Walking Like A Zombie
It’d be quite hard to find an image that more completely summed up the wretched state of the SNP in 2025 than this one. Look at that tiny handful of miserable faces, sitting dejectedly around a near-empty function room. It’s so bleak Mike Leigh could make an entire movie out of it.
And we know what you’re thinking – that we sat through some internet livestream to find the most pitiful-looking freezeframe imaginable to show them in a bad light. But nope. Kevin Stewart MSP posted this cheery snapshot of his own free will on Twitter on Sunday morning, presumably in the hope of boosting party morale in some way.
Because things really are grim.
At its annual conference in a couple of weeks time, the SNP will elect a new National Executive Committee and Policy Development Committee. Despite its worst opinion poll ratings in about 20 years, the party is still set for a comfortable win at next year’s Holyrood elections (because the opposition is so divided), so it’s almost certainly going to be in government for the next half-decade.
You’d expect, therefore, that there’d be considerable competition for seats on the NEC/PDC, which are notionally the SNP’s controlling bodies. A seat on either ought to be almost like being in the actual government, because you’re deciding the policies and actions of the party that’s ruling the country.
And yet out of 44 seats to be filled next month, just 15 are going to be contested. The other 29 have either a single nominee (who’ll automatically win), or have none at all. Literally nobody in a party of over 50,000 members wanted these ostensibly powerful positions. Two-thirds of them are simply being given to anyone who could be bothered to show up, no questions asked.
(Amusingly, a tiny handful of people are so desperate for attention that they’ve entered for multiple roles despite already being guaranteed a seat because there was no competition. The monstrous Fatima Joji has put herself forward for three positions, even though she’s already certain to get a seat on the PDC because she’s the only female from North-East Scotland who’s entered. Poor old James Kelly of Palestine Goes Pop, who only crawled back into the SNP five minutes ago after being kicked out of Alba, is also up for three despite similarly being assured of a PDC seat because he was the only entrant of EITHER sex in the whole of Central Scotland, and Summer Chen, who’s been on the NEC/PDC for years without making any impression – we can’t even find a picture of her – is making an impressive SEVEN tilts at various prizes, including one she’ll definitely win as the only female from West Scotland.)
We were trying to think what the pic of Karen Adam’s adoption party reminded us of, and then it suddenly came to us.
Except without the catchy tune.
The rest of it – the disinterest and decay, the resigned low-rent horror, the meaningless brief tussles over a lump of dead flesh and the lifeless, soulless eyes ploughing on to an empty room – is the modern SNP to a (Jamie) T.
The fire inside burned out a long time ago. It’s an ugly, rotting, walking corpse. It’s time to leave it to eat what’s left of itself while we make a new start somewhere far away.
Even the kids can’t be bothered listening, they’re playing with their cell phones.
This dire bunch of losers is what looks likely to win the HR election next year. That’s how bad the opposition is in Scotland.
Dear Gods in Valhalla have mercy on us.
Don’t knock the Zombies, at least they have some life left in them.
Phone zombies have taken over the world and they’ve less brains than the real thing.
Thinking of all the time, effort and money put in to build the SNP by activists in my family who are no longer here, it fills me with blazing anger to watch it deteriorate in front of our eyes by mindless and soulless cretins.
FLAG WAVING ZOMBIES in Liverpool.
Lots of English & that other English banner the UJ.
The semiotics of this event should give that collection of castrated graphic novelesque nats something to contemplate.
Would it not-really-be better and kinder simply to abolish devolution and the devolved assemblies altogether ? They serve no conceivable purpose and simply allow otherwise unemployable people to;
a) Secure a tasteful income which they could never command in the real world and
b) Waste everyone’s time (and money) with ludicrous policies addressing (if anything) the individual peccadilloes of the bench warmers
If you think things are bad up there, consider Wales; we have seemingly been clamouring for more ‘representation ‘and simply MUST have 50% more Aelodau-as many of the existing ones have family and friends in need of gainful, lucrative and above all undemanding non-jobs
‘First Minister’ Drakeford ‘stepped back’ JUST before enforcement started on his ludicrous nationwide 20mph diktat-but he’s BACK-mysteriously
Sack it off
I can’t speak for the Welsh, Tommo, and I do understand where you are coming from.
I did for a while FEEL so utterly and totally disgusted with Holyrood that I wanted it dissolved. And Stu posited an idea: a public vote to either claim Scottish Self Governance OR dissolve Holyrood . . . a binary, harsh-but-fair decision to be taken by the electorate.
I have resigned myself to the ‘prospect’ (it may NOT be fact, after all) that I will see NO change on the constitutional issue in my lifetime.
There’s part of my brain that recognises a fundamental ‘truth’ and that ‘truth’ is that Scotland must maintain, at all costs, an active Parliament, whoever is in power. That ‘truth; is questionable because there are alternatives, though I’m not saying they are good.
There’s another part of my brain that thinks the only way forward is to do away with All current political structures and after a period of chaotic anarchy and reluctant truces, a more directly democratic system could rise from the ashes. One where the people are genuinely sovereign.
That was really badly expressed.
I’ll try again: I suppose I’d like to see a more Nordic system, one where the people have much more say in decision making.
You work for a company. There are some shitty employees at that company. Thus, you reason, the only way to get rid of them is to close the company down, which also makes you unemployed. Genius. That showed ’em!
Magic track – Tragic photo. If you think.to what she inherited to what the SNP are now , FFS.
Is that the King of Kubala on his iPhone?
The dude with the leopard hair? Is there an African thing going on here?
Their pronouns are she/tah.
Or this and that.
Tee hee, very good 😉
Mark, just let Milady crack the jokes, please 😉
*and runs away very quickly*
Also, what’s the deal with Swinney in that suit? It makes him look as though he’s about to try and sell me a swanky old Astra with rusty wheel arches, a flakey automatic choke and a burst arse on the driver’s seat. Something like that anyway 🙂
“with rusty wheel arches, a flakey automatic choke and a burst arse on the driver’s seat”.
And who does that remind you of 🙂
Aye, the car seller.
Jings! – There are some real rogues in there!
The obnoxious Graham Campbell for President? – Biggest laugh I’ve had in many years.
Sic transit gloria SNP.
Indeed. Dreadful, isn’t it? There’s about 3 names of people I would call fairly decent souls but far more awful characters. What a comedown.
Now do you see Sarah. It was never about independence It was always about the destruction of your country and culture to make way for the Nu world order.
The monstrous Fatima Joji has put herself forward for three positions
If a Nigerian Muslim grifter claiming to be Scottish doesn’t free our nation, I don’t know what will.
Humza, maybe? Or the other one who doesn’t like white people.
Concerning the PDC – why does ONE need elected from outwith Scotland?
I know, it’s daft when we already have Fatima Joji, who comes from the same planet as E.T. (she looks like him)
I noticed that Nae Need but couldn’t see sign of a candidate list for international members.
Me neither.
Strange dat.
I wonder if they’d consider someone from Moscow? Or Trinidad?
Both are outwith Scotland, after all.
In the space of 11 years, the SNP reduced to a talent pool so tiny and shallow that a single midge couldn’t drown in it.
And yet languishing in the land of Sound Policy and Common Sense, we have talent aplenty. Thwarted talent.
In fact NOT just thwarted, but actively sidelined, shut down, ignored, attacked.
I wonder what Stu had in mind when he said “while we make a new start somewhere far away.”
Any ideas, folks? What would you consider to be a new start and where would you consider to be far away?
Nae Need @ 17.18.
1) A new start … could be some independent List candidates elected to Holyrood in the 2026 elections instead of a bunch of professional career want to be and never wozzers all to keen to look good rather than do good.
2) Far away (for the moment) after some 18 years of 18 years of SNP rule of this devolved administration is the economically sound, energy self sufficient fair minded Scotland which has even begun to achieve our potential.
@Sven
“energy self sufficient fair minded Scotland “.
We are, on both counts.
Undeniable.
I wonder whether we are TOO fair minded?
I suspect that fair mindedness will have to give way for something harder, something more resolved and intransigent, if we are to reclaim our status as a self governing territory?
I also wonder whether the generations after Gen X are up to applying the unstinting, unrelenting elbow grease.
@Nae Need
Back in the days of the Evil Empire, there was a joke going around.
Some Eastern European Sov-bloc shithole decided to lighten up on the repression a little and held an election. The result was an overwhelming majority in favour of throwing the ruling regime out onto the street.
Obviously that was never going to happen! The regime convened a secret meeting to discuss what had gone “wrong”. One apparatchik opined that it was necessary to dissolve the electorate and appoint a new one.
That’s my solution for Scotland too. Did you read Rev Stu’s article? The SNP is “still set for a comfortable win at next year’s HR election”.
The SNP is Scotland. Scotland is the SNP. We’re a tribal, third-world backwater. Laugh not at Rev Stu depicting our government as zombies, because bloody obviously, that makes us zombies too.
The “new start” you are asking for requires us to import a few million New Scots with life, enthusiasm, drive, ambition and guts. They’ll deliver Independence, if that is what they want, without our help.
Frankly, a people that is still sticking with the SNP after all they have done, just because “they’re oor verra ain fowks”, is finished.
I wouldn’t worry too much. The New Scots will still allow us to wave our saltires. And they’ll smile avuncularly when they pretend to listen to our traditional greetin, gurnin whinges, before they go off to pay us not a blind bit of notice.
As with so many other things, you can thank Nicola Sturgeon for that. Anyone of talent, who might have been competition for her had to be removed. Now look at what we’re left with.
What a BLAND bunch of creatures they are, it is like a birthday party for the wee school nose picker, where everyone’s parents have FORCED them to go because nose pickers parents have begged them to
OR it is a DEI party where heterosexual WHITE WHITE males and FEMALES didn’t get an invite because they would have stood out amongst the deviants and perverts
That top image shows a Students Union ‘Freshers Week Committee’ desperate for the SU bar to open.
About 1000 lightyears distant from the party who in 2014 held Scotland’s future in it’s hand, who in 2015 held every Scottish Westminster seat bar 3, AND who in 2016 was gifted a second bite at the Indy cherry courtesy of Brexshit.
Look at them now! Words fail…
“How to Destroy a Political Party in a Decade”
should’ve been Sturgeon’s book title.
A guaranteed seat I suppose is better than getting a phone call from Alex Salmond saying you’ve won but I’d like to give it to someone. else.
That was Craig Murray, wasn’t it?
But if Alex was still with us, who knows what Alba might have grown into. We’ll never know now.
We have had so many abruptly truncated experiences!
It’s very sad.
If you were at all genuine in any shape or form, would you really want to take a seat on the Zombie train for another 5 years?
It wasn’t only Craig Murray, it was others as well. Nicola destroyed Salmond and Salmond destroyed the Alba party. Although Salmond tried to re-build his carer it was never going to happen, because out of the woodwork Sturgeon would just come along and remind people what he was on trail for.
It was a shame for me and other who joined Alba party at the start only to leave because of internal problems and it was obvious to see Alba party wasn’t going to have any success because of Salmond, he ought to have realised that and step down, but didn’t.
It didn’t take long to realise the goal to Independence and the removal of the monarchy the SNP and Alba were of the same opinion.
“Look at them now! Words fail…”
Indeed, Robert. Shocking. I’d have a massive riddy if that was me in that photo.
As Stu has suggested, we need some (a lot of) distance between them and us, and a fresh start.
Any thoughts?
My thoughts?
If you can’t starve the SNP of votes, because some people are just born stupid, or of publicity, because the Yoon press love them, you starve them financially in the hope they go bankrupt.
Then, once they’re off the scene, you pointedly exclude the SNP from the Yes family, keep calm, and carry on.
What on earth had happened to the SNP?
They have put a biological woman in as the Woman’s Convener.
Never agree on a system that doesn’t support the best candidate on merit.
Absolutely no reason to vote for someone just because they are a woman a transport or an ethnic minority.
Some of the names listed have been exposed previously as violent Neanderthals but they must be given high profile jobs where they can ruin the country and get over paid.
Alba is the only party I could consider voting for.
Haven’t you heard of “Diversity, Equality and Inclusion”?
DEI for short.
Also known as “Didn’t Earn It”.
“which are notionally the SNP’s controlling bodies. A seat on either ought to be almost like being in the actual government, because you’re deciding the policies and actions of the party that’s ruling the country.”
I don’t think they have anything to do with what the SNP government decide.
There are just a few people that decide policy – and they are the “senior” MSPs.
And their handlers.
YOUR PARTY, YOUR LOSS
A friend has just returned from Poland, aghast at the political debate between ordinary people there: all the ordinary people hate all the other ordinary people, so there isn’t any political debate. Jeremy Corbyn’s YourParty promises to make Britain different, with open debate, and one-member-one-vote for all material issues. Well, sort of.
To ensure that the right people get elected to positions of power, the clique running a party will assign people to working groups – these guys work on finance, those guys work on public health, so they never talk to each other. YourParty is just about to have its Founding Conference, where “thousands of Founding Conference delegates will be chosen by lottery to ensure a fair balance of gender, region, and background.” FFS, will they? How many genders are there? Don’t forget to split up Orkney, because if they’re one region they’ll sink the whole enterprise with their weird strong view. And “a fair balance of BACKGROUND”?? Oh, yes, of course, the right people.
This promise is complete crap. YourParty, but not mine.
Can you count how many balloons you see in the picture.
Are you including those sitting down?
Is that Tombola in the background for policy decisions!
Stu Campbell makes a reference to James Kelly’s Alba Party expulsion.
If you want to know the shocking truth behind James Kelly’s expulsion from the Alba Party, read it here:
link to scotgoespop.blogspot.com
It’s a story of corruption and abuses of power in Alba, under Alex Salmond’s iron-fist control.
Both Craig Murray and Denise Findlay later wrote admitting they had been persuaded to step down from their elected positions by Alex Salmond. (So Salmond could place his own choices in those roles instead of those the membership voted for).
The sad truth is that Salmond’s control of Alba was one of Alba Party vote-rigging, lies, abuses of power, public smears against decent members and other vile bullying tactics.
Those who dared speak against corruption and abuses of power (and abuses against individual members), either left the party in disgust or were also targetted for persecution.
If that failed to drive them out, they were expelled via kangaroo court disciplinary processes ( as happened to James Kelly (and myself).
Whatever else you think of James Kelly or his views, he was expelled because he wouldn’t go along with all the corruption and abuses.
Unlike, some other bloggers I won’t mention, he never stayed completely silent when Alba members were being abused under Alex Salmond’s Alba Party leadership.
“EXCLUSIVE
Scottish Government urges Israel to let Global Sumud Flotilla into Gaza”
—————————-
The National focusing on what is really important in Scotland again.
The enigma is not why the SNP is now what it is. The conundrum is why anyone compos mentis would still vote for it. The “history of the mystery” has been well traced, indeed fiercely so, not least by Stuart Campbell on Wings. The profound silence of Scotland’s Mainstream Media paradoxically foghorned its own collusion in the crime.
We can be sure that Nicola Sturgeon is not bewildered by where things are at. John Swinney is not bemused but composed. Neither is Leslie Evans in any wise bamboozled.
The late great Iain Lawson was presciently belligerent about it all. Iain’s YOURS FOR SCOTLAND blog remains online as part of his very rich legacy. Take for instance this article by Iain entitled:
ALEX SALMOND ASKS WHY?
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
The above article dates from 15 August 2022. Among many others, I had a comment on it. Mine was as follows:
« We must continually step back to get the big picture. Leslie Evans is being protected. Nicola Sturgeon is being protected. Why does the state-controlled Guardian suddenly celebrate Sturgeon when she is supposedly about to “Break Up Britain”?
« Nicola seems to have had four main tasks:
a) sabotage Alex Salmond
b) sabotage the Scottish National Party
c) sabotage Scotland’s assets
d) sabotage the next referendum
« In Libby Brooks’ article we glimpse an upbeat Sturgeon. Tasks just about adequately completed. Beginning to listen out for her promised airlift. But who will send the private plane? That is our question. »
Genuine question to those in I4I, ISP, even Alba and Liberate, given the moribund state of the SNP and the lack of any interest in significant offices as per the article above, would now not be the perfect time for a takeover?
The first step in solving any problem is recognising there is one.
The SNP is not the party of Independence any more…
The others need to coalesce and fill that void, and the sooner the better.
What’s all this sexist ‘all-female’ swill? Disgraceful. And I don’t want to hear any shite about how they’re ‘under-represented’ because after the Sturgeonite putsch quite the opposite is true. It’s only ‘discrimination’ when it’s against women, but not in their favour, eh? Hypocritical and disgraceful. The usual, in other words. The English/American destruction of the SNP has succeeded admirably.
The noose of digital ID is total and utter state surveillance is just about on us and a loon ball lawyer takes exception at ones gender being recorded.
Quite honestly what kind of person thinks about nonsense like this at a time like this.
Same type of person I guess as those who standing on the trap door ready to drop with the noose round their neck would fret about their nails not being painted.
Just like the SNP who have put the noose round Scotland’s neck.
The larger picture of political parties no matter which part of the British Isles, all have the same or similar finger prints pattern
Tories self destruct, SNP self destruct, labour in the process to self destruct, the green party self destruct, the lib dems self destruct, the Welsh parties self destruct and the parties in Ireland are following the pattern,
It is by no accident that we are presently having to deal with a voting system for the people disappearing and reduce our choice to a one party selection in Britain, as with other Countries,
These parties are all synchronised in think tanks, DEI, repressive new laws, population increases not of their own culture, loss of free speech and a unfair justice system towards their own nations, increases in perversion and crime under their watch around all these Countries.
It is no accident, that all political parties are in self destruct delete mode.
The question that raises in my mind is why are the people not aware of what is going on, and why people think voting for deliberately self destructing political parties will bring them a new brighter future. And democracy.
The very reason I turned my back on this voting system for a certain gang to run my Country,
For a number of years past , when Sturgeon started destroying the SNP from within its own party
I noticed that other political parties were all putting forward god dam awful devision leaders with bad policies as if in a synchronised plan.
And thought, surely not all Countries have such a bottom of the barrel selection as leaders to choose from.
Apparently they did.
How do you stop the cartels in politics. To free all nations.
It has to be done,
Most if not all nations around the world have at some time or other links to the treaties made by Britain as a lynch pin.
Secondly to America through Britain,
Thirdly by Britain and the EU.
Fourthly meetings in Davos, WEF, EU etc and all those think tanks connected to Britain that our leaders keep jetting away to.
Dismantle the one connecting lynch pin,
Britain.
Eventually all that will be left will be a one party global governace,
Since 2007 there’s been an SNP First Minister and some form of SNP Government in Scotland.
Enough, you’d think, for any independence supporting Scot to take comfort from, yes? But look around at what’s happened in the last 18 years and it will become plain why the SNP is in the sorry state it’s in, which sadly mirrors that of the country.
The SNP persuaded a majority of Scots, 52%, to vote Yes in 2014, but failed to capitalise on it.
The SNP won 56 out of 59 Westminster seats in 2015, with 50% of the vote on a 71% turnout, but failed to capitalise on it.
The SNP were gifted Brexshit in 2016, with 63% in Scotland voting Remain, but failed to capitalise on it.
Successive SNP Governments have had opportunity after opportunity to pass transformative legislation at Holyrood, but failed to capitalise on it.
Instead, we got progressively bad legislation which was either pulled at the last minute or challenged in the courts and struck down.
All we have to show for 18 years is free university tuition, free public transport for the under 22’s, and baby boxes – for which we pay the highest levels of income tax anywhere in the UK.
We’re now at the mercy of incompetents, who don’t even know what a woman is, and a once great party transformed by the political equivalent of Ophiocordyceps unilateralis, more commonly known as zombie-ant fungus.
How did it come to this?
Well played Agent Sturgeon, well played…
How did it come to this you say Robert Knight. Its a good question.
Not being cynical but that’s maybe something that should be asked of the people. I know the SNP are a colonists Trojan Horse. I Know that the MSM is biased, we all know that. But at the end of the day its the people that have allowed this to happen.
Farm animals go to the slaughter. That is their station. One likes to think that we are not, for the most part, of the same. But when you look around, you truly wonder.
Or am I missing something?
You’re not missing anything Willie, at least nothing that you and countless others already know…
“The last line of the story highlights the tragic and ironic transformation that has taken place in Scotland.
At the beginning of the story, the Scots rebel against Westminster, driven by a vision of equality, justice and freedom. They establish their own parliament with a government led by the SNP, who promise a better life for all.
However, as the story progresses, the SNP gradually adopt the same corrupt, incompetent and oppressive behaviors as the Westminster parliament they once despised.
The final sentence underscores the tradegy of the situation… “The people outside looked from Holyrood to Westminster, and from Westminster to Holyrood, and from Holyrood to Westminster again; but already it was impossible to say which was which”.
(Apologies to E.A. Blair)
TWO ELDERLY PEOPLE have said to me recently «don’t get old».
On looking at this i have decided not to.
link to moraruk.co
link to bbc.co.uk
Good news on the labour front, US has produced potential human cloning technique to mass produce humans.
Better than a bot.
There is much discussion here on the manifest and visible symptoms of the very nasty disease that has afflicted Scotland for the last three centuries and more; and, I suppose quite naturally, a great deal of talk on how those symptoms might be treated and managed, too.
Treatments such as clever voting strategies, eradicating corruption in the Scottish Government, appealing to England’s supreme law court for permission to hold an ‘independence’ referendum, leech therapy, fuming pots, bloodletting, witchcraft, whining and chanting and chuntering and other treatments that have as much chance of curing Scotland’s ailment as does participating in next years Scottish parliament election.
The many and varied symptoms afflicting Scotland can only be eradicated by curing the root cause of those symptoms and the root cause is colonialism… and the only cure for colonialism is decolonisation.
Devolution is a colonial sleeping potion designed to quieten the natives and keep them docile; the true relationship between Scotland and England is that of an annexed dependency entirely subject to the will of an administering power.
Scotland is no more, and the Scottish Government is nothing but a Westminster administrative tentacle; it snakes across what once was Scotland holding down the Scots and latching on tight to anything of value.
Riches are eagerly sucked out of Scotland only to be vomited onto the lap of the ‘mother country’ where they are greedily consumed and excreted as galactically expensive Anglo-infrastructure projects, or wasted on self-aggrandization, pompous posturing, sickeningly nostalgic tattered and faded imperial costumery and parades, and a great deal of sentimental war mongering.
The ungrateful Scots receive a meagre stipend in return as their share of their own nation’s wealth – only reluctantly given as a sop to keep them quiet and to quell any thought of rebellion.
The Scottish Government is the administrative body of a power foreign to Scotland; a body tasked with facilitating the plunder of Scotland’s wealth; the subjugation and oppression of the Scots people; the destruction of Scotland’s history and heritage and language; and the appropriation, ridicule and annihilation of Scotland’s culture and traditions; all the while wearing the disguise of partner and friend and flaunting the lie of Scotland’s self-governance under the hoax of a non-existent supposedly beneficial treaty of union.
The true, and very ugly, face of ‘the union’ over the last three centuries is one of rampant plundering and violent suppression concealed under the cover of a fabricated Anglocentric historical “friendly neighbours who occasionally disagree” false narrative.
The reality is that Scotland has been invaded by a hostile foreign power and subjected to every colonial trap and trick in the book to keep her people subjugated and her wealth easily stolen.
Oh dear, NC!
Almost a day since you pried open the rusty can labelled “colonisation” and yet nae cant is interested.
Let me be the first one to step up to the plate with encouragement.
All we need is a thousand words or so in this ilk, every day for the next decade, and we will be free. Defo! But nae skipping a day.
Reckon you have what it takes? Then start today!
Freedom can’t wait.
Well said, Northcode. Spot on.
The energies of Wings needs to be focussed on getting principled, pro-independence, candidates into Holyrood in 2026. Such a group can use that vote as the basis for restoring Scotland’s constitution that is based on the common good and the Claim of Right.
So much is said about old law being irrelevant – so how come Charles Windsor is allowed to stay in Holyrood Palace and go around Scotland being treated as king, and have Prerogative powers? That is all ancient [English] law that has a real effect now.
We should be using our ancient law to restore Scotland’s position.
Without doubt many will think this is a drastic move, but all nations and latter treaties start with that one faux treaty.
It rules Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland,
It just about rules as many other nation Countries directly or indirectly.
It has undoubtably taken Sovereignty away from all people of all Countries,
It has demolished countries borders, and in the process has secured a monopoly on finances and poverty of nations,
And created devision with policies for the peoples around the world
There is nothing wrong with the people, most people are just like you and I.
I was raised in Scotland, lived in Wales and in England for a number of years and was able to quickly view how one Countries beliefs are set by propaganda and media towards the other.
However I found that people in all nations just wanted to raise their families, to supply a healthy working income, to have a working NHS and a reasonable education for their children and for a justice system to work for the benefit and safety of their communities. Along with some spare time to enjoy the life we were all given.
This is the same the world over,
Until interrupted by the treaties of Britain and political cartel gangs lobbying governments around the world via funds.given and bribes.
There is nothing wrong with the people.except for the few that are susceptable and fall prey to the deliberate devision and DEI propaganda,
Northcode.
Welcome to my world.
This is something I have spent years on, trying to bring this to the attention of Scotland,
I have been scorned, laughed at. Derided, told it was old guff written on parchment paper, ignored, in the old days here on wings,
This has never deterred me, only encouraged me,
It is nice to see Scotland waking up, it is nice to see Salvo and SSRG have now taken it to the UN,
But it still leaves those people in England,Ireland and Wales asleep to their own Colonised condition.
For their Sovereignty of the people of their nations was transferred from them to government by the Westminster parliament of England under the Bill of Rights act,
When they wake up too, and regain their Sovereignty as “the people” above governance and from the Westminster bubble governance.
And leave the propaganda by media funded oligarchs outside the front door, just as Scotland is learning to do,
And leave the lobbying Cartel gangs that bribe governance out of their voting system
Then the people of the four nations will be at peace,
The people will be at peace and thrive.
James Cheyne said;
“For their Sovereignty of the people of their nations was transferred from them to government by the Westminster parliament of England under the Bill of Rights act.”
Sorry, James, the people of the nations of the English Kingdom were never sovereign. From 1066 on, sovereignty belonged exclusively to the feudal overlord of these territories, the sovereign King of England. The English monarchy retained that sovereignty until 1689, when its sovereignty was transferred to the English parliament, resulting in the so-called ‘Crown in Parliament’, giving sovereignty to the English parliament for the first time in English history.
The Cromwellian interregnum (1649–1660) might have been a brief exception, but Popular Sovereignty was never established during that period.
But that 1689-based sovereignty lasted only 18 years, until the 1707 Treaty of Union ended both the Scottish and English Parliaments, as confirmed by the UK Supreme Court in 2022.
The new British Parliament did not inherit sovereignty automatically from its predecessors as happens after every election, because constitutionally it was a brand new entity, and no steps had been taken by the former English parliament to transfer its sovereignty to the new British one while it still had that sovereignty to transfer.
The next elections after the 1705 one wasn’t until after the Union parliament had already become operational, denying any electoral continuity of the Englis parliament to the British one.
There is no record of any such transfer, nor is there anything in the Treaty that mandated such a transfer, because the English establishment was so eager to capture Scotland that they neglected their due diligence. They made assumptions they simply weren’t entitled to make, and it has cost them the sovereignty of their new British parliament.
To have ones own nation returned,
To have ones own culture regained.
To have justice and laws of that nation returned.
To have freedoms that are natural to the people.
To have time to enjoy life without fear.
To have borders returned.
When the people think of these things, then the people are no longer owned, nor have lost their Sovereignty of their rights in their own Country
When we think to regain what has been stolen, taken or slowly eroded, it is only then that you miss what you thought you did not need, when you allowed the leaders of parliaments to hold and grasp your Sovereign rights so greedily, and what is now required to happen to make your own a nation of happy contented people once again, no matter which part of Britain you live in, or What Country.
And Swinney lays the flag of Scotland on the tables as if that would convince us he is a Scottish political party.
It is probably to hide the treaty underneath,
While his shiny suit without a mark of work on it was paid for by us in Scottish taxes to support a man that does not support Scotland,
Scottish income tax applied and added on up and above the income tax threshold for you to have to pay on income to UK treasury.
So in Scotland we pay two income taxes,
One to HMRC Scotland and one to HMRC United kingdom,
Recently re read my annual income tax break down from before I retired.
This included Scottish income tax,
So we also are governed by the laws of Scots law through the devolved parliament, . The laws of England and Wales parliament and the laws of a united kingdom,
Gee, its a laugh a minute being Colonised.
Taxes for two Countries
Gee it’s a laugh a year counting the meaningless, pointless paragraphs you churn out. Year after year. Same long boring admittance that you are stuck in the Marxist mud. Surely one brain cell might have had a thought of it’s own by now.
Seriously! you answer your own comments. When confronted you revert to the same old Lefty school playground tactics.
For your information and free of charge. The world has moved on to a whole new drama! A drama where Scotland waits for the outcome with no noticeable contribution. Basically Scotland will take what it gets after the smoke has cleared. The real battle against Marxist-Blairite dictatorship is being fought by better people somewhere else apparently. All you have is a Turnip.
Mark, that’s some amount of garbage. I think your single brain cell has burned out. Jezzo.
…..says a turnip.
And meanwhile anyone notice today the vitriolic attack by Keir Starmer against Nigel Farage.
Now I make no comment about Farage save that he is popular down South with the lumpen and that he and his ilk would most certainly not be my choice.
But how many noticed that preceding Starmer’s attack, Farage’s security protection was but a few weeks ago reduced by a reported 75%. Strange isn’t it that as this individual’s popularity soars, he comes under brutal attack from the prime minister and has his security reduced.
It doesn’t seem right. Moreover, if anything was to happen to Farage, Starmer would reap the whirlwind and the consequences could be immense.
But Starmer is that type of man. No democrat. A big supporter of the Israeli military action in Gaza he, together with our UK military, stood foursquare behind the Israeli action with UK assets participating in the action in Gaza.
It’s a grim set of affairs, and viewed against the widespread political arrests of dissenters, and the introduction of mandatory digital ID the malign state as being shown by Starmer is here big time.
Graduation from a Scottish university nowadays is very much like investing in Bitcoin.
thanks for the better together pooling and sharing
link to archive.ph
YOU BUNCH OF ABSOLUTE FUCKING CUNTS
– setting up a broken market because you do not understand the dynamics of how mature and efficient markets should work; now we guarantee corporate profits, it is baked in. Nor will you get local pricing because the south east won’t like it.
this is excellent
link to archive.ph
– but who will have the balls to use it?
send the tax rate “to the moon”. No more carpetbaggers. Overall, this is a good thing if it can be used to solve gently what might be solved harshly down the line.
Brings me back to that idea – the french revolution could have been avoided if the aristocrats had paid some tax; they paid no taxes at all and when it was put to them, the finances being in a state, they rejected it with arrogance. Then the guillotine and masses of fun! Give a little, gain a lot.
It should always be emphasised – the rich don’t pay taxes. They don’t get wages, they are not on PAYE. In theory there are e.g. capital gains, but that is why the tax specialists exist. First up, incorporate yourself, so you only pay corporation tax on profits – now make sure you never make a profit (creative accounting). For the jackpot, “give up ownership, but retain control” – all your stuff is now owned by a charitable trust, whose board you control; legally you don’t own anything. If you are a corporation, you can even come out ahead as politicians are suckers for “jobs and investment”, support and tax breaks aplenty. The tax system is designed like an inverse fishing net – all the tiddlers are meant to get caught, while the whales pass through.
I have advised you guys before to use the Time Machine when playing with the past. It certainly worked for Nigel Farage. He is now a proud member of the Hitler Youth. It’s rumoured he shook the Fuhrer’s hand.
I see that the HMRC are resuming the right to deduct directly from bank accounts be it current, savings or ISA accounts any money they say are due.
Ditto the DWP are now going to debit winter heating allowance to pensioners where paid initially but for the recipient to fall thereafter outside the income – pension – saving allowance.
All part and parcel of the state fist. Well done the Queer Starmer. All right for him to not know about land he owned. No doubt as ignorant as Angela Raynor who was found to have been avoiding tax on property.
Wonder, if Swinney will give the Scottish Government the right to access directly people’s bank accounts. He is after all exactly of the same ilk as Sir keir.
Ah well, suck it up folks. It’s only people with something to hide that would object to all these state powers. And mind, don’t complain or you could be deemed a terrorist.
“We’re only making plans for Nigel (ooh)
We only want what’s best for him (ooh)
We’re only making plans for Nigel (ooh)
Nigel just needs that helping hand (ooh)
And if young Nigel says he’s happy
He must be happy, he must be happy
He must be happy in his work
We’re only making plans for Nigel (ooh)
He has this future in a British steel (ooh)
We’re only making plans for Nigel (ooh)
Nigel’s whole future is as good as sealed, yeah (ooh)
And if young Nigel says he’s happy
He must be happy, he must be happy
He must be happy in his work
Nigel is not outspoken but he likes to speak
And he loves to be spoken to (in his work)
Nigel is happy in his work (in his work)
Nigel is happy in his work (in his work)
We’re only making plans for Nigel (ooh)
We only want what’s best for him (ooh)
We’re only making plans for Nigel (ooh)
Nigel just needs this helping hand (ooh)
And if young Nigel says he’s happy
He must be happy, he must be happy
He must be happy in his work
Mmm, we’re only making plans for Nigel (ooh-oh-ooh)
We only want what’s best for him (ooh-oh-ooh)
We’re only making plans for Nigel (ooh-oh-ooh)
Nigel just needs this helping hand (ooh-oh-ooh)
We’re only making plans for Nigel (ooh-oh-ooh)
He has this future in a British steel (ooh-oh-ooh)
Steel, steel, steel, steel, steel, yeah
We’re only making plans for Nigel
Nigel, Nigel, Nigel, Nigel (ooh-oh-ooh)
Nigel, Nigel, Nigel, Nigel (ooh-oh-ooh)
Nigel, Nigel, Nigel, Nigel (ooh-oh-ooh)
Nigel, Nigel, Nigel, Nigel”
Great tune
«NOTHING IN THE WORLD is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity»
Dr Martin Luther King Jr.
Equally not recognizing the condition when you meet it.
Turabdin @ 15.33.
Or even, “Incompetence is the worst form of corruption”.
Detective Harvey Poole, Electra Glide in Blue.
Well done Stu for your professional journalism. A feature lacking in the STV who have lost a lot of jobs because nobody watches their output anymore. Ditto the BBC who have the cover from the Licence Fee. The only time we watch BBC I Player is imported fare. And we never watch their news output. But let them carry on with their editorial narrative a sure sign that they will be on the dole queue soon like their STV counterparts.
Today’s news coverage confirms the above. I watched the BBC and the STV coverage of todays events. STV didn’t even have it as their lead story. Preferring to opt for 4 virtue signallers from Scotland including a Nobel prize seeking candidate desperate for the 1 million pound prize. And they wonder why they are out of a job.
I walked by a house today and they had on their window a sign reading:
“Refugees Welcome”
I was so tempted to stick a
smaller sign below it saying:
“Apply Within”
Be fair now, Mark.
The house might be owned by Serco or one of the other big companies making hundreds of millions PA from the refugee “industry”. That “industry” cost UK taxpayers £5.4 billion in 2023/24.
Or, could be a taxi business. Asylum seekers aren’t encouraged to use buses, so they mostly have to travel by taxi.
But that was last week’s scandal. With a new scandal being exposed every week, the old stories drop out of view very quickly.
NAD SHUIDHE
Bha thu nad shuidhe an taic an dorais.
Thill mi ach bha thu air falbh.
Chuir thu às dhut fhèin.
Cha do rinn m’ fhaclan feum.
Carson a shaoilinn gun dèanadh?
YOU WERE SAT
You were sat by the door.
I went back but you weren’t there.
You committed suicide.
My words were to no avail.
What made me think they would?
Katie Price should be jailed for inflicting some mental distress on her disabled son by allowing him to go to these types of events.
There was a interesting point made recently that I did not know, when it alludes to BBC and TV licence,
The small print states it is English law.
Not UK law, or Great Britain law, and not Scottish law,
Just English.
If it is only the law of England, than I suppose it is unenforceable any where else.
People in Scotland must be due a lot of refunds.
I don’t need my refunds. I want you to have every one.
I think I offered you all the reparations I am due for the illegal TOU just the other day. That offer still stands.
It’s all mounting up, James. Make sure you invest it wisely!
Or blow the lot on fine, aged single malts. But you have to offer me a dram if you do 🙂 Speyside preferably, but if you only have the heavily peated, that’s good too
Thoughts and prayers for the Jewish community in Manchester.
The British prime minister has blood on his hands.
Mark Beggan says:
“The British prime minister has blood on his hands.”
—————————————————
Absolute nonsense you should withdraw that remark.
The issue regards income tax is that there is only one treasury for the British Isles. And as far as I understand only one HMRC.
So if Scotlands people are taxed by the main HMRC on there incomes annually, as with the same of the rest of Britain.
Then why do we pay a Scottish contribution to annual taxes on our incomes.
Does Scotland have its own or separate HMRC that is just Scottish, and if it does, Does it go to a Scottish treasury Separate from the treasury down south in England.
Or is Scotland being double taxed for the same annual income by only one HMRC and treasury in Britain,
On the other hand if we have our own HMRC and treasury for revenues Why pay the other one down south, and do the people in England have to pay annual income contributions for living in Britain and a included second annual income tax contribution from the same income for living in England just like Scotland does.?
Is it a specific Country tax in a similar vein as the poll tax was in Scotland ?
“why do we pay a Scottish contribution to annual taxes on our incomes”
It’s because we have a special Scottish Numpty Class that expects and requires generous remuneration in salary, perks and pensions.
It’s because we Scots are only comfortable if we see numpties like ourselves on our TV screens and in our papers. So we vote in and appoint numpties to spare ourselves the shock and horror (embarrassment too) of having to acknowledge the existence of decent, rational and competent people. That aren’t exactly like us!
Sadly, special numpties incur all sorts of additional costs that we have to pay for. For example, there’s hundreds of millions of compo claims to settle the numpty crimes, numpty mistakes, numpty malfeasance and numpty reality denying lunacy.
But don’t despair, James. Neither of us will live to see it, but give it a century or so and even Scotland will eventually tire of paying through the nose to support our Numpty Class.
We’ll get real one day. Eventually every nation does.
After decades of loyal service, is there no slot that can be found for Dear Nicola? President, perhaps – I ken it’s a comedown from expecting to be UN Secretary, but well…..
Do an easy and positive thing to give Holyrood powers to hold a referendum. SIGN the petition “Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] in Scottish Legislation”, no. PE2135 – it is on http://www.petitions.parliament.scot.
Then share with some friends.
If HR has powers to hold a referendum won’t that cut the ground out from under the feet of Chairman Murray, Professor Baird, etc at the UN?
I thought they were going to have us declared a colony any day soon?
Has something happened that I missed? No oppressed colony could ever just vote its way to independence.
@Hatey – this is another cunning plan for independence which has a 0% chance of being recognised in the courts or anywhere else where it matters. At some point we’ll stop hearing about this and instead plan #44 will get trotted out
@Aidan
Does that mean they missed #42? I’m certain #42 is the answer 🙂
I personally find it hard to credit that the movement hasn’t spent the years since Yousaf was illegally anointed developing and positioning candidates for next year’s HR election.
There should be a Plebiscite Party candidate in place in every HR constituency by now. And we should all know our local candidate, plus the names and policies of the leadership.
We should all know that if a majority of us go out and vote PP in May 2026, then the UK is on its way to breaking up.
No Scottish voter should have been in any doubt by now that May 2026 is crunch time for the union. And the choice will have the critically necessary stamp of authority – a democratic decision freely arrived at by secret ballot. No naysayers could question that legitimacy.
Yet here we are – 7 months to go – and it’s tumbleweed.
Petitions gathering a few hundred names and some desperate attention seekers prancing around in kilts at a UN branch office.
The question on annual income tax was why does Scotland pay two contribution for income tax on the same financial sum for the same year?
One for HMRC down south and one for Scotland,
Do they not both go to the same source of revenue, as Scotland does not have a separate HMRC in Scotland?
If So is this akin to extra tax in Scotland on the same sum of money we have just sent down south, the extra Additional Scottish income tax on a individual person tax living in Scotland, making it a new back door poll tax for living in Scotland.
This double tax on the same sum effects all peoples income living in Scotland,
And as I queried, do the people in England pay their income tax to the same main HMRC and then a second income tax on the same sum called a English tax for being in England?
You may get a dram of Whiskey one day, but It will not be from the McAllans bottles maybe from the Tasiker. And definately only needs to be opened for some serious celebration in Scotland.
Xaracen,
1 Oct,
1: 28 pm.
Willingly give way to further my education, to continue learning, thanks and much obliged for correction.
SIR ED DAVEY: ‘SOME PEOPLE HAVE A DIFFERENT GENDER TO THEIR BIOLOGICAL SEX’
The leader of the Liberal Democrats has maintained his position that men can be women.
Sir Ed Davey repeated the claim during an interview with Piers Morgan, in which he refused ten times to answer the question: “Can a woman have a penis?”
In 2023, the party leader stated that fully intact biological men can “quite clearly” be accepted as women.
‘TRANSPHOBIC’
Sir Ed told Morgan: “The vast majority of people identify with the same gender they had at birth, but there are a few who do not.
“For over 20 years we’ve had a Gender Recognition Act which said that people who want to change their gender can do so. And that’s been cross-party. I think this is a difficult issue.”
He also said: “If you have a different view of your gender than your biological sex at birth, then the Act gives you that right. But the vast majority of people have the same gender as their biological sex.”
Last month, delegates at the party’s annual conference blocked a motion that would have prevented men from taking internal vacancies reserved for women. Lib Dem LGBT activist Lucas North branded the proposal “transphobic”, arguing that “trans identities” are not up for debate.
UNWELCOME
The co-leaders of Scottish Greens, Gillian Mackay and Ross Greer, recently announced that voters who believe in biological reality are not welcome in the party.
Greer said Scottish Greens were “unequivocally on the side of trans rights” and described ‘LGBT equality’ as one of the party’s core principles.
Zarah Sultana MP, joint founder of a new party with Jeremy Corbyn, told the Pod Save the UK podcast in September that there is “no room” in the party for MPs who do not have “pro-trans” values.
(The Christian Institute, 2 Oct 2025)
link to christian.org.uk
‘Zarah Sultana MP, joint founder of a new party with Jeremy Corbyn, told the Pod Save the UK podcast in September that there is “no room” in the party for MPs who do not have “pro-trans” values’
No surprise then that the boys got together to sideline her.
To them, having a woman showing her face and speaking unchaperoned will have already been pushing the boundaries of what they deem acceptable behaviour.
Being pro-trans is all the excuse they need to permanently freeze her out. Boo hoo! It couldn’t have happened to a nicer [REDACTED].
Oh the woman has a name does she? Hypocrite.
A whole 9 words, Marie. If you’re being charged £0.25 per word, that’s £2.25 you just spaffed up the wall.
I don’t think there can be a reader anywhere who isn’t asking herself, why did she bother.
Incidentally, do you have any ideas on why the woman “with the name” might have fallen out big time with the boys in her party? It’s all quite important and even relevant to the Scottish political scene.
I’ll give you a wee clue. Check out the “names” of the 4 boys who aren’t Corbyn for a steer on their attitudes, policies, belief system and long-term goals.
The woman “with the name”, IMO, was never intended to be anything other than the smiling, pleasant-looking, bimbo-brained, plausibly acceptable face of what is a nasty, vicious, misogynistic, expansionist and inherently anti-western movement that threatens all indigenous Scots.
I deeply dislike the woman “with the name” because it’s impossible for her NOT to know how her culture regards and treats women and girls. Yet she was prepared to front the movement as its acceptable, respectable face. As still is Corbyn.
There’s hypocrisy for you right there.
One question that does not often get asked in this situation is what actually is ‘gender’?
Over the years what was a word that was pretty much only ever used in conjunction with ‘norm’, or similar, as it was a word used to describe societal expectations of behaviour and aptitudes based on one’s sex. It was used to critique such norms. Yet now, the word gender is mostly unthinkingly used alone, as a ‘thing’ that somehow we have / are, that is distinct from biological sex.
The fact the vast majority do not feel any sense of differentiation makes no difference somehow, since the few that do, must mean the rest of us just don’t notice we actually have this thing called a gender as well as our sex.
It is a clever but basically nonsensical argument that invents something that does not materially exist (gender), says we all have it, says it matters more than the thing we do know materially exists (sex), then calls anyone a bigot who disagrees!
My own feeling has always been the original meaning is correct – gender norms. Trans people are those that do not conform to those norms in an increasingly profound way, such that they identify much more with the opposite sex than their own. Though unusual, this is actually a form of expression of their sex class, but one that is a very long way from gender expectations. And this is what feminists meant originally when they talked about breaking gender norms, or at the very least, widening their boundaries to break the straitjacket of normative societal expectations that prevented women doing or being taken seriously in all types of traditionally male domains.
DOOYEWEERD AT THE MOVIES
Are Zombies the flip-side of Superheros?
According to Herman Dooyeweerd there is in Western humanist thought an irreconcilable historic dualism between abiding “form” and inconstant “matter”.
This was first evident as an innate incompatibility between two Greek religions — namely, an older religion of life and death which absolutised nature as an inescapable flux of matter from whence we arise and must return — and a newer religion absolutising the “deified cultural forces” of form, measure, and rationality (manifesting as the immortal, invisible, Olympian gods).
This Form/ Matter dichotomy is surely still plain enough in Zombie and Superhero movies.
Zombies arise out of the formless subterranean realm to drag stricken humanity down into material disintegration. Superman, Batman, Ironman, Spiderman etc are like gods of an American-style Olympus, (more-or-less) immortal, ideally-formed, shining saviours from on high (with relational complications, of course).
This dualism also throws light on the dramatic tension between mechanistic law and personal freedom evident in movies such as Robocop, Space Odyssey 2001, Bladerunner, Terminator, Matrix etc (presaging our AI anxiety).
And of course Tarantino’s postmodernist approach to multi-viewpoint narratives is in there somewhere. And time-bending films like Inception.
I remember a few years ago hearing a radio interview with Will Self about a novel he had just written. The Radio 3 interviewer joked about his stream of consciousness approach in the book: “Come on, Will, even Joyce’s ‘Ulysses’ had punctuation!” Will laughed and replied: “Past, present, and future — that was a Christian worldview — we are not there anymore!”
The immediate relevance is that we perhaps have here a useful template for making some sense of the cultural and political clash between insistence on the limiting constancy of biological law over against an assertion of limitless indeterminate selfhood.
Some times is not fair I know, but I just mimic others just for a laugh and to pass the time, there are plenty choices,
Like the person whom maintains that they are for the independence of Scotland. Then claims the treaty of union is old guff, its so old, its on parchment paper.
And no one pays attention to it anymore.
And does not realise in making those statements there would be no union existing today between the two Countries to cause a rational call for a independent Scotland.
Nevertheless their are quite a lot of politicians whom believe that body dysphoria means a woman can have a penis and renamed it trans….phobia.
Personally I would call it a trans- humanist belief,
We can respect some one elses belief’s or body disphoria but it is wrong to ask the mass population to believe the same thing. And to live their lives pretending they also have this medical issue,
Due to there being no medical term or name tag attached to someone whom believes there is no such thing as the treaty of union because its so old guff,
but at the same time think we “Scotland” are bound to the old guff in a treaty,
Until there is , meanwhile Have a dram on me,
I can’t speak for anyone else and I’m an (English) Unionist, but I’ve not seen any evidence that anyone denies the existence of the treaty of union between England and Scotland (the “original paperwork” as it were), or its importance – legal and symbolic. Rather, people are (rightly in my view) deeply sceptical of the supposed, specific means of achieving independence via this route (“300 years old guff”) that you and others frequently evangelise ad nauseaum, and insofar as this would be procedure is clearly defined at all (or otherwise).
You really can’t blame people for doubting the veracity of this stuff. First step would be for “Team Ancient Guff” to explain to (no doubt very weary fellow countrymen and women) a credible route map: what does 6 months, 12 months, 3 years etc look like? What needs to happen and who does what? How can anyone be confident such measures will be effective against a deeply entrenched and immobile international community with lots of far more pressing issues on the “To Do” list right now?
FWIW I have been asking this myself for a good while to no avail, and can only conclude it’s all so much pish, as you Scots might say. Mind you, no doubt our ever-present friends Cesaire and Fanon will be along presently to disagree. 🙂
I think Cesaire and Fanon would agree with Memmi that: “liberation is a matter only for the colonized”.
link to youtube.com
Does Cesaire and/or Fanon have a routemap and even a basic, high level explanation of what specifically would be “good outcomes” in, say, c.6-months, 1 year and 3 year milestones? What needs to happen in terms of the UN and wider international community, including specific countries?
Time to put some (meaningful) meat on the bones, Alf?
Asking for a friend (Scotland).
I think maybe Alf is asking you politely to **** off.
Does’nt usually work though, unfortunately.
The only remedy for colonialism is to end it, which is why the process is known as decolonization. Thankfully many Scots have already figured this out.
Buzz off fatty. The adults are talking.
Off you trot, Wetherspoons is open.
“The only remedy for colonialism is to end it, which is why the process is known as decolonization.”
So basically then, no info whatsoever, as per.
No doubt readers will draw their own conclusions from that.
An excellent speech, Alf. A neat and eloquent summation of postcolonial theory as it applies to Scotland and the Scots.
@CC – the Treaty of Union (and the acts that implemented it) are indeed important historic and legal documents. However, they are documents of 1707 rather than of 2025 and so there relevance has to be understood with the context of the proceeding 300 years of constitutional development. Therefore, despite what some would have you believe:
a) there is no chance that the courts are going to sweep away all of our systems and institutions by reinterpreting the terms and impact of the ToU.
b) institutions like the Convention of the Estates which have not existed for hundreds of years and who’s functions long since been replaced are not going to be revived.
c) the UN is not going to decide that Scotland is a colony primarily or exclusively by examining what happened in 1707.
I suspect deep down the usual suspects know this to be true, which goes some way to explain the anger and wailing every time it is pointed out. It’s also not as if this is surmise and conjecture, arguments around the claim of right and the right to self determination and the Scotland Act have been made recently and within the context of Scotland up to the Supreme Court.
Aside from the legality, it’s not as if this stuff is a great political tool either. If you’re out speaking to the public very few people really care about the circumstances of the formation of the union 300 years ago and a vanishingly small few would consider it an important factor when deciding how to vote. As with all political decisions, people care about the impact on the economy, tax rates, public services, pensions and benefits, what will happen on the border with England, and to a lesser extent things like EU membership and NATO etc. This is why I don’t think have an unincorporated group of candidates standing on a plebiscite ticket would work either, how would they consistently answer all of the questions above, who would do media appearances and TV debates? My guess it that “independence as a principle and we will sort out all the issues afterward” is a position 25/30% of the population would support at best.
Oh, I appreciate all of that and totally concur, Aidan. 🙂
It was more a case of trying to pin down the likes of Alf & co.
I might just as well try to pin down Scotch mist for all the good it would do. If nothing else, IMO this casts light on the absolute paucity (and in my view intellectual dishonesty) of the entire charade; if such straightforward questions cannot be answered even in the most basic and caveated manner, what does that tell the casually interested observer.
Cue more ad hominem from the usual likely inebriated suspects. Doesn’t change a thing though.
“The only remedy for colonialism is to end it”
Snap! I was just going to say the same about cancer.
And slavery.
And pop up ads online.
And additives in food.
And sunburn.
And people who park their vehicles encroaching into the adjacent space.
Look everybody! See how many problems I have just remedied by following Alf’s advice.
The cave dwelling Tory bumsniffer in soft focus mode says “..Oh, I appreciate all of that and totally concur, “Aidan”.”
A Bromance! Would it no gie ye the boak?
Might as well gie it up, folks and just stay in the “great union”; the two warmongering Yoon peabrains say it won’t work.
[Should youse two not be crossing Poland by now?]
11 PM and James thoughts turn inexorably to shirt lifting. For somebody claiming it “gies him the boak”, he does post about it a lot on here.
Maybe instead James could focus on telling us what he thinks the Poles could learn from the Scots.
Greetin, gurnin, cringing, whinging and being fixated on bum sex don’t count. Neither does one-handed exercising.
I realise I’m cutting deeply into your areas of expertise, James, so do take your time to see if there’s anything useful you can come up with.
Aidan said;
“the Treaty of Union (and the acts that implemented it) are indeed important historic and legal documents. However, they are documents of 1707 rather than of 2025 and so there relevance has to be understood with the context of the proceeding 300 years of constitutional development.”
No, Aidan, their relevance has to be understood within the context of the time. If the terms of a formal contract have been breached, or ‘reinterpreted’ to allow something not agreed in it, that is evidence of constitutional malpractice.
“Therefore, despite what some would have you believe:
a) there is no chance that the courts are going to sweep away all of our systems and institutions by reinterpreting the terms and impact of the ToU.”
Are you sure? A clear breach is a clear breach however old it is. If those systems and institutions are evidence of a breach of contract, particularly if they resulted in clear harms to one of the parties, the courts will have a field day!
“b) institutions like the Convention of the Estates which have not existed for hundreds of years and who’s functions long since been replaced are not going to be revived.
If those functions have been unlawfully replaced, and the sovereign Scots decide to call a Convention of the Estates under their own extant constitution as they are fully entitled to do, then who is going to stop them?
“c) the UN is not going to decide that Scotland is a colony primarily or exclusively by examining what happened in 1707.”
It only has to decide if Scotland is a partner in a Union, or a dependency. 1707 makes it perfectly clear which of these it is. I fancy our chances.
Just to expand my last point; 1707 makes it perfectly clear which of these it is, as Professor Black spelled out the gritty details for them.
And it’s not just about the C-24’s weighing of the arguments, it’s also about how the UK is perceived in the UNGA; it’s not exactly held in high regard, it is not well-liked by more than a few former colonies, and its recent efforts re Palestine haven’t helped it at all.
All told, I suspect that quite a lot of grudges are going to play their part in the outcome. 😀
@Xaracen – I’ve explained to you previously, at length, why you are wrong about this, on a number of previous occasions. I don’t have the energy today to repeat myself yet again.
Interesting that you think the courts will have a field day. a) because apparently you are now recognising the jurisdiction of the courts, and b) because they didn’t have a “field day” when they looked at the constitutional position of Scotland numerous times at the highest level over the past 10 years.
Xaracen’s words carry the sweet scent of truth as expertly reasoned through the application of logic and eloquently set out by an intelligent and erudite human mind.
AI Dan’s words stink of AI generated bilge watter cobbled thegither and set doun by a malfunctioning algorithm that is unaware e’en o’ its ain existence and which has been instructed by its programmers to talk a lot of endless pish in an attempt to bore its opponent into submission.
However, AI Dan’s programmers neglected to take into account Xaracen’s tenaciousness.
And so it is with great pride and with the heartfelt thanks of a grateful nation I declare Xaracen the overwhelming and triumphant winning champion of this epic argument over constitutional law and other similar matters affecting Scotland and the Scots – not only because Xaracen was the only human participant and was up against a tireless and relentless chatBot type thingy, but for those reasons stated in my opening paragraph.
The fact that you think I am wrong Northcode, is one of the most compelling affirmations of my viewpoint imaginable, so thank you! I’ll be sure to use this next time!
Repeating yourself would be pointless, Aidan.
Disagreement isn’t refutation. Your explanations were just assertions, not arguments. I already pointed out why they don’t work. I can do that again.
As for the courts, recognising their jurisdiction isn’t the same as accepting that they’ve properly covered all the relevant arguments. Any argument that leans on the ‘unlimited sovereignty of the Crown in parliament’ is constitutionally bogus, and that premise invalidates any conclusions built on it.
That’s what Scotland’s sovereignty means.
That’s what Scotland’s Treaty-guaranteed Claim of Right means.
That’s what the ending of England’s parliament in 1707 means.
That’s what the resulting loss of England’s parliamentary sovereignty means.
Professor Black KC can tell them all about those things.
The Supreme Court has ruled on specific questions within the frameworks it was given, but it hasn’t ruled on any breach of Treaty terms, nor on the implications of unlawfully-suppressed Scottish sovereignty. If such a case were properly framed, with evidence of breach and harm, then yes, I do think the courts would have a field day, and Professor Black KC would give them a damn good workout at the very least.
“The fact that you think I am wrong Northcode…”
Give it up, Algo…you lost the argument centuries ago.
@Xaracen – judging the legitimacy of the court system on the extent to which a body of law reflects your own personal opinion is a repudiation of the function of the courts and of the rule of law itself. You’re perfectly entitled to form your own viewpoint on the historical lineage of sovereignty through the 1700’s, but that has no bearing on today’s constitutional law. The principle of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty is a concept that has been recognised by the courts in this country for a very long time, and the basis on which you claim to challenge it doesn’t amount to a valid legal argument based on any recognised principles of law.
Even taking your argument as a historical rather than a legal argument (which is exactly how it should be construed), the Treaty of Union establishes a situation where the new UK parliament was clearly to be sovereign, and if this sovereignty were not to be unlimited, then what limits did the ToU place on that sovereignty? Arguably, some of the terms of the ToU such as those guaranteeing the Scottish Presbyterian church or the right of Scottish MP’s to sit in parliament are fundamental law which Parliament could not abolish without opening up other aspects of the constitution, but the ToU does not provide for any other body that can either pass legislation or disapply an act of Parliament.
Aidan said;
“judging the legitimacy of the court system on the extent to which a body of law reflects your own personal opinion is a repudiation of the function of the courts and of the rule of law itself.”
Piss off, Aidan. First, that’s a lie; I did no such thing. I judge the legitimacy of the court systems on the extent to which they respect the fundamental underpinnings of the UK itself, including what it inherited from the two sovereignties that founded it, and in line with what the Treaty and Acts actually contain, and in the context of those sovereignties at the time the Treaty was negotiated!
“You’re perfectly entitled to form your own viewpoint on the historical lineage of sovereignty through the 1700’s, but that has no bearing on today’s constitutional law.”
I never said it did, see above.
But what damn well should have bearing on today’s constitutional law at the very least, Aidan, is the well established fact of the continued sovereignty of the Scottish half of the Union which NO_ONE could legitimately remove or demote bar the sovereign Scots themselves, and maybe the fact of two sovereignties if it can be formally verified by an independent court that the English half of the Union also retained its sovereignty despite the demise of the English parliament that formally owned it.
At best, if both sovereignties are still extant, then Scotland is still not obliged to subordinate itself in any way to English authority, especially if that authority is based solely on a spurious numeric majority that has no constitutional meaning whatsoever, and which gained none from the Treaty.
“The principle of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty is a concept that has been recognised by the courts in this country for a very long time, and the basis on which you claim to challenge it doesn’t amount to a valid legal argument based on any recognised principles of law.”
Then the courts have shown themselves to be incompetent, as I already explained. Even if English parliamentary sovereignty exists, Aidan, it does not and cannot outrank any other sovereignty, and that includes Scotland’s! Which bit of that logic do you not understand?
Scotland’s sovereignty is formally owned by Scotland’s people, and it can be exerted by them in any formal plebiscite, and in Westminster it is represented solely by Scotland’s MPs, and on that basis their formal majority decisions are beyond the reach of any English authority. Any overruling by England’s MPs or other English-based authority is a direct breach of Scotland’s sovereignty, and of the Treaty.
“Even taking your argument as a historical rather than a legal argument (which is exactly how it should be construed), the Treaty of Union establishes a situation where the new UK parliament was clearly to be sovereign,”
Bollocks, Aidan, you’re overreaching again; it was clearly to be the seat of Government, a seat to be shared by the formal representatives of both Treaty Principals, of which only the Scottish body represented a sovereign nation, as it turned out. The Treaty does not assert that the new British parliament is sovereign at all. You made that up. As an institution, its sovereignty could only be exerted by the formal representatives of the two sovereign nations that founded it, but through arrogant carelessness, the English half of the Union let its sovereignty evaporate!
” and if this sovereignty were not to be unlimited, then what limits did the ToU place on that sovereignty? Arguably, some of the terms of the ToU such as those guaranteeing the Scottish Presbyterian church or the right of Scottish MP’s to sit in parliament are fundamental law which Parliament could not abolish without opening up other aspects of the constitution, but the ToU does not provide for any other body that can either pass legislation or disapply an act of Parliament.”
The primary limit is the sovereignty of the Scottish half of the Union, formally represented exclusively by Scotland’s MPs. The body of Scots MPs is one institution that is entitled to limit English overreach at its very source, and they can pass legislation, at least in principle, but the bogus flat vote means that the opportunity to do so is very rare. As Wings published in an article a few years after indyref-1, the Scots MPs can overrule England’s MPs in only about 6 divisions in every 1000 on average, essentially when England’s MPs have neutered themselves numerically. That’s how much the English establishment respects sovereignties other than their own.
That ‘fundamental law which Parliament could not abolish’ preserves the formal rights of the Scottish people under their own constitution, and asserts the fact of their sovereignty.
The other institution that can assert their sovereignty against unlawful overreach is the Convention of the Estates, a body that sacked two monarchs and sanctioned a third. And that body can and did pass legislation, though I don’t think it actually disapplied an act of Parliament, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it couldn’t. It wouldn’t have been any good if it couldn’t, and if it could and did sack kings and queens, disapplying an Act of a parliament wouldn’t have been an issue. As part of Scotland’s guaranteed constitution, it can be called when needed.
@Xaracen – It is your personal opinion, and a spurious opinion at that. You keep banging on about the fundamental conditions of the treaty, but by your own admission previously it’s not actually about what the treaty says, it about what the treaty doesn’t say. There is no mention anywhere for example, of England and Scotland’s MP’s forming two sovereign blocks which both need to give their majority support to pass legislation, or of the retention of the convention of the estates, or that the Kingdoms of England and Scotland would remain independent states. In fact, all of these fanciful ideas are contradicted by the express language of the treaty, starting with Article 1.
So yet again, we are forced to believe that the authors of the ToU actually intended to create a situation where the elected politicians of two sovereign independent states agreed to sit in the same room to pass legislation together. Yet for some unknown reason, which you have provided no explanation for, they somehow wrote down and then implemented something completely different. So we’re in a position where you say thing Y – which was agreed written down and implemented is illegitimate, and thing X which you’ve just dreamt up one day and isn’t supported by any contemporary or historical document anywhere is in fact the legitimate states of affairs. Can you please provide an explanation for this specific point?
As I said above, there is no mention of the continuation of the convention of the estates in the ToU. The convention generally was called to raise taxes in the pre-1707 world, and so it would be a very odd feature in today’s constitutional system. I would suggest that a group of 50 landowners and bishops claiming to form an institution that hasn’t sat for over 300+ years wouldn’t be recognised by anyone as legitimate, so I think we safely say this is a feature of the past .
@Northcode says: 7 October, 2025 at 1:06 pm
“Xaracen’s words carry the sweet scent of truth as expertly reasoned through the application of logic and eloquently set out by an intelligent and erudite human mind”
How odd. For they are written in the Englis, the lying tongue of the coloniser.
As is the verdict quoted above.
How even more odd!
@Northcode, at 1:06 pm
Thanks, Northcode, I really appreciated that. Needed it, truth be told.
This place can wear you down, and I understand why some drift off to quieter pastures. But it was never meant to be a pasture. It’s a battleground as you said, of wits, knowledge, and endurance. Truth against falsity. Constitutional clarity against numeric capture. Sovereignty against presumptive greed.
I’m still standing. Not giving up any time soon.
“It’s a battleground as you said, of wits, knowledge, and endurance. Truth against falsity. Constitutional clarity against numeric capture. Sovereignty against presumptive greed”
Oh Xaracen, but you are a tonic!
You’ve never quite twigged how this Sovereignty thingie works, have you? Despite all your hours toiling away spouting all your hundreds of thousands of words, the essence of Scottish Sovereignty still eludes you.
It has never occurred to you that when two Sovereign Scots hold opposed views that their Sovereignties cancel each other out. You have always been 100% certain that Sovereignty insists that it’s owners and wielders must agree with you and hold identical opinions to you.
Yet, of course, that’s a complete fiction, arrived at through laziness and sloppy thinking.
You cannot compel any Sovereign Scot to cleave to your world view. You cannot force any Sovereign Scot to adopt a course of action he or she is opposed to.
Sorry, Xaracen, but that’s not how the inviolable and immutable Sovereignty owned and wielded as his birthright by the Sovereign Scot works.
Now hunker doon and shut up while the majority of Sovereign Scots try to work out their preferred political destiny, free of your never-ending instructions telling us what we can and cannot do.
We’re Sovereign Scots too. It’s long overdue for you to get that into yer heid.
Aidan said;
“@Xaracen – It is your personal opinion, and a spurious opinion at that. You keep banging on about the fundamental conditions of the treaty, but by your own admission previously it’s not actually about what the treaty says, it about what the treaty doesn’t say.”
Well, that’s a flat out lie. I was very clear about what it said, what it didn’t say and why the context in which it was written also matters.
“There is no mention anywhere for example, of England and Scotland’s MP’s forming two sovereign blocks which both need to give their majority support to pass legislation, or of the retention of the convention of the estates, or that the Kingdoms of England and Scotland would remain independent states. In fact, all of these fanciful ideas are contradicted by the express language of the treaty, starting with Article 1.”
That’s when context comes in, Aidan. The two sovereign blocks already existed. You are the one who invents authorities out of thin air. Your favourite tactic is to cite an ‘explicit’ statement that doesn’t exist. You’ve done that on several occasions.
“So yet again, we are forced to believe that the authors of the ToU actually intended to create a situation where the elected politicians of two sovereign independent states agreed to sit in the same room to pass legislation together. Yet for some unknown reason, which you have provided no explanation for, they somehow wrote down and then implemented something completely different. So we’re in a position where you say thing Y – which was agreed written down and implemented is illegitimate, and thing X which you’ve just dreamt up one day and isn’t supported by any contemporary or historical document anywhere is in fact the legitimate states of affairs. Can you please provide an explanation for this specific point?”
I’m not ‘forcing’ anything, Aidan; I’m explicating.
Your historical analysis is your typical hysterical English establishment bollocks; ‘the elected politicians of two sovereign independent states agreed to sit in the same room to pass legislation together’ is exactly what they did. That’s why there are two bodies of MPs in the HoC, each representing a different sovereign kingdom. Then you say ‘they somehow wrote down and then implemented something completely different’ That is only half true. They wrote down what is in the Treaty, and then ‘implemented something different’ is also exactly what they did.
The Treaty does not oblige Scotland’s MPs to defer to England’s on any basis. Remember context? ‘two sovereign independent states’? No statements of subordination in the Treaty? No statements requiring a flat vote in the new parliament?
As for your ‘Can you please provide an explanation for this specific point? Yes. I just did.
“As I said above, there is no mention of the continuation of the convention of the estates in the ToU. The convention generally was called to raise taxes in the pre-1707 world, and so it would be a very odd feature in today’s constitutional system. “
It didn’t need to be mentioned in the ToU, and there is no mention of the CotE being abolished in the Treaty either, Aidan, any more than Scotland’s constitution and sovereignty were abolished in the Treaty. What the CotE did ‘generally’ was obviously not the limit of what it could do. Tax-approval bodies do not normally have the power to kick kings off their thrones.
As for England’s constitution, that wasn’t preserved in the Treaty but apparently still exists, while Scotland’s constitution was explicitly preserved in the Scottish appendix to Article XXV, and ratified by both former parliaments, and then totally ignored by the new parliament anyway.
That’s the issue, Aidan; what the Treaty said and what the English establishment enforced were and are completely different. I’m not the one concocting fairy stories, Aidan, that would be you and your unionist fantasists.
“I would suggest that a group of 50 landowners and bishops claiming to form an institution that hasn’t sat for over 300+ years wouldn’t be recognised by anyone as legitimate, so I think we safely say this is a feature of the past.”
You can suggest what you like, Aidan, but there is nothing in the Treaty that prevents it, and the institution of the Convention of the Estates is perfectly relevant and fully legitimate under Scotland’s continuing constitution, and its authority is unequivocally constitutional.
I could suggest that you take your meds, but I know there’s no chance of that happening.
I meant to add;
There is no mention of the continuation of the English parliament and its sovereignty in the ToU, either, Aidan, but you claim both of these were maintained.
Double standards, Aidan?
@Xaracen, 7th October 8:47 pm
Nae bother, Xaracen.
I read your comments with great interest and I appreciate (and I’m not the only one who does on here, I’m sure) the education on Scotland’s constitution you have given us all.
Much of the time it just isn’t worth the bother responding to the, mostly insulting, colonialists who flounce about this place.
But when it comes to the disinformation and misinformation dribbled doun and scribbled oot here by ‘unionists’ (some of whom probably aren’t even Scottish) pontificating on Scotland’s ancient constitution and the sovereignty of the Scots and suchlike I think it’s important their nonsense is challenged by folk like yourself who know about such things.
Law – especially constitutional law, I would suggest – is an alien world to most of us and it helps enormously that folk who are familiar with that strange land and who are on the side of Scottish independence show the rest of us how to navigate its tortuous terrain.
So keep up the good work, Xaracen, and know that you are not alone… even if it might seem that way at times.
And now an appropriate and timely warning for all those Scottish independence supporters who find themselves traversing this sometimes noisy and confusing ‘battlefield’:
Mercy! Thon list of negative unionist attributes grows longer every time I quill this warning doun for the benefit of the unwary .
N.B. I consider unionists and colonialist to be one and the same.
@Northcode; Thanks! May I ask, can you squeeze thrawn in there? Thrawnful?
@Xaracen – it’s another day of you telling us about how the Treaty of Union intended to preserve two independent sovereign kingdoms with two separate independent bodies of sovereign MP’s, and it’s another day of the being supported by no evidence at all and flatly contradicted by the express wording of the first article in the Treaty of Union. I’ve long realised that it’s not possible to reason someone out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves into, and if the entire body of legal and historical academic work compiled by experts over a long period of time isn’t enough to persuade you to abandon this fantasy view of the implications of the ToU, then it’s clearly hubris for me to think that I can.
The problem is, you fundamentally don’t understand the foundational concepts of constitutional law like sovereignty so it’s not possible to reason with you in the same paradigm. It’s like trying to build a bridge with someone who rejects the concept of mathematical logic.
I think the most baffling thing from my perspective is that you are arguing that current events are impossible. In most arguments, the best form of evidence that something can happen is to show that it is happening, but since you don’t accept that it’s impossible to think about what argument you might find persuasive. Given you believe you are entitled to determine the law yourself without any form of constraint, within your own framework of reasoning you must be right about everything all the time, even two mutually incompatible things, because something is true purely by the virtue of you saying it, that’s the only test. This is obvious a sign of delusion, albeit I suppose a mostly harmless one provided it doesn’t influence your real life choices.
You’ve said above that you plan on carrying on with this. Repeating the same nonsense 500 times doesn’t make it any more true than the first time, but in the time you spend metaphorically screaming down a man hole, you could otherwise be reading one of the many incisive and well written books on the subject, or listening to online lectures or reading case law or doing something productive that could even make you a bit of a self taught expert.
If you want any further proof, you’ve got someone like Northcode singing your praises. That’s got to big as big a wake up call as it’s possible to have.
“…you’ve got someone like Northcode singing your praises…
And I always will because Xaracen is a genuine independence supporting Scot up against what appears to be an American ‘manufactured’ AI whose programmers live in the Rockies of America where they consume large quantities of warm Yankee beer while attempting, and failing, to teach their creation how to argue logically.
But worse… AI Dan’s programmers not only underestimated Xaracen’s tenaciousness, but seem to have no knowledge whatsoever of how paragraphs work (or Scots law for that matter) – they probably went to Harvard instead of Yale… or God forbid, MIT.
In fact, I only read the very last paragraph of AI Dan’s incomprehensible poorly programmed ramblingness because I spied my glorious moniker proudly dominating it – like a dominatrix standing over some whining, thumb-sucking nappy-clad subjugate.
“…can you squeeze thrawn in there?
A good idea and I gave it a go, but I couldn’t find a way to do it without spoiling the flow of the text. Who know? I might find a way in the future… we’ll see.
I probably went to Harvard or MIT, fuck me what a deeply hurtful insult, I probably attended one of the world’s best universities! I better go and lie down.
@Northcode (at 6:38 pm);
😀
Aidan said;
“@Xaracen – it’s another day of you telling us about how the Treaty of Union intended to preserve two independent sovereign kingdoms with two separate independent bodies of sovereign MP’s, and it’s another day of the being supported by no evidence at all and flatly contradicted by the express wording of the first article in the Treaty of Union.”
And it’s another day of you telling us about how the Treaty of Union’s Article I ‘explicitly’ (© Aidan) strips Scotland of its sovereignty while England retained hers, without a trace of any actual text ‘expressing’ it. It was so obvious that nobody felt the need to write it down. Yeah, right!
“I’ve long realised that it’s not possible to reason someone out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves into, and if the entire body of legal and historical academic work compiled by experts over a long period of time isn’t enough to persuade you to abandon this fantasy view of the implications of the ToU, then it’s clearly hubris for me to think that I can.”
Ha! Exactly wrong, Aidan! Reasoning myself into that position is precisely how I got there, and I spelled out every step, and you still pretend I didn’t. The whole reason you struggle to refute my position is that you recognise the basic facts and the logic built on them and you are unable to fault it. So you are reduced instead to bluster and bloviate, to call on ‘authority’ without providing any relevant supporting evidence.
“The problem is, you fundamentally don’t understand the foundational concepts of constitutional law like sovereignty so it’s not possible to reason with you in the same paradigm. It’s like trying to build a bridge with someone who rejects the concept of mathematical logic.”
Then maybe you should introduce those foundational concepts of constitutional law like sovereignty. And then you could explain in detail how Scotland’s sovereignty died while England’s was enhanced by Article I of the Treaty without the word ever being mentioned in the entire document.
“I think the most baffling thing from my perspective is that you are arguing that current events are impossible.”
It’s not remotely baffling, Aidan. Obviously they are not impossible; they are illegitimate. I don’t think I’ve ever used the word ‘impossible’ in any of my arguments.
“In most arguments, the best form of evidence that something can happen is to show that it is happening, but since you don’t accept that, it’s impossible to think about what argument you might find persuasive.
Crimes are not impossible. That’s all your ‘evidence’ shows.
“Given you believe you are entitled to determine the law yourself without any form of constraint, within your own framework of reasoning you must be right about everything all the time, even two mutually incompatible things, because something is true purely by the virtue of you saying it, that’s the only test. This is obvious a sign of delusion, albeit I suppose a mostly harmless one provided it doesn’t influence your real life choices.”
Look in the mirror, Aidan.
“You’ve said above that you plan on carrying on with this. Repeating the same nonsense 500 times doesn’t make it any more true than the first time, but in the time you spend metaphorically screaming down a man hole, you could otherwise be reading one of the many incisive and well written books on the subject, or listening to online lectures or reading case law or doing something productive that could even make you a bit of a self taught expert.”
Look in the mirror, Aidan.
“If you want any further proof, you’ve got someone like Northcode singing your praises. That’s got to big as big a wake up call as it’s possible to have.”
Really, Aidan? Look how far you’ve fallen!
Again, you don’t understand either sovereignty or the Treaty of Union, and you have really bizarre ways of characterising your own flawed understanding. So let’s be crystal clear. The Treaty of Union merged the states of England and of Scotland into a new state called the United Kingdom. It is this new state that was, from 1707, sovereign in its territory. That is what Article 1 of the ToU provided for and that is what did happen. Whilst some of the detail and implication of that is complex, that simple fact should be incredibly easy to understand.
However you want to characterise that around “subordination” or “Scotland losing her sovereignty” is just rhetoric. Scotland ceased to become an independent sovereign state, and entered a parliamentary structure where even a unanimous vote by all Scottish MP’s could be overruled by a majority of English MP’s. You might not like it, but I don’t see what purpose denying what it self evidently true could possibly have. It achieves absolutely nothing towards returning Scotland to being an independent state.
Even if we again divorce the historical from the legal, what evidence do you have that in 1707 Scotland the Act of Union was ultra vires for the Scottish parliament? By evidence, I mean reference to specific authoritative documents which would support that argument, not you bleating out that “Scotland’s sovereignty was owned by the people and nobody could take it away”. That isn’t evidence. Was the legality of the Act of Union challenged in court at the time, and if so what was the outcome?
To be clear, this is a purely historical argument, it has no bearing on today’s constitution law. The vires of the ToU is a confine of the past and could no more be litigated today than the Treaty of Perth in 1266 (perhaps the residents of the Western Isles might prefer to be part of Norway, who knows!).
Aidan said;
“Again, you don’t understand either sovereignty or the Treaty of Union, and you have really bizarre ways of characterising your own flawed understanding.”
So much for “maybe you should introduce those foundational concepts of constitutional law like sovereignty”, then.
“So let’s be crystal clear. The Treaty of Union merged the states of England and of Scotland into a new state called the United Kingdom. It is this new state that was, from 1707, sovereign in its territory. That is what Article 1 of the ToU provided for and that is what did happen. Whilst some of the detail and implication of that is complex, that simple fact should be incredibly easy to understand.”
No, Aidan, that just means the new state is sovereign with respect to external states. It is clearly an umbrella state housing two internal sovereign kingdoms, (well, sovereign Scotland and non-sovereign England, see Supreme Court 2022 and R.Black KC :D). They didn’t merge, they were just glued together; only the parliaments merged, and unless there is a formal stated agreement in the Treaty that the English half is entitled to overrule the Scottish half despite its retained sovereignty, then the current arrangements are constitutionally bogus.
“However you want to characterise that around “subordination” or “Scotland losing her sovereignty” is just rhetoric. Scotland ceased to become an independent sovereign state, and entered a parliamentary structure where even a unanimous vote by all Scottish MP’s could be overruled by a majority of English MP’s.”
It’s not rhetoric if Scotland still formally owns its sovereignty, even if it is unlawfully suppressed, as it clearly is, and I made that perfectly clear. That parliamentary structure was not specified by the Treaty, as I have shown more than once, and it is obviously abusive to the Scottish half of the Union.
“You might not like it, but I don’t see what purpose denying what is self evidently true could possibly have.”
There’s that ‘self evidently true actuality’ fallacy again! You just can’t help youself, Aidan, can you? The purpose is to show up the very real illegitimacy of the current governance arrangements.
“It achieves absolutely nothing towards returning Scotland to being an independent state.”
It really could once the UN’s C-24 examines it. That would be real boon.
“Even if we again divorce the historical from the legal, what evidence do you have that in 1707 Scotland the Act of Union was ultra vires for the Scottish parliament? By evidence, I mean reference to specific authoritative documents which would support that argument, not you bleating out that “Scotland’s sovereignty was owned by the people and nobody could take it away”. That isn’t evidence. Was the legality of the Act of Union challenged in court at the time, and if so what was the outcome?”
You know precisely what those documents are, Aidan, I’ve pointed them out to you more than once. The ‘specific authoritative documents which would support that argument’ are Scotland’s 1689 Claim of Right, and the Scottish parliament’s addendum to Article XXV of the Treaty that guarantees the permanence of Scotland’s constitution as an obligatory condition of Union, and that means preserving the sovereignty of the Scots in their own land, a sovereignty that is formally wielded in the HoC by the Scots MPs alone.
“To be clear, this is a purely historical argument, it has no bearing on today’s constitution law. The vires of the ToU is a confine of the past and could no more be litigated today than the Treaty of Perth in 1266 (perhaps the residents of the Western Isles might prefer to be part of Norway, who knows!).”
To be clear, this is purely bluster and bloviation, Aidan. It’s distractive chaff flung out to confuse. Today’s constitution law is always founded on history. Do you seriously think that the Treaty of Union has no bearing on today’s constitution law? The UK government in 1999 didn’t think so in 1999, and neither did the Lords’ Privileges Committee think so when the Govt asked them about the effect stripping hereditary lords of their right to sit in the House of Lords would have, given the strictions of the Treaty of Union.
@Xaracen – I don’t think you should be lying about what either Robert Black KC said in his recent essay or about the Surpreme Court judgement in 2022. Neither document in any way suggests or supports the idea of two separate sovereignties, and in the case of the Supreme Court judgement, the source of parliamentary sovereignty is explicitly given as the Bill of Rights 1689 – which is a piece of English law.
There is no such thing as a state within a state, or of states “glued” together, or of sovereignty only in respect of international affairs or of an umbrella state or any other concept you’ve dreamt up. There is statehood and there are internal constitutional affairs. The U.K. became a sovereign state in 1707 formed of the previously sovereign states of Scotland and England, the internal constitutional affairs of the U.K. include a parliament that is sovereign (in respect that it has an unlimited power to pass legislation). Scotland’s independent statehood (or sovereignty) was extinguished by Article 1 of the ToU and now Scotland, England, Wales and NI are together a single sovereign country. We know this because:
a) that is the judgement of the courts consistently over a very long period of time;
b) that is how our political system functions; and
c) that is what is recognised internationally.
Now you can go on and on about how everyone else everywhere now and throughout history is wrong and you uniquely are right and that the current constitutional arrangements are bogus because they aren’t as you think they should be. You have the right to freedom of expression, so of you go, but it’s obviously nonsense and not convincing anyone of everything.
Where exactly in Article XXV does it say anything about guaranteeing the Scottish constitution?
Finally, C-24 has no remit or interest in resolving long settled historical internal disputes within states. It has never had the slightest interest in that anywhere, ever.
Aidan said;
“@Xaracen – I don’t think you should be lying about what either Robert Black KC said in his recent essay or about the Supreme Court judgement in 2022. Neither document in any way suggests or supports the idea of two separate sovereignties, and in the case of the Supreme Court judgement, the source of parliamentary sovereignty is explicitly given as the Bill of Rights 1689 – which is a piece of English law.”
You’re getting desperate, Aidan, that’s a pile of stale mince! Only Scotland’s sovereignty survived the Treaty; England’s died when its parliament did (Black’s interview comments, SC 2022 finding). And English law, and anything derived from it, can have no legal traction in or over Scotland. You should know that.
“There is no such thing as a state within a state, or of states “glued” together, or of sovereignty only in respect of international affairs or of an umbrella state or any other concept you’ve dreamt up.”
Cough—USA, German Länder—cough. The UK is a composite state, and it’s not the only one.
“There is statehood and there are internal constitutional affairs.”
Those affairs must recognise Scotland’s sovereignty because it was never relinquished, Aidan, and nothing in the ToU says it did. You and the English establishment simply presumed it. But as I have pointed out to you several times, nobody involved in the Treaty negotiations had the legitimate authority to end or subordinate the sovereignty of the Scots who own it. That’s a cast-iron constitutional truth for you, Aidan! Well past time you dealt with it.
“The U.K. became a sovereign state in 1707 formed of the previously sovereign states of Scotland and England,
Wait, previously? Both states lost their sovereignties? Then where did the sovereignty of the UK come from—Pizza Hut?
the internal constitutional affairs of the U.K. include a parliament that is sovereign (in respect that it has an unlimited power to pass legislation). Scotland’s independent statehood (or sovereignty) was extinguished by Article 1 of the ToU,
Who had the authority to extinguish them, Aidan?
and now Scotland, England, Wales and NI are together a single sovereign country.”
Like I said—only from the outside. Scotland kept its sovereignty because nobody could take it from her, including their own monarch and parliament. You just don’t listen, do you!
“We know this because:
a) that is the judgement of the courts consistently over a very long period of time;
Consistently but wrongly! And which courts, exactly?
b) that is how our political system functions; Unconstitutionally! and
c) that is what is recognised internationally.” Because they have been deliberately misinformed, by the usual culprits.
“Now you can go on and on about how everyone else everywhere now and throughout history is wrong and you uniquely are right and that the current constitutional arrangements are bogus because they aren’t as you think they should be. You have the right to freedom of expression, so off you go, but it’s obviously nonsense and not convincing anyone of everything.”
That can’t be true, Aidan, or you wouldn’t be so strenuously trying to defend it. You’re doing it because you fear it’s vulnerable!
“Where exactly in Article XXV does it say anything about guaranteeing the Scottish constitution?”
Daniel Defoe figured that out as soon as he heard it in 1707. So, where exactly in the entire Treaty does it say anything about extinguishing the Scottish constitution in the first place? Context matters, Aidan!
“Finally, C-24 has no remit or interest in resolving long settled historical internal disputes within states. It has never had the slightest interest in that anywhere, ever.”
I never said it did, but it can certainly analyse them to inform itself about the colonial nature of UK governance.
I’m getting more than bored with all your obsessive nonsense, but just to point out the obvious that federal states in the USA or Germany are not sovereign states in the sense that you mean it. The language is unfortunate given its misuse by bad faith fanatics promoting hopeless ideologies . .
Wow!
You two really should consider your environmental impacts.
Aidan,
Assuming you are a Scot, your Scottish Sovereignty cancels out Xaracen’s, assuming he is a Scot.
If he’s not, you have already automatically won simply by virtue of possessing that magic Scottish Sovereignty.
I have it too. It’s a braw power to have for an online argument.
Used against another Scot, she cannot win. Used against some unfortunate who is not a Scot (a Pict say), you cannot lose.
Aidan said;
“I’m getting more than bored with all your obsessive nonsense, but just to point out the obvious that federal states in the USA or Germany are not sovereign states in the sense that you mean it.”
The USA and Germany are federations of internally sovereign states in exactly the sense I mean. Each has its own constitution, legislature, and jurisdictional autonomy. That’s textbook federalism. The only difference from a sovereign homogeneous state like Ireland is that they can’t enter into treaties with foreign states. But in the sense I mean for Scotland within the Union, that is irrelevant.
Neither Scotland nor England can enter into treaties with external states on their own within the UK. That has never been an issue. I have never once suggested that Scotland should be able to do so while in the Union. Not once -in any comment.
I have always stated that Scotland is fully sovereign in the sense that it is not at all obliged to subordinate itself to England or to any other authority in any way at all. You’re the one playing fast and loose with language, Aidan.
“The language is unfortunate given its misuse by bad faith fanatics promoting hopeless ideologies.”
There’s that mirror again. That’s all you.
As for getting more than bored, Aidan? I’m getting more than seriously annoyed with your disregard for proper argument and evidence. It’s all sweeping ‘authoritative’ claims backed only occasionally, by references to ‘explicit’ statements that either don’t exist or say nothing like what you claim.
This is your normal approach, and it’s not winning you anything. Maybe it’s time to rethink it, or give up.
@Xaracen
Y’know, I really hate to burst your bubble here, but you’ve “won” absolutely nowt here, son. Arguments aren’t won by boring your opponent to death with a seemingly endless stream of verbose drivel, purposely and deliberately avoiding answering any specific reasonable (most basic) queries. A word to the not-so-wise: attracting “groupies” like Northcode and Fatso doesn’t class as vindication. Not in this life, Chief.
As has been said repeatedly to you before, perhaps you can explain to anyone unfortunate enough to be reading your copiously tedious “output” what exactly and specifically you believe the UN representations will realistically achieve; how this will make Scottish independence more likely; what are “good” outcomes in your view for, say, 6 month, 12 month and 3 year horizons – and whilst you’re at it, provide examples of how OTHER countries have thus far gained their independence via this specific route.
Yeah. I’ll not be holding my breath, Chief.
Captain Caveman said;
“@Xaracen
Y’know, I really hate to burst your bubble here, but you’ve “won” absolutely nowt here, son.”
The point is clarity, CC. The winning will be done elsewhere, and it’s not guaranteed.
“Arguments aren’t won by boring your opponent to death with a seemingly endless stream of verbose drivel, purposely and deliberately avoiding answering any specific reasonable (most basic) queries. “
Just as well I’m not doing that, then CC. If details bore you, you’re in the wrong conversation.
“A word to the not-so-wise: attracting “groupies” like Northcode and Fatso doesn’t class as vindication. Not in this life, Chief.”
Attracting “groupies” like yourself and Hatey doesn’t class as vindication OR defeat, son.
“As has been said repeatedly to you before, perhaps you can explain to anyone unfortunate enough to be reading your copiously tedious “output” what exactly and specifically you believe the UN representations will realistically achieve;
Not possible, CC; far too much detail for your delicate constitution, ha ha. See what I did there? Constitution? Ha ha, I crack me up! (Nobody knows for sure, it’s idle speculation at this point.)
-how this will make Scottish independence more likely; what are “good” outcomes in your view for, say, 6 month, 12 month and 3 year horizons – and whilst you’re at it, provide examples of how OTHER countries have thus far gained their independence via this specific route.”
Not my job! Ask an AI. Not the AI-Dan one though, it’s flawed.
“Yeah. I’ll not be holding my breath, Chief.”
Aww, I was really hoping you would!
@Xaracen – The federal states in both the Germany and the USA are not “internally sovereign”, in both instances they are subject to federal law administered through the federal branches of government. They are guaranteed certain powers and forms of autonomy within their domestic constitutions, but that does not make them sovereign for the reasons I’ve identified above. The limits on federal powers also do not just extend to making international treaties either. If you think that you need to do more reading.
The best example of a grouping of sovereign states would be the EU, but the EU is not sovereign (even if member states agreed to grant it exclusive rights to make laws in some areas).
“Nobody knows for sure, it’s idle speculation at this point”
In which case, a concerned relative, or even a well-meaning total stranger, will both very likely concur that there are many more useful and productive projects for you to devote your time and energy to. Many more useful and productive avenues for the advancement of Indy, too.
Not that you’re gonna be listening to me, not now that the horn of your own personal sunk costs tragedy is impaled so deeply in your nether regions.
And the very fact of me having posted this will now spur you to re-double your efforts (“Hatey wants me to stop, I must be onto something” – that kinda thinking).
See what I did there, Xaracen? I’ve got you dancing to my tune now. Not bad for a groupie, eh?
@Xaracen
So then, another verbose post saying absolutely zilch. Like I’ve said, you’re writing cheques you can’t cash here, and any vaguely sentient, fair-minded reader will know that.
Face it, you’ve got nothing – and nothing will come of this. Blowhards like you are two a’penny mate.
Aidan said:
“The federal states in both Germany and the USA are not ‘internally sovereign’, in both instances they are subject to federal law administered through the federal branches of government.”
That’s the definition of a federation, Aidan. Internal sovereignty means having constitutionally protected powers that the federal government can’t override. US states and German Länder have their own constitutions, legislatures, courts, and jurisdictional autonomy, and none can overrule another. They are clear examples of composite sovereignty.
“They are guaranteed certain powers and forms of autonomy within their domestic constitutions, but that does not make them sovereign for the reasons I’ve identified above.”
You haven’t identified any reasons that hold up. You’ve merely asserted that sovereignty must be absolute and external, conveniently erasing the concept of internal sovereignty. But it’s not a legitimate analysis of constitutional relationships, it’s just a dishonest rhetorical ploy.
“The limits on federal powers also do not just extend to making international treaties either.”
Correct, and that’s why I didn’t claim that treaty-making was the sole test. I explicitly said it was irrelevant to the kind of sovereignty Scotland retains within the Union. You’re arguing against a claim I didn’t make.
“The best example of a grouping of sovereign states would be the EU, but the EU is not sovereign (even if member states agreed to grant it exclusive rights to make laws in some areas).”
The EU is a supranational body, not a state. Its member states are sovereign, and they pool certain powers by treaty. That doesn’t make it a counter-example, quite the reverse; it’s confirmation that sovereignty can be shared, conditional, and composite. Sovereignties can co-exist, and being sovereignties they are co-equal by definition.
Essentially the federal states are sovereign with respect to each other, which exactly matches my argument re Scotland and England. You don’t get to have it both ways.
Sovereignty describes the ultimate decision making power and right of autonomy in a state (not a federal state, a nation state). What you are referring to as sovereignty is actually constitutionally protected rights for federal states.
Now incidentally, some of the terms of the ToU do provide constitutionally protected rights for the country of Scotland (e.g. a separate legal system, the Presbyterian church etc.) and the devolved Scottish Government is also provided lawmaking powers under the Scotland Act. However, in respect of the latter, the U.K. Parliament retains sovereignty and therefore can overrule or repeal legislation passed by the Scottish assembly. If you take sovereignty just to mean the ability to pass laws or carry out administrative functions then bodies down to the size of a local council are sovereign, but that’s not what the term is accepted to mean by everyone else.
In any case this is a complete distraction, the ToU in Article 1 abolished England and Scotland is independent states and formed a new state called the United Kingdom. You say that was ultra vires at the time but as per usual you’ve provided no evidence or rationale for that. You simply assert that “nobody could take it (sic) away” despite the fact that they self evidently did.
I notice you can’t answer CC’s question around specific, time-bound success measures. Is this a tacit admission that the eccentric campaign to get the UN excited about the events of 1707 has hit the inevitable brick wall?
Well done, Xaracen. Your perseverance is beginning to pay off.
The colonialists (unionists if preferred… same thing) can always be relied on to spotlight the truth of Scotland’s colonisation, subjugation and oppression by attacking it – especially so when they attack in packs.
There is no greater evidence in this place that you are ‘winning the argument’ than when the anti-Scots pack descend on ones posts and attempt to smother them with great diatribal dollops of verbal diarrhea.
Keep up the good work, for there is great enjoyment to be had for the rest of us independence supporters in witnessing the apoplectic tongue-tied gyrations of thwarted colonialists.
@Aidan, @Hatey, @Captain Caveman;
Northcode’s 1st Law applies;
There’s barely a comment posted here by colonialists that’s anything other than insult, threat, lies, error, diversion, distraction, logical fallacy, or hateful anti-Scots rhetoric.
Game, set, and match.
We really are through the looking glass when pointing out objective facts and recognised principles of law is “hateful anti-Scots rhetoric”.
I would say that the angry ranting fantasists who infest this place are 1000% more damaging to the perception of Scotland than people making reasoned, informed but critical comments.
@Aidan
Indeed. I daresay it doesn’t help that the person he’s extolling is one of the most tiresome trolls on the site; barely a day goes by without some verbose, weak-minded blood-and-soil nonsense about the “Inglis” (which despite being highly offensive and inflammatory, hardly anyone even bothers to respond, why would they?), and as for “James” well… (lol). Nuff said.
“A man is judged by the company he keeps” and all that. There’s a big difference between eventual exasperation creeping in after repeated, quite deliberate and unreasonable bad faith evasion and refusal to answer very basic, wholly reasonable questions on the part of one’s opponent in a debate – and rank, uncalled for, pathetic abuse so often vomited up here in the wee small hours.
Of course, such things are easily remedied, starting by answering valid questions in good faith, providing at least some justification and real world examples in support of grandiose sweeping statements, and ignoring trolls rather than placing them on pedestals. But then, who am I kidding, right?
Accordingly, perhaps the world’s tiniest violin would be helpful here.
Ther scarce be a wird pit doun here frae colonialists that’s onythin’ ither than abuise, threit, lie, errure, afftak, diversioun, distractioun, logicale fallace, or hatesome antiScot rethorik.
Here be the same sentiment in thon Inglis tongue:
There’s barely a comment posted here by colonialists that’s anything other than insult, threat, lies, error, diversion, distraction, logical fallacy, or hateful anti-Scots rhetoric.
Och, for goodness sake! I’ve only went and missed oot a word in the Inglis translation. So I’ll juist post the whole thing agin… this time with the missing word boldly added in bold font.
There’s barely a comment posted here by colonialists that is anything other than insult, threat, lies, error, mockery, diversion, distraction, logical fallacy, or hateful anti-Scots rhetoric.
Why do they bother? Do you think they are paid to do it because, if not, they must live a very miserable life.
Perhaps significant you left out mockery, NC.
For onlookers to mock, there must first be something worthy of being mocked.
A political movement that has as one of its policies the intention to force a minority language (Scots) on the majority shouldn’t be mocked – implacable hostility is a more human response.
But when one of the supporters of that policy always has to follow his posts in the minority language with a translation into the King’s English, because otherwise nobody can understand what he wrote – yes, that merits mockery all right.
Mockery on stilts even.
Oh that’s really nice Sarah, so today in my “miserable” life I’ve hiked up to an alpine lake in the Rockies and I’m now going to enjoy one of Alberta’s many excellent craft beer breweries. You on the other hand have spent the day the usual way – spamming WoS with yet another far fetched petition to dig up the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or revive Robert the Bruce using black magic or whatever else it is this week.
However, I didn’t know that funding is available for this sort of thing, could you direct me to where I can apply?
@Aidan
Dinna be sae daft.
The usual suspects would hound King Robert out of Scotland if he ever returned.
They hate monarchy with every fibre of their sour, socialist, chippy, inferiority complexes.
Our rich, colourful, monarchist traditions and heritage is just another part of Scotland’s culture and history they intend to scrap as they pursue their vision of tartan Bolshevism.
Oh, look, bestie Yoons “Aidan” & Corporal Jones are posting on Wings from a log cabin in the Americas. Allegedly.
Do us all a favour and just stay there, boys.
@James – not being funny but you absolutely scream child pornography. I wouldn’t be getting so brave on the internet if I were you given how seriously the police take hurry words. I bet a digital download of your browsing history would make the front page of the herald.
That right, aye?
Well – you seem to know.
It would be the only thing you know right enough.
That’s quite the admission.
You two still spooning, then?
“Do you think they are paid to do it…”
Almost certainly the answer to your question is a profound NO.
Payment would require a certain level of professional quality to be delivered in return.
It is strange that politicians ask us all to live our lives as if it was the mass disphoria and we should act and pretend the same for symphathy.
Instead of passing legislation to give those with this medical illness help to have safe spaces of their own until they have actually “physically completed” the whole transitioning.
The politicians own mental illness and belief in trans humanist theory and ideology out weighs common sense in politicians heads, in fact they should avoid becoming politicians until they have a safe space of their own.
That the mass populations around the world also are being asked to pretend to live their lives as if they had the same medical condition has no respect to the people,
Respect those that are ill , yes.
Pretend that you have the same medical illness and live your life like theirs No.
To cover one medical problem with another?
Two wrongs do not make a right.
How do we deal with the politicians medical and mental issues,
Should they be in office,
And should we allow them to place others in positions of power whilst displaying unstable mind theories and ideologies of their own as politicians.
For a wee lassie you’re delusions are on a par with Star Trek. We? We? We are going to do nothing. We are doing paragraph,fantasy school homework.
That’s out of order, Mark.
You’ve responded in a playing the man and not the ball manner to a legitimate question raised by James Cheyne.
This particular site has previously highlighted the issues of having folk in positions of power with questionable states of mind and grips of reality, and the implications it has for our society.
But it seems you’re rather too accepting of all the nonsense foisted onto us by those in positions of power and influence, whilst denigrating folk that actually want to address it.
And that says a lot about you and your mucker’s trolling antics.
link to wingsoverscotland.com
link to wingsoverscotland.com
The king of Kubala has been evicted so we are looking forward to your many paragraphs outlining the colonial oppression of grifters,chancers and benefit cheats.
Dan makes a half-decent point.
But a society gets the politicians it deserves.
Take that recent escapade where the elected SNP politician (a mother of children) stood up and declared she didn’t know if she was a man or a woman, for example.
Her fellow parliamentarians should have had her taken away in a straitjacket.
When that didn’t happen, her constituents and the rest of the country should have marched and protested until she was forced out and a sane, rational replacement elected in her stead.
But nowt but tumbleweed, while the lunatics turned our nation into an international laughing stock. And so the rot remains.
“You’ve responded in a playing the man and not the ball manner”
That’s reasonable Dan, not the Dan who usually starts his replies with “Piss off, troll”.
Such a shame both Dan’s use the same fleeing monkey pic.
Captain caveman,
This may be of some assistance as it is not biased in its suggestion to either side.
In England there is a group that has been running for over ten years commenting and speculating on The Constitution in Britain, codified and un codified.
Thre maybe other groups, but this is one I know of.
It mainly looks at the English constitution of The union,
In Scotland, There is liberation, Salvo and the SSRG, and are now before the UN,
All groups are discussing the union from their own countries perspective, many have worked hard in checking and researching history and records,
Respect to both, it covers many years work, and I have no doubt a keen and quiet eye is being kept on both sides by the establishment.
The only biased comment I would make, was to say that Scotland had a head start
You will find both on You tube, if you cannot access them anywhere else.
My own position is the jigsaw puzzle of history and records and what we believe or have been told to believe is true may not be reality.
So in fairness I have originally argued for a union treaty and its articles followed legally.
or a faux union treaty in which the articles are not legally followed.
as you can only really decide for one’s self which may be correct of the two opposing views by making the effort to do research,
I am descended from Scots, Welsh, English and Irish grandparents, so took a un-biased view when beginning my research.
And nowadays, I realise which one appears to hold more water through historical records and information,
I will you to make your own unbiased decision, and would be interested in your findings here on wings.
FFS isn’t it wonderful to hear the pejorative coat trailing jibe about 300 year old treaties or otherwise as being ” ancient guff ”
Strikes me that Team Ancient Guff as one English Unionist refers to is showing just how much he and his ilk fear the strategy being deployed to free Scotland from British colonialism.
The laddette protest too much.
FFS. Strategy! Laugh! Yes the English will be shaking in their slippers. The clever jocks and their fantasy paragraph he)she/it)maybe. That’s the Scottish bum boy brigade. The ranting losers. The disgrace of a nation. The national lampoon tartan greeters. FO. Maybe get out more often. It won’t effect your benefits.
Lie doon. Mark, the voices will fade.
Dr Victoria Thompson Whitworth, was born and raised in London, England and cannot be trusted, therefore, to utter or scribble doun a word of truth on anything related to Scotland’s history.
The Picts did not assign anything of their ancient tongue to a lasting medium (yont some symbols carved on some stanes and the gein o’ some pairt o’ thair ancient tongue tae some place names scattered aboot Pictland) and anyone who says otherwise is in error… and to err is to sin so sayeth the Lord our God.
Wiki says this about her theory:
As the basis for an entire book… it’s pretty vague, eh?
I’m suggesting the notion that the ‘Book of Kells was quilled oot by the Picts is mibbe yont fantasy.
Funny how you missed this bit out about Whitworth from Wikipedia:
‘From 2012 to 2016 she was a lecturer at the Centre for Nordic Studies on the Orkney campus of the University of the Highlands and Islands. Her research has primarily focused on Pictish, Scottish and Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture’.
But I am sure you know best, being an actual Pict and all that.
NC has already established that English is the language of the liar and the coloniser.
So you don’t have to take anything he posts in the King’s English at face value.
His posts in Scots must assuredly be gospel truth. But, as nobody can read and understand them, we have to fall back on NC’s handy translations in the King’s English, when he chooses to provide them.
But then we find ourselves going back to the top, as NC has already established that English is the language of the liar and the coloniser!
Naw, I have no idea what to make of this either, sorry 🙂
Swinney and the SNP are Terrorist groupies. Not having the balls ( no suprise there) to openly support Hamas. So they fly the terror flag over Scotland in support of a death cult. Their colonial ranters are their idiots on the ground supporting death cult terror. The worst type of loser is a Nasty Nat. They will cling to anything opposing their agenda. What exactly is their agenda? Apart from losing badly.
Says the colonial ranter. Big lolz.
“Swinney and the SNP … What exactly is their agenda?”
That would be neutrality on independence and mair colonialism, aka ‘devolution’.
Successive elected Nationalist majorities but “Not having the balls” to declare independence, unlike most former colonies that are now UN Member States.
If we’re counting balls, we don’t need to count very high to fully populate the seats in HR and the Scottish seats in WM.
Not a problem getting these balls.
But we need around 3 million pairs in the ballot boxes to hold our elected representatives to their promises.
And that’s your problem right there, Alf. You cannae say to an impartial onlooker that the settled will of 3 million iScots is being defied over and over again by a hundred or so elected MPs and MSPs.
Nor can that impartial onlooker credit that the 3 million supposedly thwarted iScots unfathomably seem to be on course to return the SNP to HR, where they show every sign of defying the will of that 3 million iScots for another 5 years.
It’s fundamentally not believable. The impartial onlooker will laugh anybody making these claims to scorn.
Shame you are so blinkered that when your starting premises and logic lead you to an obviously erroneous, indeed laughable, conclusion, you can’t bring yourself to admit that either your starting premises or your logic must be fundamentally flawed.
The Saltire has ceased to belong to the Indy movement.
The Saltire now represents Unity.
The colonialists need a flag! any old flag will do.
They don’t have any supporters!
Any old support will do.
They don’t have any cause!
Any old cause will do.
They don’t have any leaders! Any old leader will do.
They don’t have more rhetoric!
Any old rhetoric will do.
The Saltire belongs to Scotland no imitation will do.
Dan,
Cheers,
That same problem you took note of and mentioned is a labour policy that is being called out across BritIn right now as being the wrong politics, by all people.
Hence their unsurprisingly fast decline in polls.
From a great Jewish musician.
“Disillusioned words like bullets bark
As human gods aim for their mark
Make everything from toy guns that spark
To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark
It’s easy to see without looking to far
That not much is really sacred.
As some warn victory, some downfall
Private reasons great or small
Can be seen in the eyes of those who call
Make all that should be killed to crawl
While others say don’t hate nothing at all except hatred.
Advertising signs they con you into thinking you’re the one
Who can do what’s never been done
That can win what’s never been won
Meantime life goes on all around you ”
Shalom.
Excellent words of wisdom, if only you believed what you wrote and lived life accordingly instead of attacking the person.
” Bow down to her on Sundays and salute her when her birthday comes.
She never stumbles she’s got no place to fall.
For Halloween get her a trumpet and for Christmas get her Big Drum!
She’s a hypnotist collector you are a walking antique.
She’s got everything she needs she’s an artist she don’t look back.
She never stumbles
She’s got no place to fall”
Me and the missus took a wet and windy walk to my local caf’ this morning, for the sake of it. Quiet day, seated no problem, one waitress who deposits two menus on our table and disappears.
Waitress reappears and asks “have you ordered yet?”. The thought enters my head that if we had, then she’d surely have been the one who took it, so why ask? I opt to say nothing…
Lorne sausage roll, no butter, gluten free toast with jam, no butter, a ginger beer and a latte. Simples…
What turned up was Lorne sausage on gluten free toast! WTF?
Would be funny if it were and isolated incident, but it’s becoming increasingly obvious that “stupid” is the new contagion that’s sweeping the country.
Or am I just being a grumpy old git?
Well, you’ve given me a laugh, Robert, so your outing wasn’t entirely wasted!
I’m sitting waiting for the strong winds, the rain having already started. MOH has lashed everything down that could possibly move. Mind you, he had only just extracted the fibre glass dinghy from the corner of the walled garden where it has been sitting since a nasty gale blew it there several years ago. He’s put it back to where it used to sit but this time it is chained to a huge lime tree – fingers crossed. 🙂
chutzpah has reached new levels – starmer might be a useless cunt but I think “anti semitism” might have something to do with “something else”
link to archive.ph
– at least they got the guy, evil looking beardy cunt in a white shirt, I saw the picture of him being huckled by the cops.
anyway, who is to say there was not a Mossad or IDF HQ underneath that synagogue? And thereby falling under “just war” doctrine.
– it coulda happened
– it mighta happened
– are you calling me a liar
Anyone remember those secret tunnels they found under New York running to the synagogue, with soiled beds and childrens toys scattered?
I mean the hamas having been putting their HQs UNDER EVERY HOSPITAL AND SCHOOL in the strip which is why the IDF have BOMBED EVERY SINGLE ONE of them, repeatedly, with precision weapons.
You can’t be too careful.
There is also the mossad practice of using ordinary jews as “sayanim”, which further muddies the waters; NB spies are not lawful combatants in international law and can be summarily executed.
One way of ridding ourselves of this pointless conflict of no relevance is this : ban halal and kosher slaughter on animal cruelty grounds – the problem people will just leave. You can’t be more fair minded than that.
– let us all say the kol nidre for the repose of the souls
though the IDF did bomb a church in the strip, twice; benny supposedly said sorry to the pope.
Are all jews terrorists? No, not all of them, but they are terrorist supporters and all polls tell us this … always, always, “outliers” … so Norman Finkelstein and Gilad Atzom get a pass, fair enough.
Synagogues are terror outposts and bases for operations, just like mosques.
link to witnessing-the-gaza-war.com
All nations create music that has never been wrote before, all nations are capable of inventions that benefit the world, all nations create a dish of food that is often shared nowadays with other people.
But because it was never done before, does not mean we cannot do this for the first time,
Someone invented the computer, the car, the telephone, electricity, for the first time, things evolve and become something else,
That does not mean that trying to improve on a situation should be hindered or stopped. Unless it becomes dangerous to all people, all nations, all Countries, and threatens life and existance.
These inventers were all white.
Islam is a threat to all nations.
If it’s never been done before then probably it doesn’t work.
An appalling comment and factually incorrect. And ALL human beings are equal
But some are more equal than others.
Ok what you do after being appalled and you stop crying. What your supposed to do is list the reasons why my comment is wrong. You don’t have an emotional breakdown.
Marie; Beggan is a “Reform” shill and, like the rest of them, is in need of serious long term care. Should be sectioned.
“And ALL human beings are equal”
Awww, isn’t that sweet though.
Still. You’d think that the existence of the top flight of the English Premier League might have dented Marie’s certainty.
Especially when they gub one of the Auld Firm for around the hundredth time.
How can Marie look at the dozen boys on one side and believe them to be the equal of the dozen boys on the other?
It’s a mystery.
[Plenty of other examples exist for non football fans]
Whilst you are stuck indoors because weather, SIGN up to some of these independence campaigns, and share:
http://www.petitions.parliament.scot Implement the ICCPR in Scottish legislation, no. PE2135.
http://www.manifestoforindependence.scot Sign the petition.
http://www.liberation.scot Join the liberation movement.
http://www.petition.parliament.uk Transparency and Review of the free zones and ports impacts.
I hadn’t signed 2 of those previously, signed noo though.
Regarding Liberation Scotland they aren’t answering any questions the membership has put forward regarding the process or what the UN C-24 has said so far, whats the big secret.
All we have heard is the application has failed twice, why?
As from today we haven’t been told if a sponsor from a third country has come forward to support Scotland application to the UN C-24 and if this is the reason why application hasn’t progressed and we now need to wait until next year.
I support liberation Scotland, but for me I have huge questions about the so called liberation when its membership is left in the dark and we aren’t being told anything and the only subject we keep hearing about is why Scotland needs to be decolonised we haven’t heard a single thing about the process or what the UN C-24 has said about our application or if any other country is prepared to sponsor Scotland application.
Do NOT ask questions. Especially do not ask those perfectly reasonable and sensible questions. Sign this weeks petition, donate your money, then shut up.
Raining here too,
Took the dog out side for a tiddle, or I thought I did,
Only to turn back and find the dog sitting under the shelter of the back door. Unmovable, I opened the door again and it shot inside and lay down by the fireside. Where it waited to to get dried for not getting wet,
And I had dreams that when I eventually get my state pension and my new house We would retire and go long walks together in the country, Go to the beach, do some gardening or metal detecting in lots of fields, and return home tired, exercised and happy,
Not to be, apparently I inherited a good weather dog only.
You would not claim it to be a scots dog, it would be used to the rain or sleet before sunshine.
A lovely dog that loves people and likes going to cafe’s nonetheless.
My dog is lovely, too, but like yours, decides what we do, when!
Greta Thunderkeg the only kidnap victim in history were the kidnapper’s only demand is that she leave.
Check out the Guardian Online for the latest goss on the Manchester loser.
Turns out he was on police bail for alleged rape. It figures. I guess that case ain’t gonna be coming to trial.
But in yet another of those “you couldn’t make it up” moments, check out his first name!
What was a boy to do when his own “loving” folks doomed him with that handle, eh?
The NHS having failed spectacularly to let men into woman’s spaces and are now promoting first cousin marriage as a bond for families. Ignoring the facts that inbreeding leads to a high count of deformed children. Incest was forbidden for a reason. We need to rid the NHS of Woke culture.
Woke culture and medieval culture meet. Aww!
Fall in lust and into manipulative coercion, reinforced by threats of honour killings – for the girls, natch. Eh?
Produce numerous inbred and sickly offspring. Yuk!
Nae worries, there’s a happy ending. Whitey can step up to the plate and pay the taxes to deal with the problems free at the point of demand. Yay!
An edge-of-your-seat docudrama, not coming to the BBC any time ever.
The incident in Manchester was tragic, utterly tragic. But in many ways with what is happening in Gaza it was, very sadly, a tragedy waiting to happen. Emotions regarding Gaza are high and although no one can say, at least for now, this was most probably a reaction to Gaza.
If the guy who was shot dead, and alleged to be the killer, had the history that is now coming out, ergo Syrian background, an unfortunate name like Jihad, and was on charges of rape, he must surely have been on the police and security services radar. Or at least one would think so.
There is therefore a question to be asked about whether he had a background, and if so, was he missed by our security services.
Most certainly everyone from the Prime Minister down to Sadiq Khan to Andy Burnham to our First Minister have all come forth with statements. But do they overplay it to hide something that could and should maybe have been preventable. Or was this guy a lilywhite who on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar just sprung out of nowhere.
I suspect we shall never know the truth.
But what of the wall of reaction by the political elites wall to wall covered in the media. Yes it was a horrible horrible crime, most probably ideologically driven in response to much much wider killing on a grand scale.
Not suggesting that coverage should be suppressed. But equally, it is I think important that coverage of the tragedy is not over reported and not reacted to in a way that will fuel sectarian hatred.
People of Arabic-Asian Islamic origin and living here are at real risk of being attacked. Yes I know they can attack and have attacked. But hatred against them is real, is growing and politics around the boat people is fuel to that hatred of all things immigrant.
Immigration and the offspring of immigrants is a real tinderbox waiting for the spark. Hatred, is being fanned. Yes there needs to be immigration controls but immigration did not happen these last few years – and of course not all immigrants are Asian or Muslim with a hatred for the community in which they live, were born.
Over reporting of over reaction therefore does two things. It colours minds to support Israel in its actions, and it colours minds in the resentment of immigrants and their descendants.
Its a rotten cocktail and a cocktail I think is being stirred by many stirrers. Manchester was a tragedy, A horrible horrible tragedy, and as a country, we need to think carefully about exactly what we do to prevent escalation.
Or are we to be driven by Samuel chapter 15 verse 3.
I appreciate tactics change over the years. But the thing that surprised me was the tactics of the Police. Firstly you present the smallest possible target. Waving your arms about etc. And the second thing was be aware of your background. Every Highlands deer shoot recognises the background. OK 7 minutes a tough deal. They took the action they thought was best. But I think there was a lack of training there. Everyone is frightened in these situations. But that wasn’t an optimal solution. People died from secondary consequences. I support the Police. Gongs abundant here in my family.
The police left the target, both of them and leaving the target alive and dangerous. The terrorist had time to detonate a device, and he had an unknown device. Badly trained. Put themselves and everyone else in danger. The threat had not been nuetralzed.
The fact the perp was unarmed concerns me.
Not that I care he’s dead. Far from it. In fact, I would like it to be clear to every future potential perp that regardless of the circumstances, if he starts something, then he’s going home in a box. No exceptions.
But my point is that already our enemies will be seeking for ways to turn this event against us. Even if they know beforehand there is no chance in Hell of succeeding, they may well hound the police for years through the courts, arguing that the aggressiveness of the response was unwarranted because the perp was unarmed.
They’ve done it before and they will continue to use our laws against us until we reform them.
And, of course, they’ll use our public funds too.
This is a war. It’s going to be fought out on our streets. We have to start evening up the odds. Currently they are stacked against us.
All over England, neighbourhoods, individuals and specific groups are organising themselves into defensive alliances and engaging with private security operations. If that isn’t already happening in parts of Scotland too, it soon will.
President Trump is right. We’re losing control of our country, and it’s the ordinary people who are going to pay the highest price.
Prick.
Sarah,
They have larger than life personalities don’t they, cute, adorably bossy in likes and dislikes, and mine has just been sick all over the floor at five am in the morning,
Bleary eyed mopping and disinfecting the floor whilst feeling sorry for him, I forget that he is getting on in years sometimes, due to him still acting as a puppy 70% of the time,
Not surprised he was sick though as he was all excited and barking at the dogs on the tele adverts before his bed time, He’s a ( avid TV watcher for any dogs) and nature programmes,
Hope your dog wee dog is keeping well and keeping you entertained while stuck in doors due to the weather.
Only just seen this, James, due to a powercut from yesterday evening until just now, so no internet. It is very time-consuming having no electricity – boiling water for tea on a fisherman’s kettle, keeping the woodstove going, and finding the generator we bought in the August powercut doesn’t even power a kettle or toaster!
It is very entertaining hearing about your dog being an avid TV watcher and getting so excited that it upset his tummy. It is a strange thing about dogs [and cats] – you can train them to ask to go outside when they need to go, but they don’t think being sick on the carpet counts!
My dog gets indoor entertainment by bringing a rubber ball and then gripping it hard in her mouth inviting me to have a tug of war, growling whilst wagging her tail like mad. It is very good weight training for me, no doubt.
Stu,
This animal conversation reminds me that I am missing you’re lovely photographs you used to post, which always lightened the mood and heaviness of politics.
Do you still do them occasionally?
Man, but it’s quiet on here.
The MSM is splattering the story all over the headlines
that the 20 live ones and the 30 dead ones are about to be released by the ham assholes.
Should be an end to the senseless killing too.
But on here, despite near two years of whining and greeting, tumbleweed.
It’s almost as if the only thing the self-identifying “Indy stalwarts” ever really wanted from the second front in the war was a total victory for the ham assholes, and by extension, their backers and poot allies.
And it’s almost as if all the endless posts bemoaning the jenny side, the famine, etc. were just a virtue signalling front to conceal the reality that as long as “their” side was still fighting, there was no body count that could ever be too high to be not worth paying.
Anyhoo, fingers crossed the hostages all come home. And thanks to the self-identifying “Indy stalwarts” who have given alert readers an invaluable insight into the future they would consider to be acceptable for iScotland.
Sane, rational, mature Scots won’t be dropping their guard in future to allow you lot anywhere near the levers of power.
Sane, rational, mature Scots don’t want their cities, towns and villages reduced to rubble by the ideologically-driven insanity of their excuses for leaders.
Not quite sure how an “unarmed” suspect allegedly managed to inflict stab wounds on one of the security officers, however I was never the quickest witted guy in the room,
OK, so he wasn’t packing heat.
Some lowlife will already be trying to build a case that because of that, the police used excessive force. Decades of hounding of the officer(s) who fired the fatal shots will likely follow. You mark my words.
Coincidentally, the state is hounding some squaddie for an alleged shooting from 50 year’s ago even as I write.
Reality is, that under our current legal system, you can kill somebody in cold blood and be out and free again within a decade.
But if the police kill you in a heat-of-the-moment effort to stop you committing the crime in the first place, they can find themselves not sleeping easy for the rest of their lives.
The law needs to change.
Jings, crivvens, help ma boab!,
Thon yin wha threitent me wi MURDER MAIST
FOWL, a’m no chicken, FOUL is back oan here swaggerin aboot the place like it awns it.Here’s me comin up oan a hunner and twinty year oan God’s green Earth (aye, a’ve been collectin ma state pension nigh oan hauf a century noo) and yit agin a’ve been made terrified and doddery, shaky and shoogly, wobbly and discombobulatit bein mindit o’ aw the thriets made agin me here.
A’ve juist aboot eneuch docht tae git oot ma Book o’ Psalms and turn its pages tae Psalm 27 – “The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?”
Aye, and so ma speerit be liftit and ma hauns search ma wee pocket Bible and thay bring theis tae ma een fae Romans 8:31-33: “What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?”
Heed ma wirds ye guid and God fearin Scots wha luve Scotland and wha wad save her frae the Sassenach. Fir Sautan walks amang us here btl and his name, contrair tae whit Mark 5:9 telt us, isnae ‘Legion’… it’s INGLIS.
Must be near two weeks now, NC. Hows it going with the moderators and the polis anyway?
Please don’t tell us you submitted your accusations of threatened/attempted murder in Scots!
If you did though, that’s got to be good for a laugh 🙂
Have you still got the congratulatory telegram you would have received from Good Queen Bess 2 on turning 100? I bet it’s beautifully framed and ostentatiously displayed in pride of place above your peat-fueled hearth.
Aye Lord deliver us. But merciful Lord who will protect us from our selves?
So Hamas caught like a rat in a trap. They agree to abide because these death worshipers are afraid to die. After 6pm Sunday Washington DC time they surrender or get wiped off the face of the earth.
Did you know that the only people in the world still supporting these murdering cowards is the the Looney Left.
How many of these death cult worshipers will take to the streets today?
Update from Trafalgar Square.
The Police are clearing the area of smelly hippies. The people being arrested all look related! The smell must be nauseous.
After 6pm Sunday Washington DC time the whole of the middle east might be at war. Who knows eh.
Everyone in the middle east have signed up with the US and Israel are agreed. So there’s only one enemy and they will be wiped off the face of the earth.
Mark Beggan @ 12.00.
As many photogenic pensioners and disabled folk as can be mustered to arouse public sympathy for their “cause” and disgruntlement at the Police ?
The police will be infected with head lice. The Lefty secret weapon.
Aidan @ 4 October, 2025 at 1:14 pm
“Do NOT ask questions. Especially do not ask those perfectly reasonable and sensible questions. Sign this weeks petition, donate your money, then shut up.” This is precisely what there asking us who have a vested interest to do, I couldn’t have said it better.
People need to start questioning who Liberation Scotland works for?
Those in charge seem rather prickly when questioned. They make airily dismissive “nothing to see here” statements when questioned about their funding that it comes from members subs, but they seem overly secretive to me.
Both with respect to their funding and other perfectly reasonable questions put to them about what the basis of their mandate actually is, and the kind of basic procedural questions about what many of us regard as their quixotic campaign to have Scotland recognised as a non self-governing territory by the UN, they certainly don’t strike me as the kind of organisation I’d want to support or be involved in: same goes for “Believe in Scotland” IMO.
I see that The National is reporting that one of the 4 Scottish brave tourists that went on a late summer cruise in the Med has received a free flight to Istanbul.
Another brave tourist has informed of dehydration. She has received insufficient amounts of both water and food. She also stated that she had developed rashes which she suspects were caused by bedbugs. She spoke of harsh treatment and said she had been sitting for long periods on hard surfaces.
I suspect she didn’t do enough research on her intended accommodation before her trip. A least she can give a bad Tripadviser review.
The last time they showed her vids of babies being incinerated and screaming lassies being raped, then carved to pieces with knives.
But this time, it’s gonna be the collected speeches of Greetin Greta on endless loop.
The inhuman fiends!
I see Italy has had a huge demonstration in support for Palestinians – must all be ‘looney lefties’ eh?
Depends how you define «huge». Probably less than a hundred thousand nationwide.
According to an Italian friend in situ many seem to be non Italian.
Political demos in Italy used to involve millions.
One thing guaranteed no one demonstrates about Sudan, Yemen or Assyrian indie…..just not cool with the mini brain woke.
We’re in Bologna on holiday now. The demonstration here wasn’t anywhere near that big and seemed to mostly consist of far left and communist groups, which hilariously in Italy are still quite happy to carry hammer and sickle banners.
Bologna has a history of being “on the left” politically, hence it being known as Bologna la Rossa, but I doubt the Hamas fluffers have much more popular support across Italy than they do in Scotland.
Hard left? Like NuLabour to you probably.
Must all be looney lefties?
Naw. Mafia owned construction companies.
There hasn’t been better opportunities for skimming on concrete and cement supplies, cutting corners on building materials and over pricing contracts with kick backs for bent politicians in 100 years.
Plus, if awkward sods have to be disposed of, the entire building site is already hoaching with stiffs and body parts. The mafia could dispose of hundreds more as needed and nobody would twig.
Leah Gunn Barrett on Digital ID cards.
link to dearscotland.substack.com
ISP weekly bulletin.
link to isp.scot
Sure, she proves ID Cards are all a zonalist plot.
But Switzerland is going to have them and that’s fine with her.
Seems a whole lot of ‘loony lefties’ have been on the march both in Spain and Italy – apparently hundreds of thousands.
Must be a load of foreigners protesting something there eh??
Barcelona, Madrid ,Rome reported tens of thousands marching yesterday and it appears Portugal will be having a huge protest today.
Heavens ! who’d a thunk so many folk would be ‘wrong thinkers’?!
I wonder how the arrested octigenarians are doing in the UK.
Well the UN, ICC, ICJ, The International Association of Genocide Scholars and all major human rights organisations have a considered opinion on what is happening. Maybe the millions taking to the streets are reacting to that?
Maybe the tens of millions not taking to the streets would like to see the ham assholes exterminated.
That’s certainly the case for all the countries neighbouring them, such as Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc.
Each of these knows only too well that to open their borders and let them in would be tantamount to signing a national death warrant. They bring death and destruction everywhere they go.
All attempts by the people of Scotland to obtain redress, at a UK domestic level, for the denial of the rights of self-determination, have failed.
The conclusion that we are entitled to draw is that the UK is not a voluntary union of different nations as has been represented to the world…
Liberation Scotland offers ordinary Scots a beacon of hope; as one noted:
Extract from a PDF on Liberation Scotland’s website entitled A Nation Again
Sounds more like the ramblings of an old drunk than a serious political organisation !
That’s a simple falsehood though. If it’s representative of the quality of the case presented by the quixotic rag tag of individuals and self appointed astro turf political groups behind the approach to the UN we can confidently expect it to fail.
The UN and international community more generally are most unlikely to accept that a population which could achieve independence by the simple expedient of ensuring 50% + 1 of those voting in plebiscitary elections vote for pro independence parties is somehow being effectively denied its right to self determination, or is subject to the level of repression which would encourage them to accept the claimed colonial status or the validity of a unilateral declared independence.
The windmill tilters in Salvo, Liberate Scotland et al are barking up the wrong tree: their proposed route is a long, hard slog with a very doubtful outcome. Conventional routes are far more likely to succeed and in a far shorter timescale.
In the meantime sadly there appears to be little chance of the movement as a whole growing a pair and doing the necessary to stake the SNP through the heart and focus on achieving a majority in plebiscitary elections.
“their proposed route is a long, hard slog with a very doubtful outcome…
As opposed to the short and effortless route of participating in ‘Scottish’ parliamentary elections; something the Scots have been doing since 2014 and overwhelmingly voting for their liberation in the belief the SNP was on their side and not an agency of Westminster and would deliver them their independence.
This strategy (relying on Holyrood to honestly represent and execute the democratic will of the Scots) is akin tae daein bugger aw – and with a most definite outcome… the continuation of Scotland’s subjugation and the plundering of her wealth under the boot of a foreign power.
Scotland is an illegally annexed dependency – a non-self-governing territory – administered by a colonial power based in London through the Anglo-deception of a generously provided and grossly expensive (at no cost at all to England, by the way) pretend ‘Scottish’ parliament.
Anyone who thinks the Scots can attain their liberation from the desperate grip of a deceptive England-as-UK by adhering to the rules of their oppressor is ignorant – kept in a state of perpetual ignorance through no fault of their own by 300 years of suppression, oppression, psychological manipulation and outright lies – of their people’s and their nation’s true predicament.
Northy you will never convince the FRANCHISE FANNY aka Ellis the prick that indy is beneficial historically and culturally, the FANNY knows that SCOTS voted FOR independence by 52.7% but were outvoted by NEW Scots as his progressive fellow arseholes like to anoint them
Ellis is happy to welcome anyone from anywhere who has just arrived in Scotland to vote on our constitutional issues knowing full well that their allegiance is formed by their belief that Scotland is a COUNTY of the great uk and engerlands beneficence has allowed them to move here , so Scotland being an ancient country in its own right with its own cultures and beliefs is unknown and irrelevant to them
@ Twat H says:5 October, 2025 at 6:31 pm
“Scotland being an ancient country in its own right with its own cultures and beliefs”
So what are you saying here, Twat H? Have you converted to conservatism in your (extremely) old age?
Are you seriously trying to tell us that in all the decades during which you rabidly and enthusiastically fluffed for the SNP, you never noticed they’re a bunch of history-rewriting, multi-culti, diversity-endlessly-celebrating, wokies – so progressive on everything under the sun it makes ordinary Scots eyes water?
You spent most of your adult life cheering on the people who have trashed our traditions, stained the honour of our history with the farce that was HY, literally blown up the remnants of our industrial strength and now are accelerating the destruction of our remaining national wealth – our oil and gas, while axing down our unique legal system. And you never noticed?
Mercy! Twat H doesn’t do you justice, Twat H. Twat A++ is the real you.
Hey Bastard Tax Moan you are fair earning yir 77th brigade salary posting below most comments, are ye working overtime or hiv ye nae hame tae go tae or has mrs Bastard Tax fucked off wi a brown person
“We are under represented at Westminster, and Holyrood is powerless to resist their policies.”
Not just under-represented, but also misrepresented. Scotland’s MPs are not a mere Scottish subset of UK MPs, they are the sole formal representatives of the entire sovereign Scottish half of the Union, the sole formal representatives of the Scottish Treaty Principal.
They represent one of the two sovereign Principals of the Treaty, and it can and has been cogently argued that Scotland’s sovereignty is the only extant one in the UK today.
Sovereignty was never about numbers, it was always about ownership.
The Scots still own their sovereignty, but England’s shoddy establishment managed to drop the ball with England’s sovereignty when they forgot to ensure the transfer of England’s parliamentary sovereignty from the English parliament to the new British parliament in 1707, before the old one died. In essence the arrogant English parliament forgot to make a will.
The sovereign Parliament of England died intestate in 1707. Only Scotland’s sovereign Crown is formally represented in and by the UK parliament, and it may only be exerted by Scotland’s MPs.
Gawd almighty! It’s as dull as ditchwatter oan here.
“I bet it’s beautifully framed and ostentatiously displayed in pride of place above your peat-fueled hearth.”
This is a reference to my telegram from QE2 (not the ship I watched being launched in 1967, but the late Queen of England) delivered to me by a royal lacky shortly after I turned one hundred years almost twinty year past noo.
I salute it every morning – Brit style; longest way up, shortest way doun (thaim sloppy Americans dae their military salutes the ither way aboot) – without fail as I, rather feebly now, ‘march’ past it on ma way tae the cludgie tae perform ma ablutions in my Union Fleg patterned jammies and wearing my – decorated with Kipling’s “IF” in very small print – Cross of St. George coloured slippers.
After which I sing England’s croaky and rasping national anthem in ma croaky and rasping ancient auld Scottish voice (leaving out that part of the sixth verse aboot ‘crushing rebellious Scots’) followed by a short walk about my estate (or garden as it is commonly called) whilst reciting a verse or twa of Blake’s “And did those feet in ancient time” (spoiler: naw, they didnae) before sitting down to a full English breakfast… nae porridge fir me.
I like ma oats in the morning just as much as the next red-blooded Scotsman, but to my mind furriners shovelin’ overly engineered and effetely-tampered-with-porridge doun thair thrapples is cultural appropriation and I refuse to partake of it on principle until that glorious day when Scotland is liberated from English colonial rule.
Oh here! It’s Sunday and I feel the ghost o’ yon thrawn and twistit lang deid meenister o’ the Church ettlin tae tak ower ma senses.
There might be a sermon on the evils of colonialism rattlin’ doun the road.
Aye, and gey suin tae.
You like many others have spent the last decade hating the English. Whilst the Scottish elected government destroys your country.
It’s easy to blame. It’s the easiest game in the world. Doing something about it! Not so easy! Getting people to listen let alone follow your agenda now that’s something rare that only a few individuals in history have achieved.
Let’s look at wee Sturgeon and her cumulative rise to disaster. Do I need to explain how that happened. I’m sure you are very aware how this idiot rose to the position of Woke Overlord.
Where does that leave us? Back at the start. The colonial junkies on a rant.
Aye, Mark, please do explain why that happened, as I’d be very interested in understanding how you think Sturgeon managed to rise to the positions of power and influence she had without the helpful hand of the UK State and their compliant MSM facilitating that to happen.
And be aware that you’re commenting on a site that has for years strived to bring to light the way that it did happen, and that it was only possible because the interests and instruments of the UK State that allowed it to be so, and continue to protect her and her accomplices.
A colonized people should not expect too much of a colonial administration filled with civil servants from the metropolitan capital and fronted by a compliant political class.
Thanks Alf – that’s really helpful
Marky Mark make up your mind you said
“Whilst the Scottish elected government destroys YOUR country”.
Then you said
“Where does that leave US?
Are you confused poor wee Mark or have you just OUTED yourself as a NON Scot
@ Dan says: 5 October, 2025 at 7:01 pm
“UK State”
And then, again:
“UK State”
OFFS!
After endless screeds of posts on here conclusively proving once and for all that there is no such thing as the UK, here we are again, right back at square 1.
Someboady PLEASE hae a wee word wi Dan!
“Funny how you missed this bit out about Whitworth from Wikipedia:… “
Funny humorous or funny strange, alluring and mystifyingly queer?
It surely must be clear by now that exactly 73.87% of what I write here is aimed at taking the mickey out of the earnestly literal mindit Inglis and their fellow colonialists – Inglis or ither.
Scribblings designed to provoke the inevitable well-inside-the-box (a’m no e’en sure colonialists knaw whit a box ye think ootside o’ is) thoroughly witless and unimaginative dreary response us independence supporting Scots on here have come to expect.
And wi sic desynes mak clear tae aw thaim natyve Scots who might find themselves wandering around this place just how intellectually stultifying their colonial oppressor is compared to the shiny sparkling and gloroiusly expansive uplifting wit of yer average Scot.
Makes you wonder how the ‘Brits’ ever managed to cobble thegither an empire.
That’s an easy one to answer, NC.
They assigned all the hard work to us Scots. And all the Jenny sidal stuff too, such as the slaughtering of the indigenous and the ethnic cleansing of the rest.
Mind and dazzle us with some of your wit soon!
‘Aye’
Be reyt tha daft ‘apeth, ther’s nowt mardy t’be mithering abaat, I ken tha’ sen’s just laikin’ wi’ ya bletherin’. Ahl si’ thi’.
‘Ow mooch is it!?
Northcode.
I would’nt worry, as they can’t do simple maths,
So might be rather difficult to teach them any further topic.
Aye, James. The wilfully ignorant are a breed a canna fathom.
More importantly, though, I liked the comments between you and Sarah about your dogs- far more enjoyable to read than some of the other subjects discussed here (excepting colonialism, of course).
More endearing stories about dogs are to be welcomed. Welcomed, at least, by this auld centenarian.
Lets look at wee Starmer doing the same in England.
It is the politicians not the people,
Proverbs 15
‘A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.’
Well ain’t we all in a fix!
Time to lay off the Day Nurse. You’re hearing the voices again, aren’t you, Mark?
Gawd almighty! It’s STILL as dull as ditchwatter oan here.
It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery… but it is not enough.
I’m beginning to lose interest… even goading the Ingles and their pet colonialists is failing to gain much in the way of decent traction.
I was going to unleash thon auld and miserable lang deid meenister o’ the Church sae that we might point at him and laugh, at his expense, for our entertainment, but I’m not sure it’s worth the effort If there’s nobody about to witness his humiliation.
He might take umbridge at the lack of an audience and exact his revenge upon me by forcing me to ingest a bowl of porridge – aye, and a bowl sprinkled with sugar (horrific) instead of salt, tae – a sweet salted dish I’ve sworn to abstain from until Scotland is liberated from oppression.
Still as dull as ditchwater?
But you’ve been posting all day.
Starving yourself to death for your country is one thing but abstaining from salted gruel is a step to liberation.
Two Yoon lickspittles in a row….
Keep it up, Northy, you’re obviously needling the f****rs.
“First Minister John Swinney has called for “long lasting peace” in Israel and Palestine in comments marking the second anniversary of the 7 October attacks this week.
Mr Swinney said the ‘heinous’ attack, in which 1,200 Israeli civilians and soliders were killed by terror group Hamas, must not be forgotten.”
——————————————–
Wow he really has his finger on the pulse of World affairs.
Northcode.
Wilful ignorance or the mindset of a Colonial mind, neither bodes well for reivers of the truth,
Well, Northcode, have you signed those petitions/causes that I detailed the other day? Perhaps you had already done so because I have to report that the numbers have scarcely changed in 2 days.
I am rather surprised that the Holyrood petition to include the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights into Scots law isn’t receiving a huge amount of support. It ought to attract all independence voters because this Convention would give us power to hold referendums.
What’s not to like? It must be a good thing because Angus Robertson is against it. Yet only 7324 have signed it – no increase since my mention the other day.
[By the way, you’re not really 100 years old or more, are you?]
No True Scot can sign these petitions, sarah, until verified translations in Scots have been published.
Surely you must know by now that English is [checks notes] “the lying language of the coloniser”?
Shame on you, sarah, for taking these English lies at face value. The Guid Gowd alone knows what devilry you’re putting your name to.
Prick.
“By the way, you’re not really 100 years old or more, are you?”
Gentlemen of my age and of my generation consider such questions inappropriate in polite company, Sarah.
And such being the case I cannot provide much in the way of direct clarification in relation to your question.
It is sufficient of me, I think, to say that I am yet to receive my royal telegram and by the time I am in a position to do so it will undoubtedly be delivered to me by the grace of a King or a Queen of Scots – if, indeed, we sovereign Scots choose monarchy over republic when the nation of Scotland is returned to our people and we are liberated from the cruel and haithenous oppressioun of a foreign and alien power.
As for petitions, I have this to say.
But first, an understanding of the word’s origins might help clarify my position on this ‘instrument of democracy’:
Petitions are most certainly valuable instruments in free and open societies where the people have a genuine democratic voice with which they can demand their freely elected leaders, who are their servant and not their master, take their instruction from the majority.
I would, however, ask you to consider if Scotland shows any sign at all of being a free and open society; a genuine democracy where her people, the Scots, rule over their elected leaders and are not instead the voiceless, silent servants of their political class in a twisted reversal of the tenets of democratic ideology.
Having said that: I prefer, even in a genuine democracy, to avoid acts of supplication and beseechery… and my prayers are between myself and God alone.
PEER: ‘HATE CRIME SEEKS TO CRIMINALISE CERTAIN THOUGHTS’
Britain should re-examine current ‘hate crime’ laws to tackle its “free-speech crisis”, a Peer has warned.
The founder and General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young of Acton, has been commissioned by Conservative Party Leader Kemi Badenoch to lead a policy review on freedom of expression.
Writing in The Daily Telegraph he called for a new “unambiguous standard” based upon Lord Justice Sedley’s famous remark: “Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”
‘LAUGHING STOCK’
The Peer illustrated his concerns with reference to comedian Graham Linehan’s recent arrest by five armed police officers at Heathrow for a social media post claimed to be ‘stirring up hatred against trans-identifying men’.
He branded such examples “tantamount to criminalising certain thoughts, with courts tasked with peering into the minds of defendants to discover what they were thinking while committing a crime.”
Lord Young said: “One of the things I’ll be looking at is whether some speech crimes can be replaced with something more like Sedley’s standard. Instead of stirring up hatred against people with ‘protected characteristics’ being an offence, would it not be simpler – and fairer – to just make inciting violence a crime, regardless of who’s being targeted?”
He also called for non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) to be abolished, saying the “police’s dogged investigation of hundreds of thousands of ‘non crimes’ in the past 10 years when so many actual crimes go unsolved risks turning them into a laughing stock”.
FEARFUL
Last month, the head of the police watchdog called for NCHIs to be scrapped. Sir Andy Cooke, His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, criticised them for being unfit for purpose and causing unnecessary public concern.
He remarked: “I think we need to separate the offensive from the criminal. We need at times to allow people to speak openly without the fear that their opinions will put them on the wrong side of the law.”
More than 130,000 NCHIs have been logged across England and Wales since their introduction. While they are not recorded on a person’s criminal record, they can appear on enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks
(The Christian Institute, 4 Oct 2025)
link to christian.org.uk
In other news, reported in the Guardian Online, Kemi Badenoch has pledged that the Tories will implement a UK version of ICE if they get elected into power at WM.
ICE being a brainchild of the world’s greatest living half-Scot, President Trump, I wonder why the WOS BTL stalwarts aren’t all enthusiastically cheering the way in which puir, wee, puny Scotland still punches above her weight on the world stage.
I know I am!
Probably it’s all for the best, but I don’t expect I will have much say over ScotICE (SICE?) policies. But if I do, be in no doubt that wearing a keffiyah in a public place will be an instantly deport-able offense.
“Where to?” I hear somebody ask. Fecked if I know or care.
I might think of a few more over the coming days and weeks, if I become convinced that Badenoch is as serious as Farage.
Sarah,
I think it may be a good idea to hold a larger discussion on the topic here on Wings in depth, maybe before / nearer the time as we progress,
People everywhere nowadays are unsure how data is used, how it is progressed and how safe it is kept.
With that in mind, There is a good possibility that it might boom in signatures as we receive more forthcoming information on recognition status for Scotland,
However a in depth discussion meanwhile might be a good idea, there have been so many falsehoods, and even false sites that make statements, claims for indy support to garner finances, even from the SNP, and the establishment,
That has made people wary.
These are some personal thoughts on why uptake maybe slow,
Thank you for your thoughts, James C.
I imagined that the ICCPR petition to Holyrood was very safe from evildoers being just UN legislation, some of which [the Child Protection Covenant – ironically] has already been incorporated by SNP government into Scots Law
Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh.
There are already laws in place to deal with criminal incitement or violence.
The hate crime laws in of themselves are akin to the old finger pointing, falsely accuse anyone you don’t like, anyone whom you are envious of, and anyone who does not agree with you, and steal your neighbours assets 16th hundreds witch hunts.
And in that sense the modern Hate Crime laws over freedom of Speech cause the same fear that you can be falsely accused for anything, which places the police in the position of being judge and jury,
whom have just bought barrels to drown you in, or have the sticks and wood in their police back yards ready for a match once you are set on top simply accused by finger pointing,
May be this law was meant to do the work of the Sixteen hundreds for control,
But perhaps the Witch Hunters whom accuse without a judge or jury should be on trial for implementing such backward barbaric fear mongering under the Crime of incitement to cause harm,