The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

We Are Not Your Hostage

Posted on August 17, 2019 by

Oh dear God in Heaven, not THIS again.

Helen Thompson is apparently the “Professor of Political Economy” at Cambridge University. No wonder the country is being run by imbeciles.

Let’s speak really slowly and see if the idiots can get it into their thick heads this time.

Wings readers know, and have known for many years, that Labour does NOT need Scottish seats to win UK elections. Scottish seats have essentially NEVER made a meaningful contribution to a Labour win.

We assume that Professor Thompson is aware of that, because she tries to hide the premise of the article behind weasel words:

Oh, so now winning only counts if it’s from opposition? Okay, fair enough – that’s the situation Labour is in now so it’s the pertinent comparison. Talk us through it, Prof.

Oh dear. So of the four cited examples, HALF of them are wrong straight off – Labour won in 1945 and 1997 without needing a single Scottish or Welsh seat.

It’s perhaps worth pausing for a moment to illustrate just HOW little it needed them. Labour’s majority in 1945 was a crushing 146 seats – 393 to 247. But out of that 146 majority, just THREE came from Scotland, where Labour only just squeaked it, winning 37 seats against opposition parties who took a combined 34.

Wales was a bit more fruitful, providing 25 Labour MPs against 11 opposition ones, making a net contribution of 14. So without Scotland and Wales and counting England alone, Labour would still have had a huge majority of 129.

(In fact, even if every single Scottish and Welsh seat had been won by the opposition parties, Labour would still have had a decent majority of 22.)

Similarly, even in the 1997 super-landslide where Labour swept 56 of the 72 Scottish seats (a “Scottish majority” of 40), and 34 out of 40 in Wales (a net contribution of 28), lifting the two countries out of the equation altogether would still have left Tony Blair sitting comfortably on a huge England-delivered majority of 173.

(This time, even if both countries had in fact returned 100% non-Labour MPs, the party would still have secured a vast 105-seat absolute majority.)

So that leaves us with 1964 and 1974. And while removing the Scottish and Welsh votes would in those two years have put a Tory PM in Downing Street rather than a Labour one, it’s a big stretch to say that Labour really “won” either election.

In 1964 Harold Wilson got a majority of just ONE seat, an unsustainable position which saw the administration collapse just 17 months later in March 1966.

And in 1974 he didn’t even get a technical majority, far less a solid one, winning just 301 seats out of 635 and leading to a new election after barely seven months. (In which Labour again got a majority of just one seat.)

Even in those two elections which were notionally (but inadequately) swung by the Scottish and Welsh votes, the Celtic contributions weren’t all that dramatic. In 1964 Labour won Scotland by just 15 seats (43 vs 28).

While in 1974, Labour’s net Scottish majority was a mere nine (40 vs 31).

So even by Prof Thompson’s massively skewed criteria, her argument is nonsense on the basic arithmetical level, never mind the political one. But boy, is the political one ever worth a chuckle anyway.

Skipping several steps of logic entirely, she simply ignores the proven material fact that Labour can only meaningfully take power from the Tories by winning convincingly in England, and concludes that it must instead somehow win back support in Scotland by becoming even more stridently Unionist – a strategy the party has been doggedly following for the last 12 years, with a truly spectacular level of epic failure.

At no point, impressively, does she ever attempt to explain how this miracle of winning Scotland by doubling and tripling down on the Union would be achieved. There’s not a word on how all those lost seats would be brought back to the Labour fold by an approach Scotland has rejected in the most unequivocal terms imaginable.

At the end of the day, all we get is the eternal shrill insistence that Scotland must cast its own interests aside and ride to Labour’s rescue, even though it has neither the power nor the inclination to do so.

Scots are to serve as nothing more than a bargaining chip in Labour’s game of power, even though the SNP have already and repeatedly offered to put Jeremy Corbyn into No.10 without even asking anything in return.

(It may be worth pointing out at this stage that Scotland under the dominance of the SNP returns fewer Tory MPs than it did in three of the four years Prof Thomson cites as proving the importance of Labour winning Scotland. Even the current total of 13, which looks a lot like a freak blip, is well below the 27 of 1945, the 24 of 1964 and the 21 of 1974, even after allowing for the lower total number of Scottish MPs nowadays. Scotland under the SNP is simply far more effective, arithmetically AND politically, at opposing the Tories than it was when Labour ruled it.)

To both Labour and the clueless English commentariat, Scotland is still seen as a rightful feudal possession of the Labour Party, its duty simply to shut up and deliver truckloads of MPs to Westminster. We’re not sure how long it’s going to take for them to realise that we’re not their meek and obedient servants any more.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 17 08 19 12:56

      We Are Not Your Hostage | speymouth

    206 to “We Are Not Your Hostage”

    1. Alasdair Galloway says:

      Your treatment of the 1974 elections is not convincing, nor re 64 entirely convincing either. I don’t think its reasonable to just write off 64 as Wilson only got a majority of one – fact is that it was him in Downing Street and not Douglas-Home. This gave Wilson the opportunity to show what Labour could do, albeit with a very small majority, which was to his advantage in 1966.
      But with regard to 74, I think you are on shakier ground. Without the Scottish MPs, Labour would not have been the biggest party in the first 74 election. They pretty much had to use dynamite to get Heath out of Downing Street, and if he had had more MPs than Labour, he might well never have left. If Heath had carried on, what would have happened next in the miners’ strike, which had the power on/off every three hours? Wilson just settled and also repealed the Industrial Relations Act. The Scottish MPs were quite crucial in the replay the following October.
      So, I think there is something to be said for the need for Scottish MPs in 1964 and also in 1974.
      I think there is a bit more modulation needed here. In any event, there are two arguments against Professor Thompson’s argument. First, should Labour not work harder to win the argument in England, rather than relying on a contingent of MPs from Scotland. Of course they don’t get that now, which is the second point. Looking back to 1945 or even 1997 is a different world, and its about time they realised that.

    2. defo says:

      “We’re not sure how long it’s going to take for them to realise that we’re not their meek and obedient servants any more.”

      A couple of days after Yes wins should see most start the grieving process for their loss.

    3. Gordon Keane says:

      In 2010, Labour had 40 MPs from Scotland, and still didn’t help keep them in power.
      In 2015, even if Labour have had all 59 MPs from Scotland, it would have got them nothing!
      2017 would have made little difference either, with Labour and Lib Dems voting for the tories giving us 13 tory MPs.
      If Labour had another bunch of 40 MPs, it would have made no difference. Labour would still have lost that one, too.
      And yet, with all these past 3 General Election stats, we continue to get this mush,Labour needs Scotland. Actually Labour doesn’t need Scotland, and Scotland certainly doesn’t need Labour!

    4. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Your treatment of the 1974 elections is not convincing, nor re 64 entirely convincing either.”

      You can what-if all day long. The hard facts of the matter are that Labour didn’t win a sustainable majority in either election.

      It might have been better in the long term, for example – in fact it almost CERTAINLY would have been – to let Heath take the hit with a tiny fragile majority in 1974, put Labour in position to win strongly later on, and avoid the whole catastrophe of 1979 whose roots were in the weakness of the Parliamentary arithmetic which meant that Labour couldn’t deliver devolution.

    5. Mark Russell says:

      “We’re not sure how long it’s going to take for them to realise that we’re not their meek and obedient servants any more.”

      When the majority of Scots are similarly enlightened.

    6. Alasdair Angus Macdonald says:

      Yes, Reverend, when I saw the article my reaction was the same as yours, although not being religious, I made no plea to an imaginary deity. Nevertheless, I am a tolerant man and I accept your right to do so based on a sincere belief.

      Joking aside, I was reduced to head shaking at this pompous and precious piece.

      The bombastic self-proclaimed ‘progressive’ media such as NS, Observer, Guardian are un-selfconsciously more colonialist in mindset than even the Daily Mail, which actually has a Scottish edition, which recognises that their is an entity called ‘Scotland’.

      Even although he honourably recopgnised the democratic right of the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum, Mr John McDonnell then went on to speak of “THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT.” There isnae wan, Mr McDonnell. I think there ought to be, but it is NOT WESTMINSTER.

    7. call me dave says:

      I knew when I read that ‘New Statesman’article earlier that it was pure gold for a new Wings blog page.

      As you say, it is, (except for two short periods), complete nonsense and was debunked on Wings a long long time ago in a far distant universe. 🙂

    8. winifred mccartney says:

      Professor of Political Economy and unable to understand plain arithmetic – she is a joke – another one of these Labour fans who probably has never been to Scotland and certainly does not know or understand that Labour in Scotland is finished to be followed closely by Labour in WM that has a leader unable to lead, a party that is divided by its own rhetoric, fighting like ferrets in a sack, mp’s that don’t know where to turn or run to and bears no resemblance to the Labour party of Keir Hardy or indeed any of the great labour grandees but instead is fixated on power for powers sake.

      They are unable to communicate to the electorate and unwilling to listen to their concerns.

      They probably realise they are finished in the north of England so they are trying to find a fall guy to blame and Scotland is the handiest.

      I can hardly think of one labour mp or msp worthy of the name – I thought they were there to serve us but most of them are just self serving careerists.

    9. aitchbee says:

      Labour’s problem is that in the past it didn’t really have to do the hard work of soliciting people’s votes, as it could take it for granted that Scots would pretty much vote for a donkey with a red rosette. They have not adapted to the new world where votes have to be worked for, same as any other party. They have no clue where to start.

      They are currently learning at first hand the meaning of the phrase ‘evolve or die’. Right now, they’re pretty much looking like dinosaurs.

    10. Thomas Valentine says:

      Her claim also ignores how this would be received in England. They vote for a Tory government and are cheat out of their democratic choice. Though of course they have never had a problem with the reverse always being done to Scotland.

      Even when it was Labour MPs the fact they came from Scotland was a problem for English tories when Tony Blair was PM. It was particularly a problem if they were appointed minister and treated as an outrage when a Scottish MP became PM.

      The Tory EVEL position now is Scottish MPs should have virtually no voting power and absolutely never be ministers let alone PM. Plainly expressed their belief is that there should be no MPs elected in Scotland and England should rule Scotland directly.

      I truly believe the SNP should never take up seats in Westminster. It would expose the fact that it makes no difference if there are Scottish MPs there or not. As well as stopping them becoming Turkish hostages enamoured with the Constantinople big city life. Which is exactly what happened to the entire Labour. Particularly in relation to he House of Lords.

    11. In February 2014, Hood outlined his opposition to Scottish independence in a commons debate, stating “Even if the SNP was right and there was a grand, great thing at the end of the rainbow for the SNP and its debate for independence, I would still be against it. If the Scottish people are going to be better off economically and so on, I would still be against breaking away from the Union”

      She wonders why we don’t vote Labour!

    12. Blind Squirrel says:

      Labour should not contest seats for Westminster in Scotland and work with the SNP. They should contest them only for the The Scottish Parliament.

    13. kapelmeister says:

      Aye, the Old Statesperson. Always the perfect journal for anglocentric leftwingers. Started way back when by eugenics enthusiasts Beatrice and Sidney Webb.

    14. Alasdair Galloway says:

      Stuart, I don’t think it’s me who is “what if”ing. My point is that in 1964 the Scottish MPs did get Wilson over the line – I agree, just, but still – and it gave him a platform for the 66 election when he won a convincing majority. In 74 (1) it got the miners’ strike resolved, and then in 74(2) while the majority was small and politically difficult, it’s important to remember that it did go on till 1979.
      If you want to argue that it might have been better for Heath to “take the hit” then fine, but two things. First who do you think more/ less likely to deliver devolution – Heath or Wilson (or Callaghan)? At least the latter tried, albeit Callaghan was undermined by his own MPs. Secondly, it would be you who is “what if”ing!
      Last point – did you read my final paragraph. Her argument is naive because the world is not as it was, even in 1997 and certainly not 1945. It also reflects the weakness that the Labour Party has in winning elections in England, but to seek to resolve that by relying on elsewhere is just pathetic. And could you imagine the right wing press if Scotland elected enough Labour MPs (OK, I know I am “what if”ing now, and also totally unrealistically)to put Corbyn in Downing Street. Goodness we might be asked to leave the Union. What a shame!

    15. Thepnr says:

      @Thomas Valentine

      “I truly believe the SNP should never take up seats in Westminster. It would expose the fact that it makes no difference if there are Scottish MPs there or not.”

      I agree and is what this article clearly points out, very rarely have the inclusion of Scottish MP’s made any difference at all to who governs in Westminster.

      In Nicola Sturgeons shoes, who no doubt expects a request for a Section 30 order to be refused. In the venet of that happening, I would immediately withdraw all SNP MP’s from Westminster. I would refuse to cooperate with any government who denied Scotland the democratic right to choose their own future and how they want to be governed.

      Next step would be to go ahead with a referendum and request International observers to oversee the process completely bypassing Westminster and the Electoral Commission. There is a plan B, we just don’t know what it is yet but we will find out soon enough.

      Just get this Brexshit out of the way first, then game on.

    16. mike cassidy says:


      She must have sensed you on the horizon.

      “If you try and participate in the public sphere as an academic and think that you will be provided with some insulation because you are an academic and you are supposed to know more than other people, then it’s not like that.” (19/06/2019)

    17. Effijy says:

      Are we forgetting Oxbridge and their leading lights are all part of the rich and powerful elite
      Who work tirelessly to ensure the capitalist system keeps making the rich richer and the powerful
      More powerful.

      I’m sure this pompous pathetic professor would be happy to direct a rudderless Labour Party
      Up the wrong creek and steal their paddle.

      Well Done yet again Rev!

      Breathtaking how absurd and inaccurate her assessment is.

      Don’t think this prof would deliver.any credible lectures or
      Propositions after pressing this send button.

    18. galamcennalath says:

      Labour lost its niche on the Scottish political spectrum for umpteen reasons.

      – the SNP do social democracy better

      – the Tories and LibDems do Unionism better

      – Labour spent too much effort in feathering its own nest historically

      – Labour screwed up devolution in 1979

      – Labour failed Scotland during Westminster Tory rule

      – Labour ignored Scotland during Westminster Labour rule

      – Labour was inept, achieving little in Holyrood and saddling us with PFI

      – Labour fronted the Tories in IndyRef1

      – Labour more than any BritNat party emasculated Smith

      – slowly Labour has become out of step with Scotland’s aspirations and views

      No party deserves to recover power after that record! Nor, will they.

      Thing is, why would a Cambridge academic actually be aware of any of this!?

    19. Effijy says:

      The First Minister’s Independence Petition just went through 91.5% of the 300,000
      Target! It is slowing down now but sits with just over 271,500 signatures.

    20. Bob Mack says:

      The Prof is economical—-with the truth.

    21. The sheer imperial arrogance of this woman knows no bounds.
      You are English, missus, living and peddling your wares in the country just below us.
      We are breaking up your precious union through the ballot box.
      Look to your own fate in October.
      Labour is dead Up Here.
      Perhaps you should concentrate on the disaster that is about to befall ‘The Many’ English citizens.
      We’ll organise food parcels and second hand clothing for you come November 1st.
      We are not leaving the EU because you English citizens ‘forbid’ us to exercise the democratic normal right of any country on this planet.
      The withering husk of laughable Red Tory Brit Nats Up Here are hiding behind the sofa, afraid to open their mouths now.
      They would suffer the ultimate humiliation: we’d laugh in their Project Fear faces.
      The fat lady has sung.
      We are Independent now.
      The notion that you can ‘block’ Scotland doing what we choose is risible nonsense.

    22. Heart of Galloway says:

      Labour in Scotland is beyond redemption. Enlightened former supporters now vote SNP and of those remaining almost half embrace independence.

      Meanwhile it’s British nationalist element has either switched allegiance to the Tories or grimly adheres to UKOK fanatics such as Ian Murray.

      Labour is Scotland still has further to fall – undone by their blind hatred of the SNP, their refusal to accept Scotland’s right to self-determination and a cohort of talentless jobsworths as MSPs and MPs.

      And they incapable of changing their trajectory to oblivion – because the people needed to enact a change of course have long gone.

      The NS is English suzerainty writ large.

    23. call me dave says:

      Jazz aficionado,father of the house and hush puppy wearer agrees to lead a temporary GNU if a hundred other things align. 🙂

      Poor Corbyn, leader of the 2nd largest party stands ready to climb down of the fence to do his duty and Swansong wants to thwart the normal niceties of parliament protocol.

      Everything in his favour is against him. 🙂

    24. Clootie says:

      The Labour luvvies keep trying – Next!

    25. katherine hamilton says:

      WoW Jack,
      I was going to write something. Won’t bother now. That is it in a nutshell.

    26. JayR says:

      Thankfully most of us Scots have long got over our unhealthy, unquestioning habit of voting Labour, regardless of the reality of how useless and full of empty talk they almost always were. Only ones who still buy their bullshit are their fanclub in the media and academia. Pathetic that many folk still believe this line “you can only get a Labour government if Scotland votes Labour”

    27. manandboy says:

      Quote of the day on Independence live from Aberdeen :
      “We’re here for a reason. Who cares if it’s raining.”

    28. Doug says:

      British/English nationalist [blue,red and yellow] arrogance and ignorance towards Scotland gets evermore pronounced.

      There are many good people in England, but sorry, I hope brexit brings England to its knees, and therefore brings an end to the so-called united kingdom.

      In the short term, after the end of the union, Scotland must completely disassociate itself from England and concentrate on friendships within the EU. In the medium and long term Scotland must begin to re-forge good relations with a more contrite and open-minded England – if such an England can emerge.

    29. CameronB Brodie says:

      Just another academic who appears to be a BritNat first and foremost. Simply another minion of modernity, detached from moral reality and lacking empathetic connection to humanity and the cosmos.

      Axiological Ethics not Pseudo Morality

    30. manandboy says:

      HELEN THOMSON, in a meeting of minds with BRIAN WILSON

      “Independence is fool’s gold.” Brian Wilson, the voice of a blind, bitter, twisted, SNP-hating Labour Party in Scotland.

      Wilson’s ‘fool’s gold, includes 50 years of North Sea Oil & Gas production, currently flowing at A MILLION BARRELS A DAY – and that’s just oil. In addition, there’s… all the rest.

      Ps. It is to Celtic FC’s lasting shame and disgrace that Brian Wilson has been a Director of Celtic PLC, the Parent Company, for the past 14 years.
      Make no mistake about it, Celtic is a Unionist club, with a largely unsuspecting support. Parkhead’s best kept secret.

    31. robertknight says:

      The only “economy” associated with the Nutty Professor concerns logic.

    32. Clapper57 says:

      @ CameronB Brodie @ 2.01pm

      Well said Cameron. Beautifully phrased and I am sure endorsed by many on here.

      Hmm……..Academic…not of practical relevance , of only theoretical interest indeed…..largely.

    33. CameronB Brodie says:

      Prof. Helen Thompson appears to feel the need to distort the public understanding of social reality. Subsequently, she appears to want to undermine the effectiveness of social dialogue and public deliberation. That’s hardly the actions of an ethical rationalist or liberally minded supporter of universal rights. It’s something a nationalist would do though.

      @Prof. Helen Thompson
      Fill your boots.

      A dynamic model of empathy and dyspathy


      The new dynamic model of empathy in dialogue and interaction presented in this article brings together published findings from neuroscience, psychology, and social psychology with findings from six discourse-based studies relating to uncertainty, violence and conflict in UK, N Ireland, USA, Brazil and Kenya.

      An important feature of the model is its attention to negative processes and inhibiting factors that resist, block or deny empathy, which are labelled ‘dyspathy’. Removal or reversal of dyspathic forces offers an alternative to building empathy with implications for improving social relations and for conflict transformation.

      From an initial characterisation of empathy as ‘understanding the world of the Other’, the article builds a five-level model of complex dynamic systems that connects empathy processes in moment-by-moment dialogue with longer term empathic capacities, motivations and commitments, and socio-cultural histories.

      Findings from the discourse studies highlight the role of stories and scenarios in talk, and how visual and verbal images give access to emotions. Three types of verbal gestures of empathy are found that allow people to connect in dialogue, to enter into the world of the Other, and to signal shifts in perceptions of the Other.

      Empathy and dyspathy are revealed in talk about the Other through dyspathic referencing patterns that lump people into inappropriately generic groups. Metaphors of closeness and distance demonstrate a ‘Goldilocks principle’ in which empathy for the Other requires a comfortable distance from the Self, neither too close nor too far away. Increased uncertainty can result in a retreat from the Other into a safe space.

      It is suggested that we each have personal responsibility for empathy in our encounters with the Other but that this needs to be supported by leadership for empathy.

    34. Bobp says:

      Manandboy 2.21pm. Totally agree, as a celtic supporter since i was able to talk, the support should be doing more to have gotten rid of ar***oles like reid, wilson,etc.

    35. CameronB Brodie says:

      Thanks. I’d forgotten I know a bit about stuff, so I’m just getting warmed up. 😉

    36. Artyhetty says:

      Re; Winifred McCartney@12.25
      ‘They probably realise they are finished in the north of England so they are trying to find a fall guy to blame and Scotland is the handiest’.

      Yep, it’s very handy to have this sort of ignorant article from prof Thompson maybe Labour asked her to write it. NE Eng is or was, always hugely Labour. When the Tories are voted in and some Tories in Scotland win seats at WM, you hear, ‘aye, but yous let the Tories in!’ So there is animosity towards Scotland for not allowing Labour in at WM, in their minds!

      Good to see Prof of ‘political economy’ at Cambridge Uni being called out here. Wonder how she thinks the economy works given this level of ignorance. Jeez.

    37. Confused says:

      ah – the “english left”

      a bigger danger to scottish independence than the daily telegraph, the empire loyalists and the deep state all together

      then there’s the scribes, some of them right sneaky fuckers – simon jenkins, talking about “soft independence” (- would that come with a dollop of devo-max and a side-order of federalism) – I hate the insult here – that they think they can run the same trick on you as last time

      – and one of our own – hassan associating independence to a hard brexit (!)

    38. Clapper57 says:

      Hey not sure if any of you have seen ‘Aquaman’ video in response to something Ben Shapiro said…hilarious…what we need is some enterprising peeps to video similiar types of videos in response to neverending ridiculous assertions such as the one this Professor is endorsing….also in response to pretty much every televised misinformation by Unionists….I would ask my son , as this is his area, unfortunately he is going off to study in Dublin for four years…so no go.

      Humour does translate….and does drive the ‘message’ home for many who otherwise may not read political news or understand duplicity being played out…..I would love to do this…..perhaps a joint venture I may be able to discuss with some interested peeps at AUOB in Edinburgh in October ??

    39. Proud Cybernat says:

      Why should Scotland vote in a system of Government where it might – if it’s really, really, really lucky – get the party of Government that it voted for?

      Let’s not put our democracy down to the level of a lottery. If we would just vote indy then we’ll get the government we vote for Every. Single. Time. And not just when England gets fed up with the Tories.

      Do you want proper democracy or not, Scotland?

    40. Jack Murphy says:

      The Aberdeen March and Rally for Independence.TODAY.

      Independence Live have three Cams open at 2:40pm.

      Links here from IndyLive:

    41. Artyhetty says:

      re; galamcennalath@1.30

      Excellent, that would make a good poster! Having said that, Scotland knows this already, but, it could be handy to show my friends and family in NE England, when they say things like, ‘aye yous let the Tories in like’ and re independence, ‘what yous gonna do withoot the oil like?!’ LoL, so I might copy it hope that’s OK.

    42. MaggieC says:

      Stuart , I see that “ tricky dickie Leonard’s “ wife Karen is the Gmb organiser behind this strike planned at Hairmyers Hospital –

      More shit stirring from the Gmb in Scotland .

    43. Clapper57 says:

      @ MaggieC @ 2.58pm

      Hi Maggie, yep well done …how observant of you to notice this …100% agree with you…you, I and many others know what they are up to….SNPBADDING as per…there’s some Unions that we most definitely do NOT want to REMAIN part of……and the GMB is a prime example of an unwanted Union….it does NOT act in Scotland’s best interests but are mouthpieces for Labour and the unequal Union that they want to keep us a part of …..

      I am sure they will endorse the Professor’s assertion on the ‘need’ for Scots to vote Labour to get a Labour government BLOL….been there..done that..when once naive…didn’t work…cause English people didn’t want it…they still don’t want it…especially because of the idea of Unions planning strikes for political reasons as opposed to striking for actual workers rights…….Glasgow Equal pay for women springs to mind as an example.

      Nice to see someone new posting on here….welcome.

    44. Republicofscotland says:

      Another Britnat academic spouting unionist drivel, who said academics are a clever sort.

    45. Robert Peffers says:

      @Alasdair Galloway says: 17 August, 2019 at 12:51 pm:

      ” … If you want to argue that it might have been better for Heath to “take the hit” then fine, but two things. First who do you think more/ less likely to deliver devolution – Heath or Wilson (or Callaghan)?”

      And there it is, your self destruction of your entire argument. You ignore facts just as much as Westminster always has. Your reference to devolution is the key to all the unionist thinking and their failure to face reality.

      Here is the reality:-

      The term United Kingdo0m indicates the truth unionists blindly ignore and always have.

      The Union is a union of only two equally sovereign kingdoms. It is not a united country nor is it a union of four countries.

      It is, and legally remains, a union of two equally sovereign kingdoms in which the monarch of one kingdom was forced in 1688 to legally delegate the monarch’s, “Divine Right of Kings”, (a.k.a. Sovereignty), to the parliament of England. (A parliament of England that put itself into permanent recession in 1707 and has not existed since).

      The other kingdom had not legally had a sovereign monarch since 1320 – and still does not legally have one.

      Yet Westminster not only acts as the de facto parliament of England with legal sovereignty over the Kingdom of Scotland, (her only kingdom partner in the so called United Kingdom), but has the sheer hard neck to divide the two partner United Kingdom up along country lines and to treat her actual legal partner kingdom as if it were subservient to the non-existent parliament of England that still doesn’t exist today.

      The so called United Kingdom ceased to legally exist on 1 May 1707 yet the unionists wonder why the Scots are about, at long last, to assert their proper place in relation to their abusive partner in this abusive political marriage.

      Like it or lump it but Scotland is leaving and taking her rightful belongings with her. Just be thankful we do not demand recompense for what has been robbed from us since 1 May 1707.

    46. CameronB Brodie says:

      So Helen Thompson is a professor of political economy eh? It doesn’t look like it from where I’m looking. That might be because I’m a bit of a post-colonial thinker.

      Media beyond language
      Posthumanism for media studies?

      3. Post-anthropocentrism and nature-culture

      While the aspirations for Chapter Two were to look at posthumanism from a broad perspective and to define it, this chapter will dive deeper into the theory. This will be done by looking at what is left when one gets rid of anthropocentrism, as well as the supposed border between nature and culture. First post-anthropocentrism will be explored, partly through the work of Rosi Braidotti, then the concept of naturecultures, coined by Donna Haraway and then Bruno Latour’s take on the same continuum.

      Anthropocentrism is the disposition to give humans and the human subject an unreasonably large part in explanations and theories about the world. Because of its harsh critique of anthropocentrism, posthumanism can give the impression of threatening the humanistic institutions, which are already under heavy pressure and fighting for their existence. That is not the point, instead it could perhaps be viewed as a critical self-reflexive project. Posthumanism wants to acknowledge different ways of understandings of ontology, agency and materiality (Åsberg 2012a, 8).

      Leaving an anthropocentric perspective behind is an important aspect of posthumanism, for which humanism is, naturally and thoroughly anthropocentric. Åsberg points out that humanism is not universal or neutral, but can instead be understood as ideology. It is creating the discourse of the human as a generic, autonomous and rational being with free will, “an abstraction without nationality, gender, sexual orientation, age or handicap” (Åsberg 2012a, 9).

      Louis Althusser and Foucault, among other antihumanists, have harshly critiqued humanism for that. Frantz Fanon has critiqued humanism as means of European cultural imperialism. (Åsberg 2012a, 8-9.) These “universal” categories, in their turn make discrimination and hierarchies based on them possible. Posthumanism aims to question the same anthropocentrism as the antihumanists, as well as to take material and physical surroundings seriously.

      In other words, posthumanism wants to step out of the still prevailing anthropocentrism and rethink the world. That means trying to think without having the human as the main focus, turning away from Anthropos. The perspective of post- or non-anthropocentrism is pervasive in posthumanism. Even though we cannot get rid of ourselves and our thinking, which is not the aim anyway, our societies and sciences are built for humans. The core raison d’être of posthumanism is questioning the analytical ability of humanism, in an attempt to reach further, to things that are missing in that philosophical tradition. Things that are present but mostly absent, like animals, trees or minerals. With the perspective of post-anthropocentrism, posthumanist thinkers want to intervene in the humanist project:

      “[T]he humanist-rationalist project has at the same time both succeeded above expectations as it has failed with catastrophic consequences. The trust of the human in its own species-specific abilities and skills as well as its tendency to position itself above the needs of other beings has created high technology and huge problems. Posthumanism is a reaction and answer to this experience”. (Lummaa & Rojola 2014, 13; my translation)

    47. katherine hamilton says:

      Don’t agree here Rev. I think we need more pro-union from Labour. More UJ’s, more no oil, more student fees (see Blair), more scaring pensioners, more of all their hogwash. More Brown, more international solidarity with a pro-Brexit leader.

      Above all, more Rudyard Longhorn. (see WGD. He’s got loads)

      How Ms. Professor can be so wrong is a puzzle. Oh, it’s not. She knows. Just telling her English luvvies what they want to hear and absolve themselves of blame after the next election. It was the Scots wot lost it.

    48. manandboy says:

      Robert. Love it!

    49. Muscleguy says:

      I also think Prof Thomson has taken her academic hat off and is shilling for her beloved Labour party. I bet if any of her students submitted work so easily debunked as this they would get marked down heavily by this prof.

      As a former academic myself I know there are some people who compartmentalise their minds enabling them to be good scientists at work then religious or New Age types at home with all scientific rigour abandoned. I expect we all, myself included, do this to some extent even as I try hard not to let it be so.

      But for those who, like her, do this in a big way it is very tempting to call them hypocrites.

      I’ve just finished Daniel Dorling’s Injustice, an excellent book marred by his curiously unevidenced and oft repeated assertion that everybody has the same capacity for learning. I only take that point up to that many are mentally impoverished at home in infancy and childhood, no books for eg. But that still doesn’t mean everybody has the same capacities. Just like those with innate excellent hand-eye coordination stand out in sports from a young age. I remember some friends like that at primary school, the guy who we couldn’t get out with the bat in cricket but who could bowl us etc. We were 8.

      I am blessed with a truly excellent memory which amazes my wife and offspring and my sisters. This isn’t due to a childhood spent in memory exercises, it simply was. I also have unusually steady hands which made me a demon fine dissector in biology. I could do things nobody else would attempt. Even after having a joint fused in each hand and even while they hurt an awful lot they never shook. In late middle age they are still rock solid. I did spend time as a teenager painting small soldiers and railway modelling but I was good at that and attempted crazy stuff with the finest brushes because I could.

    50. Robert Peffers says:

      @robertknight says: 17 August, 2019 at 2:25 pm:

      ” … The only “economy” associated with the Nutty Professor concerns logic.”

      The Professor is the very epitome of why academics have a very bad reputation among the general public of whom academia is insulated in a bubble about to burst.

    51. CameronB Brodie says:

      @Prof. Helen Thompson
      As I’m a bit of a post-colonial egalitarian, social sustainability is high on my check-list of governance priorities. That doesn’t appear to be the case for yourself, so here’s a wee peek into the realm of moral realism and metaethical and epistemological justification.

      Growing in Goodness
      Towards a Symbiotic Ethics

    52. The Welsh Dragon just thumped the English Leopards,lots of guys who spend to much time lifting weights crashing into each other for 80 minutes,

      France v Scotland tonight,hopefully see some running/skill rugby.

    53. Robert Peffers says:

      There will be only one thing to say as Scotland leaves the United Kingdom and remains in the European Union:-

      “The union is dead – long live the union”. But this time we will be a full partner in the union and not a vassal state as we are in the current union.

      Just think about it – in the EU we will get our turn as the EU president. If we don’t like something the EU is proposing to do we can veto it and we can propose things we would like and the proposal will be seriously considered. There is only one class of citizen in the EU.

    54. robertknight says:

      The Professor would have it Scottish independence is counterproductive in that both Scotland and England would then be in the apparently ‘unenviable’ position of being guaranteed to elect whatever shade of Government was determined by the electorate.

      What’s not to like?

    55. robertknight says:

      The Professor would have it Scottish independence is counterproductive in that both Scotland and England would then be in the apparently ‘unenviable’ position of being guaranteed to elect whatever shade of Government as determined by the electorate.

      What’s not to like?

    56. Robert Peffers says:

      So has anyone got anything to say about AUOB Aberdeen?
      I haven’t really slept well for several days and kept nodding off and so only got bits of the live stream here and there. Never got any indication of the attendance figures, though.

    57. twathater says:

      Gala & Jack up thread great comments

      This prof should know that the only thing keeping her beloved liebour party out of government is the English voters proclivity for voting tory , as has been pointed out time immemorial Scotland ONLY gets the government the English vote for , this is why we have this MAHOOSIVE CLUSTERFUCK about to decimate our country and people

      As proud cybernat posts above ONLY INDEPENDENCE will give us the ability to elect the government we choose , and if they are not doing the job correctly we can REMOVE them , not like just now when we are again shackled to a shower of corrupt psychopathic imbeciles thanks to our neighbours choices

    58. Terry callachan says:

      People like the prof Thompson thrive on political trickery they spend a lot of time and money writing articles that closer examination destroys makes you wonder why she does what she does and then you realise that these people are merely junior politicians planted in universities to keep the truth well away from young minds.

      Read some of her papers and you will get my drift.

      Yes Labour are finished in Scotland , for now, Scottish independence will finish them off forever, they have only ever been a unionist party 100%

      Westminster is trying to replace Labour in Scotland with Lib Dem’s they will fail

      the thing is those groups of people who do everything they can to stop Scotland becoming independent are currently shifting their vote between Labour Tory and Lib Dem in the hope that one of the three can persuade other people in Scotland who have a longer term commitment to Scotland’s welfare that sticking with one of the unionist party’s is safe safe safe.

      More and more of those other people are seeing through their better together nonsense and there’s not much that labour or Lib Dem’s can do about it, they cannot stop austerity which if they did would have a great effect,

      They cannot stop austerity because the tories are in power and the Tory plan is to increase austerity.

      SNP and Nicola Sturgeon continue to follow their plan and bit by bit we see the Scottish economy strengthen , support for independence is on the up.

      Trust the leader Nicola Sturgeon

    59. Lenny Hartley says:

      Auld Bob Looked up via google Herald is reporting Organisors claiming 12 k plus.

    60. CameronB Brodie says:

      @Prof. Helen Thompson
      You appear to be somewhat partial in your appraisal of reality, so here’s a little help for you, re. the metaethical and epistemological justification and democratic sovereignty. Stick this in your pipe and inhale.

      Expertise and Democracy

    61. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Robert Peffers

      Bunch of hypocrites that AUOB mob – they had loads of banners.

    62. call me dave says:

      The Wings party, and the cautionary tale of Mr Archie Stirling

    63. CameronB Brodie says:

      sorry….re. the metaethical and epistemological justification and democratic sovereignty.

      I wonder if the professor would like to apologies to Scotland and wider humanity, for undermining public deliberation of Scotland’s democracy?


      1. Deliberation and Legitimacy

      In general, the question “Why deliberate?” is about what motivates or what should motivate deliberative acts. To this extent, the question supposes an answer to another question, namely about the ends of deliberation. Yet, it is one thing to deliberate as an individual, and another to deliberate in and on behalf of groups.

      Political deliberation, then, seems fraught with specific complexities and conditions. Pluralism, indeed reasonable pluralism, is one of these. Because of this complexity, the apparent fruitlessness of deliberation, and disputes about the appropriate ends of democracy some theorists (e.g. Schumpeter and Posner) have essentially eliminated deliberation as part of any plausible normative theory of democratic legitimacy. Others (e.g. Cohen 1999) have claimed that deliberative democracy, far from being implausible or counter-productive, is a fundamental (non-derivative) political ideal.

      Articulating the structure of this concept and its normative status remains difficult. In Chapter 3, I noted that deliberation poses a certain kind of problem for the Kantian account of democratic legitimacy. Kant’s view makes it seem as if a political authority is legitimate whether it is democratic, deliberative or not. That is, he seems to claim that there is a duty to obey in any case. This is because the requirements for obedience do not stem, in his view, from facts about “external” political procedures but instead from moral duties imposed upon political subjects.

      In this case, the criteria for legitimacy should be understood as established prior to and independent of any political act. Two kinds of problems arise for this view. First, if legitimacy is derived prior to and independent of the concept of deliberation (and any substantive theory of justice), it is possible that the concept of the former actually impedes the development of the latter.

      If the criteria for legitimacy can be established independently of deliberation, then, the relation between deliberation and legitimate outcomes is distorted. Indeed, in some cases, it seems as if the kinds of moral constraints imposed on citizens precludes the establishment of conditions under which reason could operate freely in the way Kant himself believed it should. Chapter 4 showed how it may be possible to extend this kind of criticism to political liberalism, but also how it may be possible to modify political liberalism in a way that meets it.

      Another problem might arise even if we grant the possibility of democratic deliberation. This problem centers on the public/private distinction; and how public deliberation should be framed. In particular, without some further determination of democratic ends, one may wonder what kinds or quantities of input are necessary for meaningful deliberation. This question does not have to do with the possibility of deliberation so much as its content….

    64. Clootie says:

      Misreporting Scotland stating Police put the march figure between 4/5000

    65. Mac says:

      The one thing that has not been mentioned so far…

      Labour was strong in Scotland because we shifted towards a more socialist outlook. (Previously Scotland were Conservative)

      Labour built their ‘success’ in Scotland by supposedly fighting for the poor, when in reality they kept people poor, in order to continue in politics.

      When Blair shifted Labour to the Red Rose of Middle England, the Scottish Labour office were already in trouble. They could only pretend to look after Scotland, and hide the comparisons with a wealthier electorate in England.

      We ‘generation voters’ in Scotland, took a long time to wake up. But especially due to the MSM and Labour narratives that made Scotland a ‘Labour Colony’ .. Yes, a play on words, but that is what Scotland were.

      The McCrone report was the epitome of the hegemony that was being inflicted on Scotland aided and abetted by Labour, and their tame Northern Branch.

      The SNP started to make the middle ground… despite being called Tartan Tories on one side and Socialist Separatists on the other.

      People started waking up to the gap between the North and the South, and to the falsehoods peddled by Westminster parties. Social media crept in… and we were off.

      The Office of Scottish Labour and the Office of Scottish Conservatives are no longer of any real significance in Scotland… in reality, they are treated with disdain by their own Parties in Westminster. They are a handful of politicians fighting for their salary and personal gravy train, and the only methods left to them are SNP Bad attacks.

      Like any organisations that start to fails, that start to deteriorate… the quality of people who remain or lead or join them, falls too. Labour and Tory in Scotland are surviving only on their respective brands, not through any talent… although the MSM would have you believe otherwise, as they continuously champion lightweights like Murphy, Davidson and Swinson… in an attempt to stop the tide.

      Like Professor Thompson, they too would like a ‘way back’

      Like Brexiters and the Tories, … they would like a ‘way back’

      Like Mr Brown… dreams of a ‘way back’

      Well, the good ole days are gone. Scotland has wised up at last. Let’s be clear. There is no way back.

      There is no room in Scotland for any political party who cannot recognise the democratic deficit and the democratic right of Scotland to remain in the EU.

      There is no room in Scotland for any political party who cannot recognise the democratic deficit and the democratic right of Scotland to remain in the EU.

      There is no room in Scotland for any political party who cannot recognise the democratic deficit and the democratic right of Scotland to remain in the EU.

      And we should continue to kick these ‘klingons’ into touch. (Starting with Murdo and Swinson)

      The SNP have done an incredible job, given the sheer force of the MSM and Westminster aggression against them. And we should never forget that. It is fair to say that their performance over the past decade is the best of ANY political party in the UK.

      So, arguments over this desperate article in the NewStatesman are moot.

      Labour were warned that colluding with the Tories in Scotland against the democratic will of the residents of Scotland would complete their demise. They ignored these warnings and have been an obstruction to the progress of Scotland over the last decades.

      We will never forget the lies and threats of Better Together as they tried to return Scotland back to a Labour Colony for the benefit of Westminster, the South and Northern MPs.

    66. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      AUOB Aberdeen was good turn out @Robert Peffers says at 4:40 pm

      I was stewarding and about 30 yards from front. As we passed old E&Ms building marchers were still coming onto Union Street at the top.

      Estimate 12500 official number way out!

      Ann Beggs National Front Better Together pal Dave McDonald was up taking photos before the start of the march and with the BritNat Zoomers counter protest (2 dozen) although Colin Whyte (STV News) was getting lots of low and close ups presumably to male their presence look bigger than it actually was.

      A heavy but short burst of rain that didn’t dampen the spirits.

      YES Bikers great!

      Met @Liz G, @Ruglonian and @ Ronnie Anderson

      Great atmosphere.

    67. Mac says:

      Finally, Wings Party idea… is perfect. It is the correct thing to do. It’s merely part of the evolution of Scotland’s emergence onto the world scene as a free nation.

    68. Clapper57 says:

      @Clootie at 5.451pm

      Yes Clootie…they said organisers said 12,000 but Police Scotland estimated between 4000 to 5000 .

      Then straight after they mentioned Pride march in Glasgow and said was attended by 9000…no mention of organisers estimate 9000 or police Scotland estimate 9000…just 9000…no challenge on accuracy of figure….hmmm….seems fair and impartial…NOT.

      Compare and contrast………was so obvious to… as Pride march report followed the Indy march report…viewers were left wondering …so who came up with the 9000 figure ? …organisers or Police Scotland…

    69. Mac says:

      There is no room in Scotland for any political party who cannot recognise the democratic deficit and the democratic right of Scotland to remain in the EU.

      Sorry, Talisker doesn’t normally give me the hiccups 🙂

    70. Clapper57 says:

      @ me @ 5.52pm

      Was referring to Clootie’s post at 5.41pm NOT as I quoted 5.541pm…which is in a different time zone that obviously only I inhabit… LOL

    71. RM says:

      Easy over 20,000 at AUOB march.

    72. Ken500 says:

      Lower NE pop compared to central belt. Less likely turnout. Still great March.

      People in Scotland voted Labour to keep the Tories out. (Thatcher). Often there were not SNP
      candidates. The SNP got stronger after Devolution when separate accounts started to be published. Still not accurate. Good SNP governance.

    73. Famous15 says:

      The Edinburgh Fringe is hoaching with smart alecs taking the pish out of the indy movement.

      They are also taking the pish out of Scotland.

      Cringe to the tune of Strathspey reel soaked in whisky topped off with haggis.

      Indy cannot come soon enough.

    74. defo says:

      No shortbread Famous15?
      I had to bale out, living in an overcrowded theme park, and sickened by the optimism of the flocks of students, it wasn’t a place for grumpy old natives.
      Embra’s unco guid have long since succumbed to the corporate penny.

      Imagine boarding up Princes St Gardens so as that the local plebs don’t get to sneek a free deek at the shows. !

    75. Capella says:

      Great day for a march at Aberdeen. Fantastic turnout and I reckon the organisers’ estimate is low. A wee shower of rain along the way, fell mainly on the Union Jacketed onlookers, but not enough to dampen spirits.

      Good to see the Wings stall busy with the charming ronnie anderson on duty. Big wave to Liz g, Betty Boop, Ruglonian, Robert J Sutherland and Brian Doon the Toon. Hope to catch up again at Edinburgh.
      Now to read my Scotland in Europe booklet from the stall.

    76. Effijy says:

      Can we ask who it is specifically at Police Scotland attempts
      To estimate the crowds at the AUOB Marches?

      Do they get It right before Britnat Superiors doctor the figures in hope
      Of promotion or an MBE for Services rendered?
      Or does the BBC just do that for them to save on any errors and true numbers coming out?

      One or two of the many officials we have need be given Clickers to count as
      The March progresses and the officials can present the Official and doubly verified
      numbers to the Police and Westminster propagandists.

      If anyone knew how many Stewards and how many Police Officers were required per thousand at these events we can claim very few are necessary going with the numbers they present.

    77. CameronB Brodie says:

      The thing about post-colonial thinkers is, they tend to use a lot of big words and continental philosophy. Most are concerned about the emancipation of peoples and the individual though.

      Subject (Re-/decentred)
      From structure to rhizome: transdisciplinarity in French thought

      Modern French thought, ‘structuralism’, ‘poststructuralism’, ‘postmodernism’, Marxism as well, are currently associated with the so-called ‘death of the subject’. Foucault’s ‘anti-humanism’, the celebrated ‘death of Man’, the declining popularity of the rational,

      Kantian, transcendantal subject, reigning over what Lyotard called ‘metanarratives’,[1] are all parts of the process. Foucault’s rejection of the subject is unequivocally linked to his views on history, more precisely to his criticism of the role played by ‘the sovereignty of consciousness’ in history. His plea against ‘continuous history’ and his full-scale attacks on ‘the sovereignty of the subject’ are closely related:

      Continuous history is the indispensable correlative of the founding function of the subject: the guarantee that everything that has eluded him may be restored to him; the certainty that time will disperse nothing without restoring it in a reconstituted unity; the promise that one day the subject – in the form of historical consciousness – will once again be able to appropriate, to bring back under his sway, all those things that are kept at a distance by difference, and find in them what might be called his abode.

      Making historical analysis the discourse of the continuous and making human consciousness the original subject of all historical development and all action are the two sides of the same system of thought. In this system, time is conceived in terms of totalization and revolutions are never more than moments of consciousness. In various forms, this theme has played a constant role since the nineteenth century:

      to preserve, against all decentrings, the sovereignty of the subject, and the twin figures of anthropology and humanism.[2]

      By ‘decentrings’ of the subject Foucault means ‘the researches of psychoanalysis, linguistics and ethnology’, which ‘have decentred the subject in relation to the laws of his desire, the forms of his language, the rules of his action, or the games of his mythical or fabulous discourse.’ [3] ‘Decentred’ does not mean ‘dead’. Foucault’s 1981–82 lectures at the Collège de France dealt with The Hermeneutics of the Subject, that is with the self, the ‘care of the self’ and ancient ethics.

      It was not at variance with the proposals of The Archaeology of Knowledge: if archaeology is supposed to challenge the ‘transcendental dimension’, if its aim is to ‘free history’ from the grip of the ‘twin figures of anthropology and humanism’, that is of the ‘constituent consciousness’, if its aim is even ‘to free The first part of this dossier – on ‘Structure’, ‘Sex’, ‘Science’ and ‘Networks’ – appeared in Radical Philosophy 165, January/February 2011, pp. 15–40.

      ….An agent capable of acting, and of suffering: this is the subject, or better said the self, as conceived by Ricœur. Its place stands ‘at an equal distance from the cogito exalted by Descartes and from the cogito that Nietzsche proclaimed forfeit’. History, phenomenology and ontology are connected in Ricœur’s consideration of the subject. To be ‘able to establish the concrete ties by which the phenomenology of ‘I can’ and the ‘ontology of one’s body are related to an ontology of the self, as an acting and suffering subject’, ‘a long journey through and beyond’ the ‘philosophies of subjectivity’ is required.

      The ‘assurance of being oneself acting and suffering’, ‘even if it is always in some sense received from another’, this ‘self-attestation’, not the Cartesian ego, are Ricœur’s basic concern: they have to do with persons and ethics. It is only at the ‘ethical level’ (in the final section of the book) that one comes to the real picture: confronting ‘narrative identity, oscillating between sameness and selfhood, and ethical identity, which requires a person accountable for his or her acts’. ‘I never forget to speak of humans as acting and suffering.’

      Thus, hermeneutics of the self is concerned with what Ricœur calls the question Who? (distinct from the question What? and the question Why?). ‘We never leave the problem of selfhood as long as we remain within the orbit of the question Who?’; it is concerned with imputation, that is: with the moral subject of imputation, or, better said, ‘the articulation of ascription and imputation in the moral and legal sense’.[7]

    78. One of the main things the SNP did in Westminster was to bring forward a debate on the Scottish peoples’ claim of right to be Sovereign. This was voted on and passed unanimously. Most Tories. Labour and LibDem members abstained, the bill was therefore passed

    79. Lenny Hartley says:

      William Purves, if I remember correctly there was no vote on the motion that the Scots were Sovereign, it passed unopposed.

    80. CameronB Brodie says:

      In case the penny hasn’t dropped yet for some, academia is full of cognitively biased and prejudiced numpties. The full-English Brexit clearly indicates Scots have no legal person-hood outside that defined by the right-wing of the Tory party. It can be deduced from this observations that the British constitution is not worth the paper it is written on, Scotland’s political agency is that which is allowed by British nationalism, and Britain is not a liberal democracy. That’s bad, mk.

      Determining The Common Good:
      A (Re-)Constructive Critique Of The Proceduralist Paradigm

      ….The central thesis of proceduralism which, in its modern form, harks back to the works of Schubert (1960) and Fraenkel (1964, 1991) is the following:

      The common good consists in the output of a political system whose procedures meet specific normative and functional standards of adequacy.

      Normative standards of adequacy are generally defined in terms of democratic conditions that guarantee the fair and equal participation of all citizens in collective decision-making processes (Offe 2012, 16); the functional adequacy of a political system is determined by its responsiveness to the citizens’ asserted interests and by its effectiveness and efficiency in implementing them through policies (Putnam 1992, 63-73)1.

      The basic model of proceduralism is best understood as an inputoutput structure: the input into the political system consists in the citizens’ interests that are asserted via participatory procedures (elections, referendums, petitions etc.). The asserted interests are received by the system’s institutions and implemented through policies (laws, budget resolutions, executive decisions etc.) which – taken as a whole – constitute the system’s output….

    81. Lenny Hartley says:

      Effijy the polis are doing us and their overtime bill favours by underestimating numbers on marches. There is a ratio of Polis/Stewards to Marchers required by law. The Polis access the risk and put as few officers on Duty as they can get away with , but their estimate must never suggest that there are more marchers per Polis as per the ratio. Same goes for Stewards.

    82. Charles Campbell says:

      Like the vast majority of English politicians and talking heads, Helen Thompson is an abuser. This description applies no less to those on the left who mistakenly think of themselves as progressives, than it pertains to the snarling wolves who inhabit the tory party and the city of London.

      Such people do not give a fig for the interests of the people of Scotland – but unfortunately, as we all know, there is no small number of Scots who, contrary to all logic and decency, are prepared to cravenly acquiesce in this approach. Usually, narrow self interest and the toxic promise of advancement within the unionist political parties are the drivers for such treachery.

      To return to the English commentariat problem, I engaged Polly Toynbee in conversation a few years ago after a Festival of Politics event at Holyrood. Not only was I dismayed at her closed mind, I was equally aghast at her ignorance of Scottish politics.

      Last night, at the Book Festival, I took Alan Rusbridger to task for the Guardian’s statist attitude to Scotland’s aspiration to become a normal democracy. His explanation was that it was an editorial view that the union would be better if continued, rather than ended! So, just another “progressive” imperialist abuser (and one who, like Chris Patten, has ended up with a sinecure at Oxford).

      As for the quality of some academics nowadays in a hugely expanded (devalued?) education sector, I have but three words to offer for consideration: Professor David Begg

    83. Dan says:

      Yay! Another braw day out visiting Aberdeen to be part of the AUOB march activities.
      Excellent cruise up and back through Glenshee and across Deeside with a wee group of YES Bikers. We met up with the rest of the YB congregation before we all headed into town and along Union Street and parked up one either side of the road and allowed the marchers to pass.
      We did ride by an ever so wee crowd of yoonage gathered around manky shirted bloke, but we couldn’t hear a word he was saying as we revved our bikes and tooted our horns thus completely drowning out whatever delusional pish he was yakking into his megaphone.
      Good crowd of marchers turned out, obviously not as many as the Glasgow and Edinburgh events but certainly enough to raise awareness of the locals.
      There seemed to be an awful lot of Police present, not that they had much to do as the marchers are so good natured.
      Met up with various Wingers at the stall and even though I was pretty fatigued with all the riding, I did managed a close encounter with the hairy string! Though I’d like it to be be known that I defo did not inhale…
      There will be lots of images and vids being uploaded in the next day or so but there’s already some good stuff showing the day if you search twitter #auob & #auobaberdeen

      EG. 2 min vid of marchers

    84. Al-Stuart says:

      Does the New Statesman cartoon portrait person not like the professor?

      That sketch by the headline looks like a Dickensian collector of cats and bag lady.

      Mayday, mayday, calling Mr Chris Cairns to the rescue.

      Chris, could you no make a nicer pen and ink portrait of the professor and send it in to New Statesman. As a kindness to Cambridge University department of constitutional expertise (English Parliament At Westminster division) 🙂

    85. Robert Peffers says:

      @Famous15 says: 17 August, 2019 at 6:28 pm:

      ” … The Edinburgh Fringe is hoaching with smart alecs taking the pish out of the indy movement.
      They are also taking the pish out of Scotland.”

      You may not remember this but a considerable time ago I predicted all the, so called, comedy that was being published and broadcast about Scottish independence would end up with the, (so called), comedians hanging themselves with the lots of rope we allowed them to have.

      Many of them are already hung by their own comedy as are so many of the so called journalists and so called politicians. They aren’t laughing now. Many in fact are crying.

      Another corner has just been turned and there can be no turning back.

    86. Colin Alexander says:

      “Unless specifically framed, motions tabled on opposition days are not seen as binding on the Government”.

      Link to the Claim of Right debate:

      The main debate stars with:

      ““The principle of unlimited sovereignty of parliament is a distinctly English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law”—

      those words are not mine. They are the words of the Lord President of the Court of Session in 1953 during the case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate. This Parliament, I accept, has a great deal of power, and rightly all of us who are democrats should respect the will of the people, but if we are to accept and respect that will in this place, why not in Scotland?

    87. Robert Peffers says:

      @defo says: 17 August, 2019 at 6:50 pm:

      ” … Embra’s unco guid have long since succumbed to the corporate penny.
      Imagine boarding up Princes St Gardens so as that the local plebs don’t get to sneek a free deek at the shows. !”

      That’s not the worst best of it, defo. I read on line yesterday that, “The Good Burgers”, (did I spell that right?), of Edinburgh had decided in their wisdom to allow restaurants and bars to be allowed on Edinburgh’s Princes Street.

      Rather a come down for what was once claimed to be one of the finest poshest shopping streets in the World.

      So now that the proverbial gilt on the gingerbread has become somewhat tarnished and the prestigious shops moving out the good burgers of the capital city are to allow food outlets on the once great shopping street.

      Will we now see Southern Fried Chicken joints, Pizza Huts, William Hills, JD Wetherspoon pubs and so on along that once great shopping street? A couple of Chinese Take-aways and a bevy of charity shops is better than empty, boarded up, shops and it will after all keep some money coming into the cooncil coffers.

    88. galamcennalath says:

      I think we are on the verge of there being general acceptance that the will of the Scots is to have an IndyRef2 soon and that we want independence. This will become the normaland default position across the UK and the world.

      I also think, before IndyRef2 voting occurs, another step will become normalised. That is, the decision is one for Scots to make and others should interfere.

      The BritNat parties in Scotland are in a sorry state.

      Labour will never recover from being the Tories’ front guys in Better Togeter. They destroyed their party in Scotland to win a few more years in the union.

      The Tories with media assistance built up the alternative and more acceptable brand of the Ruth Davidson Just Say No Party. That has passed its sell by date, shredded by Brexit.

      So how will Scottish BritNats get a NO campaign up and running? With difficulty! It has no grassroots and will be dark money and online manipulation based.

    89. CameronB Brodie says:

      OT re. Stephen Kinnock. It’s shit-for-brains arsehole like him that are enemies of democracy. It is not possible to be patriotic to a supra-national entity, such as Britain. Hence British nationalism.

      Time for some brain science?

      Cognitive underpinnings of nationalistic ideology in the context of Brexit

      Nationalistic identities often play an influential role in citizens’ voting behavior and political engagement. Nationalistic ideologies tend to have firm categories and rules for what belongs to and represents the national culture. In a sample of 332 UK citizens, we tested whether strict categorization of stimuli and rules in objective
      cognitive tasks would be evident in strongly nationalistic individuals.

      Using voting behavior and attitudes from the United Kingdom’s 2016 EU referendum, we found that a flexible representation
      of national identity and culture was linked to cognitive
      flexibility in the ideologically neutral Wisconsin Card Sorting Test and Remote Associates Test, and to self-reported flexibility under uncertainty. Path analysis revealed that subjective and objective cognitive inflexibility predicted heightened authoritarianism, nationalism, conservatism, and system justification, and these in turn were predictive of support for Brexit and opposition to immigration, the European Union, and free movement of labor.

      This model accounted for 47.6% of the variance in support for Brexit. Path analysis models were also predictive of participants’ sense of personal attachment to the United Kingdom, signifying that individual differences in cognitive flexibility may contribute toward ideological thinking styles that shape both nationalistic attitudes and personal sense of nationalistic identity. These findings further suggest that emotionally neutral “cold” cognitive information processing –
      and not just “hot” emotional cognition – may play a key role in ideological behavior and identity.

      cognitive flexibility | nationalism | ideology | political psychology | Brexit

    90. Dr Jim says:

      NS, “I believe that position will prove to be unsustainable”

      She’s being proved right more and more every day

    91. Cubby says:


      “…….Celtic is a unionist club”

      I would add two points of info to back that up:

      1. John Reid ex labour Home Secretary ex Celtic chairman.

      2. Celtic wanting to join the English premier league

      Confused Celtic fans abound over this. Of course some Celtic fans are anti uk when it comes to a United ireland but don’t care about Scotland.

    92. Robert Peffers says:

      @William Purves says: 17 August, 2019 at 7:28 pm:

      ” … One of the main things the SNP did in Westminster was to bring forward a debate on the Scottish peoples’ claim of right to be Sovereign. This was voted on and passed unanimously. Most Tories. Labour and LibDem members abstained, the bill was therefore passed.”

      Aye! William and there was very good reason, “…most Tories. Labour and LibDem members abstained”. The last thing in the World they wanted was for them blocking it and the matter being taken to both Westminster’s Supreme Court and on to the EU Court of Human rights. However, no matter what they did they were on a loser. All it did was delay the matter coming to a head and to a head it will come.

      The glaringly obvious fact is that it is now on public record, and recorded as such in Hansard, that the people of Scotland are legally sovereign and if they are legally sovereign then they have the sovereign right for a majority of them to tell the Scottish Government, no matter what party or parties are in power, to declare the Union is over.

      So here’s a thought for the many numpties commenting on Wings who have nothing better to do than run down the FM, SG, SNP at Westminster for not doing anything to consider that Scotland now has legal right for any organisation who can show they have a majority of the people of Scotland who want to end the union to go ahead and instruct the FM, SG or the Westminster SNP faction to simply inform Westminster that the union is over.

      Just how could Westminster wriggle out of that? Westminster officially agrees the people of Scotland are legally sovereign and a majority of them are declaring the union is over. How do they legally get out of that?

      Now before you answer, William, consider this item of news that was reported this week. Several Scottish Regiments are on an exercise in England to deal with civil unrest. A while back Police Scotland were put on alert to reinforce the police and troops in N.I. in case of insurrection.

    93. Eckle Fechan says:

      Having read her piece after this post, my instinctive conclusion: FAB – Fucking Academic Balloon. What price is a loaf?

    94. Dan says:

      There were at least two folk that I was aware of asking those attending the march in Aberdeen if they would take part in a survey with quite a range of in depth questions and how would you vote if scenarios for University of Glasgow / College of Social Sciences titled : Surveys at Scottish Independence Rallies.
      Principal Investigator: Michael T. Heaney, Ph.D., Research Fellow, University of Glasgow.

      From the info sheet: “Study Information – The purpose of the research is to understand better why people participate in protests and how they relate to contemporary politics in the UK. It focuses on the movement for Scottish Independence and its relationship to contemporary British politics.”

      Those choosing to complete the surveys would remain anonymous as no personal details were collected.
      It did make me ponder if it is legitimate research or a sinister fishing operation to try to find out what motivates those seeking self determination for Scotland, and how they could potential be influenced in a way that games out and nullifies their motivations…

      This is the Michael Heaney chap on twitter and he has been tweeting pics and comment re the AUOB march throughout the day.

    95. Robert Peffers says:

      @Lenny Hartley says: 17 August, 2019 at 7:47 pm:

      ” … William Purves, if I remember correctly there was no vote on the motion that the Scots were Sovereign, it passed unopposed.”

      Err! Lenny, that’s what William said – the unionists abstained so the motion was waved through as passed without a vote. If you watch Westminster Live you will see the speaker ask who is for and who is against a motion. Then he decides if, “The Ayes have it”, or if, “The No’s Have it”. If he/she cannot decide then he/she calls for a the house to troop through the division lobbies. By calling for the Doors to be locked.

      Note the difference from Holyrood where the Preceding Officer just announces the MSPs should vote now and the MSPs simply press a button and the result immediately comes up on the Presiding Officers monitor. This is one reason that Holyrood gets through a hell of a lot more business than does Westminster.

    96. Welsh Sion says:

      Commiserations to Scot Finlayson and others.

      But who are top of the World Cup rankings as of tonight?

      (Nope – I’m not down t’pub!)

    97. Confused says:

      Was really looking forward to the AUOB March today in Glasgow.

      My first time.

      Not what I was really expecting. Lots of friendly types gave me their mobile numbers, strangely.

      Maybe this independence thing is over-rated.

    98. CameronB Brodie says:

      @Stephen Kinnock
      Right, shit-for-brains, got your ears pinned back? British nationalism asserts strong cultural relativism by privileging English culture and English nationalism (see the full-English Brexit). This political arrangement is not compatible with universal human rights, and is certainly not ordained by God as the model of moral good. Further, it is the immutability of English legal doctrine that isolates Britain from international law and practice, leading to the British constitution providing zero legal protection to Scots, against the excesses of abusive constitutional majoritarianism. Got that?

      Reflective equilibrium and moral objectivity


      Ever since the introduction of reflective equilibrium in ethics, it has been argued that reflective equilibrium either leads to moral relativism, or that it turns out to be a form of intuitionism in disguise. Despite these criticisms, reflective equilibrium remains the most dominant method of moral justification in ethics.

      In this paper, I therefore critically examine the most recent attempts to defend the method of reflective equilibrium against these objections. Defenders of reflective equilibrium typically respond to the objections by saying that either reflective equilibrium can in fact safeguard moral objectivity or alternatively, even if it cannot, that there simply are no reasonable alternatives.

      In this paper, I take issue with both responses. First, I argue that given the non-foundationalist aspirations of reflective equilibrium, moral objectivity cannot be maintained. Second, I argue that reflective equilibrium is not the only game in town once intuitionism has been discarded. I argue that given their own normative ambitions, combined with their rejection of intuitionism, proponents of reflective equilibrium have reason to take alternative methods of moral justification, and more specifically transcendental arguments, more seriously than they have done so far. I end by sketching the outlines of what this alternative methodology might look like.

      Reflective equilibrium; moral objectivity; coherentism; foundationalism; considered judgments; transcendental arguments

    99. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Cubby says: “Confused Celtic fans abound over this.”

      Not nearly as many there were back when I was one of their number, it confused the shit out of me to hear the SNP being reviled as some sort of Protestant plot to have the Irish Catholics forcibly re-repatriated, after Independence.

      Apparently only the Labour Party could save us, the same Labour Party that sent the Troops in and introduced internment without trial. I recall being gobsmacked when the Celtic View printed an editorial advising fans to vote NO in the 1979 referendum, as devolution would be the thin end of a wedge that would lead to the break up of the United Kingdom…

      …As the flag of the Irish Republic fluttered proudly above Celtic Park.

      But then Celtic Board has always been riddled with Labourite Unionists, the Kelly’s, the Haughie’s and the Abominable No-Man himself, Brian Wilson as well as the former Viceroy of the six counties who you mentioned.

    100. Scott says:

      “The SNP have already and repeatedly offered to put Jeremy Corbyn into No.10 without even asking anything in return”.

      Why isn’t the SNP demanding that Corbyn agree to grant a Section 30 order enabling a second referendum, in exchange for making him caretaker PM?

    101. manandboy says:

      During British Imperial Rule of India, the English Establishment removed £44 TRILLION from India’s economy, while claiming that India owed the Empire billions.

      Sounds vaguely familiar.

      Scotland-England divorce pending.

    102. Artyhetty says:


      How do you know they haven’t asked nicely, or even demanded?
      Corbyn would say no you cannae’, anyway, he’s a Britnat, knows which side his country’s bread is buttered, ie living off of the backs of Scotland’s wealth, via Scots industry and revenues.

    103. Den Cairns says:

      Was watching my ‘taped’ The Planets with the very excellent B.Cox and it led me again to contemplate the notion of Infinity. I am in no doubt that this head scratcher is a rival to some of the enlightened Unionists who encourage their preferred Status Quo.

    104. uno mas says:

      @ Confused

      Yes you are. Just a bit.


    105. manandboy says:


      The so-called British Empire, was built on naval and military power, to which was later added economic and industrial power. But in addition to these, the Empire was also built on the power of propaganda. Now, with largely, only the ‘mini-Empire’ of the UK remaining, the only real power left in the hands of the English Ruling Class is propaganda.

      But, the extent and persuasive force of the Westminster propaganda machine should never be underestimated. It is only the ongoing mind-control of enough of the UK electorate, that is holding most of what remains of the Empire, viz The Union, together. But that is not to say that propaganda will save the day.
      For the genie is out of the bottle, the cat is out of the bag, and all the lies, corruption and treachery of the British State, are being brought inexorably into the daylight, particularly in Scotland. The Great British Lying Machine is no longer up to the job of suppressing the Scots by enforced deception. The days of scandalous exploitation of Scotland are coming to an end, as the realisation dawns in the minds of more and more Scottish voters, that Scotland will be far, far better off, if divorced from England.

      Cannae wait to be independent.

    106. Dan says:

      Why am I still wide awake…

      Operation Yellowhammer and also raising pension age mentioned in following tweet thread.

    107. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      10,000 Flags For Yes

      Had a blether with Tartanpigsy (Mark Piggott) today at the Friends of WOS stall in Aberdeen.

      He’s a wee bit worried that the fundraiser is climbing rather slowly. He thinks it may be because, unlike 2014, where we had a deadline of 18th September, there is no publicly defined ‘deadline’ in place at the moment.

      He does have a deadline though. He has to raise enough via the crowdfunder to get the flags on their way to arrive here BEFORE 31st October, otherwise there will be major problems importing the flags after BREXIT.

      If you can throw some dosh into the crowdfunder by payday at the end of this month, Mark may be able to stop quivering. See the story and contribute at this link:-

    108. Hamish100 says:

      For those confused how Police Scotland count people.

      A FOI asking how they calculated the Aberdeen march v the one in Glasgow you may find people are counted differently!

    109. manandboy says:

      ‘Britain stands on a precipice,’ warns Labour leader, as 100 MPs tell Boris Johnson to recall parliament

      Should be interesting.

    110. Alasdair Galloway says:

      And there it is, your self destruction of your entire argument. You ignore facts just as much as Westminster always has. Your reference to devolution is the key to all the unionist thinking and their failure to face reality.

      Here is the reality:-

      The term United Kingdo0m indicates the truth unionists blindly ignore and always have.

      The Union is a union of only two equally sovereign kingdoms. It is not a united country nor is it a union of four countries.

      It is, and legally remains, a union of two equally sovereign kingdoms in which the monarch of one kingdom was forced in 1688 to legally delegate the monarch’s, “Divine Right of Kings”, (a.k.a. Sovereignty), to the parliament of England. (A parliament of England that put itself into permanent recession in 1707 and has not existed since).

      The other kingdom had not legally had a sovereign monarch since 1320 – and still does not legally have one.

      Yet Westminster not only acts as the de facto parliament of England with legal sovereignty over the Kingdom of Scotland, (her only kingdom partner in the so called United Kingdom), but has the sheer hard neck to divide the two partner United Kingdom up along country lines and to treat her actual legal partner kingdom as if it were subservient to the non-existent parliament of England that still doesn’t exist today.

      The so called United Kingdom ceased to legally exist on 1 May 1707 yet the unionists wonder why the Scots are about, at long last, to assert their proper place in relation to their abusive partner in this abusive political marriage.

      Like it or lump it but Scotland is leaving and taking her rightful belongings with her. Just be thankful we do not demand recompense for what has been robbed from us since 1 May 1707.
      @Robert Peffers 3.47 17 August
      Does it really? I think you need to keep the distinction between the formal – what should happen (or what it can be argued should happen) and the informal (what actually happens).
      Lets, start off from your own argument with which I have some agreement – at least formally. Formally there is only one Treaty between which is between Scotland and England. But one reason for this is that Ireland was (NI still is) part of the UK by conquest, as is Wales. So formally you might be right, but in terms of what is really happening, you are not.
      As for the “hard neck” of WM, I prefer pure brass. Have a read at Devine’s “The Scottish Nation” where he makes clear that while it can be formally argued that the Treaty of Union created a new country and there was a new Parliament, the reality was quite different (and still is). In practice what happened was that Scotland sent down representatives who basically “joined in” with the English Parliament. England never even had an election.
      This is where we need to distinguish between arguments based on close reading of a Treaty which has been broken regularly since 1707. The reality was that the Treaty of Union allowed the Scottish elite to pretend they had not given in, but rather come to an agreement with their much more powerful neighbour. Both of these things continue to this day – the reality is the continuing Parliament of England (for instance the Supreme Court happily reaffirmed the sovereignty of the HoC in the case brought by Gina Miller re Brexit, but try getting them to recognise the sovereignty of the people).
      As for the “self destruction of your entire argument”, the fact is that at that time, devolution was the only game in town. The SNP had only 11 MPs, though we thought that was pretty good at the time. Perhaps you read too much in to what I wrote, but I think Harold Wilson got it right when he said “politics is the art of the possible”. Devolution would have furthered Scotland’s cause in the late 70s – even the poor wee thing that Callaghan was going to create could have served as a rallying point for opposition to Thatcher. Whatever legal arguments could be made the fact is that independence was not an option for there was no vehicle to secure it.
      For the avoidance of doubt, independence is my own preference.

    111. Scott says:


      “How do you know they haven’t asked nicely, or even demanded?”

      It’s a pretty good bet the SNP haven’t asked Corbyn for a Section 30 order in exchange for their support, because if they had, they’d have made it known publicly.

      That’s if the SNP are serious about seizing the moment as an opportunity to progress the cause of Independence.

      Because now is the time to do it. The numbers might not be there in the next Parliament.

    112. ScotsCanuck says:

      … oh! how I enjoyed reading that !! … cheers Stu .. and if I could, I would buy you a Pint (you can hold me tae that !!)

    113. Elmac says:

      Had a brief discussion with a neighbour very recently who I know to be pro independence and an SNP voter. The subject of the TV “licence” fee was raised and he was taken aback that I refused to pay the tax. I made the obvious comments about propaganda and paying to be lied to, but his response was to suggest that by refusing to pay I was not contributing to the “common good”.

      Problem is I do not see what “common good” the BBC provides. They do produce a lot of quality output, but it is interspersed with almost subliminal propaganda in favour of the British state. Other broadcasters also provide quality output on the back of advertising revenue and/or subscriptions but it is the choice of the viewer to decide whether to watch and pay the price, if any, for doing so and clearly BBC could follow suit – so why don’t they? The reason is obvious – state control of broadcasting and making you pay for it.

      In the modern world we have many gadgets from toasters to microwaves. None of these require a licence to operate. Why on earth should anyone require a licence for a simple TV in order to receive broadcasts from companies who benefit from those broadcasts, whether that be through advertising revenue, or by subscription or, in the case of the BBC through the promulgation of state propaganda. The concept of a TV licence, even without getting in to the arguments of who can afford to pay and those who are disadvantaged, is a nonsense. In the case of the BBC there is no demonstrable “common good” there is nothing good about indoctrination.

      “Britannia Rules The Waves” in nautical terms may well be gone but it is clear that Britannia intends to rule the air waves. DO NOT PAY THE TV TAX – DO NOT PAY TO BE LIED TO.

    114. CameronB Brodie says:

      re. Stephen Kinnock’s misunderstanding of the difference between patriotism and nationalism. Clarifying this issue would help matters and help our cause, IMHO.

      I hope Dugdale is still taking notes.

      Legitimate Partiality, Parents and Patriots

      III Why Nations are not like Families

      Here are two crucial disanalogies between the nation and the family. First, a weighty reason for there to be families, a reason for children to be raised by parents with responsibility for them, is the particular value that comes, both to children and adults, from that fiduciary relationship. Children, born entirely helpless and vulnerable, grow up with the benefit of initially sensing, and then coming to understand, that there are particular adults charged with the task of meeting their most basic needs and, as they grow up, discharging more complex and emotionally demanding duties of care.

      Adults benefit from playing that fiduciary role. By its very nature, the fiduciary relationship will entail important kinds of partiality. Only if national relationships are the precondition of basic order and security, which we doubt, do such relationships yield anything like an equivalently deep and fundamental ground for partiality.

      Second, when all goes well, parents and children love one another. To love someone is to care that their lives go better rather than worse – to care about that more than one cares about the well-being of a stranger. There is a particular value to being the person who brings it about that one?s loved ones lives do indeed go better rather than worse, and to having one?s well-being promoted by someone who loves one, so distinctive familial relationship goods are indeed realized when family members act on that motivation. Even in the case of the family, though, we regard that consideration, though real, as weak.

      It is secondary to, and parasitic on, the value of the relationship itself. Although fellow nationals can doubtless develop something that we might think of as affection for one another, and doubtless it can be valuable to promote the well-being of those for whom one feels affection, we cannot regard that value as having anything like the weight of that in the case of the family. Fellow nationals do not love each other; the chances are they don?t even know each other.

      IV National Relationship Goods

      What kinds of partiality towards fellow nationals are indeed susceptible to justification by appeal to the value of the national relationship? Taking David Miller’s influential defence of nationality as what can be no more than an exploratory pilot study, we start by identifying claims about the specific contribution to well-being made by that relationship.

      So what are nations, and what goods do national relationships contribute to human lives? For Miller (2000:30-31), a nation is “a community constituted by mutual belief, extended in history, active in character, connected to a particular territory, and thought to be marked off from other communities by its members? distinct traits”. According to Miller (2005:68-69), “…people who deny the significance of national identities in circumstances where such an identity is accessible to them are missing out on the opportunity to place their individual lives in the context of a collective project that has been handed down from generation to generation, involving among other things the shaping of the physical environment in which they live, and whose future they could help to determine, by political participation and in other ways”.

      It is striking how many of these characteristics and goods might describe and be realized by (a) members of a political community and (b) members of a single global political community. We do not have space to explore the latter possibility; clearly a lot turns on how we read phrases like “particular territory” – is the planet earth one of those? – and “members? distinct traits” – might these be traits be distinctive of human beings? But the former is key to our understanding of what national relationship goods are.

      For theorists like Miller, national identity is important primarily because, for him, it is a precondition for the achievement of political goods – the nation provides the affective and motivational basis for people to realize political goods in their lives. Sometimes, as in the passage quoted, those goods are conceived procedurally, with the emphasis simply on the value of membership of a particular kind of collective project. Sometimes, such as when arguing that a sense of national identity is needed to underpin egalitarian redistribution and social justice, Miller offers a more specific and substantive vision.i

      P.S. Being a Conservative does not automatically translate as being a Tory. Tories tend towards prejudice, rigid thinking and authoritarianism. Being a Tory is bad, mk. 😉

    115. Mary miles says:

      Hi from Tassie:

      Seemed like a great march in Aberdeen. I couldn’t go to bed last night until I’d watched it on my ipad! There was a figure mentioned o 12,000 but I don’t know if this has been confirmed? I wish I’d been there to join it!

    116. CameronB Brodie says:

      P.S. Tories can learn to be better people as the brain is plastic. It all boils down to the individual’s moral positioning and their ethical commitment towards social justice, or lack of.

    117. Graeme J McAllan says:

      Professor of tea-leaf reading 🙁

    118. Effijy says:

      Sky news at 5.30am-

      Boris Johnson to visit EU leaders and advises that
      Parliament can’t stop England doing Brexit.

      Is that encouraging? Scotland and other colonies must
      Have broken away and they remain as Europeans.

      I played this back 3 times and then a newspaper reviewer
      Repeated the same England Brexit.

      I wouldn’t contact Sky to complain as I proved again that Westminster
      And it’s Tory Media consider the UK to be England.


    119. manandboy says:

      I do not want to send anything down into anyone’s shoes, but if a No Deal Brexit on the 31st of October seems just a little more than likely, then the anticipated food riots and consequent civil disorder, will kick-off well before the last day of October.
      Yet MP’s are acting as if they have all the time in the world to sort a Brexit No Deal out. And that includes another 3 wk holiday period, and, a Party Conference season of 2/3 weeks.

      Unless someone with real influence or authority at Westminster makes some kind of decisive move, then events on the streets of the UK’s towns & cities, will overtake events in the corridors of Westminster. If that happens, then exiting the EU will be the very least of our worries, as the priority for the population becomes self-preservation. I really doubt very much that this Tory Government has the wit to work out that time is far shorter than the October 31st deadline would suggest.
      In spite of Tory Government perceptions of the electorate, people are not stupid.
      Johnson’s Brexit buffoonery could just turn out to be the catalyst for a UK-wide disaster, as people are gripped by panic at the thought of not being able to buy food, medicine and other basic necessities for themselves and their families, including pets.

      Independence – looking more each day like an urgent necessity, but not so much to the politicians.

    120. Mac says:

      Elmac @2:33

      Good job.

      Why would anyone give money to the enemy? Simple.

      The BBC are partisan and part of the establishment.. and we have seen it time and time again in numerous examples. They cannot help themselves. And we should not pay to be subjected to Union propaganda.

    121. manandboy says:


      To Scotland’s BritNats and other No voters, Independence must seem, not like something supremely important, essential and indivisible, as it is to every other nation, like England, but like an optional but very risky luxury, which Scotland can’t afford anyway, ‘cos we’re too poor – with a million barrels of oil a day, and gas and electricity the envy of Europe.

      But then, let’s face it, Independence is inseparable from Nationhood – unless that nation is a slave colony.

    122. Breeks says:

      Robert Peffers says:
      17 August, 2019 at 10:05 pm

      The glaringly obvious fact is that it is now on public record, and recorded as such in Hansard, that the people of Scotland are legally sovereign and if they are legally sovereign then they have the sovereign right for a majority of them to tell the Scottish Government, no matter what party or parties are in power, to declare the Union is over.

      So here’s a thought for the many numpties commenting on Wings who have nothing better to do than run down the FM, SG, SNP at Westminster for not doing anything to consider that Scotland now has legal right for any organisation who can show they have a majority of the people of Scotland who want to end the union to go ahead and instruct the FM, SG or the Westminster SNP faction to simply inform Westminster that the union is over….

      Sounds terrific Robert, but the Claim of Right dates from 1988, so the cunning strategy to have it “registered in Hansard” was merely the ratification of an already established principle. If it had established the Claim of Right where nothing before had existed, you would have a good point, but the truth is the Bill merely pressed the “refresh” button. Nothing actually changed. The after was the same as the before.

      We are not being led to Independence by a stillborn SNP campaign or strategy. We are being pushed towards Independence from behind, by the likes of Boris, and the wider crass incompetence and profound ignorance of a British Establishment blundering about in the dark. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll take it. Independence by any route, victory by their own goals, but where is our team?

      I have yet to see the SNP actually capitalise on any opportunity, either electoral or constitutional, which the once in 300 years phenomenon of Brexit has generated and dropped in our laps.

      The pregnant expectancy for ‘something’ to happen to save us from Brexit has its origins both in faith the SNP will actually do something, and those who are utterly exasperated and perplexed why the SNP hasn’t already done it.

      You are a mystery to me Robert Peffers. With your apparent Constitutional awareness, your knowledge and your faith in Scotland’s Constitutional DNA, how can you defend the SNP’s stoic determination to squander the irreconcilable Constitutional stand-off which Scotland’s Democratic and Sovereign rejection of Brexit created in 2016? You know the law, yet advocate strategy which denies that law. Sort yourself out man.

      YES2014 was defeated by the perfidy and dishonestly of the BritNat Establishment, but the hubris and arrogance of the Brexit Referendum conspired to give Scotland even better basis to hold firm on Scotland’s Constitutional structure and shake the Union to pieces. Unfortunately our Scottish Government has shaken nothing. It has been too docile by far, and yes, extremely competent in managing its governmental portfolios, but singularly ineffective in channelling the Constitutional outrage of Brexit into any meaningful momentum for Independence.

      The SNP is throwing everything, baby, bath water, soap towels and talcum powder into a democratic referendum which is all but wrecked by Unionist sophistry and Section 30 disinformation before it has even begun. The SNP can only keep it’s policy alive by constant postponement.

      What will it take for our elected government to rethink their blind charge up a democratic cul de sac, and retrace their steps back to 24th June 2016 when we all woke up to the Sovereign people of Scotland having emphatically rejected Brexit, and Westminster was presented with the binary dilemma of abandoning Brexit after Scotland’s constitutionally sovereign veto, or overruling Scotland’s sovereign edict through an outrageous act of colonial subjugation. Checkmate. Scotland wins.

      Westminster chose the latter option, which comes as a surprise to no-one, but they have suffered literally had no obstruction whatever from Scotland beyond meally mouthed gambits and compromises which Westminster has steadfastly spurned with utter contempt… and still we acquiesce to their agenda.

      Scotland could have had, should have had, a Constitutionally Sovereign Backstop even more potent and immovable than the Irish Backstop. It is a gross dereliction of responsibility that Scotland’s Government has failed to underpin it’s own fanatical and myopic faith in democracy with the impregnable building blocks of Scotland’s inalienable and unsurpassable Sovereign Constitution.

      It is now very late, but still not too late, to win this game, set and match, and restore Scotland as a fully Independent Sovereign Nation, but still we remain idle and shackled by the enigmatic conundrum; not what the SNP actually wants, we all want that, but the bizarre and unfathomable abstract methodology for getting us there.

      To say we have the SNP to thank for where we are, is perfectly true, but it’s a strong a statement against them as for them. Personally, all I currently see is Boris and the Brexit Tories stoking our boilers, while the SNP are off somewhere, missing in action trying to find their shovel.

      For God’s sake, give YES and the people of Scotland something to cheer for, not some insipid democratic booby prize next year, once we’ve all “forgotten” our meek capitulation and the humiliation which beckons in October.

      Show some fkg backbone. The Union will never be so vulnerable and at our mercy as it is now. Please, no ugly bludgeoning to death by referendum, but clinical execution by Constitutional red line. Brexit was your folly, and Scottish Independence it’s inevitable consequence. Job done.

    123. manandboy says:

      A few years back, David Cameron ordered 500 of these ‘protected patrol vehicles’, but they were never spoken of again. Now at least we know where some of them went. I just wonder what they are doing in Inverness. Are the Tories expecting civil unrest up north or something?

      Ps. Twenty-eight of these vehicles, Land Rovers and Foxhounds, on their way from Fort George barracks in Inverness to Salisbury Plain. I wonder how many are left behind at Ft George?

    124. manandboy says:

      Alexander ‘Boris’ Johnson, began as a posh Etonian and privileged clown, comedian and buffoon. Now, with all his upper-class entitled posturing, he’s just a pain in the ar** to most of the UK, the whole of Europe and beyond.

    125. call me dave says:

      As reported correctly by a winger yesterday.

      Brexit: PM to tell EU leaders to renegotiate deal

      Boris going to the mountain when he said he wouldn’t.

      Radio shortbread pundits say he’s just playing along with his plan and its a cynical move.

    126. Ottomanboi says:

      Time the SNP was made to experienced an existential reality moment.
      More of this crypto unionist nonsense from the likes of Blackford and the shrill screams of frustration from militant nationalists will shatter crystal.

    127. Robert Peffers says:

      @manandboy says:18 August, 2019 at 12:57 am:

      ” … Cannae wait to be independent.”

      I’ll tell you something that you may not have thought about yet, manandboy. You have just demonstrated that you, personally, are already independent for independence is a state of mind.

      When wee Oliver Twist stood up in the school’s dinner hall with outstretched bowl in his hand and cried out, “Please Sir, I want some more”, little Oliver was demonstrating his independence. For independence is a state of mind and you are now demonstrating your own personal independence right here and now saying, “Cannae wait to be independent”. You are already independent but you are waiting for the rest of the Scots population to catch up with you.

      Scotland’s population’s problem is that it is only just reaching the stage of holding out it’s bowl and crying out, “Please Westminster, we want some more, in fact, Westminster, we want what rightfully belongs to us all in Scotland”.

      This is exactly what your statement about propaganda is telling us. When enough of the people of Scotland say, “We want our independence”, then Scotland will be independent. No matter what Westminster says, or does, after that point is immaterial.

      When a majority of Scots want to be independent then they will be independent and Westminster’s propaganda just will not work any more.

      Independence is a state of mind.

    128. Ken500 says:

      Brexit did not happen in March and will not happen in October. May is gone. So is every politician who did not support Independence for Scotland. The Vow gangsters are gone with their corrupt legacy. The poison chalice. Johnston will be gone by October,. Not staggering on, There will be a GE the Tories will lose. Some coalition Gov. The SNP will get the S30. Independence will come if the electorate vote for it. Support for the SNP/Independence is increasing. The best time to have an IndyRef is when it can be won. One campaign at a time,

      The argument about losing the initiative is futile. If the electorate will not vote for it there is no point.

      Camapign to change the voting system. First preference votes go in the bin, to let 3rd losers in. No one understands it. One person, one vote should be the criteria. The voting system was changed illegally by Evans and the unionists, without a mandate,

      The Tories could not make a bigger mess. An utter shambles. Along with all the rest. Join the SNP. Campaign, donate. Everyone should do what they can manage. Do not leave it to other people.

    129. Ottomanboi says:

      Johnson is no ‘buffoon’. The fools are those who take him for one.
      He could well be the smart alec who leaves the opposition stuck at the starting line.
      New politics, new strategies, new mindset. SNP still stuck in the same old, same old.

    130. Robert Louis says:

      All my life, growing up, the political mantra was common ‘knowledge’. In Scotland, if you don’t vote Labour, you “let the Tories in”. I have lost count the number of times I heard that in the past.

      But Scotland has moved on. We now KNOW it is baloney. We are no longer decieved by such piffle coming from an England run and controlled Labour party. I had relatives, who supported Scottish independence, when I was younger, but who would reluctantly vote Labour “to stop the Tories getting in”.

      Labour rode on Scotland’s back for decades, getting votes for nothing, and doing NOTHING, due to this BIG lie, and it really is a LIE. Labour did nothing for Scotland, despite decades of rock solid support.

      The fact that the so-called ‘professor’ of the article, has written that Labour can win back votes in Scotland by becoming even more stridently unionist (when 52% of Scots want independence), is just so utterly disconnected with reality, it beggars belief.

      What this so-called ‘professor’ has written is pure mince. It is nothing short of stupid prejudiced nonsensical assertions, based upon pre-conceived ideas. No thought went into that article by the so-called ‘professor’, none. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

      If I were Cambridge University, I’d be wondering what kind of ill-informed chump we had actually employed.

    131. Ken500 says:

      Johnston is just a fool. An imbecile. He is just in it for the money. A complete charlatan.

      The army was cut 20,000 and has a job recruiting. It was supposed to be made up from reserves. That has not happened. London has 200 knife deaths. An increase from 500+ murders a year UK to 700+. People are moving away from London because of it.

      The Tories cut police numbers. In Scotland they were maintained. Many police officers left because of increases to their pension contributions. Too many people are detained in cells on charges that can never come to Court. Instead of being given a reprimanded or a warning. It is a total waste of time and money.

    132. galamcennalath says:

      manandboy says:

      the anticipated food riots and consequent civil disorder, will kick-off well before the last day of October.

      You make a good point. The closer to the 31st we get, with nothing of consequence being done, the more likely ‘no deal’. And when it becomes a near certainty things will kick off. Supermarket shelves will be emptied and those who don’t have (or can’t afford) a buffer in their cupboards, will get stroppy when denied the essentials.

      We’re also likely to see disruptive tactic by the likes of truckers.

      Seems the Earth is flat after all and the good ship Brexitannia is sailing bloody close to the edge.

    133. Ken500 says:

      The EU representatives will make mince of Johnston’s nonsense. A total criminal. The MSM are not reporting his criminal past. His cheating and lies. Murdoch sacked him for telling lies.

      Oxbridge is elitist. They still do not have equal membership or student numbers. Funded 2000 to 1 of every other university. They need to change their student admission criteria for more diversity of numbers. The Oxbridge political maniacs have ruined the world world. The elite responsible for the banking crash worldwide. The Pozzi pyramid schemes.

    134. McDuff says:

      The Scottish people never voted for a union with England.
      And since that time Scotland has been run from England by England for England.

    135. Cubby says:


      I have no problem with people not paying the license fee.

      Do you buy anything with VAT applied. I am sure you do. Paying money to the enemy then!

      In fact do you pay any taxes because you are paying money to the enemy.

      Simple is it?

    136. Robert Peffers says:

      @Alasdair Galloway says: 18 August, 2019 at 1:17 am:

      ” … So formally you might be right, but in terms of what is really happening, you are not.

      Whoa! Alasdair, I am not only formally right I am legally right and what is more Westminster knows I am legally right.

      Westminster, since 1 May 1707 just illegally carried on as if it were still the actual parliament of England – and it still does so today. Which is why I describe Westminster as the, “de facto”, parliament of the country of England.

      However, when the chips were down and Scotland was claiming in Westminster, “The Scottish Claim of Right”, the unionist parties all abstained. Scotland’s claim of right is Scotland’s right to the people of Scotland’s legal sovereignty.

      Here are the legal facts:-
      The Treaty of Union states that the English and the Scottish, “Rules of Law”, must forever remain independent of each other.

      The reason being the rules of law of each kingdom are incompatible because in the Kingdom of England, (three countries), the monarch of England is legally sovereign but must legally delegate their sovereignty to the, (now non-existent), parliament of England, (that is NOT Westminster after the union). While in Scotland the people of Scotland are sovereign and that is still the rule of law today.

      This is why the unionist MPs at Westminster abstained when, “The Scottish Claim of Right”, was voted upon and it thus was passed and reaffirmed by the house. So there it is – Westminster accepts the Scottish Claim of Right and the Treaty of Union states that the Claim of Right must remain.

      The reason that the unionists abstained is they had to avoid the matter being brought to the fore and openly debated for all to see, (including such as the European Court of Justice).

      All of which just highlights that legally the Scots have the legal right to simply say the union is over and all the written evidence from 1706/7 until today proves it. No court can do other than uphold that as legal fact.

      Aside from which the EU, UK, United Nations, The Geneva Convention human rights have all been signed up to by the UK and all these human rights laws include the one that states, “any identifiable group of people have the human right of self determination.

      There can be absolutely no doubt that the Scots are an identifiable group of people. The Kingdom of Scotland predates the Kingdom of England by hundreds of years and the Kingdom/country of Scotland is one of Europe’s oldest countries/kingdoms and Westminster obviously acknowledges that fact in the Treaty of Union and later by the devolution of Scotland.

      If and when the matter is taken to court, whether it be the Scottish, UK or the international courts there is overwhelming evidence to support the Scottish case for independence and the biggest hurdle any group of people face is being recognised internationally as a state by other recognised states.

      BTW: The EU will not officially interfere in member states internal affairs but upon a Brexit Westminster will no longer be an EU member state but Scotland has a case, (being one of the two kingdoms in the United Kingdom), to remain as the legacy member state when the kingdom of England leaves the EU.

    137. Cubby says:


      Hi Brian, if you are vouching for this crowd funder then that’s good enough for me. I’ll chip in £20.

      Hope you have been practicing your long word recital. LOL.

    138. Cubby says:

      “Why labour must once again become the party of the British Union”

      It is and always has been a Britnat party. So what is this idiot professor going on about.

      On previous posts I commented that I do not automatically assume that an academic through being an academic should get immediate respect. This professor is another example of why this should be the case for anyone of an independent mind.

      There are plenty of diddy academics full of their own bias and prejudices. Plenty of diddy academics have been writing for years that the oil is about to run out or there is no oil left.

    139. Robert Peffers says:

      @Scott says: 18 August, 2019 at 1:32 am:

      ” … Because now is the time to do it. The numbers might not be there in the next Parliament.”

      Will that be in your humble opinion, Scott?

      On what are you basing that opinion? Let me remind you that opinion polls for indyref1 showed YES in the lead until the very last gasp. Opinion polls are neither reliable or proof of anything and are always manipulated one way or another.

      Then there is the fact that Corbyn cannot grant a permission to hold an indyref2 as he is not the PM yet and probably never will be. In any case, no permission is required because under the Treaty of Union there are only two member kingdoms and they are equally sovereign.

      Has it not entered your brain that Nicola Sturgeon may be requesting Westminster’s permission in the hope that Westminster will refuse it?

      I’ll say it again – there are only two kingdoms with signatures on the Treaty of Union and as such either signatory of an international treaty can legally end the treaty anytime they want to.

      Unless I’m much mistaken neither you or I are privy to the First Minister’s plans but perhaps Ian Blackford is and he is adamant that Scotland will not be dragged out of the EU against her wishes. I’m not a betting man but if I were I’d bet Ian is most probably right.

      Just think about it for a moment – if Scotland is dragged out of the EU against her wishes then Ian Blackford’s political career is over. Somehow I don’t think him to be that daft.

    140. Effijy says:

      Read an on line article in the Hootsman rag.

      Scottish unemployment figures SOAR up in advance
      Of 100,000 and yet they say more than 3,000 found

      At the foot if you can make it that far, UK unemployment is up 31,000
      but not soaring of course.

      Now doesn’t that means figures in Scotland have exactly the same pro rata
      Increase as the rest of the UK.

      Scotland is performing better than the rest but you really don’t
      Want to expand on a story like that.

      Chuckled to hear Gove is heading up a task force to stop fake news regarding Brexit?
      That’s the same wee lying bastard who scaremongerEd Scotland on a daily basis during
      Indy ref 1 and put the £350 NHS money on the side of the Brexit bus.

      Walter Mitty must be pre booked if Gove got the job.

    141. jfngw says:

      Scotland, Wales and NI must be the few countries in the world (maybe the only, I’ve not checked) which does not get the government it voted for, for the majority of the time (in my lifetime anyway). And when they demand proper democracy for their country are told they are just grievance monkeys, the response is to reduce the democracy even more, remove the powers we already had legal control of and impose laws from another country.

    142. Lenny Hartley says:

      Elmac as Auld Bob often has reminded us the TV licence Fee does not go to the BBC it goes into General Taxation. The BBC gets a Grant to pay for its services, Even so I dont pay it.
      Mind you i dont watch TV !

    143. jfngw says:

      I see there i another take down column on the Wings party in presumably Scotland on Sunday, used to buy it but it’s anti-SNP/Indy and basically anything Scottish made me decide to stop funding it. The Rev wonders why they never interview him but just surmise his opinion on issues. I suspect it is just the policy of the MSM, they don’t want to legitimise him by actually interviewing him, it is so consistent that you could believe it is being handed down from above.

      They have the approved list of ‘independence’ supporters, these are the soft indy supporters that are anti-SNP and would have you return a Labour unionist in the name of independence.

      I would vote for the Wings party, his views on many things gel pretty well with mine, although I swear less. Not sure if this would put me in breach of my SNP membership, if it does then I would just need to leave.

    144. Dr Jim says:

      Nobody should vote for Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP because every time they get a chance to kill all the Unionists they never take it

      Nicola Sturgeon could’ve killed Boris Johnson the other week when he came up to Scotland, she had him right there and she did nothing, never murdered him once, didn’t even try

      Not once has Ian Blackford strapped on a suicide vest and blown up the house of commons, it just isn’t good enough so because of all this inaction from the SNP I’m not voting for them and neither should you

    145. galamcennalath says:

      ” The UK faces shortages of food, fuel and medicine if it crashes out of the EU without a deal, leaked government documents reveal. …… return of a hard border in Ireland plus three months of chaos with rising fuel prices and long delays at ports. A senior Whitehall source said: ‘This is not Project Fear – this is the most realistic assessment of what the public face with no deal. ‘These are likely, basic, reasonable scenarios – not the worst case.’”

      Johnson is going to give EU an ultimate … “back down and give the UK what it wants”. He will be told to piss off. It’s just pantomime. He wants to set up the EU in the eyes of Brexiteers and English Nationalists to take the blame.

      Nicola … you know where the eject button is!

    146. Capella says:

      @ Mary miles from Tassie – good to hear from you and YES it was a great turnout in Aberdeen. 12,000 seems a bit low IMO. The whole of Union Street was packed.

      There must be a way of estimating crowd sizes but nobody in officialdom seems to know how. Personally, I’m fed up with the battle of the crowd size, largely waged by the media. It was a great day, the atmosphere was terrific, the crowds watching from the pavements were cheerful and supportive, the Wings stall was buzzing. The wee bourachie of Union Jaiketed Brit Nats were ignored.

      An all round positive experience was had by all. Hope you can make it for a visit when we are independent. We’ll be celebrating.

    147. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      The BBC gets a Grant to pay for its services.

      Never forget that the BBC then redistributes so of this Government Grant to failing printed press newspapers via the “Local Democracy Reporter Scheme”!

      Check which failing companies got the cash (and the number allocated to Scotland) in the above link.

      The scheme is funded by £80m from the BBC licence fee over 10 Years.

      These shills will provide the “What the papers say” headlines that’ then drive the news agenda

    148. Dr Jim says:

      Opponents of Nicola Sturgeon are now punting heavily that polls show that she is less popular among women than men which is correct, Alex Salmond had the same problem, but the same is also true of Boris Johnson Jeremy Corbyn and was true of Theresa May and David Cameron before her and even now is true of Ruth Davidson Jo Swinson and in fact most female leaders but it’s not just female leaders and if you remember Mrs Thatchers initial popularity with women also took a rapid nosedive after just a few short months

      So opponents of Nicola Sturgeon are kinda not telling folk that women in general while initially may strongly favour a particular politician in the short term are less favourable to all politicians over the longer term

    149. grafter says:

      Great march in Aberdeen yesterday. Mile long Union Street was filled from end to end. Would estimate a figure of around 20000 at least. A handful of Butcher’s Apron waving unionists looked a sorry sight and were laughed at by good humoured and well behaved marchers. The atmosphere was charged with a positive can do spirit, friendly and welcoming with an infectious desire to change the course of Scotland’s future. These marches are VERY IMPORTANT. They remind us all that our corrupt BBC and MSM are feeding us with unionist propaganda and trivia. Through gatherings like these we feel and see the reality of our subordinated condition. It was a proud day for Scotland and Aberdeen whilst delivering a positive message to those who are unsure of Scotland’s future. Next one Pert then Edinburgh. Come on Scotland !!

    150. Robert Peffers says:

      @Elmac says: 18 August, 2019 at 2:33 am:

      ” … The subject of the TV “licence” fee was raised and he was taken aback that I refused to pay the tax. I made the obvious comments about propaganda and paying to be lied to, but his response was to suggest that by refusing to pay I was not contributing to the “common good”.”

      I’m fed up posting this, Elmac, but here we go again.

      In the first place whether you pay for a TV Licence or not you are paying for propaganda to be beamed into your home. In fact you are paying for it even if you don’t own a TV.

      So here’s the truth of the matter and the proof that it is the truth is printed on the TV licence itself for the TV licence is permission from the government, not from the BBC, to receive live video broadcasts by anyone by any kind of equipment. Go look a dictionary, (there are several on-line), and it will tell you the word licence means to give permission and that permission comes from Her Majesty’s Government – NOT FROM THE BBC- and thus the fee for that permission must go to the organisation giving the permission or it would be illegal.

      The BBC is a private corporation it says so in its name, “The British Broadcasting Corporation”. So here is an explanation and a wee bit of broadcasting history:-

      “The BBC began life as the British Broadcasting Company in 1922, as an initiative of a consortium of companies including Marconi, GEC, British Thomson Houston, Metropolitan Vickers, Western Electric and the Radio Communication Company, intended to encourage public take-up of radio technology”.

      These private companies had begun as Radio Amateurs, (Hams). Now Hams speak to each other with radio transmitters and receivers and the early ones all built their own gear but some of them were actual scientists, like Marconi, and obviously they were producing more scientific, “wireless sets”, note they were called sets because they were transmitter/receivers but the name stuck. So when these more scientific guys tried to start up as manufacturers there were few sales of gear because Hams usually built their own gear, (many still do).

      This was the reason to create a bigger user base by not just speaking among themselves but to, “Broadcast”, to listeners and Marconi built the first Broadcast station in an ex-army hut outside the Marconi factory at Writtle. It had the Ham callsign 2MT. The new BBC then opened a new station in London with a London call sign of 2LO, (actually there were three London 2LO transmitters). The big idea was to create an audience among the general public for news, weather and music on receiver only wireless equipment but the name Wireless sets stuck even although the general public had no transmitters. So the BBC began as a private company and it still is a private company.

      However, Her Majesty’s Government quickly saw, not only an opportunity to get income from the public but also the opportunity for government propaganda.

      They thus granted the private company called the BBC a, “Royal Charter”, and agreed an annual grant to the BBC from the Treasury.

      Being rather strapped for funds as a struggling company the BBC agreed and the government sold permission, (licenced), to the listeners.

      It was called the Wireless Licence in those days. It is now still paid to the government but collected by the BBC and turned over to the treasury and is called the TV licence.

      So there you are- the TV licence is paid to the government who still make an annual grant, (from general taxation), to the BBC. So even if you do not pay the TV licence you are still paying for the BBC as a general taxation payer. The licence holders are just the mugs who pay for the propaganda twice. Once by buying a licence and then again by paying general taxation like everyone else. The BBC’s most successful propaganda is that the TV Licence pays for the BBC’s programmes. Their next most successful propaganda is that they never mention the licence payer and the United Kingdom taxpayers also fund the BBC Overseas Service which from day one has been the World’s largest and oldest propaganda service dwarfing both Voice of America and Radio Moscow.

      Yet I still see people, even on Wings, who claim the BBC learned from Joseph Gobbles during WWII. Westminster has always been the World’s greatest and largest propaganda network and it is a fact that Gobbles wrote that he learned his craft from the BBC.

    151. Fionan says:

      Great march in Aberdeen yesterday and we all dried off pretty quickly after the little rainshower. Thank you to the kind young man who helped untangle one of his whistles to give me to blast (as best I could) as we marched past the little manky jaicket crowd.

      Good to see Ronnie at his Wings stall post as usual, and finally the Mystery of the Hairy String was revealed in full glory as I got the chance to pay homage to this national treasure. Good to see the lovely XSticks and to meet the lovely Betty Boop. I would love to have stayed longer and to meet more Wingers in the flesh, but my doggy family were calling from afar, not so happy at being confined indoors on such a warm sunny day while I went off marching without them.

      I loved the Dane with that great message on his rump re Boris. of course I hadnt thought to charge my camera so never got pics of all these great sights and sounds.

      Brilliant to see the Yes Bikers and to see the Hail A— pipe band for the first time – impressive sights. I do think we gave the good people of Aberdeen and shire something to think about, especially after the way the media have downplayed previous indy marches. The one disappointment was that there seemed to be remarkably few marchers from among the many Yessers I know in the Shire and from Moray. I wonder if the short route had anything to do with that, along with the various obstacles that councils have been placing in the way of our marches?

      Anyways, a great day – hope to make it to Edinburgh if I can get a brave dogsitter for a day.

    152. Terry callachan says:

      Labour have had so many chances to improve life for the majority not just in Scotland but across the UK, they tinkered here and there but failed miserably.

      Sometimes you cannot see any difference between Labour Tory and Lib Dem’s policy.

      I would say one of the first things an independent Scotland government should do is build new houses or come to an agreement with private companies so that good quality houses are built where they are needed with modern ecological heating and lighting systems and bigger rooms than they build now they should also ensure houses with gardens are built even one and two bedroom houses with gardens .
      Too many flats still being built, the proportion is not satisfactory.

      New houses should also have separate garages so that people actually park their cars in their garage and not on the drive all the time.

      We have the room in Scotland to build like this.
      We don’t need to cram everyone into small areas.
      Houses such as I describe can be built at a price everyone can afford if the land is taken back by the the government for the people instead of it being cordoned off for the rich.

      It’s ridiculous how many new housing estates in Scotland are still built next to railway lines.
      Of course the big estates and farms can’t use land near railway lines for hunting shooting and cattle.

    153. Patrick Roden says:


      “Why isn’t the SNP demanding that Corbyn agree to grant a Section 30 order enabling a second referendum, in exchange for making him caretaker PM?”

      The thing is Scott, if the SNP ask fora section 30 order in return for ‘anything’ it will be kinda admitting that we need Westminster’s permission to hold a referendum, that we already have a mandate to hold.

      In our democracy, we are supposed to offer a manifesto, to the electorate, and if they vote in support of the manifesto, then we have a political mandate that should be honored by all other parties.

      By not honoring the mandate that the SNP clearly has, Westminster has set a very dangerous president, that can be the first step along a path, to it being politically acceptable to ignore the stated democratic will of the voters.

      At the moment Boris Johnston is trying and may succeed in by-passing parliament, in order to force through No-Deal-Brexit.

      Democracy is being flushed down the cludgie in the UK and our esteemed press who’s whole reason for the freedoms they are afforded in our democracy is to ‘hold power to account’ are lamely standing by watching this happen without so much as a who-ha, or in the case of the ‘professor’ above, is far more interested in informing the readership of the New Statesman’ what Labour need to do in order to get back into power.

      Talk about ‘re-arranging the deckchairs, while the ship is sinking’

      Our media is not fit for purpose because the people who have the power don’t want them to be.

    154. Terry callachan says:

      Just been in a wee village south of Kefalonia Greek island holidaying it’s quiet tourism is all they do for work winter time there is no work but their butcher shop is better than anything I’ve ever seen in Scotland and so is their baker, incredibly good produce at prices lower than Scotland .

      Our supermarkets are selling us fake bread even their special or best stuff is rank compared to this wee shop in Poros a population of 1100.

      I’ve been to other places too where it’s clear that the stuff we get from our supermarkets is very low quality.

      It would be great if Scotland could return to a corner shop economy once independent
      It doesn’t mean the end of supermarkets but we should support wee shops selling bread meat and fruit and veg so that we can raise the quality to where it should be.

    155. Robert Peffers says:

      @Mac says: 18 August, 2019 at 7:15 am:

      ” … Why would anyone give money to the enemy? “

      As I keep telling you, you don’t have a choice in the matter. The TV licence is not paid to the BBC as it is the government’s charge for granting the viewer permission to receive live video transmissions then the licence money goes to HM Treasury who make an agreed annual grant to the BBC from general taxation.

      Thus everyone pays for that annual grant. The licence payer just pays twice. Once by buying a licence and again from general taxation. BTW: Most general taxation is not paid by income tax it is paid by indirect tax like VAT so we all pay it. Furthermore we do not just pay for the TV propaganda but World wide because the BBC World Service has always been the biggest propaganda service in the World.

    156. Dan says:


      In these days of living in the surveillance State that is the UK with kit like facial recognition software being rolled out, there will be tech that can count crowds. EG: Thermal image heat-mapping, movement and tracking sensors, etc. ANPR software can read number plates on speeding cars. Try telling me they cannot capture someone’s napper walking at aboot 3 miles an hour…

      Regardless, there was a reasonable turnout in Aberdeen and I appreciate all those that made the effort to attend and assist in organising and running it.
      This tweet has speeded up footage which captures the marchers.

      I’m somewhat disappointed at the turnout though. What with all that is going on with this clown show in the UK Government and how their antics will negatively impact Scotland, I would have hoped it would inspire more people to show their discontent as the situation continues to unfold.
      The other side of it is that Aberdeen is supposedly the oil capital of the UK. Undoubtedly many living in the area have made strong money in and around the industry over the years so think they may be well off.
      Pity they don’t consider that all that money they have is effectively reducing in value as the pound tumbles. As we don’t manufacture much in the UK these days, we buy a lot in from elsewhere, which means their pounds are suffering reduced purchasing power.
      The comparison of the UK to the prudent way Norway managed their oil and gas industries doesn’t seem to register and instill any sense of antagonism towards the dullards that managed to squander huge amounts of revenue, and rack up massive UK debt, where as Norway now sits on an embarrassingly large oil fund.
      Sure I read that the return on investment Norway got during the first quarter of this year was over the entire annual budget Scotland works with.
      Some folk think they are well off and will be fine, they need to take a look at some of the quite staggering health bills that people get in countries where there is no free at point of need health provision. See that lump sum in the bank, or even the value of your house, it can pretty much disappear overnight if you are unlucky enough to have an accident or go down with a debilitating ailment. For the time being we have our SNHS. However the Conservatives have said they intend to implement the findings of the Naylor report.
      Pity the much worshiped and defended Controversial State Broadcaster aka BBC hasn’t broadcast the reality of what that means for “the common good”.

    157. Mac says:

      Robert Peffers @7:15

      “As I keep telling you, you don’t have a choice in the matter. The TV licence is not paid to the BBC as it is the government’s charge for granting the viewer permission to receive live video transmissions then the licence money goes to HM Treasury who make an agreed annual grant to the BBC from general taxation.

      Stop being so patronising. You don’t need to ‘keep telling’ me anything.

      I know exactly what a TV Licence is and what it is for. So save your breath.

      “…you don’t have a choice in the matter…”

      Thats exactly where YOU are wrong. There is always choice. And when you are being force fed propaganda, one can decline to pay for it.

      If more people took the non-payment stance, there would be pressure for change.

      Change is never achieved by following the rules, especially archaic rules that bind us and damage our country. .

    158. Capella says:

      Dani Garavelli must have had logic bypass. She writes a scurrilously disingenuous hate piece on Stu – written in the time honoured damning innuendo style beloved of MSM hacks (see what I did there?)

      Stu Campbell favours independence and, for some totally obscure reason, advocates a YES Party should stand in the Regional lists. Dani hasn’t a clue why he is doing this so naturally doesn’t bother to ring him up to ask. Instead she speculates thus:

      Stu Campbell is impatient – many Indy supporters are impatient.
      Nicola Sturgeon is cautious.
      Alex Salmond was bold.
      Therefore, Stu Campbell favours Alex Salmond.

      Alex Salmond is male.
      Nicola Sturgeon is female.
      Therefore Stu Campbell favours males (she admits there is no evidence of misogyny, though he has rudely criticised women he also rudely criticises men).

      Chris McEleny and Angus B MacNeil are also impatient and advocate an electoral route to independence.
      Chris McEleny has moral objections to abortion. McEleny likes Campbell, MacNeil and Tommy Sheridan. Sheridan is divisive and was involved in AUOB.
      Therefore Stu Campbell is probably all of the above too.

      These are all loose connections, but, if you follow them closely, you can detect a mobilisation of a wing of the Yes movement that is unlikely to have the interests of female voters at its core or to engage them in the debate.
      Perhaps that doesn’t matter; there have always been those willing to throw women under a bus for “greater” political ends.

      I must admit to being speechless at the boldness of this catalogue of smears. Being one of the brainless Women who hang on his every post and will happily join in his pile-ons. I suppose my only hope is that some man will come along and explain where we are all going wrong. But the bottom line is:

    159. brewsed says:

      How to estimate crowd size.

      Use Google Earth’s polygon tool to estimate the surface area occupied by the crowd then apply a packing density. The AUOB march in Aberdeen congregated in Albyn Place from Holburn Junction to just beyond the junction with Prince Authur St. with a bit of spill over into Rubislaw Terrace gardens and the pavements nearer Holburn Junction. This gives a surface area of about 9,000m2. Crowds can back as tightly a 2.5 people per m2 and, by degrees to much lowers densities. You make’s your choice and gets your estimate and, I would suggest, 12,000 is not far off.

    160. Mac says:

      Cubby @9:41

      “I have no problem with people not paying the license fee.
      Do you buy anything with VAT applied. I am sure you do. Paying money to the enemy then!
      In fact do you pay any taxes because you are paying money to the enemy.
      Simple is it?”

      There is no parallel. None whatsover. 🙂

    161. Phronesis says:

      Operation Yellowhammer needs the Tartan Tomahawk treatment . The WM cabal is so unfit for public office that they will convert the commercial UKOK economy into a bartering economy where we all sing for a little bit of bread and no cheese ( the dairy industry destroyed and all the Camembert struck at Calais).Apart from the WM cabal who will be profiting from the consequences of disaster capitalism.

      Scotland has a very important choice to make to protect its institutions, its laws , its rich heritage, its environment, its citizens’ rights. Some things are worth fighting for.

      ‘Prohibitively high cost is the primary reason Americans give for problems accessing health care. Americans with below-average incomes are much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not: visiting a physician when sick…
      The National Academy of Sciences found that among other high-income nations the U.S. has a higher rate of chronic illness and a lower overall life expectancy…
      Finally, high administrative costs are a contributing factor to the inflated costs of U.S. health care.
      While the majority of U.S. citizens have health insurance, premiums are rising and the quality of the insurance policies is falling.

      The lack of health insurance coverage has a profound impact on the U.S. economy. The Center for American Progress estimated in 2009 that the lack of health insurance in the U.S. cost society between $124 billion and $248 billion per year. While the low end of the estimate represents just the cost of the shorter lifespans of those without insurance, the high end represents both the cost of shortened lifespans and the loss of productivity due to the reduced health of the uninsured.
      Health insurance coverage is uneven and often minorities and the poor are underserved. Forty million workers, nearly two out of every five, do not have access to paid sick leave.

      Universal coverage, in countries like the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan, and Germany makes the number of bankruptcies related to medical expenses negligible.Conversely, a 2014 survey of bankruptcies filed between 2005 and 2013 found that medical bills are the single largest cause of consumer bankruptcy, with between 18 percent and 25 percent of cases directly prompted by medical debt.Another survey found that in 2013, 56 million Americans under the age of 65 had trouble paying medical bills. Another 10 million will face medical bills they are unable to pay despite having year-round insurance’

    162. Mac says:

      Robert Petters @10:13 and various.

      Your language is rude, patronising to the point of being a bully. Apart from your comments to me, which cause me to ignore any post I see from you… here is an example of how you speak often to other people.

      Robert Peffers says:
      18 August, 2019 at 10:13 am
      @Scott says: 18 August, 2019 at 1:32 am:

      ” … Because now is the time to do it. The numbers might not be there in the next Parliament.”

      “Will that be in your humble opinion, Scott?”

      On what are you basing that opinion? Let me remind you that opinion polls for indyref1 showed YES in the lead until the very last gasp. Opinion polls are neither reliable or proof of anything and are always manipulated one way or another.

      Then there is the fact that Corbyn cannot grant a permission to hold an indyref2 as he is not the PM yet and probably never will be. In any case, no permission is required because under the Treaty of Union there are only two member kingdoms and they are equally sovereign.

      “Has it not entered your brain “that Nicola Sturgeon may be requesting Westminster’s permission in the hope that Westminster will refuse it?

      “I’ll say it again” – there are only two kingdoms with signatures on the Treaty of Union and as such either signatory of an international treaty can legally end the treaty anytime they want to.


      “As I keep telling you , you don’t have a choice in the matter… Blah blah blah

      Hey guess what?! People are entitled to hold an opinion. So no matter how clever you imagine you are, wind your neck in a bit. You are coming across as a bit of an intolerant Mr Know-it-all.. It’s not clever. And you are not right as often as you’d like to be.

    163. Capella says:

      @ brewsed – excellent bit of advice. I will use the Google facility in future – once I figure out how. I reckon the march stretched the whole length of Union (soon to be renamed) Street, not too tightly packed. It’s difficult to see from within the march. We really need someone with a drone taking an arial view.

    164. Hamish100 says:


      Thanks for this.

      Makes you wonder if the Police just guess!

    165. mike cassidy says:

      Completely OT.

      But a great Sunday Scottish Cheerup.

      Exactly what I’ve always wanted to do at a public piano.

      Maybe I’ll be talented in the next life!

    166. Hamish100 says:

      I don’t think the Police would allow a “civilian” done to fly above crowds

    167. Hamish100 says:


    168. brewsed says:

      Estimating crowd sizes part II

      There are resource implications when estimating numbers prior to a march and, I suspect, it is not in any organisations’ interested to big them up; neither the cooncil, AUOB or the police. And there are political advantages if having the out-turn figures in excess of the estimates. So, when these prior (under?)estimates are published, roll your eyes and move on.

    169. Robert Peffers says:

      When I was a wee laddie just starting primary school in a WWII school I had an uncle who was in the then KOSB, (King’s Own Scottish Borderers).

      He had a favourite saying, “A hungry man’s an angry man”. I believe that when/if BR UKExit comes to pass then there will be a great many angry men on UK streets looking to find something to stop being angry about.

    170. ahundredthidiot says:


      maybe you want to toughen up a wee bit

    171. Capella says:

      @ Hamish100 – of course the police have the means to estimate crowd size. There are fixed cameras the entire length of Union Street (and everywhere else – the average UKian is photographed 200 times a day). And of course it would be illegal to fly a drone. but there could be a camera positioned high enough for an overview.

      As brewsed says – the police may well prefer a conservative estimate.

      Nobody really cares about the actual figure except the MSM who love to underplay the strength of support for independence.

      The important thing is to turn up whenever possible.

    172. mr thms says:

      Robert Peffers @ 11:42 am

      Interesting post about how the Royal Charter came about.

      Watching BBC News last night their newsreader introduced an item on Brexit, their reporter presented a short piece on the subject, which was followed by the newsreader asking their political correspondent who had come into the newsroom to give their opinion. There was no interruption. This was because the political correspondent prepared his own questions and provided his own prepared answers. Three BBC employees combining to give gravitas to the Brexit item and create a feeling of urgency and uncertainty.

    173. mike cassidy says:

      So the Rev swears.

      ” … those of us who find relief in using the occasional expletive will tirelessly cite studies suggesting that swearing is a sign not only of being more honest, healthier and better adjusted, but also that regular swearers are more intelligent and have a larger vocabulary than non-swearers.”


    174. mike cassidy says:

      Yet another

      This is what Johnson really intends.

      And its scarily plausible.

      “The ‘Singapore scenario’ applied to the UK would mandate a downgrading of current welfare and labour standards in a massive recalibration of labour expectations of the domestic labour force. Such a recalibration would be achieved by a radical shrinking of what remains of the welfare state, combined with a raft of ‘incentives’ to accept whatever jobs are on offer ”

      (wouldn’t archive)

    175. Hamish100 says:

      mike cassidy says:
      18 August, 2019 at 1:30 pm
      So the Rev swears.

      ” … those of us who find relief in using the occasional expletive will tirelessly cite studies suggesting that swearing is a sign not only of being more honest, healthier and better adjusted, but also that regular swearers are more intelligent and have a larger vocabulary than non-swearers.”


      Or they are delusional and have a limited vocabulary!

    176. Mac says:

      ahundredthidiot @1:26

      Ah… more advice. Give it a break.

    177. kapelmeister says:

      Jo Swinson wants a statue to commemorate the 600 weeks of Thatcher’s Tory premiership which devastated Scottish industry.

      Jo Swinson does not want 3 weeks of a Corbyn cross-party premiership to avoid no deal and another devastation of Scottish industry.

      But, as she has joyously stated and re-stated recently, there are no limits to the ambitions she has for the Liberal Democrat party.

    178. Maureen says:

      Was really nice to meet Ruglonian, Ronnie Anderson, Betty, Liz G, Oddette,Heather and others at the Friends of Wings stall yesterday, thank you for letting me ‘help a wee bit’.
      Was amazing to watch the sea of saltires coming down Union st.
      They were still coming into the Castlegate when I left at around 2.45pm. Cappella is right, they need a drone overhead to give an accurate view of things.

    179. Cubby says:


      “There is no parallel none whatsoever.”

      You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

      As you state in a different post that you are clear that the UK gov pays the BBC out of general taxation I am surprised you come to this conclusion as you are obviously not simple minded. My conclusion is that all taxation (including the license fee ) funds the BBC and therefore a reduction in tax from one source ( eg license fee ) can be made up from any other source if they want to.

      Therefore unless you are dead it is pretty dam near impossible not to fund the enemy.

    180. CameronB Brodie says:

      re. independence being a state of mind. Exactly this.

      Here’s one for the woke-set of all parties, though mostly targeted at those that claim to support self-determination for Scotland.

      Insurgent posthumanism


      Can we imagine a posthumanism in close connection to alternative political projects and new global social movements? What would it mean to organise radical left posthumanism?

      Posthumanism could offer an alternative perspective to dominant left political fantasies focused on conquering institutional and state power. But coupling radical left politics and posthumanism challenges many of mainstream
      posthumanism’s assumptions. An insurgent posthumanism would contribute to the everyday making of alternative ontologies: the exit of people into a common material world (not just a common humanity); the embodiment – literally – of radical left politics; finally the exodus to a materialist, nonanthropocentric view of history.

      These engagements are driven by the question of justice as a material, processual and practical issue before its regulation though political representation. Alter-ontology: justice engrained into cells, muscles, limbs, space, things, plants and animals. Justice is before the event of contemporary left politics; it is about moulding alternative forms of life.

      2. The state and the appropriation of the posthumanist

      A first erasure of the posthumanist gesture in the left can be located in the political strategies that evolved after 1871. ‘The Socialist Party is the anti-State, not a party.’ This is not Lenin. It is Gramsci, in 1918 (quoted in Pozzolini, 1970: 76).4

      There is a fundamental assumption behind the politics of the left up to World War II: the state is a totalising form of power that the socialist party, if it wants to be successful in its political struggle, needs to destroy. A classless society is possible only through the destruction of the state. The mantra of Marx and Engels’ refutation of Hegel’s idealism of the state is of course well known. But the departure from Hegel was an unfinished story.

      By keeping the state in the centre of society, even if only as a materialist immanent entity, Marxists opened the possibility for modelling any struggle for the emancipation of labour as passing through it.5 Every other possibility for radical social transformation disappears from the horizon of radical political action. The name of this path is revolution – which seizes the state in order to organise the move to a stateless society.

      But the effects of the revolution that Marx and 40 years later Lenin had envisioned never happened. The non-state stage never came, instead a new incarnation of the state emerged, state socialism. The fact is that radical left revolutions, at least historically, have strengthened the state as totality instead of ending it. But how is this possible? How did the ‘science of revolution’ get things so wrong?

      A change of perspective could help to illuminate this paradox: rather than look at the state in terms of the control it engenders we need instead to examine it from the perspective of struggles. In other words, instead of focusing on how the state governs society, we should explore the particular social struggles that the state in the age of revolutions is responding to….

    181. Artyhetty says:

      Another completetely O/T.

      Just watched a 19min film on movingimage.nls, ( National Lib of Scotland archive films) called, DUNFERMLINE, 1974, ref/2267. ( In copyright so can only give title here, do not share!).
      Wow, if you can bear the posh English accent of the narrator, it’s worth a watch. I don’t know Dunfermline very well, but it was another hive of industry, ‘coal from under the Forth was sent to Norway’ and Germany etc.

      You will learn about Scotland’s oil, and other incredibly lucrative industries, there were many of them just in Dunfermline alone, and bringing in massive revenues for HMgov in London.

      Towards the end you are given a picture of how people enjoyed the time they were not working to line the pockets of the English in London. Football, lots of it, rugby, hockey, choirs, ballet, BRASS BANDS, and, footage of Nazareth playing a concert! You won’t see a pipe band for love nor money though, or any tartan except one choir singer dared to wear a tartan dress, it’s all very English don’t you know.

      Have a watch it’s fascinating to see how Scotland was a) Anglicised and b) massively used for the industrial economy of the UK.

      Scotland should be awash with spare cash.

    182. CameronB Brodie says:

      Specifically that bawbag Harvie and all the rest who believe sex is the same as gender.

      Critical Ecologies of Posthumanism

    183. CameronB Brodie says:

      And here’s one for folk who’d like to know just what the feck is going on in the world. 🙂

      Philosophical Posthumanism

    184. CameronB Brodie says:

      And some International Relations Theory for the woke-set to get their teeth in to.

      Reflections on the Posthuman in International Relations
      The Anthropocene, Security and Ecology

    185. Robert Peffers says:

      Mac says: 18 August, 2019 at 12:17 pm:

      ” … “…you don’t have a choice in the matter…”
      Thats exactly where YOU are wrong. There is always choice. And when you are being force fed propaganda, one can decline to pay for it.”

      Are you for real or perhaps challenged by the English language?

      I explained, in detail, that you actually do NOT have a choice. Not even if you do not own a TV and do not pay for a TV Licence?

      What part of, ” … the TV Licence money goes to Her Majesty’s Treasury and the BBC gets an agreed grant from General taxation”, is it you do not understand?

      I do not pay for a TV Licence, I do not watch live TV but I have to pay for the BBC grant as I pay indirect tax on virtually everything a buy including goods and services”, That indirect taxation goes into the Treasury and the Treasury pays the BBC an agreed annual grant so I contribute towards the BBC Grant. Even Children contribute for they use goods and services and so they pay tax.

      The point is that the licence fee does not go to the BBC it goes to the treasury. So stopping paying the licence does not reduce the BBC grant by even a single penny. It is an agreed grant negotiated between the government and the BBC. Here is a paragraph cut and pasted from a Guardian article published on 20 Oct 2010:-

      “The process that led to last night’s deal to freeze the licence fee at £145.50 for six years, with the BBC taking on extra funding commitments including the World Service and S4C, began about a fortnight ago when the Department for Culture, Media and Sport started talking to the corporation about what part it could play in the coalition’s comprehensive spending review.”

      So there you go – the BBC is indeed funded NOT by the TV Licence fee but from direct taxation and the cost of the Licence is NOT decide by the BBCV but by the Government because the licence holder is NOT paying the BBC but is paying the Government for permission to view and it doesn’t affect the BBC as they DO NOT get the licence fee. Which means, in spite of the propaganda, we all pay to fund the BBC but Licence payers also pay for permission to view.

    186. CameronB Brodie says:

      And some contemporary political theory for folk who just can’t get enough of this sort of thing. Full text.

      The political challenges of the posthumous life

      These three books contribute to the debate around the post-human, a topic that finds its roots in philosophical anthropology and its focus on the theorist-philosophical implications of the changes in human nature generated by technology. The debate on the meaning of the post-human that developed in the late 1990s is a useful framework for discussing Posthumous Life, as well as Luigi Pellizzoni’s and Davide Tarizzo’s books.

      Evidently, the term ‘post’ implies the concept of ‘the human’: the idea of human nature is the starting point for any consideration of the post-human. Jami Weinstein and Claire Colebrook analyse and discuss the conceptions of the post-human, which constitutes the background of all three works, for example, Nick Bostrom’s version, according to which post-humanism is a beneficial extension for humans, and Katherine Hayles’s view of the post-human as the dispersion of all the qualities that we once took to be human.

      Colebrook takes into account, beyond these two dominant conceptions, many other theories which deal with philosophical anthropology in a post-human landscape: Giorgio Agamben’s, Gilles Deleuze’s and Jacques Derrida’s, but also the authors who lay the foundations of the post-human thinking: Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx and Charles Darwin….

    187. Robert Peffers says:

      @Capella says: 18 August, 2019 at 12:21 pm:

      ” … Being one of the brainless Women who hang on his every post and will happily join in his pile-ons. I suppose my only hope is that some man will come along and explain where we are all going wrong. But the bottom line is:

      Well, Capella, one thing I’m sure of is that no one, male, female or self-selected gender

    188. Robert Peffers says:

      Woops! Last comment shot off without a by your leave.

      Robert Peffers says:
      18 August, 2019 at 2:57 pm
      @Capella says: 18 August, 2019 at 12:21 pm:

      ” … Being one of the brainless Women who hang on his every post and will happily join in his pile-ons. I suppose my only hope is that some man will come along and explain where we are all going wrong. But the bottom line is:

      Well, Capella, one thing I’m sure of is that no one, male, female or self-selected gender is going to tell you what to do or to think.

    189. Robert Peffers says:

      @ Mac says: 18 August, 2019 at 12:44 pm>

      ” … Robert Petters @10:13 and various.
      Your language is rude, patronising to the point of being a bully. Apart from your comments to me, which cause me to ignore any post I see from you… here is an example of how you speak often to other people.”

      Well, Mac, it’s like this – If you cannot stand the heat – stay out of the kitchen.

      You made a erroneous claim and I corrected you with the truth. It you don’t want to do as decent people do and just say, “Sorry I got it wrong”, and then instead throw a hissy fit, then by all means just scroll on past anything I post. I won’t, in any way, be offended.

    190. CameronB Brodie says:

      sorry….and all the rest who believe insist sex is the same as gender.

      Folk can believe whatever fantasy they may wish to, but they become totalitarian when they seek to enforce that belief on others (see trans women are women and Britain is one nation).

      The Linguistic Construction of Epistemological Difference

    191. Capella says:

      @ Robert Peffers – you’re absolutely right there Robert. As a veteran of the so called second wave feminists (1960s) been there, read the books, went to the consciousness raising groups, tie dyed the tee-shirts. But hey – it’s always fun to see the old tropes recycled for a new generation, is it not.

      @ Artyhetty – that is a gem of a film on Dunfermline. It’s like another country. Where did all go wrong? Ah yes – Thatcherism, or more accurately neo-liberalism. Kill off everything of worth and call it progress.

    192. RobertTheTruth says:

      @Robert Peffers

      You do not ‘correct’ people’s posts. You go through them offering your opinion. You are more often than not completely wrong, missing the point and offering your opinion as fact.

      You tell outright lies and when you are corrected you refuse to back down. The AMS voting system being a case in point.You do not understand the GRA reform debate and retreat into supposedly personal anecdotes to support your rigid weak arguments.

      You apparently haven’t been to an SNP meeting for 20 years but yet you tell women who are concerned that they should turn up at their nearest branch meeting with a begging bowl to reclaim their own sex based rights which are enshrined in Law and which the SNP seek to remove.

      You constantly tell stories about your life as if anyone is actually interested.’When I was a lad in the Borders, in Fife, in Timbuktu…When I was in Mi6…When I worked for NASA…’

      For example, Legerwood corrected you, with evidence, when you claimed there were no Scottish trained teachers and most were Oxbridge educated after the War.You never apologize or retract your claims.

      Many people here are suffering ill health and some are older than you, they do not use these as excuses to bolster weak, one dimensional arguments the way you do – ‘eye strain’, headaches, ‘no sleep’.

      Day after day it is complete bullshit, in fact it is verging on confabulation. Baron Münchhausen has more credibility than you.

      You cannot be offended because you are a construct for the Internet, a rude, self proclaimed ‘history buff’ of limited education who pollutes and diverts any debate on the failings of the SNP.

      I doubt there is anything real about you at all.

    193. CameronB Brodie says:

      @Dani Garavelli
      I find that the easiest way not to look stupid, is not to claim I understand things I clearly don’t. You might want to try it, as it delivers huge returns in comparison to effort required. I’m sure Prof. Helen Thompson would agree.

      The Epistemology of Human Rights


      Human rights are rights which all persons equally have simply insofar as they are human. But are there any such rights? How, if at all, do we know that there are?

      It is with this question of knowledge, and the related question of existence, that I want to deal in this paper.


      The attempt to answer each of these questions, however, at once raises further, more directly conceptual questions. In what sense may human rights be said to exist? What does it mean to say that there are such rights or that persons have them? This question, in turn, raises a question about the nature of human rights. What is the meaning of the expression “human rights”?

      Within the limits of the present paper I cannot hope to deal adequately with the controversial issues raised by these conceptual questions. But we may make at least a relevant beginning by noting that, in terms of Hohfeld’s famous classification of four different kinds of rights, the human rights are primarily claim-rights, in that they entail correlative duties of other persons or groups to act or to refrain from acting in ways required for the right-holders’ having that to which they have rights.

      It will help our understanding of this and other aspects of human rights if we note that the full structure of a claim-right is given by the following formula:

      A has a right to X against B by virtue of Y.

      There are five main elements here: first, the Subject (A) of the right, the person or persons who have the right; second, the Nature of the right; third, the Object (X) of the right, what it is a right to; fourth, the Respondent (B) of the right, the person or persons who have the correlative duty; fifth, the Justifying Basis or Ground (Y) of the right.

    194. Cubby says:


      The man who tells the truth and nothing but the truth. Aye right you Britnat chancer.

    195. CameronB Brodie says:

      Bad news for yoons, it’s all falling into place for me. Full text.



      Universal human rights and particular cultural identities, which are relativistic by nature, seem to stand in conflict with each other. It is commonly suggested that the relativistic natures of cultural identities undermine universal human rights and that human rights might compromise particular cultural identities in a globalised world.

      This article examines this supposed clash and suggests that it is possible to frame a human rights approach in such a way that it becomes the starting point and constraining framework for all non-deficient cultural identities. In other words, it is possible to depict human rights in a culturally sensitive way so that universal human rights can meet the demands of a moderate version of meta-ethical relativism which acknowledges a small universal core of objectively true or false moral statements and avers that, beyond that small core, all other moral statements are neither objectively true nor false.

      Human rights, cultural identity, clash of civilizations, moral universalism, moral relativism

      This paper is based on two previous talks that I held at the Department of Philosophy at the University of Vilnius (16.06.2014) and at the international conference Identity and Globalization. Ethical Implications which was hosted by the University of Klaipeda (17.06.2014) and organized by the Department of Philosophy and Cultural Studies and the Council for Resear ch in Values and Philosophy (USA). For the first talk, I would like to thank Vilius Dranseika and his students for their valuable comments; and for the second talk Dalia Stanciene and the participating colleagues for their feedback.

    196. CameronB Brodie says:

      @Dani Garavelli
      Perhaps you’re simply naive and misconstrue a gender-critical stance with misogyny, in which case, you might find this useful. Biology has real effect in the real world, trans-women are biologically male and sex-based right’s are human rights. So fill your boots.

      Current epistemological problems in evidence based medicine


      Evidence based medicine has been a topic of considerable controversy in medical and health care circles over its short lifetime, because of the claims made by its exponents about the criteria used to assess the evidence for or against the effectiveness of medical interventions. The central epistemological debates underpinning the debates about evidence based medicine are reviewed by this paper, and some areas are suggested where further work remains to be done. In particular, further work is needed on the theory of evidence and inference; causation and correlation; clinical judgment and collective knowledge; the structure of medical theory; and the nature of clinical effectiveness.

    197. Ian Foulds says:

      Robert Peffers 17/8/19 3.47pm

      ‘The so called United Kingdom ceased to legally exist on 1 May 1707 yet the unionists wonder why the Scots are about, at long last, to assert their proper place in relation to their abusive partner in this abusive political marriage.’

      As always, I was pleased to read your post.

      However, the subject paragraph set me back.

      Your statement that the United Kingdom ceased to legally exist on 1 May 1707 – in the event that I may wish to use this and thus have to defend myself in ‘discussions’, would you be so kind as to give me your wisdom on this rational?

      I understood that the 1603 Union of the two Crowns might only be split asunder by the Scottish sovereign people, as the English Parliament, who no longer retain sovereignty over England – as the Parliament no longer exists – cannot rescind the English Crown (nor, I suppose can Queen Elizabeth II of England as she does not have the power of sovereignty).
      Where in fact does the sovereignty of England officially lie?

      Apologies for my poor detailed knowledge of this ‘can of worms’ and also apologies if I have rambled somewhat.

      I also apologise if you have addressed this since yesterday.

      I am only now catching up on postings as I was for obvious reasons in Aberdeen yesterday.
      I am sure you will set me on the straight and narrow once you have picked through this puzzle.



    198. CameronB Brodie says:

      I think I might have mentioned epistemology is a Scottish invention, the value of which is recognized globally. Well, gender-identity is grounded in a constructavist epistemology that undermines the rights of biological women, and limits their potential to access social justice. A bit like Scotland in Union.

      Toward Epistemological Ethics: Centering Communities and Social Justice in Qualitative Research

    199. Ian Foulds says:

      Off topic – If Union Street Aberdeen is 1 mile long (1.6km say) and rows of marchers are approx. 2m apart and say 10 people per row, this approximates to 8,000. This exclude the residue from Albyn Place.

      The reason I use Union Street as a marker was I had a quick look round before we met the Unionists and reckoned people were still at the start of the street (let alone who might be still in Albyn Place. Those in front of me were already coming to a stop at the end of the street.

      So, I believe the attendance is closer to AUOB’s figure than either the police or the unionists figures

    200. Kleber says:

      Cubby, Man and boy. Re confused Celtic fans. Please remember Glasgow voted yes. The majority of Celtic fans under the age of 55 (like me) voted yes. The majority were former Labour voters. The majority of Celtic fans come from Glasgow.How many cities in Scotland voted yes? I wonder if any other clubs had a yes majority? Why don’t you try to build bridges?Glasgow now has SNP controlled council. Why don’t you use the heid?

    201. Macart says:

      No. No we are not a hostage. Especially not in a system/partnership with such an appalling and obvious democratic deficit.

      It isn’t about what Labour needs to wiinnnnnn anything truth be told.

      Scotland is a country and its population doesn’t owe anyone their vote on a basis of ‘just because’ in a forced partnership/political pissing contest that laughingly calls itself a union. We have recognised borders thanks. A distinct and separate legal system, body politic, aspirations. You know…. Normal country stuff.

      Ms Thompson should realise that it’s not about using the population of a partner just to put a particular party behind the door of No. 10. Those populations can get grumpy when they see their votes abused systematically and generationally.

      Those populations aren’t electoral coin either. They’re not disposable assets or unfortunate collateral damage when a vote doesn’t go their way. They’re the end user of government. They’re the employer. They’re people. And they’re not beholden to any party or system of government that doesn’t reflect their needs or wishes.

      They’ll also decide when they’ve had enough of a broken system and the serial abusers who game that system.

    202. Martin says:

      Even if she were right about previous elections (which she’s not) that’s irrelevant. Number of Scottish MPs has reduced and now the seats Labour theoretically could win back are not Tory seats (the things they need to win to “swing”) but SNP seats. Winning SNP seats is only at best half as effective as winning Tory seats (as it doesn’t affect number of Tory MPs).

      And with her advice of doubling down on the Union they’re never going to win seats that count. It’s not like appealing to unionism is a great tactic to take seats from the even more unionist Tories. Frankly every bit of her ridiculour article is utterly baffling.

    203. Gary says:

      It’s not JUST the facts that are wrong (because most readers will never check, will they) or the way that they’re used (lumping Scotland & Wales together when discussing Scotland only) it’s the entire PREMISE of her argument.

      The premise is that Tory governments are bad (okay, with them so far) and that Tory governments are CAUSED by people voting SNP (SNP Bad) and not just ‘SNP bad’ it BAD voters who don’t care about what they’re doing to us all…oh NO!!

      But those voters are voting how THEY want to, this is a democracy and if Labour had BETTER POLICIES then people WOULD vote for them. The point is that Labour are rubbish and that’s why they don’t win our support anymore.

      Labour USED TO BE a party of the worker, stuck up for us and got us better working and living condition, brought in the NHS and Welfare State as a safety net for us when the Tories took our jobs away or we got sick working in asbestos filled workplaces owned by Tories we’d be looked after by the NHS hospitals at no charge! They USED TO support home rule, it was one of their FOUNDING PRINCIPLES. In short they USED TO care. But along with many thousands of others I saw how they behaved at Holyrood. I saw how, in a parliament set up to ensure cooperative power, they REFUSED to cooperate with the largest party (only when that largest party was the SNP of course) and they managed to stop legislation going through that wasn’t just POPULAR but matched with THEIR OWN POLICIES and all because it came from the SNP. Labour were prepared to ROYALLY shaft their own constituents JUST to make the SNP look bad. But the public was watching when Labour thought they’d fool us all. And we voted them out, and they’ve fallen to the status of a minority party.

      So this whole premise of numbers of seats affecting how we get Tory governments is disingenuous at least and at worst it is lies they think we’ll swallow (again) because they think we’re stupid (we’re not)

      We shouldn’t even engage in this argument anymore, by doing so we lend it legitimacy and HAVING this argument means we forget why people looked elsewhere to give their votes – Labour have shafted us just once too often…

    204. Martin says:

      You make a good point, Gary. But I’m 33 years old and I’ve never known a supportive labour party. In my lifetime they’ve been centre then centre right. At a push year one of Blair was progressive, but even then…

      Labour are going to struggle because people my age and younger have never known them as a proper left wing progressive party. We have no nostalgia about them or their policies. Being “not as bad” as the Tories isn’t really enough to get me to vote them.

    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

    ↑ Top