The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Unionist Manifesto Update

Posted on April 07, 2017 by

Yesterday we noted that while Scotland’s opposition parties and Unionist media were united in the staunch belief that the Scottish Government should do something to improve the poorly-performing economy over which it has almost no control, none of them seemed able to offer so much as a single actual policy they wanted changed or implemented to this end.

Today the Daily Mail continued the attack at length:

So we thought we’d see if anyone had come up with anything yet.

Firstly, some bloke from the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (no, us either) was wheeled in to offer up some vague boilerplate waffle:

“Mr Roy-Chowdhury pointed to the business rates issue plaguing the SNP, which will mean firms across Scotland are forced to pay increases of up to 400 per cent. Mr Mackay introduced a cap of 12.5 per cent but the Scottish Daily Mail revealed this was inflationary and would be 14.75 per cent.”

A rise of 14.75% is “up to” 400%? What? No it isn’t. It’s a rise of up to 14.75%. But in fairness to Mr Roy-Chowdhury, he’d said the same thing about business rates rises in England just a few weeks earlier:

In fact, in Scotland the overall rates burden on businesses is being reduced, as noted in February by law firm Pinsent Masons:

Many Scottish firms will see increases of less than 14%, or even decreases, while a large number of English companies are expecting hikes of 20% or more. But curiously Mr Roy-Chowdhury seemed rather ungrateful for this extra assistance:

“Mr Roy-Chowdhury said: ‘The start of the financial year represents a new era for the Scottish Government developing a more direct relationship between taxation and the economy, with greater power over revenue and expenditure than ever before.

Yet the new powers also create further complexities, with those earning above £43,000 paying a higher tax rate than elsewhere in the UK. 

Combined with rising rates for many small businesses, many Scottish taxpayers will be experiencing more challenging circumstances just as Brexit negotiations get under way. Meanwhile, the potential for future divergences could harm the competitiveness of Scottish firms in terms of attracting top talent’.”

We’ll get to that last bit in a minute.

He called on the SNP to ‘alleviate some of these pressures’ by looking again at their tax system to keep it ‘as simple as possible’.”

That one’s going to be tricky to fit on a pledge card. Everyone wants simpler tax, but with the UK tax code running to more than 17,000 pages and the Scottish Government having control of just a tiny fraction of it, it’s not much of a policy.

Next up was billionaire businessman Sir Tom Hunter:

“Sir Tom Hunter yesterday said it was ‘unacceptable’ for the Scottish economy to have fallen behind the rest of the UK.

He said: ‘The Scottish economy is falling behind yet again, which is pretty unacceptable because it is only if we have a thriving economy that we can afford to pay for all the things we want – the health service, education, etc – so businesses have to be front and centre of any economy. We are a wee bit behind in Scotland now, so we need to fix that.’”

Fix it how, Sir Tom? What is it you want done exactly? Oh, he’s gone. Still, the good news is that Murdo Fraser’s back! The Tories’ economic whizzkid has been thinking about this for 24 solid hours, so he’s bound to have a coherent and practical package of plans to move Scotland forward!

“The Scottish parliament’s increased power over taxation came into force yesterday, at the start of the financial year. But Scottish Tory finance spokesman Murdo Fraser claimed that instead of using the new powers to ‘deliver real growth’, they were a deterrent to investors and talent.

He said: ‘The SNP were given these huge new powers over tax that would give them an opportunity to deliver real growth. Instead, Derek Mackay’s decision to make Scotland the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom means the SNP is driving away top talent.

‘People are now becoming increasingly aware of the SNP’s clear anti-growth style of governing that frowns upon hard work.’”

Oh. No he hasn’t. Still, he’s got a cracking line in flat-out lies. Scotland is NOT the highest-taxed part of the UK, and there’s absolutely no sign that a slight divergence in income tax policy from the rest of the UK is “driving away top talent”. In today’s Times, the associate director of the right-wing IFS thinktank says the opposite:

(The paper, of course, whips this up into “Tax differences MIGHT eventually make people move if they get a lot bigger at some point in the future”, the same line that Chas Roy-Chowdhury had used in the Mail.)

So in the space of a day we’ve now heard from Scotland Office minister Lord Dunlop, the GMB trade union, Willie Rennie (Lib Dem spokesman for roundabouts and slides), Jackie Baillie (sort of Labour), Murdo Fraser (Tory MSP), the director of the Scottish Chamber Of Commerce, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, Murdo Fraser again, a prominent wealthy businessman and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and NOT ONE of them has had a SINGLE actual suggestion for a policy the Scottish Government should be implementing to boost the economy.

Reasonably-minded readers might well arrive at the conclusion that if such an august gathering of experts from right across the political spectrum can’t come up with even a solitary idea between them, it might just be because there’s pretty much nothing the Scottish Government can actually do.

Print Friendly

    193 to “Unionist Manifesto Update”

    1. Irma says:

      Oh well, that’s much clearer then, eh? Thank goodness for that.

    2. mogabee says:

      I conclude that newspapers try to sell newspapers, Tories are trying to avoid selling anything resembling a policy and the rest seem to be saying blah, blah don’t do this…do that!

      Where’s that damned squirrel gone. 🙂 🙂

    3. Truth says:

      I’m getting mighty sick of this “greater power than ever before”.

      No, what you should be saying is greatest power since Scotland was last independent.

    4. Bob Mack says:

      In effect, they all claim that the Scottish government has new sooper dooper powers which do not exist, and which they actually voted for us not to have in case we managed to run the real economy successfully.
      The name of this game is illusion.

      The whole thing is a pardon the French, “bloody sham”

      “We gave you powers that were deliberately designed to make you unpopular, but dammit ,you refuse to use them”

      The Smith Commission was designed for just this purpose. To hobble the Scottish government permanently and make it appear weak. I think it is going to backfire on the unionists very soon indeed.

      .

    5. Macart says:

      Basically whine, whinge, moan, sneer, smear and snark. Not a policy option in sight. Not a constructive word. Not even a brain in evidence.

      Laydeeeez an gennamin! I give you the combined might of the opposition parties of Scotland and the swivel eyed window lickers of the right wing press.

      Just in case it’s perhaps slipped their notice. Some of us are perfectly aware why there is economic hardship aplenty in our country. Pretty damn sure where the responsibility for it lies too and it’s not at the door of a legislature that has only the barest control of any economic levers.

      The UK government is either in control of its brief or it isn’t. It is either responsible for and in control of the economy or it’s not. Lastly, it is either responsible for the care of the populations of the UK or they’re not fit for the job.

      The day job of the devolved legislatures within the UK is not to constantly offset or mitigate the catastrophic clusterfucks of central government policy. Yet that seems to be exactly what our opposition parties and the media believe to be the case.

      Spooky or what? 🙄

    6. skintybroko says:

      Listened to most of that crap on the radio yesterday, “from today Scotlands’ top earners will pay on average £400 more than their counterparts in England”. While this is strictly true, what they didn’t say was that people in Scotland wont notice any change in their wage bit counterparts in the rUK will find on average they will earn £400 more each year. It’s the way they tell them, anything to shed Scotland in a bad light. For anyone to move down South you better be ready for higher property costs, higher council taxes, higher business rates, prescription charges, education charges for your kids etc – we are a long way off that level of difference.

    7. admiral says:

      Well, to boost the economy can the Scottish Government:
      1) Reduce corporate taxes to encourage businesses to move here,
      2) Boost demand by cutting VAT,
      3) Offer better capital reliefs to encourage investment
      4) Change the minimum wage
      5) Borrow on international markets to invest here

      Answer = No, because these are all reserved powers.

    8. Neil Cook says:

      In conclusion I agree that the media, so called experts, yoonian politicians have degrees in baloney and are all bona fide members of Billy Smarts Circus !!

    9. Arbroath1320 says:

      Oh dearie me. Our Tory Lord’s and Masters, through the medium of their favourite printed papers, accuse the Scottish Government of not doing enough to help … erm … the rich and infamous. Well that really is rich coming from a bunch of murderous bastards and their supporters.

      Lest anyone forgets women who are raped now have to fill in an 8 page form to claim child support for a third child, provided this child is a result of rape. The cost saving of this incredible 8 page form … £13.70!

      No matter which way you turn you are guaranteed a view of the homeless, poor, low paid, elderly, disabled, young etc being hammered by the warmongering xenophobic Tory government. WHERE is the outrage in the print media, or even BBC/SKY, about this? …NOWHERE. No one in the London centric media has the guts or backbone to stand up to Mayhem and her murderous war on the less fortunate in Broken Britain today!

    10. George S Gordon says:

      The reality is that the Scottish Government has no real economic power. It has minimal borrowing power, no control of money supply or tax other than some income tax, and can have no influence on savings or consumption.

      I’m not sure if the SNP government understands this fully. Even if they do, they would suffer the usual media onslaught if they said so.

    11. orri says:

      Isn’t this the bit where we finally agree with the economic argument for Brexit and hold a referendum to “Take Back Control” ?

      Imagine if instead of having out economic policy tailored to suit Scotland. Imagine not having our efforts to increase renewable energy resources not crippled on dubious politically motivated grounds despite allegedly being a devolved competence. Imagine being able to actively cooperate with the rUK as an equal partner rather than in the way they think the larger parties in any union should dominate the rest.

    12. Arthur Martin says:

      Well it looks as if the limited tax powers handed to the ScotGov are doing exactly what they were designed to do. Mundell himself gloated that they were a trap for the SNP to make them look to the electorate as incompetent and incapable of governing an Indy Scotland.

      What concerns me is that folk that get all their news from our illustrious Scottish media take this at face value and form opinions accordingly. It’s going to take a lot of hard work to try and get the truth out to these people.

      I understand that there is a hard core Unionist vote that will be delighted at this news, it’s the 5-10% that could swing an Indy vote that this message must get through to. That last statement fills me with guilt as I am a branch member of my local SNP and do nothing to help out or get involved with campaigning. I think it’s about time that I got off my lazy backside.

    13. Snode1965 says:

      This is barefaced lying by the opposition and the MSM.
      It takes two minutes on Google to ask which powers are retained by the UK parliament.
      From the Scotland Act 1998;
      Schedule 5, Reserved Matters.
      Part 2, Specific Reservations.
      Head A, Financial and Economic Matters.
      Sectional, Fiscal, Economic and Monetary Policy.
      You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand this…Scotland does not control her own Economy.

    14. orri says:

      Not to mention that Holyrood may have to make enough changes to Police Scotland to maintain the benefits of it being a unitary force whilst being able to divide it into it’s old regional identities for VAT purposes in order to claim the exemptions they had. All to get round the bloody minded intransigence of Chancellors who could, if it suited them, make it exempt just like other regional authorities throughout the UK are.

      That last bit might actually be contrary to the Act of Union as it’s effectively a tax levied in Scotland, and indirectly on the taxpayers, that is not in England. Doesn’t matter that it’s via exempting those in England or not.

    15. heedtracker says:

      This is ofcourse spot on, “it might just be because there’s pretty much nothing the Scottish Government can actually do.” But as ever, the great tory Beeb gimps of the UK zone, pour their tory scorn, all over Scotland’s democracy.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39510351

      As Scotland pushes for a second referendum on independence, one man is asking the previously unthinkable – if you’re going quit the UK, why not join Canada?”

      O how we laugh, beeb gimps.

    16. Clarinda says:

      I noticed, because I must be some sort of media masochist, that the BBC ‘Scottish News’ last night, through the incisive political grasp of Glenn Campbell, was trying to contrive a “snub” story over the non event of our FM not meeting any of the Trump government. This, she tried to explain to her deliberately cloth-eared ‘interviewer’, was due to the fact that she was in the US to promote Scottish business links. Next was a short piece of film showing the FM watching some Scottish ballet dancers while the “snubbing” fake story was repeated.

      Any mention of contracts won and signed etc. … don’t be silly.

      How is Fluffy the Empire Stayer going down in Singapore? Fascinating to see what business links he comes back with.

    17. orri says:

      Not to mention that it might not matter if we had a single economic lever to pull or not. If Holyrood follows the same example as Westminster then the Budget is a actually a form of legislation. That means that whilst unlikely Westminster can intervene and set a budget instead. All the shenanigans in the run up to the last Budget must have had Davidson quivering in anticipation at the political coup that might have been.

    18. Brian Powell says:

      Clearly the SG elected by Scotland’s voters should do what the DM and the opposition says and carry out their nonexistent policies and not the SG real policies on which the Scottish voters voted them into power.

      It’s how democracies work across the world.

    19. Proud Cybernat says:

      Let’s just blame the SNP anyway cos – well just cos they’re the SNP. As good a reason as any I can think of. And, of course, in constantly blaming the SNP in the meeja (for stuff we really know they can do hee-haw about), is great cos it gives the impression to Jock Public that Scotland is shite and Scotland disnae have the people tae run a bath let alone a country’s economy.

      Keep pumping out the pish and folks will eventually begin to think it’s true, y’know. Perfect – that’ll do nicely. Ah can talk Scotland down. Anyone for an interview? Ah can do that – geeza joab.

      On the other hand:

      Robin McAlpine: The economy isn’t Scotland’s problem – it’s everyone but London’s problem

      http://www.commonspace.scot/articles/10726/robin-mcalpine-economy-isnt-scotlands-problem-its-everyone-londons-problem

      GERS – the UK economy IN Scotland. I like that.

      Well worth a read if you really want to know who to blame for Scotland’s (claimed) ailing economy. Oh, and it ISN’T the SNP.

      Funny that.

    20. liz says:

      @Clarinda, well after yesterday’s brutal attack on Syria, I am very glad that Trump ‘snubbed’ Nicola.

      There are plenty folk in the US who want rid of him and some are already calling him a war criminal, so he may not finish one full term

    21. galamcennalath says:

      ” ….nothing the Scottish Government can actually do.”

      Well, one straightforward action is quite possible. Take necessary steps to stay in the European singe market then actively poach loads of firms from rUK who prefer to have full EU access.

      Harsh? It’s a hard predatory world out there! rUK would have to qualms about doing it to us!

      I’ll wager no Unionists suggest that, though.

    22. asklair says:

      Sometimes I think the plan by all the tory parties is to lie that often to put the public off politics so they can gain total power.

    23. Proud Cybernat says:

      “Nyuse the pooowuuuurrrrsss…”

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arv0Mx1S_ho

    24. donald anderson says:

      Brian Wilson in today’s Hootsmon is attacking Nicola Sturgeon’s visit to the US and her “obsession” with her country’s Independence. Not a cheep about the Tory Meenisters on their warmongering Imperial visits.

      Her also attacks the windfarm policy because of contracts going elsewhere. No mention of the contract guidelines, nor of his shares in windfarms and nuclear power. The cabal of loyalist knuckledraggers online are on too keen to support this Sellick Director against Scotland.

    25. msean says:

      For the opposition MSP’s to have any ideas,they would first have to know what the Scottish Parliament can or can’t do. Since no helpful suggestions seem to be forthcoming,I thinking that maybe they either don’t know or are embarrassed at the weakness of the ‘new powers’ that we have in Scotland.

    26. gordoz says:

      For me Tom Hunter (impartial) is the least surprising repetitive moaner of the lot, given so much air time for charitable work (probably rightly) and then bumbling on about SNPbad and indyref fears affecting business confidence blah,blah,blah !!!

      OK Tom – money where mouth is … your bloody ideas to resolve the quandary of notional growth within a restrictive single UK market controlled wholly by Westminster ??

      Honestly can’t abide big mouth moaners like Tom Hunter(regardless of good work elsewhere). Complete (impartial ?) Waste of space in the round.

      Big help to Scotlands future (NOT!)

    27. call me dave says:

      It’s an oil wind that blows nobody any good.

      Too volatile for us yins, should we leave it to WM?
      It’s just a bonus. Init.

      https://archive.is/xi8Hn

      https://archive.is/qE89z

    28. A2 says:

      Your heart has to weep for those earning over £43,000 who are now “experiencing more challenging circumstances”.

    29. galamcennalath says:

      asklair says:

      …put the public off politics…

      Good point, and I think you are right.

      If they can’t win the arguments (which they can’t because there is no significant case for their Union), they can try to make politics so toxic democracy ceases to function. And that would certainly suit their agenda.

    30. Robert Louis says:

      Here is what the Scottish Government should do. Realise the full urgency of the economic catastrophe that is happening to Scotland due to Brexit. Hint: the effects are happening NOW. Then to free Scotland and the people of Scotland from the economic madness of England’s brexit and over three hundred years of economic mis-management and undemocratic mis-rule by Westminster, declare independence.

      I’m not sure many unionists would want that though.

      Fact is, the Scottish economy is controlled by London, not Holyrood. If it is failing, then the buck stops at Theresa May and the extreme right wing Tories.

      But, we must ask ourselves, IF Scotland is such an economic basketcase, why oh why does England wan so desperately to hold on to it? Here’s a few wee clues;

      1. Scotland’s “Oil and gas provides more than 70 per cent of the UK’s total primary energy”.

      2. Scotland’s reserves “provides more than half of the UK’s oil and gas demand”.

      3. “Since 1970 the industry has paid more than £300 billion in production tax, the equivalent of more than three years of NHS bills for England in today’s money (the NHS budget in England was set at £100 billion for 2015)”. Please note: ALL the revenue to date, has gone to London.

      Source of quotes : http://oilandgasuk.co.uk/key-facts.cfm

      (it needs pointed out, oil ad gas UK do NOT refer to the oil as being Scotland’s oil, but refer to the wholly misleading and deceptive phrase ‘UK continental shelf’ created by Westminster.)

      Oh, and not forgetting,

      4. “Hurricane Energy said in a statement on Monday morning that it had identified a huge oil field on a site in the North Sea, 60 miles west of Scotland’s Shetland Islands.” ” Dr Robert Trice, Hurricane’s chief executive officer, said it was a “highly significant moment for Hurricane.”

      “We believe that the GLA is a single hydrocarbon accumulation, making it the largest undeveloped discovery on the UK continental shelf,” he said.

      The discovery of an oil-bearing column at least 1,156 metres deep was described as “very significant” in the statement.

      Hurricane energy quotes source http://uk.businessinsider.com/hurricane-energy-hails-largest-undeveloped-discovery-of-uk-oil-2017-3?r=US&IR=T

      If however, you are Scottish, please note that for you, the oil from Scotland is worthless, and merely an onerous fluctuating liability you couldn’t possibly handle. The oil revenue obtained is best taken by London, to spend as they see fit.

    31. Robert Louis says:

      I noticed that Orri at 1253pm mentioned the outrageous VAT charged to Police Scotland, that no other force in the UK has to pay. On that matter, I have two questions.

      1. The Scottish Ambulance Service, has, so far as I know, always been a single entity, from efore the re-opening of the Scots Parliament. Does it get charged VAT?

      2. What about the single police force in N.Ireland, does that have to pay VAT?

    32. louis.b.argyll says:

      Billionaires are all very well..but they don’t represent the views of small businesses.

      Billionaires like to control democratic principles by influencing elected politicians.

      Billionaires want to maintain the status quo..which has made THEM RICH, while leaving THE REST OF US, to struggle on with the scraps left over after THEIR profits are taken.

    33. David Caledonia says:

      Tom Hunter, there is a man that made his fortune from the sweat shops in places like India, he lost a big part of his fortune when the banks had their little problems, he lived abroad to save tax, maybe he lived next door to Philip Green, they seem to be good pals, well money has a lot to talk about, he started some kind of charitable trust with 5 million quid of his own money, or the SSp as i call it ( sweat shop profits ) pity he never thought to set up a charitable trust in India, you know the place where the sweat shops are
      I have no time for the man, to me people like him are the cause of a lot of misery and poverty in this world, Andrew Carnegie he is not, and never will be, as for all the piffle being peddled by the unionists, does anyone in scotland still trust these people, i would not believe these people if they told me the sun would rise tomorrow, crowd of liars and charlatans

    34. Muscleguy says:

      Policies are for manifestos, after the election is done and dusted in the case of Spud’s tenure of Labour.

    35. geeo says:

      Nicola Sturgeon should call a national press conference, and make a statement outlining a whole raft of policy choices to help grow the Scottish economy, but base them ENTIRELY on reserved issues.

      Then, at the end, ask the waiting ‘journalists’ if they can spot the glaringly obvious PROBLEM with such a plan. !!!

      She could finish with a simple…”this is why Scotland requires independence”.

    36. Breeks says:

      Hey Westminster, never mind tax and fairy stories, give us power over broadcasting.

      No need to shut down the BBC, you keep that. Leave it be, protecting perverts and spouting it’s pish to anyone who will listen.

      Simply devolve to us the power to see a Scottish broadcaster have the right to co-exist. Give us a tiny sliver of digital network, just enough to broadcast a single station for a few hours a day.

      Of course you won’t. You are cowards. You are afraid of our ideas because they shine and give people hope. Your ideas are dull and dark and normalise despair.

      You KNOW your Union is in desperate trouble once the people of Scotland begin to know the truth, unfiltered by the BBC Ministry of Truth and their monopoly on broadcast information.

      You cannot afford to let that happen.

    37. Born Optimist says:

      geeo’s suggestion (at 2.25pm) is brilliant. Why restrict this to the First Minister? Let’s get all SNP MP, MSP, and MEP’s on the ball.

    38. Dair says:

      We’ve entered the phase Quebec entered in the late 1990s.

      The Federalists were still unable to reduce the support for Independence to manageable levels so they stopped attacking it.

      They began attacking the current Quebecois economy with a sustained campaign of lies that were based on Quebec suffering from “uncertainty” which was harming the economy. Every negative was highlighted and the positives ignored, the narrative was constructed and stuck to.

      The result worked. Independence came off the table.

      And then the Federalists REALLY DID punish Quebec. Federal money was withdrawn. Between 2000 and 2016 Federal spending in Quebec has HALVED in Real Terms. Unsurprisingly Growth also began to slow and has slumped behind the rest of Canada ever since Independence stopped being a potent threat.

      Scotland needs to be very aware of the damage taking Independence off the table would do.

    39. heedtracker says:

      Tis all to keep their Scotland to heal, although say a third of Scots are loaded. But why give N. Ireland corp tax control and NOT the uppity jocks of north Britain, especially having promised devo max, 2014?

      http://www.investni.com/media-centre/corporation-tax.html

      Its an odd land teamGB, for a generation too. Especially if you read NI media,

      https://www.ft.com/content/3b7757e0-91dd-11e5-94e6-c5413829caa5

      NOVEMBER 23, 2015 by: Vincent Boland in Belfast
      Northern Ireland’s business and political leaders have hailed the move to slash the region’s corporation tax rate to 12.5 per cent and bring it into line with the corporate tax regime in the Republic as heralding “a new economic era” that will create thousands of jobs.

      http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/uks-proposed-corporation-tax-cut-will-be-blow-to-northern-ireland-34854155.html

      UK’s proposed corporation tax cut will be blow to Northern Ireland
      By Gavin McLaughlin and staff reporters
      July 4 2016

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-36711840

      Corporation Tax: Máirtín Ó Muilleoir ‘NI may consider even lower rate’
      5 July 2016
      From the section Northern Ireland

      UKOK hacks are just hacks, but its a bit disorientating try to work out what is actually good and bad for the economy, in the space of stretch of water between the Pacific Quay propaganda gimps and what’s going to happen with 12% N.Ireland corp tax, over that stretch of water.

      Will 20% corp tax in their Scotland region, harm Scots economy even more than the being a UK region is already, when its only 12% in NI?

      Yes ofcourse it will but you voted NO and its just the way it goes, and dont even ask massed ranks of beeb gimpery, BBC Scotland style.

    40. orri says:

      http://www.accaglobal.com/za/en/news/2017/april/scotland-tax.html

      “As a result of public revenues now more closely linked to economic performance, Holyrood needs to maintain a cautious approach. With air passenger duty and a greater share of VAT revenue due in coming years, the Government will have to invest wisely in strategies which will grow the economy long-term whilst resisting the urge to further complicate the tax system.

      “With the Scottish Fiscal Commission now in force as a statutory body, it needs to act as a strong voice in ensuring independent and accurate forecasts and reporting are available to policy-makers. They will also have a vital watching brief on the overall level of additional borrowing undertaken to fund new projects . In the interim, ACCA remains committed to working with the Scottish Government to provide the expert advice and counsel necessary to navigate a period of profound economic uncertainty. ”

      Not nearly as damning as reported. In it’s entirety the press release is almost supportive and has been selectively quoted for effect.

      Only quible I’d have is that it’s only from £43K to £45K that there’s a different tax rate. Whether relocating outside Scotland for the sake of less than £500 at most is worth the upheaval is the question.

    41. Rob James says:

      We all know that Gers is a load of bollocks. This brings into doubt the authenticity of quoted GDP figures. So how on earth are we supposed to believe quarterly economic growth indicators and how do they work them out? If they do it on the basis of surveys, the margin of error must be enormous.

      Like the rest of the pish adorning the front pages of our esteemed media, it’s exactly that….pish.

    42. Robert Louis says:

      Dair at 330pm,

      A very good comment. Indeed the longer Quebec waited, the longer their opponents had to plan. So it is with Scotland. The enemy of Scotland, Westminster, will literally do anything to force Scotland to stay under English rule.

      I said this in 2014, and as you pointed out, it is true now, the ONLY thing which Westminster responds to is threats, in Scotland’s case, the threat of an independence referendum. It is a metaphorical gun to their head. Without it, Westminster and the London Tories will simply continue p*ssing on Scotland and its people.

      I do think the SNP are getting to a stage where they either need to put up or shut up. They either make a stand for Scotland, or they admit that they are ok to just let Westminster run things. Talk is cheap. This nicey, nicey charade has been going on too long. It is abundantly clear Westminster despises the Scots, and only wants to keep Scotland for our oil. It is also abundantly clear, Scotland will not benefit from leaving the EU, besides that has already been decided, when Scotland voted by a very large majority to remain.

      I don’t want a ‘compromise’, or a ‘good brexit deal’ or ‘single market access’ (whatever the F that is) I want to stay in the EU, period.

      The good news is, I see no signs anywhere that independence is coming off the table, in any way. It would be nice, however, if the SNP were a bit more active in pursuing matters. I mean, what is happening re:section 30? Are we all just having a cosy wee break, while Brexit continues unabated?

      Seriously, I don’t quite understand why, after the vote in the Scots Parliament, the FM waited until article 50, before writing to the PM. Just get on with it. Less wishy washy talk of helping the UK get a good Brexit deal (do you think Westminster actually gives a f***?), and more about HOW we can keep Scotland in the EU (not just the single market), and just how urgent it REALLY is.

    43. Fred says:

      Tyred of Dunlop, who elected him? Murdo Fraser ditto!

    44. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Proud Cybernat @ 13:04:

      GERS – the UK economy IN Scotland.

      I really like that slogan too. SNP interviewees should all have that one at hand, ready to deploy.

      Your Commonspace reference was indeed well worth a read.

      Robin McAlpine:

      … there are only two regions in the UK that really outpace Scotland on productivity and that’s London and the south-east. It’s not something fundamental about the Scots.

      And his explanation was that those “better” areas get especially favourable treatment from UKGov.

      Though one might wonder that those privileged regions could get hit especially hard by Brexit, unless they get even more favourable treatment in the deal with the EU27.

      The bloodsuckers might need Scotland’s resources even more, which is why the Mayhem Gang are so desperate to drag us with them.

    45. heedtracker says:

      English FibDem’s think Brexit’s their way back to greatness, meanwhile, up north, Willie’e up to his usual,

      https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/400705/tactical-voting-row-between-unionist-parties/

      Willie Rennie, the North East Fife MSP, is trying to get Conservative voters to back Lib Dem candidates in his constituency to protect the Union – arguing that supporting the Tories will “help the SNP”.

      Willie style yoons really know how to get that Friday feeling flushed down the FibDem loo.

    46. Footsoldier says:

      7 April: Oil exploration firm Hurricane Energy has tripled its estimate of recoverable oil from its Lancaster field in the North Sea.

    47. Footsoldier says:

      Tory spokesperson: this further increase in oil reserves is a further BLOW to Scotland’s economy and the SNP given the volatility of oil prices.

    48. Footsoldier says:

      Scottish Tory spokesperson says: this further increase in UK oil reserves is a real BLOW to the SNP and the Scottish economy.

    49. liz says:

      Being an extremely suspicious person, -the BBC know they have no chance of getting to the young with news etc, so new plan?

      Radio 6 music had a festival in Glasgow, I know they travel the country but they’re still talking about it.

      One show mentioned Glasgow every 2 mins, subliminally targeting youth , you’re great, see how we listen to you, you’re music’s fab.

      Or am I just totally paranoid?

    50. Les Wilson says:

      What we are dealing with IS the Westminster trap of limited powers.Something designed to cost the Scottish Government dearly.
      The rev had much to say on this when the “powers” became known, and he was right.

      When doing any deals with Westminster we need to count our fingers after it,deceit is their way and we should always be prepared to deal with attempts to con us with contempt, after all they are professional con men, well learned over centuries.

      Now we are attempting to deal with their latest con’s, but without meaningful powers it will only get worse.
      We need to really be thinking of ourselves and only ourselves, as we know charity begins at home.

      Time later to magnanimous, we need to fix our country first.
      Divergence from Westminster must be stepped up,we cannot let this go on.

    51. Dorothy Devine says:

      Liz, you may be but that doesn’t mean to say you are wrong.

      Go with your instincts!

    52. Les Wilson says:

      What do people think of Nicola deciding not to take our case for a referendum to court?
      Not sure I see the reason for her saying that, can someone give me a explain that strategy?

      My thinking that would always be a threat to use, looks like I might be wrong.

    53. Dan Huil says:

      Scotland’s government gets the blame for Westminster incompetence. How can this be? Because of the britnat media. Don’t buy britnat newspapers. Don’t pay the britnat bbc tax.

    54. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Les Wilson @ 16:07,

      Just why do you think she’s busy getting known and making friends at the UN? =grin=

    55. Dan Huil says:

      @Les Wilson 4:07pm

      Don’t think she definitely said she wouldn’t, Les. Keeping it in reserve, perhaps?

    56. call me dave says:

      ‘IT’ has never been taken to court.
      She never said it wouldn’t be taken to court.

      It might not be the SNP SG or any future SG that takes it to court it might be a any concerned ‘group’ of Scottish who evers that take it to court.

      If you read the Daily Fail or Express they are running a story that says Sturgeons backed down…obvious lie!

    57. Andy Anderson says:

      I get so annoyed at these lying b******s, in all the years it has taken me to get a good head of grey hair I have never seen so much absolute rubbish spewed out by unionist politicians and media.
      In Germany at present they are putting in laws to stop this as the people there are sick of it too. They call it fake news and untruths and it is meant to be stopped. Fact only. Will that happen hear. I agree, NO.
      It saddens me that so many of us know so little about the administrative structures of our country and can be taken in with all this.

    58. Andy Anderson says:

      Nicola is not going to go to court as if she lost that would be it, NO.

    59. Ken500 says:

      £8 a week for prescription, Trams, better healthcare, no ‘bedroom tax’ AWPR, improved railways, increased social care, increased nursery care new road bridge, more Council houses, one of the best education system in the world where more pupils go to Uni, college skills and aprenticshops than anywhere in the world. Etc, etc.

      Scotland could do better without Westminster interference.Taking £20Billion a year from Scotland.
      Illegal tax on Oil & Gas since 2010 when the price started falling. Losing 120,000 jobs in Scotland. £10Billion a year. £5Billion lost and £5Billion fracked Gas from the US and Norwegian Gas having to be imported. Scotland would have had full employment. There are 120,000 unemployed. Imagine how that would have stimulated the economy.

      Scotland has to pay £4Billion on debt repayment on money borrowed and spent in the rest of the UK. On Hinkley Point by the sea, HS2, Heathrow and squint Trident. All disasters waiting to happen. A total waste of £500Billion. No business case. Lack of consumers. There are more credible, cheaper alternatives. 6 jobs Osbourne lazy troughers would not listen. Only interested in funding London S/E. Totally useless.

      Scotland has to pay £1Trident, Minimum pricing would save £1Billion. £3Billion is tax evaded. Whiskey companies etc pay not tax.

      Independent in the EU Scotland would be £20Billlion+ better off. Add EU Grants and ECB investment in renewables, farming and fishing.etc. The nearest biggest market for higher remuneration and prices. Scotland has a massive food business and tourist potential. A massive market. One of the most visited countries in the world. With enormous potiential if Westminster control was relinquished. The Oil supply boats are back.

      Why are OAP’s not allowed to use the Trams with their (bus) travel passes. (Off peak hours). That is just illegal discrimination. The Trams are running under capacity. Another element of public waste, Having to run more buses. The competitive fare should be increased to £10 return. Edinburgh the wealthiest City in Scotland has under utilised subsidised transport. There is an electric taxi fleet in Dundee which is a lot cheaper to run.

      Instead of taking the piss. Why doesn’t Mike Dailly have a go at the Herald website illegally knowingly, defaming innocent people. Ms Slater. That must be illegal. Dirty liars. Sincere humble apologies. Will find a way of making recompense. An extra donation to the food bank.

    60. call me dave says:

      Och! Meant to say ‘all’ the FTSEs closed at a record high. :-/

      Funny old world! …I should really sell some shares before it all goes pear shaped! Aye right!

    61. Robert Peffers says:

      “Firstly, some bloke from the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (no, us either) was wheeled in to offer up some vague boilerplate waffle:”

      Yeah!
      Richt!

      Last time I saw someone who was, “certified”, for something was when I was a wee laddie and lived on a farm in the Lothians near East Calder.

      I was out with my dog, near a small holding, when a big yellow ambulance with a big bell ringing, (before the days of, “Wee Wah”, fitted ambulances), went tearing by in a great hurry.

      It was on a rough farm track and I caught up with it later as it was on my way to East Calder village.

      As I got near the turn off to a local small holding they brought out the owner of the holding and he was wearing a strange white jacket that had his arms crossed over his chest with straps that tied behind his back.

      The local GP, the Village Constable, another policeman and a stranger, who I guessed was another Doctor, and a rather large nurse were all milling around.

      I never saw the small holding owner again. He was a decent enough old guy but a wee bit strange in his ways.

      Totally harmless, a bit of a recluse with adults but would chatter away endlessly to youngsters and who was very fond of animals and birds. He would have been a certain Green Voter today and very likely a Yesser.

      He had been an NCO in the KOSBs during WWI and a piper in the KOSB Pipe Band. He spoke the Gaelic sometimes so I just assumed he was originally a Highlander. I liked the old guy and always wondered why they took him away.

    62. stewartb says:

      geeo @ 2:25 pm

      Like your idea of the ‘national press conference’: a good way of getting a substantive message out to the people of Scotland through a high profile event that the media could not ignore – even if they will try to spin as usual.

      And why stop at a one-off event? Why not a six monthly ‘state of the nation’ press conference in Bute House at which the work of the Scottish Government in the period just past and the challenges and plans for the next are presented. Let it become a regular, high profile address by the FM.

      On a related matter, I wonder if more could be done by the SNP to inform the people of Scotland on the collective work and achievements of SNP MPs in Westminster. Could this information be aggregated and amplified in innovative ways?

    63. Geejay says:

      Well, Nicola could start selling trainers out the back of a car, then when the business takes off sell out for millions and never mind the employees. Oh, wait a minute, I think that’s already been done.

    64. Ken500 says:

      Tom Hunter was once manipulating a Charity. There were questions raised about how it was being run to his advantage. Evading tax etc. There was some major loss on the banking crash. Still had a secret stash. He gave Michelle Mone investment before the troughing took off. With the pay off. Cameron’s side kick. Swanning about in a Jag on public money. Voting to deprive vulnerable chikdren.

    65. Maybe the ScotGov should just get on with the day job – like why not send the FM somewhere important to talk up Scotland and try and drum up some trade deals to help the economy.

    66. One_Scot says:

      Just got an email from Nicola letting me know what she has been up to over the past few days. She really does our country proud. Just going to make another donation to the referendum fund.

      https://www.ref.scot/donate

      I’m sure she would appreciate all the help she can get. If we cannot give her a few extra pound for our cause, then what can we give.

    67. Flower of Scotland says:

      O/t

      Sort of bumped into Henry McLeish today. I spoke about his piece in the National the other day about Federalism.

      I said that that particular boat had long sailed and he agreed. He said it might have been an option 10 years ago.

      I invited him to jump over to the Yes side and he said that it definitely was an option.

      We’ll see!

    68. Robert Peffers says:

      @Robert Louis says: 7 April, 2017 at 1:30 pm:

      “. “Hurricane Energy said in a statement on Monday morning that it had identified a huge oil field on a site in the North Sea, 60 miles west of Scotland’s Shetland Islands.” ” Dr Robert Trice, Hurricane’s chief executive officer, said it was a “highly significant moment for Hurricane.”

      Either that, “Expert”, guy, is more than a little lost or the Westminster Government has towed the Shetland Isles secretly into the North Sea. Last time I was in that airt the Isles were still firmly anchored in the Atlantic Ocean.

    69. Fred says:

      Stuff the Law, we’ll make our own Law!

    70. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Robert Peffers @5.26pm

      Come on Robert, fair’s fair. Hurricane Energy is based in Godalming, in Surrey.

      To everyone in Surrey, who isn’t Scottish, Scotland is a small, far-away land of which they know nothing.

      Maybe, to the inhabitants of Surrey, the seas around Scotland, being in the north, are all the North Sea.

      Most of the population of Surrey was, allegedly, educated at an English public school – so, if it wasn’t coloured pink on the map, the area didn’t count.

    71. call me dave says:

      A wee article (archived) from WoS Twitter:

      Labour should stop indulging its Scottish party and broker a progressive alliance with the SNP

      https://archive.is/pUcju

    72. Cactus says:

      Aye aye, Nicola is playing her cairds bonnily, it’s good to be suggestive.

      Here’s where we remain at (The queen cat is in control)
      https://wingsoverscotland.com/playmates/

      Hey One_Scot ~

      “One_Scot says:
      Just got an email from Nicola letting me know what she has been up to over the past few days. She really does our country proud. Just going to make another donation to the referendum fund.

      https://www.ref.scot/donate

      I’m sure she would appreciate all the help she can get. If we cannot give her a few extra pound for our cause, then what can we give.”

      Well said.

      Maybe we could and should take a collection at the next Wings gathering..

      And speaking of..

      Glasgow, Edinburgh?

      Before / after the 4th May?

    73. manandboy says:

      “On the day of the referendum, Lord Ashcroft surveyed 12,369 people after they had voted to help explain the result. Ashcroft found:

      Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”.
      Surely not.

    74. manandboy says:

      “On the day of the referendum, Lord Ashcroft surveyed 12,369 people after they had voted to help explain the result. Ashcroft found:

      Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in Westminster”.Sorted.

    75. Breeks says:

      Les Wilson says:
      7 April, 2017 at 4:07 pm
      What do people think of Nicola deciding not to take our case for a referendum to court?”

      Nicola not taking Theresa to court for technically not blocking a referendum, is political doublespeak for Theresa saying I am going to block your referendum, and Nicola saying do what you like, I’m gonna do it anyway, but challenge you in the Court of Session if you interfere.

      We all know what happens if Nicola is “compelled” to go the Court of Session on a constitutional ticket, prompted by Westminster’s stubborn and unreasonable intransigence. “Of course you can have a referendum Nicola, because a referendum in Scotland is the collective voice of the sovereign people”.

      “Haud oan! Am no done Nicola. Why are you wanting a referendum to ask the sovereign people of Scotland if they’d like to be the sovereign people of Scotland? Is it no a wee bit pointless when they already ARE the sovereign people of Scotland and can’t actually do anything about it?”

      “Well, I have been kinda putting that particular question off. It’s a difficult subject and I’ve been looking for a way to break it to them gently. It’s gonna gie half the voting population heart failure with misery, and the other half heart failure with joy. Come the morning after, there’ll be naebody left to govern”.

    76. manandboy says:

      “On the day of the referendum, Lord Ashcroft surveyed 12,369 people after they had voted to help explain the result. Ashcroft found:

      Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken at Westminster”. Sorted

    77. stewartb says:

      I’ve mentioned this on Wings before. It is important to get the terminology regarding our oil provinces correct – and for more just geographical accuracy.

      The “North Sea’ province has been a source of oil & gas production for a long time: it is a very ‘mature province, albeit not without substantial ongoing value and further potential. But it is this ‘North Sea’ that has been associated with the negative messages about the future given out by Unionists before and since Indyref1.

      The ‘Atlantic Margin’ is a wholly different, relatively immature province and, based on the recent announcements by Hurricane Energy and others, one with substantial and new, future potential.

      We should always make this distinction clear.

    78. Capella says:

      re Quebec – the House of Commons Research paper on the Quebec referendums is a useful source of information.

      The Canadian government offered “more powers” to Quebec on condition people voted NO. They voted NO twice, in 1995 by the narrowest of margins.

      Sadly, the transfer of “more powers” proved too difficult each time.
      http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/RP13-47#fullreport

      We too will be offered “more powers” if we vote NO in another referendum. Some people are stupid enough to believe it.

    79. Cactus says:

      We vote Yes!

      Then we make many new bridges.

      As we repair auld bridges.

      Time heals.

      SO be it.

    80. BabsP says:

      I am utterly frustrated at the continual hammering on about the Scots being the highest tax payers in the UK. I am fortunate to be in the 40% tax bracket and was outraged when the Tories announced they intended to lift the threshold by a large margin giving me a significant increase in my take home pay – an increase that I neither need nor want at a time when so many others are suffering.

      I am delighted to forego this tax handout and consider myself – as Mum to two sons at Scottish Universites – far more indebted to the Scottish Government than I could ever be burdened by this SNP bad policy.

    81. Roboscot says:

      Socrates says:
      ‘Scotland is a small, far-away land of which they know nothing.’

      And Lerwick is the same distance from London as Prague!

    82. Capella says:

      We don’t want “more powers”. We want ALL powers. All the powers of a sovereign state. Powers to make or revoke treaties with other states. Powers to alter our financial obligations to suit our own goals. Powers to organise a fair and equal society.

    83. Fireproofjim says:

      Re Hurricane Energy and their huge oilfield find West of Shetland.
      They may be based in Godalming, Surrey, but their CEO, Dr Robert Price, certainly knows where his company is drilling. He is probably the most innovative geologist in the business and has found oil around the world in areas and strata that major companies ignored.
      The Lancaster Field is now suspected to hold over a billion barrels and their Halifax field is even bigger.
      Anyway it doesn’t matter who finds the oil. It is who gets the benefit of the taxes that counts.
      But how we will manage without the broad shoulders etc etc etc?

    84. Lenny Hartley says:

      Re ?Hurricane and North Sea, in a previous life I lived in Abderdeen for nigh on 30 years, back in 93 when the Braer went aground off Shetland, I.T.N. London phoned up the Grampian TV studios and asked them to hire a speedboat so they could cover the ongoing ecological disaster.
      They were told the Shetlands are over 200 miles away and the person at I.T.N said I’m looking at a map and it’s right next to Aberdeen. He was looking at one of those inset boxes…

    85. Cactus says:

      Away an gie yer partner a kiss.

    86. Rock says:

      Breeks,

      I repeat my answer to you on the previous article:

      Breeks,

      “Wee question for you Rock, not acrimonious or accusing, but because I think you have a point;”

      My point is simple and clear:

      The Scottish “plebs” have never been “sovereign” and anything that states they are is not worth the paper it was written of.

      Shouting from the rooftops that we are “sovereign” hasn’t achieved anything in the last 310 years and will not in the next 620.

      Scotland has effectively been a colony of England for the last 310 years.

      Apart from that, I leave it to you and Robert Peffers to discuss the finer points of your “sovereignty”.

      Unlike you guys, I am no expert and do not pretend to be one.

      Serious question: If Robert Peffers thinks he knows so much, why hasn’t he written a book on the subject?

    87. bjsalba says:

      I found a site to calculate distances

      http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html

      Try London Lerwick

      and London Berlin

    88. Rock says:

      Capella,

      “We don’t want “more powers”. We want ALL powers. All the powers of a sovereign state. Powers to make or revoke treaties with other states. Powers to alter our financial obligations to suit our own goals. Powers to organise a fair and equal society.”

      So we don’t have most powers?

      So we are not “sovereign”?

      So why are we pretending that we are “sovereign”?

      If we stopped pretending, we might actually become independent like all those other colonies did decades ago.

    89. DerekM says:

      Tory policy – Take no responsibility for anything and blame everybody else.

      Labour policy – sook up the tories ass in a bid to keep noses in trough.

      Lib dems – who cares what they say they stand for it will be nonsense anyway.

      Oh no more oil,well there is actually a funny story about that you see a wee birdie told me that the IMF after brexit will be looking for conformation of the UK`s wealth since it has 1.9 trillion tied up in it and to ease the markets and bankers fears westminster has had to disclose this to stop them all giving sterling another kicking.

      So once again Scottish oil saves westminsters arse but not for much longer.

      Just in case you were wondering why on the eve of another indy campaign they are releasing this information.

      I mentioned i had been looking into John Perkins jeez if this guy is genuine it is a miracle he has not been bumped off.

      Though some of the things he talks about would make sense when put into a UK context.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-dsiufhMu0

    90. Rock says:

      As I thought a couple of days ago, “sovereign” Scots don’t have the belly for a court case.

      Even after 310 years’ of colonisation, they simply can’t put their money where their mouths are:

      Bob Mack,

      “Did anyone else hear Nicola state that Westminster supremacy over scotland has never been challenged in court ?

      Our own Robert Peffers may well have been right all along. I wonder if Westminster has the belly for a court case about sovereign rights because that is definitely what Nicola was hinting at.”

      Rock,

      “Does Scotland have the belly for a court case about sovereign rights?”

      “The likes of Robert Peffers certainly have not put their money where their mouths are:

      As I had posted last month:

      Saint Theresa of England and Wales has no option but to deny permission until after Brexit has been completed, or the Scottish colony is lost.

      According to Scotland’s greatest legal expert of all time:

      Robert Peffers,

      “All we need do is to go ahead and do what we wish and let them attempt to stop or prevent our exercise of what, under Scots law, is our legal sovereignty and let them take legal action.”

      Rock,

      That would amount to UDI. Who in their right mind wants that?

      The Yes movement has hardly 50% support.

      There is no way Scotland’s MPs and MSPs could be sure of a majority if they stood for re-election in such a scenario.

      I very much doubt that the SNP would go down that way.

      It is now or never for “sovereign” Scots to take matters into their own hands, under the guidance of “Lawyers for Yes”:

      Breeks,

      ” 4) We secure judicial review at Court of Session and have Scotland’s inalienable sovereignty recognised as the prevailing (if widely misunderstood) reality, prompting an emergency plebiscite to determine what we should do about it.

      Don’t know about you, but I’m liking option 4… a lot.”

    91. Iain says:

      Oh my I can’t wait till we are an independent, normal state.
      Then we can stop seeing and hearing all this Yoon fanny waffle.
      Oh to be a normal country.

    92. Cactus says:

      We’re One Scotland (WOS)

      It’s Friday night.

      It’s 8 oh clock.

      Have fun!

    93. Brian Powell says:

      Imagine if we were to gain Independence then all the Yes groups who think they are the right answer were to splinter votes and the ToryLibDems were to be the biggest group in Holyrood.

    94. DerekM says:

      Rock you been on the pictish hamebrew or the shrooms you are making an arse out your own argument.

      Why should we take the UK to court if they want to stop us let them take us to court,lets see them try and thwart democracy through law and show their true face.

      Why should we have to defend the position of Scottish sovereignty in a UK chicken supreme court.

      Are you not always telling us lawyers and judges are the scum of the earth,i would think you would be pleased that Nicola is not prepared to let them sell our asses to their masters in a rigged court room.

      Since that is how we got in this stupid union in the first place.

    95. mike d says:

      Brian Powell 8.o6 pm. As long as we got independence Brian,i’d be so ecstatic the wombles could be the biggest group in holyrood.(at least till we came down from cloud nine)

    96. Cactus says:

      .X.

    97. Robert Peffers says:

      @Dan Huil says: 7 April, 2017 at 4:28 pm:

      “Don’t think she definitely said she wouldn’t, Les. Keeping it in reserve, perhaps?”

      Sheesh! Nicola most certainly has indeed said she will not contest any attempt by May to prevent a Scottish referendum in court. I’ve already explained why in great detail but it seems the road to Scottish independence is beset by Yessers determined to accept the Unionist pish without question as if it were carved in stone.

      Yessers are their own worst enemies.

      Here’s some truth and with the reasoning to show it is truth.

      No one needs anyone else’s legal permission to hold a referendum for the very simple reason that holding referendums is not against any law either under Scottish or English law.

      For heaven’s sake every type of organisation from Residents Associations to Local Councils hold referendums to find out what a particular faction of the public think on any matter. Opinion Polls do it all the time. It simply is not against any law.

      So if it isn’t against the law then why would Nicola need to ask permission from May to hold one? The answer is she doesn’t need to.

      What she has stated is that she will ask May to sign a, “Section30 Order”, but a Section30 Order is NOT the UK Government’s permission to hold a referendum.

      Here’s the proof of that statement:- Indyref1 has two signatories, Salmond & Cameron.

      It is thus a bipartite agreement – perhaps even a legal contract. If it was a legal permission it would need to be illegal to hold a referendum in the first place. In the second place it would only need to be signed by the person granting permission.

      So just what is a Section30 Order? First of all, as referendums are normally advisory only, they need no permission so the Section30 Order with two signatures is an agreement by two parties as to how the referendum is to be run,and that is agreeable to both parties to the agreement.

      Which raises the question of why there are two parties if it is an advisory referendum.

      It is because the two parties can agree to abide by the result and that makes the referendum more than just advisory and it makes the conditions and the questions asked of vital importance to BOTH parties who sign the Section30 Order.

      A Section30 Order is thus an agreement on the question(s), asked and the rules of the referendum and agreement to legally abide by the results. That is where the legal or illegal bit comes in. It is a binding contract for only that particular referendum.

      So here’s the present situation.

      Nicola says Holyrood will hold a referendum on Scottish Independence. She needs no one but the Holyrood Parliaments agreement to run one. She formally requests that Westminster will agree to abide by the result and May says she will not agree to abide by the result and thus leaves the running of the referendum, including what the question will be, entirely up to the SG.

      So that means the SG referendum is advisory only and Westminster has nothing to do with it but that leaves Holyrood able to use the result as Holyrood pleases and if it is that the voters want independence then so be it.

      Just what exactly has Westminster got to claim is illegal? Furthermore under what legal system are Westminster claiming it is illegal? If it is illegal and it is in Scotland then any crime is under Scottish jurisdiction and as running a referendum is not illegal what is it that Westminster is wanting a Scottish court to do?

      Not only that but the Westminster Supreme Court cannot interfere because there are no Scottish or English laws being contested to be appealed against and the Supreme court is a court of appeal.

      I think Nicola is several very big jumps ahead of May and is playing her like a fish on the end of a line.

      Westminster, right from 1 May 1707, has believed that they were taking over the Kingdom of Scotland instead of entering into a bipartite union with an equally sovereign Kingdom in a partnership of equals.

      They believe their own propaganda. Note how many times they refer to the United KINGDOM as, “The Country”.

      They also believe that an agreement between two partners on a Section30 Order is really Westminster’s permission to hold a referendum when factually running a referendum isn’t against any laws and anyone who wants to can do so legally.

      In this instance no one but the Yoons cares if they wish to have a hand in setting out the rules and question to be asked. Nor if they previously agree to there being a referendum because they will be unable to do anything legally to stop independence if a majority of voters vote for Scottish Independence.

      It’s comin yet fir aa that.

    98. Ian Brotherhood says:

      It’s Karaoke night over on Off-Topic.

      Please drop in and share two songs – the one you’d love to be able to do at karaoke, and the one you actually end-up doing.

      Don’t be scared, aw ye lurkers…

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/off-topic/#comments

    99. Legerwood says:

      BabsP says:
      7 April, 2017 at 6:55 pm
      “”I am utterly frustrated at the continual hammering on about the Scots being the highest tax payers in the UK.””

      ………………..

      As am I. What the Scottish Government was proposing in their budget was in fact a tax CUT for those in the 40p bracket – just not as big a tax CUT as those in the 40p bracket were going to get down south.

      Thanks to the Tories’ failure to support the budget the tax CUT was shelved in order to get a deal with the Greens to get the budget through.

      This is what should be hammered home to people.
      The Tories, and Labour, stopped the tax CUT.

      Thus people are paying the SAME tax as last year with a slight adjustment to take account of the changes in the Personal Allowance.

      Like you most people are not going to object to this because of the other benefits that pertain in Scotland such as free university tuition. But the Tories punchy ‘highest taxed…’ had a lot of traction and should have been countered by the ‘Tories stop tax cut’ thus turning it back on them.

    100. Robert Peffers says:

      @call me dave says:7 April, 2017 at 4:40 pm:

      “It might not be the SNP SG or any future SG that takes it to court it might be a any concerned ‘group’ of Scottish who evers that take it to court.”

      Just what is it you believe can be taken to court, Call me Dave?

      If there is any law in either Scotland or in the three country Kingdom of England that says it is illegal to hold a referendum, I do ask that you tell us all what that law is?

      While you are at it I do request that you explain what you imagine a Section30 Order is? It most certainly is not permission from Westminster for someone to hold a legal referendum. If it was every newspaper in the land that puts up a survey would be braking the law without one as would every opinion poll company, TV company and radio station. Not to mention all sorts of organisations that ask people for their opinions of lots of disparate things.

    101. Hamish100 says:

      rock

      we shall have a referendum.

      If the unionists don’t wish to exercise their democratic right and vote so be it.

      Now whats your point?

    102. Cactus says:

      Nevermind the back-lash..

      What about the lash-back?!

    103. Rock says:

      DerekM,

      “Rock you been on the pictish hamebrew or the shrooms you are making an arse out your own argument.

      Why should we take the UK to court if they want to stop us let them take us to court,lets see them try and thwart democracy through law and show their true face.”

      There is no way Saint Theresa is going to give permission to hold a referendum when the First Minister wants to hold one.

      Does Scotland have the belly to hold a referendum nevertheless?

      I very much doubt it.

      Westminister will not need to take us to court because our rotten to the core justice system and lawyers have accepted 310 years’ of illegal colonisation without a murmer.

      We Scots are unable to put our money where our mouths are. The whole world knows that.

      The only thing we can do is shout from the roof tops that we are “sovereign”.

      We are a laughing stock.

    104. Robert Peffers says:

      @Andy Anderson says: 7 April, 2017 at 4:44 pm:

      “Nicola is not going to go to court as if she lost that would be it, NO.”

      Hey! Someone at last with a bit of common sense.

      Hi, Andy, you are on the right lines but the reason Nicola is not going to court is because she is a trained lawyer and knows she has nothing to go to court about.

      I’ve been telling it as it is already but will point out again the simple facts.

      A Section30 is NOT a Westminster parliament’s permission to run a referendum. First of all running a referendum is not illegal as normally referendums are only, “Advisory”.

      That is, their normal usage is to find out what a particular body of people’s opinions are on a particular subject or subjects. It simply is not illegal to run referendums.

      So no one can be prosecuted for running referendums nor can anyone stop them from doing so.

      Which beggars the question of why Westminster seem to think a section30 Order is Westminster granting permission to hold what is not illegal to do.

      Here is the simple answer. Indyref1 was NOT an advisory only Referendum and the reason it was NOT an advisory Referendum was because there was a legally binding contract between two governments to abide by the results of that referendum. This, of course, required that both sides agree on the questions and other rules of how the referendum was to be run and that is what a Section30 Order is.

      So indyref1 was supposedly a legally binding contract to hold a referendum under agreed rules and for both sides to abide by the result. I’ll leave you to decide if Westminster upheld their side of the bargain in view of how they did not make good on the promises, and vows, they made during the campaign.

      I postulate that if the SG had taken it to the court that the section30 was broken, Westminster would have claimed these promises were not part of the Section30 Order.

      It was thus not politic for the SG to waste their time and taxpayers money, trying to argue the point in the Westminster Supreme Court.

      So basically Nicola has no intention of taking a stupid case to a court when she cannot be legally prevented from running a referendum and does not need Westminster to agree to anything about it nor to promise to legally respect the results.

      Just let them try and NOT respect the results. The EU and UN would be on it like a flash as the Westminster Government has signed up to both of their treaties that specifically have written into them the human right of Self Determination.

    105. Alba46 says:

      Rock

      You really have had your daily dose of grumpy pills today. You really need to lighten up a bit or your are heading for a mental hernia

    106. Rock says:

      Robert Peffers,

      “While you are at it I do request that you explain what you imagine a Section30 Order is? It most certainly is not permission from Westminster for someone to hold a legal referendum.”

      The First Minister wants the UK government to be legally bound by the result.

      There is absolutely no way that the UK government will grant a section 30 order for a legally binding referendum to be held when we want it.

      Robert Peffers,

      “All we need do is to go ahead and do what we wish and let them attempt to stop or prevent our exercise of what, under Scots law, is our legal sovereignty and let them take legal action.”

      Holding it anyway would amount to UDI.

      Who in their right mind wants that?

      The Yes movement has hardly 50% support.

      There is no way Scotland’s MPs and MSPs could be sure of a majority if they stood for re-election in such a scenario.

      I very much doubt that the SNP would go down that way.

      You don’t read my comments, so make sure you don’t respond:

      Robert Peffers,

      “@Dan Huil says: 4 April, 2017 at 7:32 pm:

      “Has Rock given us his views on Gibraltar?”

      Who would know, Dan? Does anyone still read his comments?”

    107. Cactus says:

      *Pause*

      Go an gie your buddy a high five!

    108. Mungo says:

      Robert peffers,
      Majority of voters or majority of electorate? Big difference.

    109. Cactus says:

      Play >

    110. Mungo says:

      Sorry should have made clear that was in reply to Robert peffers 7 April, 2017 at 8:23 pm

    111. gerry parker says:

      Cactus @ 8:55.

      Yep – I heard there were one or two cooncillors who were “strapped for cash”

      😉

    112. Artyhetty says:

      OK. The people of Scotland, Alba, have been sold down the river, big time, for a very, very long time. That continues to be so, the yoons are onto a big fat winner when it comes to their neighbour, ie, Scotland.

      The media, 100% against any notion of Scottish independence, nevermind actually putting any cohesive, real arguments forward, for this abusive bullying union to continue, actually make their living by denying that Scotland is a rich country, stuffed full of resources.

      Where does your (clean) water come from? Northern england? Edinburgh, Pentlands? Who knows? How much of it is taken, what are my pounds paying for, when I pay my water charges? I don’t mind, it is not (yet) privatised in Scotland, for domestic users.

      The only yoon weapon is to attack their own destructive, backward, deadly political policy. To blame the Scottish government for their UKGov attacks on our most vulnerable, our sick, our disabled has been the plan, for quite some time.

      It’s called, propaganda. Nothing new, it works though and they are one step ahead. Their access to the pyschology of manipulation is costly, but worth it. Their agenda is based on it.

      I buy the so called, National. It needs to start debunking the lies, and propaganda on it’s front pages, every day. It doesn’t so far. We need real opposition, in the media, they rule the waves.

      Today, The National should have had a headliner, making clear just what it is that the current ScotGov, can and can’t do regards the economy.

      We must make sure that everyone knows exactly what is devolved, what ‘powers” are or not available to their chosen government.

      In my view, The National should be countering the lies, not going all airy fairy we want a yes land of never never la li la.

      We are up against it for sure. This is not a game, it is the difference between survival or not. Scotland is a fantastic country, she deserves to thrive and not be hindered by those who wish to benefit from her enforced subservience. No thanks.

      I reject any new ‘yes’, as a title, it gives ‘no’ a voice. ScotRef, whatever it may be called, identifies Scotland with an ambition to be free (oops that sounds hippy) of the shackles of a regime which will continue to suck the life out of a counrty, ie Scotland, rich in resources and with a wealth of talent, if we do not escape, asap.

      We cannot let that happen.

    113. heedtracker says:

      Alba46 says:
      7 April, 2017 at 9:11 pm
      Rock

      You really have had your daily dose of grumpy pills today. You really need to lighten up a bit or your are heading for a mental hernia

      It blocks anything remotely constructive being talked about, and he’s good at it too eh Rock. As in the monstering Scots Law Rock likes, the same Scots Law that’s produced extraordinary politicians like Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh MP OBE, Joanna Cherry QC MP and ofcourse, Nicola Ferguson Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister, all Scottish Lawyers.

      Funny that.

      You could do this all night. But lets all watch Rock go nuts on whatever it is he thinks is a great subject to piss everyone off, next up, why do suckers by the National, eh Rock:D

    114. Rock says:

      Robert Peffers,

      “Just let them try and NOT respect the results. The EU and UN would be on it like a flash as the Westminster Government has signed up to both of their treaties that specifically have written into them the human right of Self Determination.”

      I can say with 100% confidence that the EU and UN would do absolutely nothing that would make us independent in such a scenario.

      The unionists would boycott a referendum held without a section 30 order and we would almost certainly not get 50%+1 of the eligible electorate to vote Yes.

      No one in their right mind wants to end up in such a scenario.

      As I had posted then, Nicola Sturgeon should have announced a referendum immediately after the Brexit result.

      The unionists were in complete disray and leaderless and the EU’s eyes were on us.

      Instead she wasted months flogging a dead horse – a separate deal for Scotland which was never going to happen.

      Now the unionists have re-grouped and are determined to follow their rules and timetable.

      Despite everything, we hardly have 50% support for Yes.

      Things are nowhere near as easy as some posters seem to believe.

    115. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      O/T

      Thank God for an honest man
      “I don’t leave my brains at the door…….”

      m.youtube.com/watch?v=KU5taO5vRDo

    116. heedtracker says:

      How many SNP’s are lawyers Rock, who’s yours Rock? It must be unique in any democracy, being able to ask who your SNP MP actually is, with almost 96% chance they are not Viceroy Fluffie Mundell?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scottish_National_Party_MPs

    117. Rock says:

      Artyhetty,

      “I buy the so called, National. It needs to start debunking the lies, and propaganda on it’s front pages, every day. It doesn’t so far. We need real opposition, in the media, they rule the waves.

      Today, The National should have had a headliner, making clear just what it is that the current ScotGov, can and can’t do regards the economy.

      We must make sure that everyone knows exactly what is devolved, what ‘powers” are or not available to their chosen government.

      In my view, The National should be countering the lies, not going all airy fairy we want a yes land of never never la li la.”

      What do you have to say about that heedtracker?

    118. Mungo says:

      Cactus, was that “play” referring to me ?

    119. Artyhetty says:

      Really, Rock. @9.42

      Not impressed at all, not falling any divide n rule crap either. The yoon media are state controlled, my comments are just ideas, opinions. Your job is to rely on your masters to attempt to steer debate. No thanks, take some time off.

    120. Cadogan Enright says:

      As a member of the Association of Chartered and Certified Accountants, I am disturbed that someone representing themselves as a spokesperson of the ACCA should be making inaccurate public pronouncements on matters financial and taxation.

      I believe this is against our code of conduct. It could bring us into disrepute.

      I will raise this with the ACCA next week

    121. The Judge says:

      I see the “usual suspects” are keeping the Trolls engaged.

      There is a name for people who keep the Trolls going and that is “Spoilers”.

      They want to take over Wings and dominate the posts.

      Check out the lengths of some of their posts. That is a deliberate act to block out other minor posts.

      Wakey Wakey Wingers.

    122. Cactus says:

      Aweright Mungo ~

      No direct reference.

      Always goes out to one and all.

      Thanks & cheers 🙂

    123. Robert Peffers says:

      @Fred says: 7 April, 2017 at 5:43 pm:

      “Stuff the Law, we’ll make our own Law!”

      Sheesh! Fred, there are no laws about holding referendums. Not in Scots law and not in English law.

      A Section30 Order is thus NOT required by anyone to run a referendum. A Section30 was only applied to Indyref1 as a legally binding contract between both sides that signed it.

      Which made it a legally binding on both parties to uphold the result of only that particular referendum. The proof of that particular pudding is that both sides signed it. If it had been a required permission of Westminster there would only be one signature on the document.

      The big publicity photos all showed Salmond and Cameron shaking hands to seal the agreement of the Section 30 and the Yoonery claims that it was a great victory for Cameron as he had forced Salmond to accept there would be only one question on the paper. We all knew that was what Salmond wanted in the first place.

      I cannot believe so many Wingers are so eager to believe quite obvious Yoon lies so easily.

      Come on Guys – Why would a paper that was Westminster granting the SG permission to hold a referendum need to be signed by the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament?

      Theresa would think nothing of signing an order to ban the referendum if she could do so and if she could it would not need to be signed by Nicola for it would be Nicola getting telt.

      No one needs permission to hold a referendum because it is not illegal to do so.

    124. heedtracker says:

      What do you have to say about that heedtracker?

      I think they have an editorial er, thingee, from the owners, that they can only go so far independence wise. Simple as that. The owners are filthy tories too, so its amazing that they even allow the National to exist.

      What’s your take on the tories new “rape clause” bundle of tory horrors Rock? From a woman Prime Minister too eh? doubt even Thatcher’s that happy in her pyrmid this evening. Neo fascists eh Rock?

      It always amazes me how filthy rich City slickers broke the whole planet’s economy, with their thieving, yet their tory goons can hound everyone else on benefits. I mean I get that tory thing, survival of the fittest, sink or swim, natural selection, pay your own way etc, my father didnt get where he is today on all those benefits, but then why are mega rich City scumbags in pin stripe suits completely above the Law, even natural justice eh Rock?

      If you are a troll, thats the kind of rich boy arse your tongue is wedged up Rock. Hope it tastes nice.

    125. stewartb says:

      One important thing The National can do to counter the mass of negative messages from the pro-Union papers displayed on the newsstands is to ensure that it exploits to the full its front page headline and graphic. I can’t of course make people buy and read The National, but I can do my bit to ensure its front page is at least seen by many newspaper buyers.

      Sometimes it does this very well: but not often enough. Often the front page just looks ‘washed out’: often it seems to me – and I’m no journalist/editor – to miss an opportunity to really nail its chosen message or to be sufficiently ‘hard hitting’.

      Notwithstanding this criticism, it remains worth buying/supporting.

    126. North chiel says:

      Seems to me that PM May is playing for time here at 0-0 and hoping to
      win in extra time. Significantly , TM has never provided any clarity on her Brexit
      objective only a generalisation of ” seeking the best deal for ALL UK “.. Over the next 18-24
      months the propaganda offensive will intensify with the ” Establishment mouthpieces” instructed to “convince ” us that ” we don’t actually want a referendum ” simoultaneously pinning the blame” for
      any ” Brexit related downturn” on the ” mismanagement of SNP gov.”
      However, if this doesn’t have the required effect and public opinion in Scotland ” hardens” towards the
      Independence option, then the Tories will as usual ” change their spots” .I would expect TM to change tack, and attempt to ” pull the rug from under the FM” , by trying to negotiate a deal to remain in the single market” prior to any referendum vote. If TM personally won’t change tack, then I would expect her to ” step down” and a new Tory leader will be appointed ( to compromise). Another ” establishment engineered coup”.
      However, my earnest hope would be for our FM to stand firm and move for a vote on our country to be a FULLY INDEPENDENT EU NATION.
      Make no mistake , the Westminster establishment will desperately try to hang on to our country and will use absolutely any tactic to do so.
      There is a “lot of water to flow under the bridge “before we get anywhere near to a 2nd Indy ref vote.

    127. Robert Peffers says:

      @Socrates MacSporran says: 7 April, 2017 at 5:48 pm:

      “Come on Robert, fair’s fair. Hurricane Energy is based in Godalming, in Surrey.”

      Well, Socrates, just as it happens I spent some time in that particular far south English airt during WWII. I went to School just down the road from Godalming. I believe, though, the cottage was in Hants.

      I lived in a small cottage set in an Orchard. In wartime Orchards were protected from use by the military and there was a long lane that ran through army camps down to a bend in a river.

      The fence round the cottage backed onto Bordon Army Camp.

      This was a long established army camp from WWI used by the Canadian Army. It was home to the Canadian units that were wiped out during the Dieppe Raids. These Canadians were a kilted, (mainly of Scottish descent), regiments. I knew many of those fine soldiers personally.

      Anyway, my point is, don’t blame me for folks in Godalming not knowing about Scotland. Believe me I did my very best to educate those ignorant natives about Scotland.

    128. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Robert Peffers –

      I don’t remember why Nicola was prompted to make any statement regarding possible legal action, but the end-result is that people are talking about it, and then, when they talk/think about it, we’re in the ‘constitutional’ territory you’ve been talking about. It sparks thought and debate.

      When NS says the Scottish Government has ‘no plans’ to instigate any legal proceedings, that doesn’t mean she can’t start making plans as and when she thinks the time is right.

      Right?

    129. defo says:

      ?SFA on offer then, apart from SNP/Autonomy Bad. Repeated ad infinitum.

      These numpties think the daft voter won’t question why they are doing this for LOCAL elections.

      Indyref 2 is going to be a walk over.

    130. Cactus says:

      Previously on Cairnstoon:
      https://wingsoverscotland.com/give-em-enough-rope/

      Anchor’s away wae May.

      The good ship Scotland is ready to set sail.

      I wonder who’s gonna feature in tomorrow’s toon…

    131. defo says:

      Where did my square root sign go ?

    132. Robert Peffers says:

      @stewartb says: 7 April, 2017 at 6:30 pm:

      “I’ve mentioned this on Wings before. It is important to get the terminology regarding our oil provinces correct – and for more just geographical accuracy.”

      Ach! stewartb, I have a very good memory and I was very active as an SNP supporter from as far back as 1946.

      Now I remember a wee fact that seems to have flown over a great many heads. North Sea Oil had quite correctly began to actually, “Run out”, even before it was being extracted commercially.

      Those samples that were taken when the first drill hit an oil pocket meant the oil had began to, “run out”.

      It will continue running out until they cannot force another drop out and then, and only then, will North Sea Oil finally have ran out.

      The moment you extract the first drop the reserves have begun to diminish and run out.

    133. Robert Louis says:

      Robert Peffers at 1002pm,

      QUOTE “No one needs permission to hold a referendum because it is not illegal to do so.”

      EXACTLY. Yet every unionist and so-called ”journalist’ has been telling people for weeks that only Theresa May can ‘give’ the special ‘magic powers needed to gold a referendum. It is nonsense.

      Indeed, the very notion that somehow Westminster could stop a referendum is just daft, when you give it even a seconds serious thought.

      This needs repeated long and hard, especially to the paid liars ‘journalists’ at the blatantly biased broadcasting corporation.

    134. Robert Peffers says:

      @BabsP says:7 April, 2017 at 6:55 pm:

      “I am utterly frustrated at the continual hammering on about the Scots being the highest tax payers in the UK.”

      Wonderful sentiments, BabsP. However, Westminster’s actions do not reflection upon you or yours and Scotland has a big heart and grudges you and them nothing. My personal opinion is that your support and good wishes are worth every penny you can gain from the system. Good wishes to you and your family.

    135. North chiel says:

      Delighted to see the mail on Sunday guy ( warmonger agenda) given an absolute tanning
      on the Sky newspaper review by very articulate and informed female guest on
      The Syrian situation. Very impressive lady indeed.

    136. Mungo says:

      I think Rock is just scunnered with the decades of relentless rule bending that’s been the normal modus operandi of successive UK Govts. I don’t think the rule of law applies when we are talking about the union. They’ve been getting away with this shit for ever. What makes people so confident they think they can just continue?

    137. harry mcaye says:

      No comments yet on the fantastic piece on Reporting Scotland tonight on how Nicola Sturgeon was received at the Women In The World event yesterday in New York? Three women interviewed outside fulsome in their praise of Oor Nic. Showed a quite fair selection of her best bits with the interviewer on stage but left out her scathing criticism of Theresa May introducing the rape clause. They did tweet about it though so they maybe think that makes up for it! Glenn Campbell sounded really downcast at having to report on how big a success she was.

    138. Mungo says:

      “Can’t continue” that should have been.

    139. the judge says:

      I see the “usual suspects” are keeping the Trolls engaged.

      There is a name for people who keep the Trolls going and that is “Spoilers”.

      They want to take over Wings and dominate the posts.

      Check out the lengths of some of their posts. That is a deliberate act to block out other minor posts.

      Wakey Wakey Wingers

    140. Robert Louis says:

      Well, here’s a new wheeze. Canada anyone??

      http://archive.is/5QPZE

      Maybe not such a daft idea. 🙂

    141. BBC Scotland Tells Lies says:

      Tomorrow’s National front page:

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C81jkHsXoAIeA7K.jpg

    142. Robert Peffers says:

      @Mungo says: 7 April, 2017 at 9:23 pm:

      “Majority of voters or majority of electorate? Big difference.

      Nope! No difference. It is not an election it is a referendum.

      The Electorate has thus three choices:-

      Vote YES for independence.
      Vote NO for Westminster rule.

      Or you don’t vote for either.

      That last lot thus indicates one of four things:-
      Don’t Know.
      Don’t Want to have to choose.
      Don’t give a damn.
      Or they are dead or ill.

      It really makes no difference what the abstainers chose not to vote for.

      None of them counts for the result and, furthermore, no one can claim those non votes are from any one of the three abstention categories. For all anyone can tell the non-voters could be dead Yessers, dead Nayers or dead don’t knows. Maybe they will just be dead heads.

    143. BBC Scotland Tells Lies says:

      Tomorrow’s “National” twitter pages:

      https://twitter.com/ScotNational

    144. Big Phil says:

      @ Mr Peffers,
      So Oor wee Nicola is playing a blinder, the section 30 actually tied Alex Salmonds hands by agreeing to what cammeron wanted, so in all effects theresa may by saying she wont agree (or not now) to give a section 30 is what Oor FM is planning. ? feckin brilliant if you ask me. Thank you Mr Peffers again . 😉

    145. Gary45% says:

      North chiel@10.53
      As I don’t watch live TV I suppose I should not comment on Syria.
      Ah fuck it here goes, Assad is the DEMOCRATALY ELECTED PRESIDENT/SPOKESPERSON for Syria.
      THE ISRAELIS/AMERICA with their puppets WESTMINSTER don’t accept him as credible, just like Gaddafi, Bin Laden, Hussein.( is the middle east safe??)
      The Zionist Israelis with their major sponsor “Red Neckvil”(USA), are guilty of war crimes and genocide, I cannot understand why the so called civilized west fall into line with these murderous bastards.
      If Syria falls, Iran will be next and the ZIONISTS will fuc*ing rule the world. I am not a fan of Ken Livingston, but he is the one voice in parliament who speaks up against the aggressors.
      WMD etc, war criminals. NOT IN MY NAME.
      Oh Aye a dodgy dossier isn’t good enough this time.
      Just look at the state of the middle east with the ZIONIST/AMERICAN interference.
      I take it the tomahawks that were fired at Syria were getting near their sell by date, just like the ones used in Iraq.
      Ammunitions like this get used and the bill gets handed to the rest of the world as a form of “security?”.
      America/Zionists, KERCHING.

    146. Orri says:

      The people of Scotland are sovereign regardless of who claims to speak for them.

      Westminster would have us believe that only they have that right as the successor parliament to the previously independent ones of the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland. Their problem is that the people not only have the right to contest that claim but are beginning to do so in greater numbers, more often and a far greater volume than has been seen for centuries.

    147. Polscot says:

      Cadogan Enright says:
      7 April, 2017 at 9:57 pm
      As a member of the Association of Chartered and Certified Accountants, I am disturbed that someone representing themselves as a spokesperson of the ACCA should be making inaccurate public pronouncements on matters financial and taxation.

      I believe this is against our code of conduct. It could bring us into disrepute.

      I will raise this with the ACCA next week

      I will be very interested in what the response is from the ACCA regarding whether Chas has the authority to represent all of the ACCA members and the association as a whole. Is there a specific “head of tax” role assigned to a member of the ACCA and what does does a member have to do to achieve this exalted position? How was Chas elected and what is the job description for a “head of tax”?

      Questions, questions.

    148. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Can this be true???

      l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsouthfront.org%2Fswedish-medical-associations-says-white-helmets-murdered-kids-for-fake-gas-attack-videos%2F&h=ATNBepUl4Tcmd2Jyh7kMkptPisMOS4NNPh4NI5ibGLrXOP_uQk5NI6O1m7o_LEnlO5YPalGOyzFHirpNxOUKEYhuoFAWQZXbmgU7YCXmbqco858lo9IF_Q_oSDHvDSw7MkDbsw

    149. Big Phil says:

      @Robert Louis,11.15 pm. Everyone wants their hands on Scotland now. Mmm wonder why?

    150. Gary45% says:

      Forgot to say
      Zionist /America= WAR= $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Wake up World, we all want peace but its obvious these two don’t. “I would include Westminster but it doesn’t have a FU*KING CLUE.”

    151. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Robert Peffers (10.41) –

      All this ‘oil running out’ shite:

      As posted before, my recollection of the North-Sea Oil debate is that, in 1982, when I was a student in Glasgow School of Art, a lecturer chastised ‘us’ (students) for placing ‘IT’S SCOTLAND’S OIL’ stickers over the genital areas of the magnificent replica statues which lined the corridors in the Mackintosh building.

      At that time, the ‘chat’ was that a special report on North-Sea Oil existed, but was being kept secret. The ‘report’, allegedly, stated that the discovered reserves were huge. This speculation was, of course, a huge confidence-booster for UK prospects generally, but it couldn’t be revealed that the oil was of inferior quality, and there wasn’t that much of it anyway (it’ll be done by 1999)…that was the hush-hush, nudge/wink implication – say no more, for the greater good.

      We know that there was indeed a ‘secret’ report i.e. McCrone. What that report revealed? We’ve all done this stuff to death.

      Bottom line – Whitehall/Westminster will pull out all the stops to make sure *they* get whatever benefits accrue from any ‘Atlantic’ developments.

      And if we don’t stop them?

      They will take it all.

      Every fucking barrel.

      Hoots faither, as aye!

      🙂

    152. Robert Peffers says:

      @The Judge says: 7 April, 2017 at 9:59 pm:

      “I see the “usual suspects” are keeping the Trolls engaged.
      There is a name for people who keep the Trolls going and that is “Spoilers”.”

      Nah! The real spoilers are the would be MODs, like you, who have mo authority to tell others who to engage with and who not to engage with. There is only one person with that authority on Wings and that person is The Rev Stu Campbell.

      I will decide who I want to read comments by and who to scroll on past. I will decide who I will engage in debate and who I will agree with.

      A.T.M. You are very close to being one who I scroll past.

    153. ian m says:

      I have faith in Nicola and her brains trust
      I believe that she has something ready for Theresa May when she gets back.
      It is also very possible that she is 2 or 10 moves ahead of Westminster so the next move may appear to be insignificant

      Going to court?
      Would that not allow rUK to run the clock out?

    154. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Gary 45% –

      Not for the first time..

      Ah hear ye man, ah hear ye…

    155. Big Phil says:

      Here’s an idea, why dont we VOW to let them take the oil at say 30/70 % ,70% to them ;if they walk away and let us be Our own independent country.(Greedy bastards would bite Oor hands off) THEN when they agree and all is good, we tell them they cant have ANY; after all a VOW is a VOW…. They wrote the rules it would be rude not to do what they do. TRUE? We’ll call it the Sturgeon Commission.

    156. Mungo says:

      Robert Peffers 11.17
      Not sure about that Robert? The unionists advise their supporters to boycott the referendum. There’s a 90% yes vote on 45% of the electorate, so only 40.5% of electorate vote yes. Yes doesn’t have a majority of the electorate. There’s no way that’d be accepted by the UK govt.

    157. Mungo says:

      In fact, more importantly, the people of Scotland wouldn’t accept that in great enough numbers to allow for a reasonable and orderly transition to independence. It’s the stuff civil wars are made of.

    158. cynacalHighlander says:

      Mungo

      What if 60% vote yes?

    159. Mungo says:

      Then we’re home and dry. But getting 60% of the electorate out and voting yes is unlikely. What was the total last time, 80% or so?

    160. Mungo says:

      Then we’re home and dry. But getting 60% of the electorate to vote Yes under those circumstances is unlikely. What was the turnout in the last one, about 80%?

    161. cynicalHighlander says:

      Rev can you please remove my shadow as he is an “a” class typo extra. Thanks in anticipation.

    162. Graeme Doig says:

      Unionists have never wanted Scotland to amount to anything. They really are taking the piss now.

      Since devolution and the rise of the SNP their contempt for Scotland can’t be hidden. How we are looking at polls of 50/50 is beyond me.

      I can’t imagine there is another country with as much self loathing and insecurity as this.

    163. Robert Peffers says:

      @Ian Brotherhood says: 7 April, 2017 at 10:22 pm:

      “I don’t remember why Nicola was prompted to make any statement regarding possible legal action, but the end-result is that people are talking about it, and then, when they talk/think about it, we’re in the ‘constitutional’ territory you’ve been talking about. It sparks thought and debate.”

      It was prompted by the bland statement by T. May that she would, “Block”, a Scottish independence referendum.

      I’m simply making the very relevant point that even if she wanted to May cannot legally stop the SG holding a referendum on anything at any time for the very simple reason that holding referendums is not illegal under any legal system in the United Kingdom. If it isn’t against the law then the law cannot prevent it by legal means.

      Further to that I’m making the point that a Section30 is not the permission of Westminster to hold or not to hold referendums. A section30 is not a permission. If it were it would not have required the agreement and signature of Alex Salmond. It would only have required the signature of some faceless Civil Servant issuing a legal notice that the Government was refusing to allow a referendum.

      The point of a section30 of “The Edinburgh “Agreement”. is that it was an agreement and that is why both Salmond & Cameron had to sign it.

      The reason for it having to be agreed was not to get Westminster’s permission but because Westminster wanted a say in how the referendum was run and that is why Salmond went along with the, “Agreement”, the gain from the SG’s side was that by negotiating and agreeing part of the Agreement was that both sides would respect the result.

      So there you go. A referendum, under normal circumstances, is an advisory only effort to find out the views of, some section or other, of the public. Not necessarily even a political matter.

      The Section30 was part of, “The Edinburgh Agreement”, that applied to only indyref1. It thus made Indyref1 an unusual referendum because it was thus legally enforceable by both signatory parties who contracted to abide by the result.

      Thus May cannot prevent another, advisory, referendum and Nicola had no need to ask for a section30 order as a section30 order was only part of the Edinburgh Agreement of Indyref1. It was a fly move on Nicola’s part and it put May on the spot.

      How is May going to explain away the fact that she cannot legally stop the referendum she point blank stated she would not grant permission for?

      What is more, how can she avoid not implementing the results if the voters go for independence? She is now attempting to negotiate a deal she is most unlikely to get from the EU.

      Yet only today the EU have stated that while the negotiations progress The UK must consider the on-going things that the EU are in the process of dealing with because until the EU get round to dealing with the UK Article 50 the UK are still EU members and required to vote or abstain on all EU parliamentary matters.

      So imagine when Nicola calls a referendum and wins a majority and May attempts to prevent Scottish Independence what is almost certain to happen. The UK has signed up to several different treaties with several World Organisations. Including the EU and UN Human Rights laws. These contain clauses that any identifiable group of people who seek self determination must get their self determination and laughably that means the UK must bust a gut to help them get it.

      May cannot ignore a Scottish independence referendum and not be sanctioned by at least the EU & UN but also such as the Geneva Convention among several other World Organisations.

      Quite simply a section30 is not Westminster’s permission and referendums cannot be legally prevented because they are not against any law.

      Nicola is playing May like a trout on the end of a line.

    164. Mungo says:

      Robert peffers 12.27am
      It’s what constitutes a majority that is likely to be the sticking point.

    165. Mungo says:

      And one more thought. 45% of the electorate is probably a little optimistic. What if it’s only 90% yes on 40 or 35% of the electorate? Can we really expect people to accept that?

    166. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Robert Peffers (12.27) –

      Yes.

      That’s what I was ‘getting-at’.

    167. Robert Peffers says:

      @Big Phil says: 7 April, 2017 at 11:21 pm:

      “So Oor wee Nicola is playing a blinder, the section 30 actually tied Alex Salmonds hands by agreeing to what cammeron wanted,”

      Well no, Big Phil. That last bit is far from true. It wasn’t Cameron tying Salmond’s hands. If you can remember the negotiations it went like this. Cameron thought that Salmond actually wanted two questions on the referendum paper and the second one was a federal UK. Cameron was convinced that Salmond wanted this as a safety net if he lost the independence vote. Truth was Salmond wanted nothing of the sort. It was one Question Yes or No he wanted.

      Cameron dug his heels in and insisted it would be one question only and thus Salmond had pulled the wool over Cameron’s eyes.

      ” … so in all effects theresa may by saying she wont agree (or not now) to give a section 30 is what Oor FM is planning.

      I’m sure Nicola wants to have a referendum but doesn’t give a damn if May says no but it will probably gain Scottish votes if May tries to stop a referendum.

      Yet the truth is that May cannot stop a referendum if it is not subject to a Section 30. The name section 30 comes from it being section 30 of the Edinburgh Agreement that was only specific to The Edinburgh Agreement.

      I’m fairly sure Nicola doesn’t give a damn if May would like another Edinburgh Agreement or not. Nicola has made it very clear, “There will be a Scottish Referendum”, is a simple statement of fact.

      I May be wrong but I read that as Nicola saying she doesn’t give a damn what May wants or does we are going to have a referendum when Nicola thinks it is right to hold it. She only asked for a Section 30, you will recall, well after May said she would block a referendum. So Nicola knew she was not going to get a yes answer before she asked for a section 30.

    168. Chick McGregor says:

      @Les Wilson
      “What do people think of Nicola deciding not to take our case for a referendum to court?
      Not sure I see the reason for her saying that, can someone give me a explain that strategy?”

      I think Nicola understands the whole ‘Supreme Court constitutional back bowl’ scenario a la Quebec.

      Why play by their, albeit lovingly crafted for many years, rules?

    169. Hamish100 says:

      So we can have a referendum without Mays permission

      The question we can select.

      Labour and lib liners will try and get a devo Max / federalist question included to split a vote.

      Tories will gather their foreign owned paper owners to attack Scotland at all levels in sync with the state broadcaster.

      Tories and others try and ignore the vote to undermine it.

      It is only a recommendation ( so was brexit).

      The simple fact is the more people voting for independence I’d the bottom line

      Rock will still not read the National. The express and daily star is his diet.

    170. Robert Peffers says:

      @ian m says: 7 April, 2017 at 11:43 pm:

      “Going to court?
      Would that not allow rUK to run the clock out?”

      Can’s se it myself. It is not against any law in either Scottish or English law to hold a referendum. Even wee Community Councils do so.

      A referendum is normally only, “Advisory”, by which they mean those running referendum have no need to implement whatever the result happens to be. The normal purpose of a referendum is just to gauge the opinions of a particular section of the public.

      The reason Indyref1 had the meetings and subsequent debate between Alex Salmond and David Cameron was because Cameron wanted to dictate the terms of running the referendum which basically was none of Westminster’s business as long as the referendum was the usual advisory only referendum.

      Salmond is nothing if not a great political strategist who thinks very, very quickly on his feet. He thus angled Cameron towards a form of agreement in order for Cameron to get a say in the matter. Salmond could have legally told him to f-off and went ahead with an advisory only referendum.

      So the first stroke of genius was to get down to agreement which meant the referendum then became legally binding upon both parties. Cameron was already on the back foot for now a YES result was legally binding upon Westminster while Scotland had nothing to lose. The worse that could happen was we didn’t get the independence we didn’t have anyway.

      The Alex fooled Cameron to believing that the SG wanted to keep the option open of a federal union and the then being spoken about second question as a fall back and there was opinion polls indicating it was a more popular option for many Scots.

      So although Alex didn’t actually want the second question Cameron thought he did and opposed a second question and it was taken of the voting paper. the Media crowd that Cameron had won a great victory. I think not.

      So there is the facts – a section30 is, section 30 of the Edinburgh agreement and it only applies to the Edinburgh agreement for that particular referendum agreement. It wasn’t a Westminster permission it was a bipartite agreement with two signatories.

      now I’m sure that Nicola does not need, nor want, a section 30 type agreement with May but played May like a trout on a line to say she would block a Scottish referendum but as there is no bipartite agreement there cannot be a section 30 of a previous expired agreement.

      There are no laws to prevent a referendum and it would take Nicola to negotiate and sign another agreement and the only gain for the SG would be to be able to force a legal acceptance by Westminster to the terms that were agreed. However, it is very unlikely that Westminster could get away with NOT accepting a referendum Yes vote as Westminster signed up to the EU’s Human Rights legislation and to the UN Human Rights law of Self Determination.

      There is not a thing that May can do to stop a referendum and no legal issues to tie up the matter in any court as a referendum is not illegal.

    171. Big Phil says:

      Thats why I love reading your comments @ Mr Peffers. Why oh Why cant we have someone with your knowledge preaching to the electorate.NATIONAL are you listening. I would love that, wake up in a morning and buy the National and there’s Oor very own Mr Peffers getting it right up ’em with historical and life gained facts . mer power tae yer elbow Robert. 😉

    172. Robert Peffers says:

      @Mungo says: 8 April, 2017 at 12:04 am:

      “Not sure about that Robert? The unionists advise their supporters to boycott the referendum. There’s a 90% yes vote on 45% of the electorate, so only 40.5% of electorate vote yes. Yes doesn’t have a majority of the electorate. There’s no way that’d be accepted by the UK govt.”

      It doesn’t work like that, Mungo.

      Anyone foolish enough not to vote when they have the chance is legally abstaining. They choose to make no choice and their votes are lost as there is no way to claim they were doing so for any other reason that they did not choose to vote.

      You vote yes or you vote no. Anything else is a void vote or an abstention. Abstentions can influence the outcome of elections by not voting but only if the outcome is swung by a third party abstaining. There won’t be any third party in a yes/no – singe question- Indy/union vote.

    173. Robert Peffers says:

      @Mungo says: 8 April, 2017 at 12:36 am:

      “It’s what constitutes a majority that is likely to be the sticking point”.

      Sigh! I’ll define a Majority for you, Mungo.

      It means, in a yes/no context, getting at least one vote more for one option over the other option. If anyone chooses not to vote their vote just doesn’t count. So by all means don’t vote – you will be assessed as a don’t know.

      This is really Yoonerism at its most idiotic.

      We have all heard the stupid claims that the SNP don’t have a majority at Holyrood. It is really idiocy at its most laughable. Of course they have a majority or they would not be the government.

      Holyrood is a multi-party set-up and that means the opposition are acting as a coalition opposition and that, mungo, is hilarious. As Chris Cairns so nicely showed.

      It means that the unionists, each tied to their masters at Westminster who are supposedly opposing parties to each other, are operating as a coalition in order to defeat their common independence supporting enemies.

      So yes the SNP do not have an overall majority over every other party but as was proved by the recent vote on this very matter we are speaking of here, in informal coalition with the Greens they do indeed, on matters of independence, form a majority.

    174. Macart says:

      Basically, the last three posts by Robert Peffers?

      THAT!

      One other thing to remember though and that is we’ve just seen an advisory referendum result carried into law.

      Precedent.

      The EU referendum itself was advisory till debated and passed through parliament to become law on the strength of the popular vote. Nor, incidentally, do I recall the UK government either requiring or seeking the permission of the EU to hold such a referendum. Just in case folks reckon that Westminster could ignore and walk away from the result of any advisory referendum.

      Should any advisory referendum return a pro independence mandate, the international spotlight, the onus, the pressure of world opinion would all be on Westminster government to abide by the result of a ballot which UK gov. themselves set precedent on.

      If they sought to undermine or otherwise thwart following through the result of such a vote they would merely be handing the remainers from their own EU vote a massive club to beat them about the head with. Not to mention most of the world’s press and the international community.

      I’d say Ms May’s only option to have any kind of direct impact on the result of a referendum, is to accede to the S30 as Mr Cameron did before and gamble on putting the weight of the UK govt. behind the unionist campaign.

      Worth thinking about, yes?

    175. ian m says:

      If the Scottish Government followed its manifesto and with a majority voted for a referendum, then we are having a referendum
      We have just had 2 so if voters choose not to vote, they have chosen not to participate in the democratic process.It is a very dangerous game trying to manipulate the result because they will not really know if enough people will abstain or even if that strategy will work
      Nicola will sort them out

      Just make sure somebody is handcuffed to every single postal vote box

    176. Mungo says:

      Robert peffers and macart.
      Aye you may be technically right, but my point is, it’s just as important that the people accept the result as right. Law needs to be done and needs to be seen to be done etc. As I said before, without that, you’re moving into very dangerous territory. But hey, I hope you’re right.

    177. Mungo says:

      Robert peffers,
      You’re definition of a majority didn’t apply in the 70’s devolution referendum. They changed that at the last min and included the dead as No voters and it took another 20 odd years to get our present parliament! Where were your rules then?

    178. AndyH says:

      Does anyone have links to:

      Tax intake of Norwegian oil vs UK in the last two or three years (specific to the price drop time period).

      GERS figures. I know it’s been covered here in depth but would be good to have it collated including the most recent stuff from the professor guy.

      EU position. Again loads of stuff here but it would be great to have links to source quotes collated.

      I’m thinking having these at hand to provide evidence to wavering friends and colleagues would be very useful.

    179. Davosa says:

      Who TF in their right mind mind would read the Daily Heil anyway ? It is a fascist crap sheet full of obvious lies. A very good tool of the establishment and a main cheerleader for those nasty Tory pricks.

    180. jdman says:

      “Dae sumthin dae sumthin dae sumthin….dae wan o they magic tricks!”

    181. Liz g says:

      Mungo @ 8.46
      I think that Robert Peffers is giving you his best interpretation of how things stand, it’s not “his rules” as you put it.
      Which when you think about it…. That’s all a judge does as well,they read what’s been written into law and interpret and/or define what what it means and how it currently is to be applied.

      Clearly things are very different from the 70s.
      The terms and conditions Westminster imposed on that vote would not fly today,for all sorts of reasons that I won’t insult your intelligence by listing.

      Low turn out doesn’t invalidate a vote,and a boycott of a vote that’s being organised as I have said elsewhere has to have a “campaign” to boycott behind it.
      So even leaving aside that a “boycott campaign” destroys the we are too busy with Brexit and have no time or attention for Scotland narrative.
      On what grounds could Westminster and it’s minions justify a boycott,when the Scottish government has an unarguable mandate to hold one?

      The only way that a boycott could be presented is, as a grass roots effort.
      And if that’s a manufactured campaign then the only question is should there be a sweepstakes on how much into an hour it takes Wings to expose it.

      But Westminster involvement in an attempted boycott is IMHO a road that they cannot go down as they risk their only chance of saving their Union by getting a No vote.
      Don’t forget unless and until the vote is seen to be fair the issue won’t go away for any length of time and there are other options that a stymied vote would Justify.
      Those Documents are still around and still valid…..
      Just give us a reason!!!!

    182. Orri says:

      The whole point of a boycott is to allow a hostile government to pack an electoral register with non existent and, more sneakily, duplicate voters.

      That last is even easier to achieve if people “spontaneously” register in more than one constituency as they are legally allowed to and simply not do so or vote No in one area if it looks close.

      In ’79 the final decision on exactly what constituted 40% of the electorate was a guesstimate made by, if I remember, the then Secretary of State for Scotland. That was due to the register being so far out of date that it would have been transparently absurd to not make some allowance.

      This time there’ll be an absolute insistence that modern electronic data keeping means no such adjustment would be necessary.

    183. Lenny Hartley says:

      Robert Peffers, there is a section 30 of the Scotland act pertaining to reserved powers.
      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/30
      As the constition is a reserved matter to Westminster , I think that you will find that Westminster does indeed have a say on constitutional matters.

      If we have a referendum without an agreement with Westminster, it could open up a can of legal worms, however I think that the pressure on Westminster to accept the democratic will of the Scots will overcome any intransigence.

      Whatever Nicola and co decide, I will have 100% trust in that they know what there doing.

    184. Mungo says:

      Hi liz, thanks for your reply.
      The unionists already don’t accept the mandate, utterly ridiculous as that is. This is where I tend to have sympathy with Rocks general thinking on things. We know that Westminster doesn’t play by the rules, and up to this point, they’ve gotten away with it. I’m utterly convinced they will do anything to stop Scottish independence, and I mean anything. I’m not sure enough of the General public have the level of interest to ensure we’re not conned again. But I’m not saying we should give up. Personally I’ll never give up.

    185. Fred says:

      @ Robert Peffers, it was a bit of badinage Bob!

      Anent the de-commissioning of oil-rigs, there is a current proposal by the new owners of Rio-Tinto Alcan to re-open Kishorn for scrapping rigs, ship the metal to a new “Green-Steel” plant to be built beside the Lochaber Aluminium Smelter for re-processing using the current Hydro-Power set-up. An Alloy-Wheels manufacturing plant intended there also.

    186. Orri says:

      I think most of us know that Holyrood doesn’t have the power to change the UK constitution on a day to day basis. We also know that a section 30 would give it that, or any other reserved, power.

      For all that the fact remains that Holyrood does have the right to hold a referendum to inform it of the opinion of the electorate of Scotland. Now theoretically they could do so in advance of applying for a Section 30 if independence wins the vote. Or in extremis they could simply declare Scottish independence and leave it up to Westminster to remove its then disputed territorial claim to Scotland. A similar situation as to what happened when the Republic of Ireland declared itself fully independent but hopefully not as bloody in the lead up.

    187. Robert Peffers says:

      Sorry about the delay but I have to sleep sometimes:

      Here is the delayed answer to Mungo:-

      The devolution referendum of 1976 was a farce. It was a Westminster run stitch-up. As usual, Britannia waved the rules. It was run due to pressures on a minority Callaghan’s Labour government from the SNP & Plaid Cymru MPs who collectively had won 14 seats in the election. This fake referendum followed the, “The Kilbrandon Commission”, that had, in 1974, recommended establishment of a Scottish parliament and devolution.

      Westminster introduced the, “Scotland and Wales Bill”, in November 1976, it only gained a second reading after Westminster run referendums in Scotland and Wales that were reluctantly conceded by Westminster. Alick Buchanan-Smith, (Shadow Scottish Secretary), and his front bencher, Malcolm Rifkind, resigned after the Shadow Cabinet oppose the second reading. In the Committee stage 350 amendments were tabled and Michael Foot, (the Minister for the devolution bill), wouldn’t impose the guillotine. After 100 hours of debate only three and a half clauses of the bill were considered before a guillotine motion was tabled and defeated. In February 1977, and the Bill was withdrawn.

      By November 1977 separate Bills for Scotland and Wales were introduced and supported by the Liberals. This support cut opposition from previously opponents to the combined Bill claiming the Welsh didn’t want devolution and this new guillotine motion was passed. Just before the committee stage was to end a Labour backbencher, George Cunningham, raised an amendment that proposed The Secretary of State laid before Parliament an order repealing the Act unless at least 40% of the electorate voted “yes”. The amendment was opposed by the Government who lost the vote by 166 votes to 151.

      In the 1 March 1979, referendum Scotland voted for devolution by 52% to 48%. The point of all this is that the entire process was a stitch-up by Westminster who we all know now, what SNP activists always knew, The Westminster Establishment is a combined false front for the unionists to fool the World, and the electorate, that The United Kingdom is a democracy. The basic truth is that only Westminster were in charge of running the farce they called a referendum that was, start to finish, a Westminster stitch-up that no one else got a say in.

      It was a government fudge designed to look like a referendum designed to push devolution, (NOT INDEPENDENCE), off the agenda forever. It didn’t work then because it was all done and dusted by the Westminster Establishment. It only served to cause delay the inevitable Scottish Independence. It will now be properly run as a real referendum in which Westminster will not get a say in either how it is run or how the result will be implemented. No matter if it is for or against independence because it will be run by the sovereign people of Scotland and not by the Constitutional Monarchy of England.

    188. harry mcaye says:

      Dave McEan Hill – Re the White Helmets, I take it you’ve seen their Mannequin Challenge video on you tube. Very interesting.

    189. I still remember very clearly the 1978 referendum, Labour was elected in Scotland on a manifesto commitment to deliver devolution.

      There are people today who mistakenly believe that Brian Wilson at the time was an MP, he wasn’t he was
      head of the no campaign.

      And I also remember him on going on TV and telling an interviewer that he was going to take legal action to prevent the Labour Government from holding the referendum.

      He only dropped the idea when he was given legal advice that any such action would not succeed.

    190. Jack Murphy says:

      Capella said last night at 6:47 pm:-
      “re Quebec – the House of Commons Research paper on the Quebec referendums is a useful source of information…….”

      That’s not the only source of information—-here we have a telephone recording of the Queen in 1995 prepared to interfere in the democratic process of a country where she is Head of State.

      It was a hoax ‘phone call by a journalist/broadcaster live on air from the ‘Prime Minister of Canada’ to the Queen in Buckingham Palace.

      A short quote from the Queen to the ‘Prime Minister of Canada’:

      “Well it sounds as the Referendum may go the wrong way”.

      She states she would come back to him regarding a TV appeal by her to the voters of Quebec in the Referendum!

      YouTube:
      http://tinyurl.com/oef53c5

    191. Foonurt says:

      Scoattlin’s daein jist fine, alang yoan green/renewable- energy road. Oor numurrs, fur renewable-energy generaetit production ett 53.6% (2016), is impressive. Wae hopefully, mair innovative Scoattish designs, apprenticeships and increased employment tae come, for the industry. Ah, bit yoan ‘Belly-Ah-The-Beast’ disnae like it. Eiyull wid bae ah bonus, wae overawe coverage ah green/renewable energy fur Scoattlin.

      Lieutenant-Colonel G.A.Custer Syndrome, wae awe thoan military yankee-doodle-dandees.

    192. louis.b.argyll says:

      All no-votes would be treated as intonating a position of not having an opinion.

      Besides, only the die hard unionists (35% of popular vote from 65% turnout) would abstain, result would be 95% YES from 65%.

    193. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      I made the mistake of reading Rock’s latest piece. I had thought I was reading the previous post. Apologies for the error. Won’t do it again



    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