..

    400. Robert Peffers says:

      @yesindyref2 says:3 April, 2019 at 5:08 pm:

      ” … Add on cramped conditions and not a job I’d want to do.”

      Ever been on any of these vessels, yesindyref2?

      Cramped conditions there is not. Now those old WWII boats – they were cramped – and how.

    401. galamcennalath says:

      I completely fail to understand why we would have to negotiate our independence!

      I have always understood we vote for it, prepare for it, and execute it. Negotiations with England will be about dividing up assets (moveable in the UK, and fixed overseas) with perhaps debt and Trident giving some creative scope.

      Recently I heard someone saw something like … the oil is ours and Cornish tin is theirs, we have no claim on each other’s national assets.

    402. Liz g says:

      Give them some oil fields for the right to end a TREATY arrangement that we have the right to end anyway.
      Where to even start?
      I suppose right back where some of us were this morning.

      They are no our oil fields to give away.
      They belong to the Sovereign People of Scotland.
      That won’t always be us,we have the care and control of them for now
      (which we agreed to leave with Westminster in 2014,as Holyrood had arranged for in 1706)
      But we cannot hand over parts of Scotland,we don’t have that right.
      It beggars belief that someone would even think it!
      Even the Ancestors couldn’t give Scotland away they could only change the method of government.
      We really need to nail down in a Constitution exactly what Holyrood can and cannot sign us up to.
      Never again should Holyrood be able to sign Scotland up to a Treaty that lasts for Centuries and is this much trouble to dump!!!!
      It’s going to be hard enough to identify all the assets that we are due a share of,without cutting unnecessary deals over the easily identifiable ones.
      Our negotiation position should be…
      “Just how much do you want us to dig around in UK assetts, especially with countries from your ex empire that you looted watching” ?
      That should bring them to heel. Especially asking about the priceless stuff held in trust for “the Nation” by the monarch who took the title as Queen of the United Kingdom…
      We’ve nae need to be giving away a thing!!

    403. CameronB Brodie says:

      The “Right to Development”, which is soft law, states that nations have a sovereign right to their natural wealth and resources. I don’t think Britain has signed up to the “Right to Development”, but residents of Scotland certainly don’t enjoy the benefits of universal human rights. That’s a dividend of the yoonyawn, which views Britain as one legal entity, under English legal authority.

    404. yesindyref2 says:

      @Robert Peffers
      It’s the Swiftsure Bob, not much more than half the size of a Vanguard, nearly same complement. First of class and a demo more than anything. Resolution when they start (they may have started) will be bigger, a lot bigger.

    405. Bill Hume says:

      Re. Gordon Ross (indycar).
      The suggestion that we should give England some of our Scottish oil has been (as I thought it would) been met with much gnashing of teeth, as well it might. But haud oan a wee minute.
      I was a union activist and representative for more years than I care to think about and I always remember a wee bit of advice that I got from a much more experienced fellow TU rep.
      “Always give them a way out”
      And you know, he was right.
      Always give them something they can take back to their bosses to say that it was not all in vain.
      Always leave a door open otherwise you are simply facing a trapped animal and even a mouse will bite when cornered (yes, I have personal experience!!)
      Let’s give England it’s independence and a wee bit of oil because, let’s face it, it’s better than going on with the union where they steal all of it.

    406. Petra says:

      @ CameronB Brodie says at 8:09 pm … ”Robert Peffers says …“There is no such thing as a British Constitution, unwritten, written or carved in stone.”

      ”To put as politely as I can, you don’t appear to have much of a scooby about UK Constitutional Law. Learn to live with it. United Kingdom Legal Research Guide. UK Constitutional Law. The United Kingdom has never had a written constitution embodied in a single document.”..

      Cameron I think the issue lies with you initially stating ”British” rather than United Kingdom. Robert is right. There is no such thing as a British Constitution.


      @ Lenny Hartley says at 7:46 pm … ”Petra, agree re oilfields, ain’t watched Gordon Ross since he broadcast that nonsense, he lost all credibility with me.”

      I don’t know what’s going on there Lenny, but I don’t get it. Oilfields handed over before we’d even reached the negotiation stage! If anything, with Independence, they should be returning our ”stolen oilfields”, forking out compensation for the hundreds of billions of oil revenue that they’ve robbed from us and cleaning up their toxic waste or they’ll get sued blind. As I see it every oilfield handed over to them could totally eliminate poverty, raise pensions, etc, in Scotland.


      @ jfngw says at 8:08 pm …. ”Petra – Davidson vs Cherry, surely this is a no contest. One of the most intelligent MP’s from Scotland against someone who is no more than a PR machine with no policies. I’ll leave it to you to work out which is which.”

      No contest right enough jfngw. And when the 35 Westminster SNP MPs return home plus those who lost their jobs previously (and up and coming youngsters) Scotland will chock-full of political talent. Some may sit in Holyrood, the EU or man (woman) our many Embassies abroad. Roll on the day.

    407. Jock McDonnell says:

      The Magna Carta has no place in Scots Law.

    408. Liz g says:

      Galamcennalath @ 8.12
      Our problem will be identifying the hidden assets.
      But our digging for them will be a bigger problem for Westminster.
      Not just because as I said above the Countries that the British have looted will be intrested!
      But the population of England, Wales and N.I finding out that..
      They could have a state of the art NHS.
      Wait till the soldiers find out that there was money for decent equipment.
      Wait till the poor find out they didn’t need to be poor.
      The real Country Westminster needs to hide UK wealth from is England
      So the question is…. how much do they need to shut us up and settle?
      If we walk away with everything identifiable as ours and an 8% of everything else known about they will have gotten off light,especially since that 8% is negotiable!

    409. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      The CAN HAVE the oil and gas in English waters and we’ll keep ours.

      They can keep their fresh water and we’ll keep ours.

      They can keep their wind turbines, both onshore and offshore, and we’ll keep ours.

      They can keep their generated electricity and we’ll sell our excess to whoever pays the best price for it.

      I think that’s fair.

    410. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      “The” right at the start should be “They”.


    411. Mad Unionist says:

      Scotland has the highest rate of drug use and death in the EU. Strange figures when we have had Salmand followed by fandabbydozey in charge for over a decade. Things should be vunderbar in the EU.

    412. Dr Jim says:

      I’m afraid to say I wouldn’t give England oil water electricity or the matter out my eye and the EU hopefully won’t grant any long extension of article 50 either

      They have excluded and insulted Scotland enough, it’s time to drive the nail in hard, they wanted Brexit and they can’t sort it between themselves so let them now live with it

      Northern Ireland and Scotland don’t need these people because they’ll never learn until it stares them in the face and maybe even not then, and after all’s said and done they’ll still find a way to blame the SNP for it, which even now some of them are doing

      I’m absolutely pig sick of their whining useless blaming behaviour, it’s time to go and rid ourselves of this millstone round our necks and their arrogant stupidity

      Yeah I ranted, I ranted! Nae effin wonder

    413. Mad Unionist says:

      The oil assets discovered around Great Britain belong to the Crown/UK. Scottish independence will not change this. Are the SNP going to send the Waverley out to fight the Royal Navy.

    414. CameronB Brodie says:

      Robert is splitting hair and getting on my tits, frankly.

    415. Mad Unionist says:

      Dr Jim, you are the Master Mason of the moan. You moan about having nothing to moan about. That Cameron B Brodie is the Grand Cyclops of moaning.

    416. admiral says:

      Mad Unionist says:
      3 April, 2019 at 9:03 pm
      The oil assets discovered around Great Britain belong to the Crown/UK. Scottish independence will not change this. Are the SNP going to send the Waverley out to fight the Royal Navy.

      Yawn yawn ywn yawn yawn.

      Bore bore bore bore bore.

      The Royal Navy has loads of admirals and captains and not very many vessels.

    417. call me dave says:

      Well it’s complicated but here’s what the first bit says.

      In brief

      There were 3,700 drug-related deaths in England and Wales last year.

      Roughly correct, there were 3,756 registered in 2017. Around half of these will have happened in 2016 because of the time it takes to hold an inquest and then register the death.

      Claim 1 of 4
      “Scotland’s drug-related death rate is the highest in the EU, what can be done to resolve this?”

      BBC Question Time audience member, 11 October 2018

      “The figures incidentally are nearly 1,000 drug-related deaths in Scotland last year, and 3,700 in England and Wales, and the UK is the highest death rate in the EU from drugs.”

      David Dimbleby, 11 October 2018

      My teams getting a drubbing!

      Watching bits of the debate in HoC to calm me down. 🙂

    418. Accepting and encouraging immigration kept the Roman Empire powerful for 1000 years,

      The Roman Empire over the centuries welcomed new and different people, recognizing that greater strength—culturally, economically, militarily— lay with a growing populace that brought ideas, influence, and brawn.

      Yet, the newcomers were indeed Romans and were expected to adhere to the empire’s founding principles.

      The Latin language, Latin literature, basic Roman values such as honor and obedience, Roman architecture and urban planning, Roman law, and, above all, the Roman army, all endured.

      The immigrants changed Rome but Rome changed the immigrants in turn.

    419. Robert Peffers says:

      @sandy says: 3 April, 2019 at 6:33 pm:

      ” … I have asked this question before.”

      Yes, sandy, and you will probably get the same answers you got the last time.

      ” … On Scotland’s declaration of dissolving the UK, who represents the rUK in negotiations?”

      Same answer coming right up – The United Kingdom is a two partner union of kingdoms and that means when Scotland says the union is over there will be no such thing as an rUnited Kingdom.

      What remains will be exactly what started out as the union of two kingdoms – that is the Kingdom of Scotland and the three country Kingdom of England. When a two partner agreement of any kind splits up the legal term is, “a return to the Status Quo Ante”, (a return to the status both were in before they united).

      Now when the two kingdoms united the Kingdom of England parliament at Westminster sat and voted itself into permanent recess. In other words it ended forever. In Scotland the Scottish Parliament did not vote itself into permanent recess but was only Prorogued – that is it could be reconvened, and Winnie Ewing did reconvene it when she opened the first sitting of the Scottish Parliament. Holyrood is legally the old Scottish Parliament.

      However, Westminster is NOT the old parliament of England. In fact it is not the legally elected parliament of either the country or the Kingdom of England.

      When it opened on 1 May 1707 it was legally the new Parliament of the United Kingdom – and it still is. Sp the instant that Scotland declares the union is over that parliament at Westminster ceases to legally exist because it was elected as The United Kingdom Parliament and the United Kingdom has just ended and there is no legally elected parliament of either the Kingdom or the country of England.

      But England isn’t left without leadership. Oh! No! You see the Kingdom of England, all three countries of it, is, “Constitutional Monarchy”, with a legally sovereign monarch and thus the Queen of England is still legally sovereign.

      However, in 1688, the parliament of England rebelled against their monarch and deposed him. Then they skipped over all Roman Catholics in the line of descent and invited the first Protestant in the line of descent and her husband, Billy, to be joint monarchs of the Kingdom of England. However there were conditions. The first of which was that they had to legally delegate their sovereignty to the Parliament of England.

      Now here’s the thing – as I mentioned above, the Parliament of England went into permanent recess and no one has been elected as a member of an English parliament since 1 May 1707. here will be no legal parliament of England when Scotland say the union is over. However, the Monarchs of England since before 1707 and to the present day still summons the Monarch’s choice of leader of Her Majesty’s Government, (that is Her Majesty’s Prime Minister), to her Majesty’s presence and commands that Prime Minister to Form Her Majesty’s Government.

      Now we all know that this choice is NOT made by Her Majesty but by Her Majesty’s Privy Council and Her Majesty, as the ENGLISH law of 1688 says she must legally follow what they say. It is usually the leader of the election party with the most seats but not always so. When the, “Nation”, is under threat the first thing that happens is that the Privy Council directs the monarch to call, for example, a wartime Prime Minister to preside over a cross party war cabinet.

      So when the Westminster, United Kingdom, parliament ends the Privy Council can select a leader and Her Majesty command that leader to form Her Majesty’s Government of Her Kingdom of England for there will be no legally elected United Kingdom Government.

      Isn’t history a wonderful thing?

    420. Liz g says:

      Bill Hume @ 8.34
      Leaving aside that, we cannot give away parts of Scotland it’s not in our gift to allow Holyrood to do so and, Holyrood better not think it can!!!

      Yes I agree that to give them a way out is a sensible position.
      But not giving them an asset that if they mismanaged could impact on almost every thing Scotland tried to do.
      From something as simple as spoiling our emissions record,to polluting the area for years,or making Glasgow glow in the dark.
      So therefore, The Oil and Faslane/Coleport are out…
      We are dealing with a regime that has a history of wreaking things they cannot rule…. And we’d do well to remember it.

      Give them something Aye,absolutely,but just like when the EU gives extensions it dose so thoughtfully.
      We can’t go flinging a couple of spare oil wells or a bit of coast at them…. That’s mad….

    421. Legerwood says:

      K1 says:
      3 April, 2019 at 8:05 pm
      “”It’s looking like if they (May and Corby) can get a ‘CU with the EU with access to the SM’ through and have Coopers bill, now being rushed through without any amendments for a ‘confirmatory/second eu vote’ then Corbyn isn’t going to go for confirmatory/eu ref at all.

      It’s a stitch up underway and as far as I’m reading it they are probably going to go for this to stop Scotland/SNP going for second indy, as they will claim that SNP’s compromise position is on the ballot CU + SM. Thereby (so they think) protecting their ‘precious Union’””

      But it won’t be a full CU and SM because Corbyn is talking about an ‘alignment’ which does not include Freedom of Movement. In short, the Labour proposal put forward in the first set of indicative votes.

      The SNP abstained on that occasion if I remember correctly as well as on Ken Clark’s CU only proposal.

      In the most recent set of indicative votes the proposal for CU & SM included FoM hence the SNP voted for it although as they no doubt realised that did not mean FoM would stay in to the end.

      Reports out of Westminster tonight are that Corbyn will not go for a CU and SM that includes FoM in which case it wont meet what the SNP has consistently said it would support.

      Therefore no comfort for the Union in this

    422. twathater says:

      @ Nana 6.39pm Hi Nana thanks for that link and thanks for ALL the links and work you do on behalf of Scotland

      @ Geoo & Liz G I was informing the blog on what Gordon indycar was talking about this morning
      TBH I personally wouldn’t give engerland the steam off my S**** , I agree wholeheartedly with your comments buuuuuuut currently we have not dissolved the union (yet )

      I personally don’t want a referendum , I want our SG to dissolve the treaty legally due to engerland breaching the treaties conditions and the colonisation and denigration of our country , which could then be followed by a ratification referendum which engerland would have no say or part in organising or deciding

      There are many ways to skin a cat or to win your argument , the agreement for the wastemonster establishment to dissolve the union by being bribed might bring a quicker resolution and lessen enmity and aggression

      When watching dragons den where an entrepreneur asks for £80,000 investment for 4% share and the dragon knowing that they can make the business successful offers the full £80,000 but for a 25% share the entrepreneur then turns it down ,to my mind is madness

      My thoughts are 75% of something is goooood 100% of nothing is madness

    423. Robert Louis says:

      well it does seem that some in the indy movement really do know nothing about negotiating. Why on earth would Scotland give its oil to England upon independence? Happy to sell it, but not giveaway.

      We firstly become independent, so the Scottish government has full control over decisions. Then negotiate assets if required, but for heavens sake, you simply do NOT enter negotiations by giving one of your assets away for free. You start off by wanting everything, then negotiate down slowly, and only if necessary.

      As for the oil in Scottish waters, well it’s Scotland’s oil and always has been. Our starting point regarding that should be an itemised bill to England for all the oil they have stolen over the decades. And for any other assets they have stolen from us.

      Charges for the English nuclear sub base in Scotland will start accruing from day one of independence, with those entire assets getting sold, should England fail to remove them in a timely manner.

      They can have all the union jacks back, free of charge, although most folks will likely want them burned.

      Charges for the constant supply of electricity to England from Scotland, would likewise commence the very second Scotland is independent.

      Westminster has treated Scotland like sh*te for over three hundred years, so there is zero reason to be nice once we are independent.

      I think some folk in the indy movement need to read up on how to negotiate.

    424. Liz g says:

      Robert Peffers @ 9.12
      I think what Sandy is getting at …
      While it’s clear Holyrood will be negotiating the terms of the end of the Treaty.
      How will Westminster handel it?
      Because the Treaty will still be live and therefore they cannot become the Parliament of England…
      They are stuck with being the UK Parliament…
      Which includes Scottish MPs infact the third largest party is full of them 🙂
      They have a vote and everything!!!

      How can Westminster include them but also how could it exclude them…. It may even be that Westminster is obliged to represent Scotland in these negotiations…
      What is the position of the token Scottish judges in their Supreme Court in this?
      And I think the answer to Sandy is…
      Just like the EU Scotland has it’s shit together,we can’t sort theirs. So why worry…

    425. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Robert Peffers at 9:12 pm.

      You typed,
      “Now we all know that this choice is NOT made by Her Majesty but by Her Majesty’s Privy Council and Her Majesty, as the ENGLISH law of 1688 says she must legally follow what they say.”

      What would be the situation after Scottish independence has been voted for, when Scottish politicians are still members of the Privy Council? Does the Privy Council advise the monarch, wearing both her crowns? OR, is the Privy Council a uniquely English body?

      How can that circle be squared?

      I’m asking because I want to know this stuff.

    426. Petra says:

      @ CameronB Brodie says at 9:06 pm – ”Petra – Robert is splitting hair and getting on my tits, frankly.”

      And yet other people on here (and no doubt many lurkers too) are full of admiration for him Cameron. It takes all types, as they say. He said he had given up on discussing the subject maybe you should too if it’s getting you down.

    427. Liz g says:

      twathater @ 9.21
      I did know that it was The Indy Car guy saying give them some oil field’s.
      Sorry if my replies came across as if it were you saying it.
      When your post clearly said it was him 🙂
      I feel a bit of a twat please don’t hate me 🙂

    428. CameronB Brodie says:

      It takes a lot to get me down. Irritation, now that’s another matter. 😉


    429. Davie Oga says:

      Breeks 4:28 pm

      “Did. Twice. Fobbed off with not in her constituency. I find the SNP don’t do interaction as a rule, but at least Joanna ‘s office has the courtesy to reply. Our Joanna is quite exceptional. ?”

      I returned to Scotland in order to replace a stolen passport a couple of years ago. I did the 1 week service and my application was in order. After 1 week still no passport. Eventually managed to get through to someone who explained to me that it was delayed for security reasons. I was told it could take some time if it were to be reissued. No clear cut answers though. I was holed up in Edinburgh unable to return to my wife or my work. (I had a returned to renew on a 1 trip white emergency passport). I was very angry and concerned about the whole situation- staying in a hotel, then a hostel, and bleeding cash. I took a chance and wrote an email to Tommy Sheppard’s constituency office explaining my situation. They replied to me same morning, said they would take up the case with UKPA. Got a phonecall in the afternoon saying that they had pressed my case with them. I received another phonecall the next morning saying they had spoken with UKPA again and they had authorized the issue of the passport. I was through to Glasgow the next morning to collect the passport and on my way home the next night.

      Sheppard’s office helped me even though I was a non-resident, and a constituent by virtue of a hotel stay. I always respect Tommy Sheppard because of that experience- even when he talks mental shite like delaying a referendum!

    430. Eppy says:

      Nick Boles, who resigned from the Tory party yesterday has tweeted warning about Robbie Gibb, the PMs head of communications, who he says is “a hard brexiteer who wants to destroy the PM’s new search for a cross party compromise.”

      Until fairly recently, Gibb was head of BBC Westminster in overall charge of the BBC’s political programme output – Daily and Sunday Politics, Andrew Marr Show, This Week and Radio 4’s Westminster Hour. Prior to joining the political team at Westminster he was Deputy Editor of BBC2’s Newsnight.

      The tweet has been reported on the Guardian website and by Faisal Islam for sky news but so far nothing on the BBC. I wonder why?

    431. Thepnr says:


      Robby Gibb is also the guy who when with the BBC in 2006 thought it would be a jolly good wheeze during the World Cup to park a car covered in England flags in one of the rougher neighbourhoods in Glasgow to see what might happen.

      The man is an eejit and a shit stirrer.

    432. sandy says:

      No respondent to my query @ 6.33 pm re aftermath independence negotiations.

      Mr. Peffers, Breeks, Cameron D Brodie, anyone?

    433. Thepnr says:

      Oh and he secretly filmed the car being vandalised then stuck it all over that evenings news screaming about anti-Englishness in Scotland.

    434. Robert Peffers says:

      @CameronB Brodie says: 3 April, 2019 at 8:09 pm:

      ” … To put as politely as I can, you don’t appear to have much of a scooby about UK Constitutional Law. Learn to live with it.

      Bloody hilarious, CameronB Brodie. Are you even for real?

      Let me spell it out for you as your comprehension of the basic English language seems, to put it as politely as I can – totally missing.

      You seem not to know the difference between, “British Law”. UK Law and English law.

      Your first claim was about British Law and there are several British Laws but all of them belong to a distinct British State. One for The Republic of Ireland, one for the Kingdom of England, one for the Kingdom of Scotland and one each for Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      Likewise there are two distinct United KINGDOM laws one for the Kingdom of Scotland and another for the Kingdom of England. There is no such Rule Of Law as United Kingdom Law.

      Was that polite enough for you? Oh! Don’t bother answering I’m fed up dealing with such as you. You post reams of stuff but listen to nothing so why bother attempting to interact with you.

    435. Terry callachan says:

      Religion is a good thing let’s be clear about that, so many people across the whole world get great benefit from religious belief .
      I am not religious.
      All religions have attracted perverted people ,religions don’t make them what they are, these people use religion as a cover to carry out their abuse, all religions suffer this problem to the same degree.

      Unsurprisingly there were people living in Northern Ireland who wanted it the island to be one country again as it used to be ,unsurprisingly there are still people living in Northern Ireland who want that.
      My grandfather wasn’t a politician in Northern Ireland but my dad was a soldier there during the troubles , l lived there with him and my mum and sister during the troubles and experienced some dreadful things.
      The British government created the troubles in Northern Ireland as a way to stir division they are still doing it.

      Scotland’s resources belong to Scotland once Scotland is independent.
      Oil gas fish water that had been extracted belongs to whoever had the license to extract it ,quite rightly, but from the first day of Scottish independence Scotland owns it all, not the crown, not the UK ( the UK will not exist once Scotland is independent any fool knows that ) .
      Independent Scotland will negotiate licenses with oil and gas companies and fishermen etc etc from the day Scotland becomes independent.
      That is international law.

      Scotland will of course have no right whatsoever to claim ownership of Cornish tin or the full English breakfast.
      I heard someone was already preparing an official full Scottish breakfast in expectation of Scottish independence.

    436. ronnie anderson says: been watching Gordon Ross’s streaming for a long while ,Im deliberating whether or not to block his vids on our Yes pages , I have noticed he’s been stirring the shite from time to time .

    437. ronnie anderson says:

      Ah wunner if that Wee Brenda is watching the HoC . O not another vote lol.

    438. aLurker says:

      @Robert Peffers

      Please keep up the good work.

      Even with otherwise intelligent people it can take a long time for it to sink in that the very vocabulary that they so habitually use, is a product of their mental indoctrination into a particular worldview.

      Words can change a worldview.


    439. CameronB Brodie says:

      OK, here’s a passage from that last document, for all those who don’t click links, which is most of you, right? IMHO, I have more chance of passing myself off as David Hasselhoff, than Westminster has of creating a codified constitution that satisfies all vested stakeholders.

      Sorry for the lenght of this post but I think it’s kind of relevant.



      It is clear that the task of codifying the UK constitution – if it were embarked upon – would be substantial. The UK would be doing more than replacing one codified constitution with another as, for instance, has taken place repeatedly in France. It would be establishing within a mature democracy an entity that does not exist.

      While there are limited precedents and codification could be approached partly as building on existing structures and practices, it would be a step of historic significance not to be approached lightly. The process would need to take place over a period of time significantly longer than that normally used for the production of legislation. Perhaps it could be enacted by stages rather than all at once. It might well involve the creation of an instrument which possessed a legal status different from a regular act of Parliament, or indeed any existing UK constitutional source – and would in this case need to operate with this goal in mind.

      A consensus across different social groups might be deemed necessary.316 The final objective could be the establishment of what might be termed a new ‘rule of recognition’ for the UK constitutional system.317 That is to say, it would be necessary to achieve acceptance amongst those responsible for operating the law that the codified constitution was the legitimate source of legal authority.

      Two considerations important to the composition of a constitutional design process would be who to involve in it; and its precise scope. Various different groups might be expected to participate, partly depending upon how far the constitution was intended to be entrenched and justiciable – that is, how far it was meant to break with previous UK tradition. Since it is in the nature of the existing system that the UK-level executive plays a prominent constitutional role, including in effecting constitutional change, then it might be that a codification process would have to be initiated by a UK government, or at least endorsed by one.

      But if this process was intended to establish a constitution which commanded sufficient acceptance within the UK to prove effective and lasting, devolved and perhaps local government might have to be involved in some way; and opposition parties. Crucially, if a primary purpose of codification were explicitly to attain popular sovereignty, then the population would have to be involved meaningfully, perhaps not only in authorising and approving the constitution, but designing it.

      An inclusive process could be required if the overturning of the supremacy of Parliament was to be widely accepted.318 Given the complexity of the issues involved there would also be a role for experts of various disciplines, drawing on the relevant theories and national and international evidence. Media outlets would doubtless seek to wield influence, both over whether or not a codified constitution was required, and if it were to be introduced what its content should be.

      Another issue to be considered in establishing a codification process would be its parameters. First, what would be determined as constitutional issues for the purpose of the exercise? Would, for instance, electoral systems be regarded as appropriate for treatment within a constitutional text? Decisions taken about what subject matter to include would have direct consequences for the complexity of a codification task and the length and detail of the text that was ultimately produced. Second, how far would a text set out simply to codify the present UK constitution, or to use the codification process deliberately to change it?319

      In a sense, to codify inevitably means to change, since it would involve to some extent defining more precisely constitutional sources such as conventions and doctrines, a prominent feature of which at present is their uncertainty.
      Moreover, the introduction of amendment procedures and new forms of constitutional enforcement would themselves entail systemic change. Furthermore, there would probably be significant pressure explicitly to set about defining the constitution as it should be rather than just as it was.320

      Various features of the present UK constitution – such as the relationship between the executive and Parliament; and the position of local government – are a subject of criticism. Codification would be seen by some as the opportunity to correct such perceived problems.321 But it would probably be necessary to impose certain absolute limitations on a process. For instance, the overturning of devolution settlements without specific consent from those in the devolved areas concerned would surely be ruled out.

      It seems equally likely that the fundamental abrogation of certain individual rights would be in some way prohibited. Regardless of its specific scope, a process would be accompanied by controversy of various kinds. The appropriateness of such an exercise would probably be challenged, along with the idea that a codified constitution was required at all. The financial and political resources devoted to it would be queried. Some would hold that its parameters were overly restricted if a process did not allow for such possibilities as Scottish independence or withdrawal from the European Union.

      Significant disagreements could also arise from attempts to define the existing constitution; and would definitely be produced by attempts considerably to alter it. A process might be designed to allow for the expression and where possible reconciliation of these different outlooks. However, the inclusion of certain items for consideration might distort the entire debate. It cannot be assumed that in such circumstances media coverage would always serve the purpose of public education.

    440. CameronB Brodie says:

      Robert Peffers
      Please see above.

    441. CameronB Brodie says:

      My mentality is sound and both my feet are in the real world. That’s the only position from which you can make change happen.

    442. aLurker says:

      ronnie anderson says:
      3 April, 2019 at 10:24 pm been watching Gordon Ross’s streaming for a long while ,Im deliberating whether or not to block his vids on our Yes pages , I have noticed he’s been stirring the shite from time to time .

      Hi Ronnie. I don’t post much, cause you guys mostly got it covered!

      But I will say this:
      I have been listening to Gordon Ross’ Indycar for a fair while now and it is plain to me that he has taken the time to educate himself about a number of issues that should be critical to an informed electorate.
      Which incidentally I would say that sadly we mostly do not have. 🙁

      I think his is an important contribution in that he is a catalyst to stimulate understanding amoung a wider audience.

      Who amung us can critisise him for occasionally expressing some frustration at the lack of visible campaigning?

      Not I.

      Please don’t restrict new people who might come with enquiring minds from hearing an occasionally inciteful commentator.


    443. aLurker says:

      @CameronB Brodie

      I have appreciated many of the stuffs that you have posted.
      and have no criticism of your mentality, or anything else either.

    444. CameronB Brodie says:

      aLurker 🙂

    445. Robert Peffers says:

      @yesindyref2 says: 3 April, 2019 at 8:31 pm:

      ” … It’s the Swiftsure Bob, not much more than half the size of a Vanguard, nearly same complement. First of class and a demo more than anything. Resolution when they start (they may have started) will be bigger, a lot bigger.”

      Just to prevent any misunderstandings, yesindyref2. I went out on the pilot cutter and went aboard the old Dreadnought out by the Isle of May. So I was among the first persons at Rosyth to board the Dreadnought.

      Later I transferred to work in the Radar Base and then in the RADIAC Lab. That’s RadioActivityDetectionIndicationAndComputation. Part of my job was to go aboard any nuclear powered submarine and check and calibrate such things as doorframe monitors.

      When these vessels were under refit I also had to go aboard and check such things as Geiger Counters were working properly and were still under legal calibration. If they were not I had to arrange for them to be taken out of service and be returned to the Radiac for Calibration. I then also had to do my share of repair and calibration of the instruments.

      So I worked on every RN nuclear vessel in service until the day I retired. Before that I had worked on many older Diesel powered submarine boats. Latterly the, “newer”, “A”, class Diesels. So I knew everything from WWII submarines until the nuclear powered boats arrive. BTW: Before the RADIAC I worked on the nuclear powered boats while under repair and refit in a different capacity and mostly actually in the reactor compartments.

    446. chicmac says:

      Just switched off ‘Debate Night’ on BBC Scotland as soon as I saw the make up of the panel and phoned the BBC to complain.

      The inbuilt bias was obvious.

      I tried to think of an equivalent bias in the other direction by hypothesising a panel in which 3 of the 5 panelists were Paul Kavanagh, Stuart Campbell and Kevin McKenna but of course, impossible as that would be, it still would not be a redressing equivalent because those three would at least stick to what they believed were factually correct statements.

      Erm I should say 3 of tonight’s panelists were Prof. Tomkins, Jenny Marra and Alan Massie. With 1 SNP and 1 neutral.

    447. Robert Peffers says:

      @Jock McDonnell says: 3 April, 2019 at 8:43 pm:

      ” … The Magna Carta has no place in Scots Law.”

      Correct, Jock, and neither has Henry VIII. That has never stopped Westminster from forcing them upon Scotland, but I believe they are about to get their comeuppance.

    448. Thepnr says:

      Watching the carry on in the HoC tonight you can only conclude that under May and this Tory government the UK parliament has lost all credibility.

      She has turned the UK into a banana republic and a laughing stock in front of the whole world too.

      What ever happened to taking back control, strong and stable? It’s a shambles, it really is. Things going to plan we in Scotland needn’t concern ourselves for much longer with their incompetence.

    449. Robert Peffers says:

      @Mad Unionist says: 3 April, 2019 at 8:52 pm:

      ” … Scotland has the highest rate of drug use and death in the EU.

      Yes and all of it on Westminster’s watch while Westminster was robbing Scotland blind. Not to worry, though, the comeuppance is very, very close now and without Scotland’s stolen resources England will become just another Third World state. Good grief they won’t even be a banana republic for they have no bananas but have got a Queen.

      So just a bananaless monarchy. Oh! Wait up! They are not even a proper monarchy as they became a Constitutional Monarchy during the English Glorious Revolution.

    450. Mad Unionist says:

      Terry callachan. Yes religion is good. Children get buggered and mainly women get to work in the Catholic work houses after their children are sold on to strangers. Ach well it is the soul that matters. I will hiv tae join in before I go tae the bad fire.

    451. CameronB Brodie says:

      Perhaps Gordon Ross might find these helpful?

      Ethics in Social Science and Humanities

      Ethics and practice in science communication

      The Use of Persuasion in Public Health Communication: An Ethical Critique

      Ethics and Public Relations

    452. Robert Peffers says:

      @Dr Jim says: 3 April, 2019 at 8:56 pm:

      ” … I’m absolutely pig sick of their whining useless blaming behaviour”

      Funny you should say that, Dr Jim. Some time ago I went to see my GP complaining that I thought I had Tinnitus. I was complaining about strange noises in my ears. The Doc sent me for a hearing test but the audiologist could find nothing wrong.

      Next time I saw the Doc he explained to me that the strange high pitched whine I could hear was coming across the border from England and that most other Scots could hear it too but most Scots people could ignore it as they had been hearing it all their lives.

    453. Mad Unionist says:

      Robert Peffers. Eating a banana is surely better than taking drugs. The Scots can rightly claim it was the English that made them turn to drug abuse by depriving them of the banana. A banana is harder to digest than coke or heroin and makes you fart.

    454. K1 says:

      Thanks Legerwood, helped to clarify what was happening earlier tonight. 🙂

    455. Robert Peffers says:

      @Mad Unionist says: 3 April, 2019 at 9:03 pm:

      ” … The oil assets discovered around Great Britain belong to the Crown/UK.”

      Nope! The United Kingdom is a two partner united kingdom and, believe it or not it is actually called, “The United Kingdom”.

      So even if it were United Kingdom assets then a proportion of them would belong to the Kingdom of Scotland and, as up to 98% of the oil and gas is extracted from internationally recognised Scottish territorial waters then the post independence Kingdom of England is going to find itself facing a very large bill for the resources it has stolen from the Kingdom of Scotland – and that’s just the start of their problems.

      As another poster has pointed out the many former colonies will be watching with great interest and working out what the Kingdom of England owes them. Chickens are about to come home to roost and those chickens used to be painted pink on globes of the World – there are many former colonies with scores to settle with Perfidious Albion.

    456. yesindyref2 says:

      It seems Canada still has a Privy Council whereas NZ and Oz largely abolished theirs this century. I guess Scotland could take it – or leave it.

      Seems to be a bit of a waste of time and money!

    457. Fireproofjim says:

      Terry Callachan
      You are right about ownership of oil in Scottish waters.
      The International rule on this is that every maritime nation has the exclusive right to all the resources in the zone within 200 miles from its shore, (or until the zone contacts a neighbour’s zone.)This, of course, includes all fishing and oil extraction.
      In the 2014 referendum the Unionists said that if Shetland voted to remain in the U.K. then Shetland would have the right to all the Northern oil fields. This was just one of their lies. In that situation Shetland would be classed as an enclave within Scottish waters and would have a right to a twelve mile economic zone, just as the Channel Islands are an enclave within French waters.
      There are no oilfields within twelve miles of Shetland.

    458. Robert Peffers says:

      @CameronB Brodie says: 3 April, 2019 at 9:06 pm:

      ” Robert is splitting hair and getting on my tits, frankly.”

      Yes but you would say that, wouldn’t you?

      Thing is those split hairs are 100% correct and that is a great deal more than can be said of a great many of your very carelessly written claptrap.

      So now you are squealing like a stuck pig because your carelessly worded comments, full of inaccuracies, are being picked up on. Don’t you know the difference between Britain, the United Kingdom and the Westminster, so called, United Kingdom Government?

      Seems you soak up unionist propaganda like a dry sponge. Then inflict it upon unwary Wingers. Most of the problems the indy movement faces in gaining converts to the cause stems from that propaganda brainwashing and here you are propagating it for them and now have the temerity to complain that I’m getting on your tits by correcting your very obvious mistakes.

      As we say around these airts an pairts – awa an bile yer heid.

    459. ronnie anderson says:

      aLurker I give people chances to amend the information they put out via their vids , in Gordon Ross’s case previously his information was inaccurate & that wouldn’t be the 1st time , pushing the mantra for Nicola to use the mandate gets on my paps but I didn’t block his vids , but he’s on my watch list .

    460. Mad Unionist says:

      How can you define oil as Scottish! Venezuela has oil but the USA owns it. The Middle has oil and the British, French and USA owns it. The Capitalists own the oil and pay some tax in gratitude! Persia/Iran has some oil and was owned by the British!

    461. CameronB Brodie says:

      Robert Peffers
      Gone on yourself Robert, you apparently ken it all. You don’t though and that’s a problem.

    462. CameronB Brodie says:

      Robert Peffers
      I have never claimed I know it all Robert, yet I’ve been trained to deal with this stuff. As to the robustness of the material I post, it all comes from credible, culturally authoritative sources. And yes, I am afflicted with a learning difficulty that tends to slip my mind, so thanks for reminding me.

      Sovereignty and Law: Between Ethics and Politics

      About the Project

      Sovereignty and Law: Between Ethics and Politics is a four year (2015–2019) Conex Marie Sk?odowska-Curie Research Project located at the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain that undertakes a philosophical inquiry into the meaning of and relationship between the ethical and political spheres of social existence through an analysis of a number of related concepts including sovereignty, law, violence, evil, and foundations.

      Through a historically-orientated and textually-based methodology, the aim is to show that different conceptions of the ethical-political relationship are possible with each being grounded in a particular semiotic construction that, far from being universal and ahistoric, is culturally specific, created from different power relations, and built to give meaning to reality. By demonstrating the complex interplay between ethics, politics, culture, and semiotics, the project identifies the crucial role that cultural and semiotic structures play in the creation of ethical-political values and frameworks and, in so doing, contributes to our understanding of the ways in which cultures not only create their own defining narratives, but, through these, interact with and understand one another….

    463. aLurker says:

      @ronnie anderson 12:04 am

      aye, GR has made a few mistakes, but nane o’ us is perfect are we?

      I think to myself that if _I_ had to make a 15 minute live video of original content- say 5 times a week, for a year, I would have talked a whole load o mince for sure!

      He doesnae come accross as a know-it-all, and he does do corrections, and occasionaly even apologies for errors or mistakes, and he does take feedback via social media.

      Seems tae me thats pretty good goin for someone who (by his own admission) is ‘only a driving instructor’

      More power tae us all.

    464. HYUFD says:

      Robert Peffers Obsession with the British Empire (of which Scotland played a large part) and driving England and the English into supposed poverty by breaking up the Union (when in fact England would be the 7th largest economy in the world, if still lower than the UK’ 5th largest economy) is rather concerning. Most of the ex Empire nations are happily in the Commonwealth working with us on development projects etc and have moved on from the pure hate he seems to display. Even as a Unionist I would hope if Scotland was to become an independent nation it would be driven by building a future for Scotland rather than trying to trash England

    465. Mad Unionist says:

      It is easy to overcome learning difficulties when you identify bullshit artists who try to influence you.

    466. CameronB Brodie says:

      Stroll on Toryboy, your the last person who should voice concern over future relations between Scotland and England. It’s your party that has brought us the full-English Berxit and denied Scotland any voice in the process. My advice to you is go away. That’s it, just go away. Please.

    467. Fireproofjim says:

      Mad Unionist
      Off course the oil is Scottish or Venezuelan or Iranian but no government has the expertise to find and extract it, so what you call capitalists have to do it for them, although most governments take a share in the oilfield, (unlike our useless U.K. Government.)
      The capitalists take the risk, invest in the field, (sometimes many billions) sell the oil and are taxed on the profits. The oil industry would not exist otherwise.
      Scotland would continue just like this and would reap the rewards like Norway.

    468. CameronB Brodie says:

      How’s about some pointers towards what a democratically moral sovereignty might imply?

      Moral Cosmopolitanism and Democratic Values


      In the past four decades topics related to the moral evaluation of global politics have occupied a central part of the philosophical debate. The first three sections of this essay provide a reconstruction of the defining features of the globalization of politics and of the ways in which the latter have contributed to the increased philosophical attention on the moral aspects of global affairs.

      In sections four to six, we move to the current debate in global political theory. Moral cosmopolitanism has come to articulate the boundaries of reasonable disagreement in global political theory and has implied a deep form of commitment to basic human rights. However, we argue in section six, agreement on basic human rights has not evolved into widespread convergence on a range of central political concepts such as distributive justice and legitimacy.

      Against this backdrop, in sections 7 to 10, we move on to consider the role of democracy in global politics. The main conclusion that the essay will put forward is that the complexity of the institutional landscape beyond traditional state borders does not automatically lend itself to the mechanical application of democratic institutional forms, but that democratic values can still play an important role.

    469. HYUFD says:

      Cameron B Brodie 38% of Scots also voted for Brexit, I am English and voted Remain, so that does not really stack up either. May is clearly trying to get a softer Brexit rather than No Deal, Brexit for the SNP is just another excuse to try and get independence, if it was not Brexit it would be something else

    470. Mad Unionist says:

      CameronB Brodie. I love the full brexit, tattie scones especially an fried Scottish eggs. They hiv tae be Scottish eggs as they taste better than those imports fae Carlise an Berwick upon Tweed. The English hiv they white bits in their black puddin. Uncultured lot the English.

    471. Mad Unionist says:

      CameronB Brodie. I reckon I would tap maself efter at least hawf an hour in yer company. At least ye widnae need tae put yer haun in yer pocket.

    472. Dr Jim says:

      I’d be quite happy for what’s left of the rest of the UK to experience a bit of poverty post Brexit and Independence for Scotland because they’d deserve it, and maybe in that there’s a wee slight chance after bringing it upon themselves they might gain a little something, like respect for others while they’re chewing on their humble pie and eating their empire biscuits wae some of that jam Theresa May used to bang on about

      I won’t hold my breath though

      Unionists, they didn’t all miss school, the rich ones went and they knew exactly what they were doing to the poor sods who didn’t attend

    473. manandboy says:


      Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has said he could not guarantee his social network would not be used to undermine forthcoming EU elections – but that it would apply a “full battery” of measures to stop bad actors from influencing events.

      Shortly after making his appeal for greater societal involvement in online regulation, Mr Zuckerberg said while Facebook had “gotten better” at policing content since the 2016 US presidential election, the modern world had brought its own challenges to politics.

    474. CameronB Brodie says:

      That’s a wife beater promising the battered wife that things will get better. There is clearly no equality in the Yoonyawn, the British constitution does not protect the human rights of those living in Scotland. Brexit will cause harm to Scotland. That breaks the first rule of accountable public policy. Scotland voted against Brexit. That breaks the second rule of accountable public policy. And shall we just forget about the criminality that undermined the robustness of the Brexit vote so badly, that the Supreme Court felt the process unsound.

      I value my biological security and fear a future in Brexitania. Can you reassure me Toryboy?

    475. HYUFD says:

      Once all Brexit options are included even Scots are only 46% committed to Remain, something even Angus Robertson glossed over when tweeting this poll.
      Given 48% of the UK as a whole voted Remain that is little different in reality, so no real ‘breach of human rights there’ nor ‘lessons to be taught to England’

    476. CameronB Brodie says:

      You just don’t get the concept of Scotland’s democratic deficit and the socioeconomic implications. You appear to have no concern over the hijacking of the British constitution. I’d be better speaking to a brick wall, goodnight Toryboy.

    477. yesindyref2 says:

      Once all Brexit options are included even Scots are only 46% committed to Remain

      What a deceitful Tory twister that is.

      New referendum and remain in EU 46%
      Remain in Single Market and Customs Union 20%
      No Deal 13%
      May Deal 9%

      So only 22% want to leave the SM and CU, whereas 66% want to stay in, and 12% don’t know.

    478. A.Bruce says:

      @ aLurker

      I totally agree with you about Gordon Ross. GR is always quick to admit he’s made a mistake and he’s not made many ; we need more of his calibre. Myopic shitstirrers like Ronnie Anderson not so much.

    479. jockmcx says:

      No more jobs for the boys in Lab/Con now that Hilda Ogden
      and Benny from crossroads know what arseholes are allowed
      into these parties!

    480. twathater says:

      Hey guys it’s like a mixed martial arts venue on here tonight can we all calm doon, we all want the same thing apart obviously from the fud and the SIU green ink maddy , they are looking for ANY weakness to try and split the blog and it’s posters , don’t do their work for them , they are now just GOADING

    481. CameronB Brodie says:

      I hope folk didn’t think I was having a pop at Gordon Ross, who I think deserves an enormous hat-tip. It takes courage to tackle a subject that is not your normal area of expertise. And initiative and self-motivation to actually do something pro-active and positive for the cause. Well done that man.

      Effective Oral Presentations

    482. Nana says:


      SNP’s Stewart Hosie accuses Theresa May of inviting Jeremy Corbyn “to become the co-owner of her #Brexit failure”, asking: “Had she been the leader of the opposition and invited into a trap like this, would she have been foolish enough to accept?”

    483. Nana says:

      This was a UK Government Minister on Monday telling me that criminality in the referendum doesn’t matter

      The Scottish Tories’ Social Security Spokesperson, Michelle Ballantyne: “I would be quite happy if Government had nothing to do with the running of the NHS”

    484. Nana says:

      “It’s as serious as it gets”. Please watch this clip in which a Consultant doctor risks his career by ignoring a legal gag to bring you the truth about No Deal. 1/2

      We cannot risk giving the keys of the EU’s future to a Boris Johnson, or a Michael Gove, the architects of this #Brexit disaster. A long extension would do exactly that.

    485. Nana says:

      Commenting on the meeting today (Wednesday) between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn, UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis said:

      Brexit: a tale of two parliaments

      This is essential viewing: Links to Leadsome talking nonsense on Brexit

    486. Robert Louis says:

      Manandboy at 0130am,

      Of course Zuckerberg could at the stroke of a pen, stop Facebook from undermining democracy by changing the business model of Facebook and refusing ALL political ads. But of course he wouldn’t get even richer so quickly, so he won’t. Being a billionaire is just never enough.

      Zuckerberg and Facebook is possibly the biggest single damaging agent undermining democracy around the world. Ever wondered why comedians are getting elected? Or Trump? or other nutters? One answer, Facebook. With Facebook, elections can be literally bought and manipulated.

      I fully expect that in his old age, Zuckerberg and his senior executives will be indicted on serious charges in the USA, because their will eventually be a major backlash against him and his ‘monster’ called Facebook.

      I personally cannot fathom why any sane person would voluntarily give away every aspect of their personal lives to a corrupt organisation such as Facebook. To my mind it is just f***ing stupid.

    487. Nana says:

      Stefan Theil gives his opinion on prorogation to terminate parliamentary debate. In a nutshell: it’s unconstitutional as a matter of convention and wrong in principle.

      A statement from Brigadier Nick Perry, Commander 16 Air Assault Brigade, in response to a video circulating across UK news and social media today.

      Ouch! 20 business leaders send PM letter, saying.. “No entrepreneur would run their business the way this country is being governed”

    488. Nana says:

      Ministers warned over planes and troops in no-deal Brexit
      Cabinet secretary Sir Mark Sedwill says emergency contingency plans are needed

      1/ Amidst the latest attempt by Parliament to take some control over the Brexit agenda from the executive, a short thread on contradictory Brexity arguments about the UK parliament compared to the European Parliament.

      European Commission – Press release
      Commission found that the scheme unduly exempted certain multinational groups from these UK rules targeting #taxavoidance. This is illegal under EU State aid rules.

    489. Undeadshaun says:

      Whilst May’s government has not got on with day job, Saudi Arabia is close to getting ability to make their own nuclear weapons, facilitated by Trump and son.


    490. Nana says:

      A thread on rewriting history & facts re Brexit
      Thread by @EmporersNewC: Hello Mr Morgan, I’ve just seen this tweet. I don’t know if you were out of the country at the time, but let me respectfully explain why this isn’t a fair reflection of what the referendum was about
      Lots of stuff here

      Tompkins says “it was everyone else’s fault”

    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