Wings Over Scotland

Adam T is the BCUPS Constitutional Expert after all.

So a straight Parliamentary Vote on Independence it is then.

Is it in their Manifesto???

🙂

This of course would be a ‘UDI’, a Unilateral Declaration of Independence. I agree with this, but the SNP would need to campaign in an election on these grounds. I argued they should do that this time around.

Oh please let’s just do this.

Despite being a member of Holyrood, I suspect when he says “Parliament” he is referring to Westminster! That is where his allegiance lies, totally and completely.

If, and I doubt it, he was referring to Holyrood then “bring it on”, let’s just vote for Indy. Have it in the SNP and Green manifestos, call an election, and get it done. With PR it is completely democratic.

The problem I have with Westminster is governments get elected with absolute majorities and power, despite up to 65% of votes cast being against that ruling party. (63.1% against, in the case of the Tory ‘win’ in 2015.) So in the case of WM, unlike Holyrood, a referendum is needed to pass the 50+% test.

Great, which Parliament?

Let’s get the Council election won first then we can deal with the GE.
Those labour Tory lib dem authorities who have banned political banners/ posters from all elections will be defeated next week. The new SNP/ Green coalitions should immediately overturn the bans and allow the freedom to put up banners by the political parties before the GE.

Let’s see how many labour Tory volunteers actually exist.

Hah.

Yeah, let’s do that. Let’s have the pro independence majority and the vast majority of Scottish MP call the shots. Certainly works for me.

We put all those people in their jobs and as they are all pro independence I am totally comfortable equating their position as mandated. The pro indy majority is currently secure at Holyrood and Scottish Westminster seats are, in spite of polls apparently slating anything from five to twelve seats going Tory (which begs a question; who the hell are they asking?) is still solidly SNP and will be after the election.

Oh, the unionists will howl that it isn’t democratic but I’m pretty certain voting for pro independence candidates to the point where there are more of them than Unionists in Parliament is precisely democratic, and them pushing independence is exactly what I want to see them doing.

The concept of referenda is fine as far as it goes, but Westminster has clearly decided it will only be required for major constitutional decisions and that’s basically smoke and mirrors. They only want the public to decide when they don’t want the blame for what results. ‘You voted for Brexit; this is your own fault.’

I wish we would.

A UDI if it is to succeed needs careful planning and fast feet on the ground. It is more than passing a bill and waiting for Westminster to agree. It has to made a fact on the ground faster than the likes of the OO can respond.

The head of Police Scotland and the other emergency services will have to be on board. You have to be confident they won’t action any arrest warrants coming from London for eg. We may also need armed and armoured police around Holyrood in case an army unit is sent in instead.

New institutions like an MoD to issue orders to our troops will have to be ready to roll too as well as the financial side of it and a currency solution.

Hard to do all that in secret in advance.

The man is an absolutely dummy, ‘It’s referendums that divide people’, what kind of argument is that, and what, elections pull people together? #UtterMuppet

So by that logic there should be no more elections. It is almost criminal that this man is taking up space that could be put to better use.

Robert Graham @ 13:53,

It’s clear the Tories have never believed in Holyrood, as is revealed by their young hopefuls =cough= being eager to leave as soon as the opportunity presents to try for a seat in their glorious Westminster, the toadies.

And then there was STV’s Colin Mackay astutely getting Annie Wells to admit on camera that Holyrood was nothing to her. Which begs the staringly obvious question as to why she was bothering to be there at all then.

Which is true for the whole parcel of them. They will only treat our Parliament seriously when it is fully sovereign. We will actually be doing them a favour when we get that settled.

Only then will we get serious dedicated representatives from across the political spectrum.

Adam Tomkins is a Roundhead. He was Republican not very long ago. Once “Parliament” has implemented his plans, he would dissolve it then appoint his son as successor Protector. 🙂

Referendums do not divide people. They are only held when people are already divided, in this country.

Listen, in my view at least there can never be an Independent Scotland without the approval of the majority. That could be through a referendum or a national election but in either case you still need more than 50% of the vote.

A UDI without 50% is never to going to work, does anyone seriously want tanks in George Square again? They would have every right to claim they were looking after the interests of the majority of Scots when sending them in.

Best that we expand our energy on persuading those closest to us to support an Independent Scotland. That’s how we win.

As well as the army on our streets you’d undoubtedly have these nutters to deal with. I don’t fancy that at all. I’d much rather persuade people to come over to our side than try and force anyone.

link to twitter.com

Oh and a by the way. They want “us” talking about this shite.

Oops, pressed submit too soon:

to, not ot
Annie, not ANnie

O/T

So if I’m the the third child and I happen to discover that my family receives three tax credits, should I then start to wonder about my ancestry or my parents relationship?

Tory family values!

“You do know that we’re joking, right?”

Reading some of the comments I think the answer is no. Well done for clarifying, I did wonder myself.

@ K1 – thx 🙂

The Dog Philosopher at 329pm,

QUOTE :“And as you look back at Indyref#1 you realise how undemocratic the whole affair was. And it was the Labour Party in Scotland who chose to sacrifice itself on the big unionist cross, so that Tory right to rule Scotland remained sacrosanct. The Tories gave them some planks of wood and some nails and said, go ahead guys, knock yourselves out. And they did.

Here endeth the lesson.”

This is the REAL point, yet sadly the Labour folk in Scotland still have not realised HOW they have been used by the Tory party. They still actually think they are ‘saving the union’. Honestly, the Tories must laugh their socks off every time they think of how they used (and still are using) Labour to get them in and keep them in power.

Seriously, Labour are so naive, it beggars belief.

So what did YOU do in 2014?

Me? Well not enough apparently as we lost. So get back in the box, have the wounded all been bayoneted or is it the Labour Party in Scotland that have been wiped out?

You all know the answer to that question, OK so Brexit has rocked the apple cart for some who say they previously voted Yes and some No voters have come over to the Yes side.

By the time of a second referendum with a Tory government and a large majority in charge destroying anything decent that remains in the UK these leave voting Yessers will be back.

We don’t need any kind of UDI we need the support of the majority living in Scotland. Anyone thinking we are are not capable of getting that and suggests use of force instead is an idiot. Are we not democrats?

No more nonsense, Scotland’s people come with us or it doesn’t happen. It’s our choice, all of the people of Scotland. Easy eh.

How do people like May, Tomkins and Davidson dare to try and get away with statements that they want a better country fro all when the gap between the rich and the working classes/poor has got wider and wider for the last 52 years and growing.

How can the people of England not see that it is possible to give free University tuition, just like Scotland, as it leads the graduates to better paid more secure jobs that return greater tax revenues down the line?

Why is it they can’t see the English NHS is being brought to its knees in order to see it privatised?
Do they now that Branson’s Virgin Health is likely to take on £1.7 Billion of English Health care?

Why can’t they see the problems that Zero Hours jobs bring-
No holiday pay, no rights, no guaranteed hours or pay.
These people can’t finance anything, take out a mortgage, or offer any stability to a family that they might want to have.

Why is it that the people who claim to be making tough decisions and tell us that we are all in it together, are multi-Millionaires?

What wouldn’t I give to help form a fair and just society, that doesn’t attack the disabled, rely on Food Banks, and
only has a corrupt Westminster lead media?

Just testing.
Sorry!

@Thepnr
Yes indeed, it has to be a majority of Scotland – that’s more than 50% – in a democratic vote such as a referendum.

The problem with UDI is acceptance. So let’s say the Scottish Government go for UDI – a Unitlateral Declaration of Independence. The UK Government would do nothing to start with, just wait. Some verbals – they don’t recognise it.

After a month or so, nobody in the whole wide world has recognised our UDI. The EU because it’s unconstitutional in their frame of reference and the UK is still the member state. Canada / Australia / NZ don’t recognise it because they want trading relations with both the UK and the EU. Same for China. Russia doesn’t recognise it because of Crimea / Ukraine. In fact nobody recognises it, nobody at all – apart from North Korea for a bit of mischief perhaps.

Then the UK Government moves, legally and constitutionally to close down Holyrood in terms of the 1998 Scotland Act.

Bye bye Independence forever.

Phil at 439pm,

I actually agree with you, but sadly not many others do- and that’s kind of important.

As to the treaty it is just an international treaty between two nations, and as such can be ended by EITHER party – their is nothing specifically different to any other treaty, it’s just that Westminster likes to pretend it is. It is only the worst kind of Scottish cringe which says, ‘but do we need a vote in Westminster’.

Anyway, as Thepnr points out, we’re doing things the democratic way (unless of course Westminster does otherwise, in which case all bets are off) – I think people here are just having a bit of fun – something which will no doubt be banned in the ‘not so great repeal bill’, if despotic Theresa has her way.

I’d actually suggest making ‘fun’ a fundamental human right, but the Tories have already said they intend removing human rights legislation anyway. So, yeah, ‘fun’ probably will be banned by the Tories – or privatised.

I’ve been chatting to Richard Mackinnon the guy from the ‘snap’ cartoon thread btl and he like some are advocating and discussing on this thread, that the SNP should place ‘independence’ (or some sort of UDI thing needs to happen) on their GE17 manifesto. So I’m arguing my points why they ah think they should not.

Ah think this needs to be clarified over and over again as clearly it’s finding some purchase in our movement and think what I’m pointing out tae Richard has some relevance on this thread too? Would welcome mair debate on this matter…here’s ma tuppeny worth, ah welcome any criticism or reasoned counter views:

‘K1 says:
30 April, 2017 at 4:20 pm
‘is that I believe it should be the statement the SNP put on their manifesto’

The Scottish parliament have already decided on this matter Richard. We already have a mandate for Scotref. The GE will be fought on many of the same grounds as the last GE against austerity and the repugnant polices that they are pursuing. This GE is also a fight against the Tories right wing hard Brexit and Scotland’s wish to remain in the EU.

Why should the SNP play along with the Tories narrative Richard? It is as if your fears are overwhelming the rational perspective here imo.

If the SNP place the ‘independence’ on their manifesto at this GE, ‘this’ would be playing right into that very narrative? Because as we all know there has been no ‘significant’ increase in support for independence in Scotland since the EU vote. For the SNP to take the risk of decimating their current majority ‘significantly’ by putting Independence as their major manifesto commitment when half of Scotland is against this, would be ‘political suicide’ and that is why the Tories keep this constant mantra of ‘no referendum’ front and centre?

As a reminder to those ‘not currently’ in favour of independence to ‘keep on side’, to keep this threat level ‘high’ they have even abandoned any pretence that they are interested in the local elections and the running of services. So even they know and have conceded that they cannot compete with how competently the SNP are in all levels of governance.

We have to pace ourselves and not panic Richard. You may believe that what Davidson is doing is effective, but the only people stating that are those in the right wing media which is completely out of touch when it comes to Scotland. It’s the collapse of Labour that is increasing Tory fortunes, that’s it. There is no swing or ‘revival’ and it’s pretty hard tae imagine within the last two years since we wiped Labour from the green benches that we’ve, a vast swathe of voters in Scotland, suddenly decided tae back the Tories?

So the SNP don’t have to ‘play along’, they can shout from the roof tops all they want Richard, there is no evidence to support that the SNP is losing support. They would however if they cack handedly ‘reacted’ by placing ‘independence’ in their manifesto at this GE.

It’s the Tories who are panicking Richard. They know 62% voted remain in Scotland which is more than voted No in indyref, they hope that there are more people like Ruth Davidson in Scotland prepared tae drop their principles for a ‘one issue’ nae referendum Tory party that will decimate Scotland as a whole rather than back a very competent current government that has successfully defended and protected us against those very Tory policies since 2010?

I know that there is no likelihood at all of those same swathes of voters who backed the SNP in GE15 and who overwhelmingly voted remain last June, suddenly turning intae Tory voting numpties in Scotland Richard.

That’s why the Tories are screaming ‘no referendum’. They’ll get the hard core remnants of Labour, shame on Labour encouraging this, but it is what it is. That’s their ‘revival’ right there. So I repeat there is no reason or need for the SNP to put ‘Independence’ in the GE17 manifesto.

You do realise SNP support independence Richard, but they as ‘democrats’ want the people to have a say on their own future too, the mandate was clear from the 2016 HE and the people voted for them in unprecedented numbers again, knowing this ‘material change’ was in the manifesto? On that basis the Scottish parliament (not the SNP) voted for Scotref a few short weeks ago Richard. So it’s not ‘party’ only. Their track record is undisputed, the people of Scotland will have an opportunity to decide at a time when we know the outcome of negotiations regarding Brexit and not when the SNP decide.

It would be utterly against their stated aims if they placed ‘independence’ at the core of their G17 manifesto and imo would make no conceivable sense to do so except as wish fulfilment for those fundamentally opposed to us having ‘any’ choice whatsoever by removing even the possibility of a referendum on the matter in the first place. Yes Richard, you are (possibly inadvertently) advocating we all do exactly what the Tories want us and the SNP to do.

Naw.

Why should we?’

@yesindyref2

2″Then the UK Government moves, legally and constitutionally to close down Holyrood in terms of the 1998 Scotland Act.”

Yes, you get it. No more talk of UDI please it weakens our cause and lessens our position.

We win, and we win with a majority vote of the people of Scotland.

Thepnr says:
30 April, 2017 at 2:49 pm
“Listen, in my view at least there can never be an Independent Scotland without the approval of the majority. That could be through a referendum or a national election but in either case you still need more than 50% of the vote”.

I disagree with you the Thepnr. If we Scots do not recognise the legitimacy of our own sovereignty, then how can we in good conscience ask others to respect it’s legitimacy either?

Sovereignty is neither defined nor altered by any democratic opinion. It is an absolute, binary condition. It exists, or it doesn’t.

I believe the SNP is making a strategic error by not ring fencing the legal legitimacy of Scotland’s absolute sovereignty.

I have said before, the SNP should secure a benchmark Judicial Review to confirm the status of Scotland’s sovereign legitimacy. Let us then challenge Westminster for a specific resolution to the issue of how Scotland’s sovereignty can be removed from the Scottish electorate and subordinated to Westminster. Have them reconcile a situation that cannot be reconciled.

Doing that need not be construed as a UDI, ok it is very close to it, but the actual declaration can be suspended indefinitely, but it would still plunge the UK’s existing constitutional arrangements into an untenable crisis situation. To alleviate that crisis, Scotland should quickly declare its constitutional situation as temporarily void, or placed in some kind of transitional stasis, pending the results of a Scottish plebiscite to determine how Scotland should implement its now properly defined sovereignty.

The options available in that plebiscite should broach the whole spectrum of constitutional options available to Scotland, but exclude ratification of the existing Union, not for political point scoring, but because the the current constitutional arrangements of the UK lack competence in law and an appropriate mechanism to properly implement Scotland’s inalienable sovereignty.

I repeat, it is not a UDI, because stopping short of any such declaration would give the UK the opportunity to propose its own plebiscite option; a far reaching package of reform to modify the illegitimacies of Westminster’s adopted practices, reform the deal and make them legitimate, and reinterpret the Act of Union in a way which affords appropriate respect for both Scottish and English sovereignties. In specific terms, the UK would cease to be a “joined” Union, and become a “joint” Union – a Confederate Union of Sovereign Nations, very similar in structure to the consensual Union of the EU. “A” Union might survive, just not “the” Union…

This isn’t a matter for democracy. It is a chronological sequence. Suspend the Act of Union which is flawed, correct that flaw under forensic legal scrutiny, and adapt the respective constitutions of both Scotland and England to accommodate that “correction”. Then have the implications of that “correction” decided and ratified by constitutional plebiscite, and have the verdict of that plebiscite recognised internationally.

As a side issue, the act of suspending Scotland’s constitutional circumstance would, at least in theory, allow Scotland to extend its transitional status to include EU membership provided it was understood that every possible outcome of the plebiscite would be consistent with Scotland being able to make and honour a sovereign commitment, which is exactly the whole point of the entire expertise. Scotland can enact its own sovereign will and have that will respected.

I’m sorry, but we slam the Brexiteers for their muddled agenda concerning Brexit. But I see similar pitfalls in the way we are lining up the ScotRef referendum. It is premature, and a flawed premise to hold a referendum before first addressing the constitutional screw up which bedevils the UK and its Parliamentary sovereignty which cannot properly exist.

What SPECIFICALLY are we voting for come the ScotRef? Are we voting to respect a sovereignty which already exists? Are we voting to contest the legitimacy of Westminster’s parliamentary sovereignty? Are we voting to create a new sovereignty without any historic precedent? Are we voting to abdicate our claim on our common birthright? What are we destroying? What are we creating? What is the context of our decision?

Do you see? A constitutional referendum is step 4 or 5 of the process to emancipate Scottish sovereignty from the dogs breakfast of UK Parliamentary sovereignty. A vote is not Step 1 but we are putting in the mix as Step 1. That, in my humble opinion is an important error.

Forgive me, but I see this way as better:-

Step 1 is the Judicial recognition of what Scotland’s inalienable sovereignty actual means and quite literally, “constitutes”. Ask the specific question. “WHY” is the Union not working?

Step 2 is the challenge to Westminster’s subjugation of Scottish sovereignty.

Step 3 is hold everything, sort the mess, correct the constitutional errors and explode the ambiguities stage, then articulate what LEGITIMATE constitutional options are available.

Step 4 is to explain the constitional options to the Scottish public.

Step 5 is to vote in a Plebiscite for whichever legitimate constitutional option the country prefers.

Step 6, is the International Declaration of what Scotland has chosen to become, with the very real expectation that all legal precedence and process is properly satisfied, and that the new Scottish Constitution can and will be recognised Internationally.

Do you see what I’m getting at? If we take a running jump into a ScotRef referendum, then we are skipping over steps 1 to 4, and asking the population to a make a decision which results in a democratic YES for Independence but still sees everything built upon an ambiguous “hit or miss” interpretation of Scottish Sovereignty (that is to say, we still need to extricate ourselves from Westminster). In constitutional terms, we may be going off half cocked.

The other ScotRef option is another NO vote which, just like 2014, ratifies the false legitimacy of a faux political Union which cannot properly exist without first subjugating Scotland’s sovereign integrity. See? All the constitutional absurdities remain, and the same age old problem passes on to the next generation. Nothing gets resolved.

Do you see? Our sovereignty is not conditional upon an electoral mandate or majority. We need to stop, identify what is broken, fix what is broken, then restart the engine before there is any point to deciding where we are going.

On our current trajectory, the ScotRef debate and referendum is going to be as fickle and shallow as the 2014 debate, and without the clarity I have just described, we will merely be swapping one dogs breakfast for another.

It doesn’t have to be that way.

yesindyref2 @ 16:51,

The real question about something like UDI is what the reaction within Scotland would be. The world will largely respond to that rather than any legalistic niceties. So success or failure largely rests on whether or not such a declaration would fizzle out as people felt it was an extreme and unjustified power grab by an unrepresentative few, or whether, the Rubicon having been crossed, people were to rally behind the cause, rejecting any attempt at outside interference.

Not that I’m advocating anything of the like, but the Irish Easter Rising (and arguably even more importantly, the crass manner in which the UKGov of the day reacted to it) provides an object lesson in that respect. Beforehand there was low-level support for Irish independence together with a grudging acceptance of the status quo, afterwards there was an enormous surge in support for independence.

The point is not an argument for violence of any kind, which after all scarred Ireland for several years afterwards, but rather that a political crisis of some kind can serve to move matters forward where otherwise everything just stagnates on and on in a way that satisfies no-one.

It takes an exceptional politician though to recognise when a situation is pregnant of such an opportunity and to act decisively to make it happen, rather than simply passively relying on a slow accumulation of support, especially in the face of a concerted near-monopoly media operation against them.

Equally, such a situation is clearly feared by the Unionists. Hence their heavy emphasis on “division”, which they fear could easily flip into widespread rejection of their position. Hence also their tippy-toeing over the constitutional question, despite all their bravado.

The UKGov have learnt their lesson from the Irish situation. May dare not outright refuse another indyref, since that could well bring about the very crisis that I mean. Hence her prevarications and an attempt to persuade enough Scots that they really would really rather not have one.

There are therefore situations in which a more-dramatic assertion of Scottish sovereignity could tip the balance, that’s all I’m saying. For something as extreme as UDI to succeed, it would not necessarily have to have immediate international support, but it would most certainly have to be capable of garnering majority support among the general public, while simultaneously convincing Unionist loyalists that their position was unsustainable.

Not easy to do, but not utterly impossible either. It would certainly require a combination of brave and astute leadership to carry it off successfully. But people do sometimes rise to the challenge presented by a resolute promoter of a just cause.

@Breeks
“ If we Scots do not recognise the legitimacy of our own sovereignty, then how can we in good conscience ask others to respect it’s legitimacy either?”

Yes, but sovereignty of the Scottish People is 50%+1. It’s not the Barons, it’s not a handful of us, it’s not 45% of us, it’s not the SNP, nor even the SNP + Greens.

It’s 50% + 1 of the Scottish People – those who are given the opportunity to vote and exercise our right, not the electorate as a whole. THAT’S where the Sovereignty of the Scottish People lies.

Re May’s failure to understand how foodbanks work –

Time to remind people of this from 18 months ago

link to archive.is

‘first they came for the patients..’and all that

Ah hear ye crazycat, some are useful…whetstones 😉

As to the immediate necessities of a UKGE rather than the strategies and tactics of a general cause, I don’t see any reason why the SNP should not include a formal commitment to independence in their manifesto this time round, unlike last time. It is their fundamental reason for existence, after all, and everyone knows it. Including the Tories, who are making it an unavoidable issue anyway.

What’s to fear anyway? OK, the SNP may lose a few voters in the process, which they might in the present circumstances do anyway. But there won’t be any doubt whatever about the big win they will still get, and the unassailable mandate it reinforces.

That’s not to say that the SNP should mirror the Tories and make this election all about independence and nothing else. They don’t even have to campaign on the issue at all, and instead devote their attentions to more mundane but important issues for the wellbeing of us all. But afterwards the Unionists will not be able to cast any doubt whatever on the mandate the SNP will have.

And just to be clear, UDI is not an issue for this election either. What comes along in the future we’ll just have to see as events unfold. But let’s not fool ourselves, by the very nature of the protagonists, the election here in Scotland is about independence, and so it damn well should be.

So SNP, nail your colours to the mast, and put an explicit committment to indy in your manifesto!

several posts gone AWOL:

Yet one later to test if the web is active has appeared.

Breeks at 5.27pm

Breeks GREAT post and i support everything you say, OUR SOVEREIGNTY must be ratified first and foremost through law, thereafter all the further steps you identify can be implemented by the proper sovereign Scots at their behest , with the outcome decided by the Scottish electorate not imposed on us by a ruling government on a colony .

This to me is the first and foremost thing the SNP SG should be doing , clarification in law would negate ANY ambiguity or complaint from the usual suspects and give ABSOLUTE credibility to OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES

@Breeks

I’ll tell you something. I love your posts they often give you cause to think. I’m with you on the sovereignty issue, I do believe the people of Scotland are sovereign.

That however means ALL the people of Scotland and if they choose to remain a part of the the UK that is the end of the matter.

You see there is more to sovereignty than you think, surely that includes everyone of us? We are all sovereign. Do you agree?

If we want Independence then we will have to win it, we can’t just declare it no matter what the laws are. We need the sovereign people on our side or we are doomed to failure.

It will be up to the people of Scotland to make that decision when asked because we are sovereign. Get that? The sovereign people of Scotland WILL decide our fate and that must be a majority.

Well as I have said on here in the past.
I would accept a vote by the people of Scotland to stay in the Union,if and ONLY if this was achieved by an honest debate of the pros and cons of doing so!

I wouldn’t like it and would always hold to and vote for Scotland governing herself.

But if the Union, supporters,by that I mean the “Westminster establishment”, once again mess with our referendum,so that the result is skewed by lies and deceit and ridiculous Vows.

Then it seems to me that there is no point in a third referendum,we must indeed use the parliamentary route,every general election would be makin a judgement on staying within the term’s and conditions of the Treaty of the Union.

Technically it always has been (since universal suffrage) it’s just that most people never thought of it that way.
But every general election is picking a government and if you pick one that will void the 1707 Treaty,then job done.

I know that seems a bit out there but luckily we have “Prof Thingykins” to help to explain it all to us!
Then we can all get on board with being Parliamentary…”Person’s”…!

I think that there is always a danger of us talking to ourselves if we don’t recognise that not everyone sees the good of Scotland through the prism of independence as we do.

Having specifically made it their mantra the Tories tink that they can make an inroad politically with opposing independence by appealing to an element of Scots for whom it is part of their ideology.

It’s harder to justify voting for the Tories if you remind them about the foodbanks and the things that are Tory policy. They are trying to talk about the SNP not doing the day job on education. It’s time to remind people that the Tories would like to re-introduce grammar schools and so called free schools to undermine good state schools which we already have. I think if Theresa really had her Scottish hall booked as a children’s birthday party that is pure gold to label her as a children’s entertainer!

Strong and stable leaders who can’t even book a hall honestly for a political meeting should be all over the media already.

Remind people the first thing she ordered when in power was nuclear submarines and she intends to put them here. More importantly remind people that Brexit is the thing this election is a judgement on. We voted one way and she wants to ignore that just as Cameron did. She will ignore the will of the people of Scotland however we have decided.

Use their policies against them and don’t do a Labour and meekly do as they want us to do.

Things seem to be moving along interestingly in Ireland – north and south.

“The prominence of Ireland’s issues in the EU’s guidelines, including a statement guaranteeing that Northern Ireland could automatically rejoin the EU as part of a united Ireland, is the product of an unprecedented political and diplomatic effort that began even before the UK voted to leave the EU.” Irish Times

link to skwawkbox.org

Just in case its no been posted before.

THE ILLUSION OF SCOTTISH SELF-DETERMINATION

The principle of self-determination of peoples is explicitly recognised in Article 1(2) of The United Nations Charter, and since it is not in dispute that Scotland is a nation, that principle clearly applies to the people of Scotland. This means that the Scottish People have an absolute and continuing right to decide on the future direction and system of governance of our nation.

Note that in UN Article 1, self-determination applies to ‘peoples’, not governments or political parties.

A plebiscite does not need to be a in the form of a referendum. When we choose the medium of a referendum to measure support for independence, we effectively hand control of our right of self-determination to politicians; Politicians who will organise referenda at times and under conditions which best suit their particular agenda. Arbitrary and illegitimate timescales such as once in a lifetime or once a generation are conditions often suggested to deny or delay the right of the people to exercise their rights at a time of their choosing.

The transfer of the control of a referendum from one group of politicians in Westminster to another group of politicians in Holyrood is not the answer to this problem.

It is not necessary to let politicians decide Scotland’s destiny, We, the people, already have the means by which we can exercise our right of self-determination. At every general election the people decide on the future direction of our nation.

If, and only if, over 50 percent of voters choose to support pro-independence parties at any general election, the people will already have made their choice, there is no need for further consultation, and no politician can legitimately deny the result.

we already have the power to choose Independence, we don’t need permission from Theresa May or any other politician. All we have to do is vote for a pro-independence party which will accept the democratic decision of Scotland’s people.

Tom Kelly.

Since the EU citizens of Northern Ireland will be given full access to the Eu surely that means the EU citizens of Scotland would likewise!

we also know officially the eus starting position in the brexit negotiations
uk and eu to agree a deal on eu citizens in the uk and uk citizens in the eu.

over to you treeza, until you agree……..no more brexit negotiations

I was taken aback by Tomkin’s claim that the aim of the SNP is Independence is printed on the back of every SNP membership card. I thus checked my membership card to ascertain that no such clause exists. Was Tomkin’s lying in the hope that no one would know or is he just an ignoramus ? It really bothers me that this guy holds the position that he does in my Alma Mater as he regularly displays intellectual shortcomings.

Why do the SNP need “include” a commitment to indie in their manifesto?

I’ve voted SNP my entire life on the basis this is what they stand for. Surely anyone who thinks otherwise is a bit stupid.

cant be 100% but read somewhere that out of 122 countries seeking inependance only 3 held referendums,cut out all the confusing bulls–t and go for independence.

O/T Britain’s first full-length motorway was opened in 1959.

Scotland’s two major cities got a full length motorway 58 years later.

Another Union Dividend?

Thepnr,

“A UDI without 50% is never to going to work, does anyone seriously want tanks in George Square again?”

Do you think they will send the tanks to George Square if the First Minister holds an independence referendum despite the Westminster government/parliament refusing permission?

The latest poll says the majority doesn’t vote an independence referendum before Brexit has been completed.

K1 @ 18:09,

(I assume you were referring to an earlier posting of mine, even though I’m no Dick. =grin= Heh, heh, don’t y’all post in at once now to disagree! =laugh=)

As to the substance of your case, I do appreciate that the SNP gets votes from people that don’t support independence. (Yet still, anyway.) And that could be put at risk to some extent. In some areas that support could have slipped slightly anyway. But sometimes you have to be willing to put your core beliefs to the test.

Last time (2015), the SNP excluded an explicit committment to independence in their manifesto, and were quite right to do so at that time, since in the immediate wake of indyref there wasn’t any point of pressing an issue that was well dormant. It would have been useless posturing and be widely seen as such.

However, things are very different now. The issue of independence is very much live again now. Everyone knows that’s the main purpose of the SNP, and whether or not it’s in the manifesto, the Tories will attack it relentlessly anyway. As they have already been busy doing, even in the local elections, FGS.

But precisely because it’s such a live issue, people should be in no doubt that the SNP are very serious on the issue, so much so that they are not ducking it, they are stating it in cold print. They will be accused of fudging and outright cowardice if they don’t. I don’t see a renewed committment to their core policy as giving the Tories “more ammunition”.

That’s not to confuse a manifesto commitment – a policy that is no surprise to anyone anyway – with an election strategy for this coming June. Let the Tories continue to bang on about indy as they have been doing, while the SNP campaign on whatever social issues they prefer instead. They can demonstrate that they are by no means a “single-issue” party as the Tories are desperately trying to be. So I think on that point we do agree.

And as importantly, the SNP should campaign on the front foot, not let Rude Gal set the agenda, even with the willing connivance of the likes of the BBC.

Rock at 7.36

That particular poll which showed half of Scots wanting a referendum merely indicated their preferences as to when it should be held. I certainly didn’t establish that a majority didn’t want a referendum.
I wonder why you would repeat that distortion.

Yesterday I say T May’s forrest hide away. Dammit kept thinking Wolfs Lair, Wolfs Lair, Wolfs Lair, Wolfs Lair, Wolfs Lair, Wolfs Lair, Wolfs Lair, Wolfs Lair, Wolfs Lair, Wolfs Lair.
Dinnae say Hitler, dinnae say Hitler, dinnae say Hitler, dinnae say Hitler, dinnae say Hitler, dinnae say Hitler.

Open Wings twitter scroll down a bit “Wolfs Lair”.
Aye we were all thinking it.

Now I’m wondering who in the Tories is plotting to behead May’s leadership.

Apart from the Telegraph, are there ever any news reports which don’t say Brexit is going to be an absolute shite storm? From Reuters …

“At Saturday’s Brussels summit of the 27 other EU states, EU chief executive Jean-Claude Juncker accused unnamed pro-Brexit figures of underestimating the complexity of the task and German Chancellor Angela Merkel repeated her concern that London still harbored “illusions” about negotiating a quick free-trade pact.”

link to archive.is

I can’t make my mind up whether May et al have utterly and completely lost contact with reality, or are they just playing tough guys for a domestic audience ahead of the election.

Scotland has an escape option, and we better be prepared to take it!

Dave McEwan Hill,

“That particular poll which showed half of Scots wanting a referendum merely indicated their preferences as to when it should be held. I certainly didn’t establish that a majority didn’t want a referendum.
I wonder why you would repeat that distortion.”

According to the poll, a majority don’t want a poll within the First Minister’s timescale.

Am I distorting that?

The question (to Thepnr) is will they send the tanks to George Square if the First Minister holds an independence referendum WITHIN HER TIMESCALE despite the Westminster government/parliament refusing permission?

Thepnr,

“A UDI without 50% is never to going to work, does anyone seriously want tanks in George Square again?”

Debate is good, debate is healthy and we aught to encourage it.

I’ll stand firm on this single point. Scotland will NOT be Independent without the support of the majority of Scottish people.

Not that hard to understand is it?

@Rock

I told you to piss off yesterday you cringing creepy halfwit. Don’t bother me again as your back on the totally ignore list.

@wullie says: 30 April, 2017 at 6:17 pm:

“Sovereignty of the Scottish people is 50 + 1. Would that include people who are not Scottish but live here.”

If it didn’t, wullie, the SNP would lose at least one lifelong activist as I will never vote for any racist party.

“A hell of a lot of people who live here do not want to be classified as Scottish and vote accordingly.”

Aye! wullie, but the independent law of Scotland says that sovereignty legally rests with. “The people of Scotland”. It doesn’t state that the person has to be born in Scotland.

If two Inuit lived in Scotland, registered to vote in Scottish elections and paid tax here their child would be Scottish but by your crazy standards the parents would not be.

The SNP have stated that no matter your country of origin, the colour of your skin or your ethnic origins, if you are mainly resident in Scotland, register to vote in Scottish elections and pay tax here you are one of the people of Scotland. The thing is they and the law of Scotland would not dream of forcing you to be Scottish – the choice would remain yours.

To the best of my knowledge the only organisations that have ever made their rules state that that to qualify as being Scottish you had to be born in Scotland were the Football and other sports authorities and even they have thrown out such racist claptrap these days.

Rock at 8.27
Yes. Exactly.You are distorting a particular poll.
No idea why I bother responding

Dave McEwan Hill,

“Rock at 8.27
Yes. Exactly.You are distorting a particular poll.
No idea why I bother responding”

How am I distorting the poll?

I am saying what the poll reported.

Since you seem to be aware of the poll, could you tell me what it reported?

Points taken Robert. 😉 (nothin’ ‘dickish’ abbot ye Robert, ma post was solely directed toward you ergo Robert JS)

Jockanese, ah very much appreciate your tackling of ‘trollish’ behaviour in your own inimitable style, we all have differing ways of dealing with those we know not to be on our side…as I said they can be useful as ‘whetstones’ tae sharpen one’s understanding and arguments on the pish they spout. This is an open forum and we can aw speak to (type to) who we want. Ah also have tae say to you what the Rev said at the end of ‘that’ exhausting thread:

‘Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
25 April, 2017 at 8:00 am
I’m getting really, really tired of the personal spats between certain people on here.,’

I’m not getting intae any mair conversations wi people on Wings about who are and aren’t ‘trolls’, nor personal jibes, just because we don’t like some posters or with those we don’t share common ground wi. What’s the point? The Rev said give it a rest and I’m gonnae abide by what he says irrespective of whether ah agree or not with what you are saying?

Please don’t misunderstand me, by all means keep pursuing what you feel is right for you, but ah won’t be getting intae or paying one more ounce of attention to anything written by those posters who have frequently been involved in ‘personal spats’ on these threads. And if I’ve inadvertently become one of those who fell intae that category or got caught up in the middle of some of those very spats then be assured I’ve learned my lesson.

I don’t want tae be anywhere near that tightrope over ‘Ban Canyon’ and naebdy on here is worth that prospect. 🙂

Robert J. Sutherland,

“Liz g @ 19:24,

I fear that view takes us into Rock territory. It’s no good asserting some theoretical sovereignity if you don’t actually do anything about it. Posturing may give a warm feeling inside, but it achieves absolutely nothing.”

Why would a “sovereign” country be even talking about an independence referendum to become independent?

Why would a “sovereign” people accept an election just because Saint Theresa of England and Wales wants one for her own and her party’s benefit?

As I posted earlier:

Those who claim to be “sovereign” have absolutely no idea what “sovereignty” means in practice.

Shall we keep on posturing for another 310 years or shall we admit that the only effective right we have is to go and vote if and when someone calls an election or referendum, at a time of their choosing?

You might be right @K1 says at 8:48 pm.

Maybe they aren’t worth it.

It winds me up though, when a good thread is ruined by posts which are obviously intended to disrupt.

WoS is a great resource (the greatest resource, possibly) we have to win over Soft Nos and the undecided.

The more the reality of Brexit becomes, the more inevitable Indy Scotland becomes and the more the Trolls try to disrupt.

When an election vote is about to be cast, the more the Trolls try to spread dissent.

He was talking about politicians who were elected to parliament
He wasn’t elected to a parliament he’s a list seat filler so he’d like that decision taken by the big England parliament so then it follows obviously not by him

So once again he disrespects the parliament he’s sitting in by basically being the pompous prig of an Arsehole that he is
and taking my tax money to warm that pompous Arse on a seat I paid for
I can’t take my seat back so I can only hope his pompous Arse gets a skelf aff it

yesindyref2 says: 30 April, 2017 at 3:35 pm:

” … Reading some of the comments I think the answer is no. Well done for clarifying, I did wonder myself.”

Want to know the truth of what Westminster does to Scots who try for UDI?

Read this :-
link to baronage.co.uk

WARNING.Not for the squeamish or those with weak hearts.

How much longer are we going to allow the lying two faced fascist tory scum to continue abusing our country.

link to facebook.com

Iconic

@People Make Glasgow

People Make Glasgow, it’s true, we all do, but hear a thought…

Is it time for a rebrand / new slogan Glasgow? I have a suggestion, keeping with a theme which revisits an old friend of times past…

*****

Do you remember back in the 20th century, driving into Glasgow City on the M8 (going westbound). Do you remember the two big gas tanks with the big banner on your RHS as you drove by? Do you also remember seeing on that poster on the two gas tanks.. our slogan which said:

‘ Glasgow’s Miles Better 🙂 ’

That was then with Mr Happy.

A ‘future council’ (excellent!) could put a poster back up on the tanks, with the new and all knowing, Mr Wink or Miss Winky and with a new middle word too:

‘ Glasgow’s Much Better 😉 ‘

Aye, luckily for you Glasgow, you can vote for change this Thursday and if there is indeed a change of hoose, then mibby they might consider it.

link to en.wikipedia.org

In addition:

The message is good but I cannae quite go that pink/red background colour on our current slogan, especially that big poster on the face of the college building at Freedom Square, it jars on the eye (light blue would be more suited) it’s like walking by a ‘Malibu Stacy’ pyramid:

link to youtube.com

Glasgow’s Much Better 😉

OT, Maggie Mayhem supposedly under investigstion for financial reasons since Brexit, EBC and ETV not reporting it, but other media outlets are, I wonder why, the more the establishment keep schtum, the more believable it is

@twathater says: 30 April, 2017 at 6:16 pm:

“Breeks GREAT post and i support everything you say, OUR SOVEREIGNTY must be ratified first and foremost through law,”

I’ve been harping upon the subject of sovereignty for a very long time but it is very hard to cover such a subject without long screeds of historic and legal facts.

However, there are lots of stuff on-line but it is rather hard going to pull it all together. Let’s start with this from Wiki :-

link to en.wikipedia.org

Scotland and the Acts of Union

Some jurists have suggested that the Acts of Union 1707 place limits on parliamentary sovereignty and its application to Scotland. Although no Scottish court has yet openly questioned the validity of an Act of Parliament, certain judges have raised the possibility.

Thus, in MacCormick v. Lord Advocate, the Lord President (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”, and that legislation contrary to the Act of Union would not necessarily be regarded as constitutionally valid.

Also, in Gibson v Lord Advocate, Lord Keith was circumspect about how Scottish courts would deal with an Act, which would substantially alter or negate the essential provisions of the 1707 Act, such as the abolition of the Court of Session or the Church of Scotland or the substitution of English law for Scots law.

The establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1998 has implications for parliamentary supremacy. For example, although nuclear power is not within its competence, the Scottish government successfully blocked the wishes of the UK government to establish new nuclear power stations in Scotland using control over planning applications which is devolved. While it remains theoretically possible to dissolve the Scottish Parliament or legislate without its consent in relation to Scotland, in practice such a move would be politically difficult.

So there is indeed legal precedent of Scottish Law NOT recognising that Westminster can claim legal sovereignty as under Scots law the people, not the Monarchy or Westminster Parliament are sovereign.

Then, in the same Wiki article, although it contains some quite blatant errors :-

Parliamentary sovereignty (also called parliamentary supremacy or legislative supremacy) is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. It holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty, and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies. It also holds that the legislative body may change or repeal any previous legislation, and so it is not bound by written law (in some cases, even a constitution) or by precedent.

Parliamentary sovereignty may be contrasted with separation of powers, which limits the legislature’s scope often to general law-making, and judicial review, where laws passed by the legislature may be declared invalid in certain circumstances.

Many states have sovereign legislatures, including the United Kingdom, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Barbados, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.

Note though that the United Kingdom is, by definition, a union of two only kingdoms and not actually defined as, “A Country”.

The Article continues :-

During the 17th century in England, a notion developed that Parliament (made up of the House of Lords and House of Commons) shared in sovereignty with the King, based on an entirely erroneous notion of the history of parliament. It was not until the changing of the Coronation Oath in the Coronation Oath Act 1688 as part of the Glorious Revolution that Parliament was recognised as part of the constitutional structure, with laws being considered to emanate from Parliament and not just the King. The Bill of Rights 1689 and Claim of Right Act 1689 were passed the following year which asserted certain rights of the Parliaments of England (which at the time included Wales) [error here as it reads as if it also included Scotland]and Scotland and limited the powers of the monarch. Furthermore, in 1698 parliament created the Civil List, a financial arrangement that left the monarch reliant on parliament for income.

After 1689 English parliamentary supremacy became evident in the relation of the English parliament to those of Scotland and Ireland. The Act of Settlement 1701 made a presumption upon Scotland: the Scots retaliated with the Act of Security 1704, which was countered by the Alien Act 1705: the issue was settled by the Union of the parliaments of England and Scotland in 1707 which created a new British parliament, though “in essence it was just an extension of the English parliament”. It is arguable whether the concept of parliamentary supremacy arose from the Acts of Union 1707 or was a doctrine that evolved thereafter. The autonomy of the Parliament of Ireland also came under attack and the Declaratory Act 1720 made the Irish parliament a dependency. The so-called Constitution of 1782 removed British parliamentary supremacy over Ireland for a short period but then the Irish parliament was merged with Britain’s in the Acts of Union 1800.

I’ve highlighted parts were there are obvious factual errors. Read the article for yourselves and perhaps get a better idea of the weak case that the UK parliament has.

As I’ve pointed out so often there was no legal United Kingdom in 1603 except as a personal one for the monarch who wore two, still independent crowns.

Furthermore, the Glorious Revolution was in the Kingdom of England only and thus Westminster had no legal effect on either the Scottish crown nor upon the still independent parliament of Scotland. Yet the judgements being made assume that they affect Scotland. I would argue there is a watertight case for Scotland being an equally sovereign partner and indeed there are only two kingdoms signatures on the Treaty of Union.

The very obvious problem is that Westminster has assumed full sovereignty and also instigated the Supreme Court and thus Scotland would need to rely upon an international court for a fair judgement. The Brexit situation is the chance of such support and the first lucky break we Scots have had since before 1603.

link to twitter.com

“UK (Scotland), Panelbase poll: Independence referendum
Yes: 52% (+7)
No: 48% (-7)”

Don’t ask me for details, or whether it’s a subsample! Found the reference while having a laugh on the Scotsman 😎

Poor auld Rock’s like the Phantom Raspberry Blower – turns up, drops one, causes upset and then fucks off.

LINKS ON O/T UNCONFIRMED BUT IMPORTANT IF TRUE!

@K1 says: 30 April, 2017 at 9:38 pm:

“Jockanese, it’s no me that’s right, ah just don’t think we should risk getting banned…”

All very true, K1, you may have notice I disengaged with such a person quite some time ago and no longer attempt to engage with him. You may also notice a certain person never fails to take a sideways swipe at me in his passing.

I deduced I was wasting my time and that it hurts him that I ignore him. Which is why the continued sideways swipes. There is your answer – ignore him for he has failed if ignored.

Quite so Robert (Peffers), now whit wis that aboot herding…squirrels… 🙂

@ronnie anderson says: 30 April, 2017 at 9:44 pm:

link to facebook.com
Iconic

Aye! Ronnie, that photo went right into my collection.

****** X ******

Glasg 😉 w’s Much Better

****** X ******

Thepnr @ 23:15,

Great choice there. We never stopped dreaming, did we? And we won’t either. That’s what our opponents are slowly realising.

They have no dreams, only fears.

A snappy headline to match the snappy rhetoric and cliches of Adam Tomklins, who seems a bit of a buffoon.

There are no visible signs on the streets of Edinburgh that an election is taking place on May 4th.The council banned parties from erecting candidate placards and party posters on lamp-posts and street signs in 2011.Most Scottish councils have this ban in place.The main reason cited was the expense of removing election material from council property after an election.Legislation exists requiring parties to remove election material.

Before the ban, the streets were more colourful at election times.It also helped, in my view, create the backdrop and highlight awareness.Edinburgh council are happy to have the entire city centre plastered in Festival fringe posters every August.What about celebrating a festival of democracy in action?

@ Robert J Sutherland

So is Rude Gal still entitled to be deferentially addressing Theresa May as “Prime Minister”? She’s currently just another candidate standing for election.

Parliament will not be dissolved till 3 May. At that point, she will become the prospective parliamentary candidate for Maidenhead. Until then, she’s still an MP; she will remain PM throughout the campaign and even after the election until a successor is chosen (government still has to “function”). So she will be TMPM but not TMMP!

That’s why Carmichael had to be so careful when he admitted lying – he remained Secretary of State until the new administration was formed.

Ah more clarity cearc, thanks…she’s still the pm all the way through.

*thinks…ah really was that disaffected voter who cared not a jot about the ‘how’ of it all for decades*

Ian Brotherhood @ 23:29,

I was accredited observer at one of last week’s Glasgow postal vote validations, and Idox run that there also.

I note however that the procedure itself has been tightened, and the ballot envelopes themselves are now handled quite separately from the validation process (apart, that is, from those extracted because they are deemed invalid), They are only opened immediately prior to transferring their contents unseen into the ballot boxes.

Perhaps as a consequence, no party representatives made an appearance in the several hours I was there.

I was told that the actual vote counting process will not be handled by Idox, but some other firm. We’ll see.

me @ 23:50,

For clarity re my previous posting, although Idox do the grunt work of opening the envelopes, and also provide the validation software, supervision of the whole process is carried out by council employees.

And I have to add I witnessed nothing but sheer professionalism of operating what in a big city like Glasgow is effectively an industrial process, and by all the staff’s obvious dedication to getting things right.

I was very impressed, without any reservations whatever.

@Robert J. Sutherland and Thepnr –

Cheers for the feedback.

I’m not inciting mass adoption of tinfoil hats, but we should be mindful of these connections.

If any Tories are involved – however tenuously – in the electoral process, we should be all over them 24/7.