The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Wet Blanket Department

Posted on September 11, 2019 by

In normal times we’d at least find today’s landmark defeat of the UK government in a Scottish court amusing. But these are not normal times, and at the present moment our toxic loathing of every politician in Westminster makes it a bitter fruit.

Although we must admit this bit still did manage to raise a smile:

(The reason, incidentally, is that the English High Court wasn’t sitting in August.)

What does it all actually mean, though? Well, nothing good.

1. Firstly, Parliament will NOT be recalled. Such a move is constitutionally up to the Prime Minister alone, and it’s stupendously unlikely he’ll do it before the case goes to the UK Supreme Court next week for appeal.

2. It’s distinctly possible that the Supreme Court will overturn the decision. But that case is due to be heard on 17 September. Even if it upholds the decision, party conference season will have already started with the Lib Dems this coming Saturday. Parliament is due to be closed even if the prorogation is reversed.

3. Even if all the parties agreed to cancel their conferences – which would be an astonishing, almost inconceivable move given how much turmoil they’re all in and how much they need to sort their positions out – and return to Parliament, what would it achieve?

(If you haven’t been keeping up, the latest news is that the Lib Dems now plan to campaign directly for revocation of Article 50 in any election, not a referendum – making an electoral pact with Labour impossible because Labour policy is now to campaign for a referendum, NOT for Remain. The last we heard – and we’re NOT making this up – was that a Labour government would in fact negotiate a new deal, then put that deal in a referendum and campaign AGAINST it.)

A law has already been passed forcing the PM to ask the EU for another Brexit extension. All bringing back Parliament would do would be to force Johnson to be in the Commons when he could (at least in theory) be in Brussels attempting to avert a crash exit by negotiating a new deal.

Recall would also open up the possibility of allowing him to make further attempts to dissolve Parliament by one means or another and trigger the pre-November election he wants.

4. And what of independence? If the judgement is upheld by the Supreme Court it undermines the SNP’s long-argued position that Scotland has no influence in the UK when it matters. Unionists who are currently wavering would be reassured about Scotland’s status as a valued and key partner and therefore the importance of keeping Scottish MPs in Westminster. The tiny pro-indy majority that’s just beginning to coalesce in polls would die overnight.

(Even if the judgement ISN’T upheld it’ll still have made it look as if it’s at least arguable that Scotland has influence and an equal voice, subject to the vagaries of individual judges, when we know that in all normal circumstances it doesn’t.)

And all of that obviously goes ten times as much if the SNP ultimately succeed in playing a crucial role in averting Brexit for the whole UK.

(And if they don’t succeed, and Brexit happens anyway, they’ll have thrown away a moment of extremely rare leverage and ushered in a hard-right UK government for the next five years or more which will never allow a second indyref.)

So as coldly entertaining as the UK government’s fit of pique today might be, we hope you’ll forgive us if we don’t hang out the bunting. Nothing that happened today is of any meaningful consequence for the UK’s prospects of leaving or remaining in the EU, and the only kind of news it represents for the cause of independence is bad news.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 11 09 19 12:56

      Wet Blanket Department | speymouth

    252 to “Wet Blanket Department”

    1. Mac says:

      @Stu

      “…and the only kind of news it represents for the cause of independence is bad news”

      How predictable these days.

      In fact, it highlights the constitutional and democratic differences between Scotland and England. It is very positive for demonstrating to many uniformed (Including Corbyn, who didn’t even know Scotland had a different judiciary)

      Seems it doesn’t matter what happens these days… as far as your current position is… nothing helps Independence, right?

    2. Adrian B says:

      Does England want Independence from Scotland yet? – Would it not be better for everyone if we all went in our own direction?

    3. Mist001 says:

      Stand by whilst the shit hits the fan for pointing out the obvious again.

    4. Liz g says:

      Well there is the argument that we shouldn’t have to run to a Court and take a chance that 3 men will agree a rouge Government can’t do something!
      And.
      That the fastest safest way to do that is to have a Written Constitution and a Government within Slapping distance.
      Scotland may have had influence by going to her Court’s.
      But those Judges aren’t elected by us and neither is the controlling interest in Westminster.
      So we are still in a situation where Scotland has no power that we can elect for ourselves that is not constrained by the bodies that we don’t elect!

    5. Proud Cybernat says:

      Scots MPs should re-enter WM regardless of it being in the power of LBJ. What’s he going to do? Kick them out? Arrest them?

      Get them in there. Get Pete Wishart voted in as Speaker. Get some tellers appointed. Get Blackford to call a vote on S30. Get it passed and HMQ sign it off. Call Indref2. Job done.

      Legally.

    6. Alasdair Galloway says:

      I agree the Supreme Court are very likely to uphold today’s Court of Session judgement. However, it will be interesting to read their logic for doing this. It seems to me that there are two – not mutually exclusive – routes for them to do this. One is to refer to the judgement at the Court of Session approvingly (though perhaps with minor comments to show they are awake). But the other is to cite their own judgement in the case brought against Theresa May by Gina Miller, which found that it was the House of Commons that is sovereign, not the executive. I suspect their preference may be to adapt/ develop that line of thinking.
      Thus, I suspect the notion of “Scotland’s influence” being demonstrated is rather thin. After all, the only thing that has happened today is that three senior Scottish judges got to the conclusion that the Supreme Court I suspect will get to, but did it first. It is the same law after all, intended to protect everyone in the UK and not just in Scotland.
      The point would be arguable, but come the next referendum I would suspect there will be a great many other contentious, stretched to the limit and beyond arguments put besides that one.

    7. Marcia says:

      Well done to Joanna Cherry QC and team who have created a well deserved legal and political stooshie.

    8. Capella says:

      The Scottish judges ruled the prorogation is null and void. So there is no need to “recall” Parliament. Just turn up and carry on.

      But this does have arms and legs, growing as we speak. Boris Johnston has lied to the Head of State. He has lied to Parliament. That’s impeachment territory.

      There is no downside to showing that Scottish courts have agency and they are different from English Courts. For many Scots, this will be news.

    9. Old Pete says:

      Johnson ain’t going to be to happy about this, Tories are looking bad no matter what.
      Don’t no if fighting amongst the ranks of Independence supporters is great for the hopes we have for self determination.
      Odd that just as the support for Independence is being reported as growing to over 50% consistently by an anti-independance media this site starts infighting ?

    10. starlaw says:

      The cats among the Doo’s noo awricht. Scotland must now go for independence regardless of the outcome of Brexit. If nothing else Brexit has exposed that Scotland is just a colony of greater England. Scotland made a terrible mistake in 2014 and its time that wrong was righted.

    11. brian lucey says:

      The Lord Ashcroft polling numbers in NI make for some interesting reading. 51% would, right now this moment, vote for a UI.
      https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/09/my-northern-ireland-survey-finds-the-union-on-a-knife-edge/
      Also, the usual two tribe stuff, but also interesting to see just how loathed BJ and NF are amongst the nationalist community.

    12. Robert Kerr says:

      Where oh where is Mr Peffers?

      The United Kingdom is a Union of two Kingdoms united by treaty.

      A core tenant is the separate nature of Scots Law The Law of this Scottish Kingdom.

      T Bliers Supreme Court won’t go as far as over-ruling the Treaty. They are not that stupid even if our unelected Prime Minister and his Rasputin are so.

    13. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “In fact, it highlights the constitutional and democratic differences between Scotland and England. It is very positive for demonstrating to many uniformed (Including Corbyn, who didn’t even know Scotland had a different judiciary)”

      So fucking what? Where does that get us?

    14. defo says:

      Without referring back to what could have been, are you saying this legal challenge shouldn’t have gone ahead Stu?

    15. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “T Bliers Supreme Court won’t go as far as over-ruling the Treaty.”

      How much would you like to bet on that?

    16. Capella says:

      I posted Aileen Mc\harg’ tweet on the previous thread. Reposting here:

      It’s the UK Parliament, so a decision of a Scottish court is binding unless and until it is reversed on appeal.

      The Supreme Court has the power to reverse the Inner House’s decision, but it remains to be seen whether it will do so.

      https://twitter.com/AileenMcHarg/status/1171719142820458497?s=20

    17. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Without referring back to what could have been, are you saying this legal challenge shouldn’t have gone ahead Stu?”

      It will achieve absolutely nothing good, so yes.

    18. Ian Brotherhood says:

      All the SNP MPs should head back in to the chamber immediately, with a huge kerry-oot and some board games.

      😉

    19. Sarah says:

      Johnson has no majority so the Queen would not now accept him as PM [if he wasn’t in post]. She would have to listen to some other candidate.

      So could not several Privy Councillor MPs approach her with a candidate?

    20. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Odd that just as the support for Independence is being reported as growing to over 50% consistently by an anti-independance media this site starts infighting ?”

      Fuck ALL the way off.

    21. robertknight says:

      Scottish judges “politically biased”?

      ROFLMAO…

    22. manandboy says:

      It is good up to No 4. After that, not so good, and very arguable. No big deal, particularly in view of the hypothetical basis of some of the points. Have a good day Stu. Always in support, well, give or take half a millimetre here or there.

    23. Richardinho says:

      Every day is a bad day for independence when the SNP isn’t actively campaigning for it.

    24. chicmac says:

      The Court of Session has the power to refer matters before it to the ECJ directly for . It has done so in the past.

      The ECJ has supremacy over the UK Supreme Court.

      If in their judgement the subject matter in the case might impinge on EU law which in this case it probably does under various laws regarding governance the Court of Session has the power to refer matters before it to the ECJ directly for clarification and judgement there. It has done so in the past.

      The ECJ has supremacy over the UK Supreme Court.

    25. James McGovern says:

      Have already seen on social media that seemingly Scottish law means nothing. I think we need to change our mindset to Idiots over England.

    26. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “It is good up to No 4. After that, not so good, and very arguable.”

      By all means make the case for how this could possibly be good for independence.

    27. Breeks says:

      Well, you have Scottish MP’s being told by the Court of Session, that the proroguing of their Parliament was unlawful, so in theory, those Scottish MP’s who respect Scot’s Law should sit in session. I don’t see why English MP’s would be obliged to do the same.

      You have the English and Welsh MP’s unsure, but unhappy about the prorogation, but content for Parliament to remain suspended pending an appeal to the Supreme Court, and it is arguable whether this delay constitutes defiance of the Court of Session judgement. Probably not. The Court of Session has no jurisdiction outside Scotland.

      The mischief maker in me thinks Scotland’s MP’s should cite the rule of Scot’s Law and call a legitimate Parliamentary session, because while I need to read the Treaties of Union again, a little voice in my head says there is something kinda “Union-busting” about either a Scottish or an English Parliament reconvening “outside” the Union and Westminster Parliament.

      If memory serves, the terms of Union forbids it, and, if we want one, we have another constitutional stand off between the rule of Law in Scotland and the Treaty of Union.

      The big wet blanket question is whether we have a Scottish Government with mischief on its mind, or “British” hesitancy on it’s mind to see what the UK’s Supreme Court says next week. I hope with every fibre it’s the former.

      We need to think fast and move faster. Go for the opening. Don’t let the BritNats dismiss this as insignificant. Make them understand the Union is in it’s death throes, and Scotland will soon have it’s government acting independently of Westminster with watertight constitutional legitimacy…. I hope.

    28. Bob Mack says:

      This legal challenge will achieve considerable amounts,but not necessarily in the way you view it Rev.

      For a start it underlines the difference in our legal s y stems. That could be important. Ministers may be more cautious in drafting legislation or committing acts on a device or a whim.

      Secondly and much more importantly,it drives a wedge between Scots and those in England for whom Brexit has become an obsession, and there are many.

      Independence not only comes from your own efforts, but like many others including India, from how much the controlling power lose their tolerance or ability to keep you in your box.

      That tolerance often comes via their constituents or general public. They are our target. Social media is fuming at Scotland today. That is a result.

      Therefore I disagree with you about this being pointless.

    29. chicmac says:

      Let me try that again.

      If in their judgement the subject matter in the case might impinge on EU law which in this case it probably does under various EU laws regarding governance, the Court of Session has the power to refer matters before it directly to the ECJ for clarification and judgement there.

      It has done so in the past.

      The ECJ has supremacy over the UK Supreme Court.

    30. Capella says:

      BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith thinks Boris Johnston will recall Parliament, perhaps today or tomorrow.

      The Scottish judges ruled:
      The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the prime minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect.”

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855

    31. Peter Mirtitsch says:

      In reality it shows that the Scottish judges were impartial, but their decisions are ignored. More grist for the mill

    32. manandboy says:

      Can’t do so now, Stu, about to take the wife to hospital in Wishaw. Will try later but cannot specify. Cheers.

    33. Neil Mackenzie says:

      OMG! You’re still at it.

      “a hard-right UK government … will never allow a second indyref” you say.

      Stop saying stuff like that. UK governments are not allowed to not allow the rights of people under international law to be upheld. We have the right to a second independence referendum and that is out of the UK government’s hands.

      It does look very much like someone will have to take the UK government to court and force it to fulfill its legal obligation to respect that right in accordance with voluntary written commitment of long standing but that doesn’t mean that, in the meantime, we don’t have the right to it and the UK government can “never allow” it. IT MUST allow it.

      I’d ask where you get the idea that the UK government can deny the Scottish people the same right that every other people on earth has but I know the answer and it’s a very bad one. It’s the incessant dishonest propaganda to that effect that’s been coming from unionist politicians and political commentary and I’m amazed that you, of all people, have fallen for it.

    34. Graeme says:

      I’m not sure if this is a good or bad thing for Scottish independence but it surely strengthens the case for English independence does it not ?

      Is that not the same thing ?

    35. stupidactingsmart says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      “By all means make the case for how this could possibly be good for independence.”

      Should the Supreme Court overturn the ruling, wouldn’t that strengthen the cause for independence on the basis that Scotland has zero influence in the U.K. despite being courted as an ‘equal partner’ when we might have left?

    36. dadsarmy says:

      From the Herald:

      Aileen McHarg, Professor of Public Law and Human Rights, University of Durham.

      “The court has declared that the prorogation is unlawful, but it has not made the order requiring Parliament to reconvene and is leaving questions of formal orders to the Supreme Court.

      but it has not made the order requiring Parliament to reconvene and is leaving questions of formal orders to the Supreme Court

    37. Capella says:

      If Parliament is recalled and Johnston shown to have acted illegally and lied to the Head of State and Parliament he should be impeached and the Head of State, seeing that he has no majority, should invite Jeremy Corbyn, as leader of the official opposition, to form a government.

      All that could happen by Monday.

      Does anyone know the current make up of seats in Westminster? How much leverage does the SNP currently have?

    38. dadsarmy says:

      What does it all actually mean, though? Well, nothing good.

      Nothing good for the Union, indeed, that is true.

    39. desimond says:

      @Proud Cybernat

      Get them in there. Get Pete Wishart voted in as Speaker

      I pray your posting a joke there, and if so, bravo, its a good one.

      Surely I wasn’t the only person that saw Pete Wishart wants to be Speaker and thought “Fuxake SNP…stop playing THEIR games with them!”

    40. Kenny Martin says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      11 September, 2019 at 12:31 pm
      “Odd that just as the support for Independence is being reported as growing to over 50% consistently by an anti-independance media this site starts infighting ?”

      Fuck ALL the way off.

      Touched a nerve Stu?

    41. defo says:

      “It will achieve absolutely nothing good, so yes”

      I’m sure you’re right, but “absolutely”?

      Given that the SNP policy looks to have been a mixture of the realpolitik of upholding our 2016 vote, protecting our EU status as part of the UK, and being highly visible in doing so, and it being a charade with the inevitable denouement being a choice for the Nations of which Union they want to be a part of, or not.

      The end of the game IS in sight Stu. Keep pushing mate.

    42. Zen Broon says:

      4 really is utter bollocks, isn’t it? Given the logic of Stu’s earlier posts on the risks of ‘thwarting’ Brexit, more likely the English politicos and electorate will loathe the ‘pesky’ Scots even more than they do now. Scotland will get independence only when the English really want to boot us out. Today takes us closer to that.

    43. Proud Cybernat says:

      Scotland’s Courts biased according to #10.

      But they weren’t biased last week when the original judgement went in UKGov’s favour. They’re only biased when the judgement is overturned and goes against UKGov.

      Funny that.

    44. dadsarmy says:

      Can you imagine what the lurid headlines in the right wing press will be tomorrow? Bad enough when it was the UKSC and its judges, but this is the despised Scottish Courts! Bloody Jocks! Skirt wearers! Deep fried Mars bars eaters!

      Got to be worth another hundred thousand NO to YES voters.

    45. jeff says:

      Neil Mackenzie says:
      11 September, 2019 at 12:43 pm
      “a hard-right UK government … will never allow a second indyref”

      “Stop saying stuff like that. UK governments are not allowed to not allow the rights of people under international law to be upheld”.

      Ever heard of the Chagos Islands?

    46. Breeks says:

      Prorogation of Westminster, and the Scottish Courts declaring it unlawful, might be the biggest mistake a U.K. Prime Minister has ever made. We Scot’s must choose whether our MP’s respect and obey Scot’s Law or Westminster’s “unlawful” protocol.

      We have a Constitutional open goal, and if the English suspended their own parliament unlawfully, it is legitimate and lawful by default for a Scottish Parliament to be sitting, independently of the UK Parliament with all that means for the Union. “Their” hand on “our” Sovereignty is prorogued, but unlawfully so by our Laws. Seize it now.

      Call a session for Scottish MP’s Mr Blackford. Call it in College Green if the doors are locked. The Scottish Courts have given you authority to do a thing which Westminster would unlawfully deny you. Sit in session outside of Westminster and reconvene the first sovereign Scottish Parliament for 312 years.

    47. Somerled says:

      I am not convinced that Westminster must comply with a ruling in a Scottish court, an English court yes but I doubt the English judges will agree with the Scottish judges next week.

      And does anyone actually think Boris will be arrested if he refuses to re-open Parliament? Highly unlikely in my opinion.

      Who controls the staff that administers the Palace of Westminster, security, police etc. It seems it is not clear cut. It could be The Lord Great Chamberlain on behalf of the Queen.

      https://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blog/who-is-in-charge-of-the-palace-of-westminster-big-ben-and-parliamentary

    48. Charles says:

      wait, what?, so you have just said that if the Scottish ruling stands, then it weakens case for Independence, and if it doesn’t then it also weakens the case for Independence?
      So if nothing happened, if Scottish MPs made no attempt whatsoever to be heard or respected then support for Independence would rise?
      ‘ The tiny pro-indy majority that’s just beginning to coalesce in polls would die overnight….said the guy who stole headlines with his ‘Challenge to SNP’ Wings party, in the week the Unionist parties imploded and should have been the story – not Stu Campbells increasing self indulgent delusions of grandeur. Labour and Tories owe you one for that!

    49. Peter A Bell says:

      It is plainly ridiculous to argue that the Court of Session judgement demonstrates that Scotland has effective influence in the UK when the court case only arose because Scotland has so little political influence in the UK. And even more ridiculous when it is pointed out that the Scottish Court can be overruled by an English one.

      This is not to say the argument will not be made. Only that it makes no sense.

    50. stupidactingsmart says:

      Kenny Martin says:
      11 September, 2019 at 12:53 pm
      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      “Odd that just as the support for Independence is being reported as growing to over 50% consistently by an anti-independance media this site starts infighting ?”

      Fuck ALL the way off.

      Touched a nerve Stu?
      As much as I think aggressive responses may sometimes be counterproductive, is the implication of that comment not that a conspiracy is at work, and Wings/Rev is deliberately undermining the case for independence, despite the hundreds of thousands of words to the contrary? In which case, the response seems reasonable.

    51. dadsarmy says:

      I’d say I disagree with everything in this article.

      But it’s an analysis, and it sets the low bar of expectations over this ground-breaking CofS ruling – i.e. nothing, nothing at all. So basically if it DOES mean nothing, then there’s nothing to be disappointed about. And in that case it’s good to make whatever hay is possible, in terms of driving wedges between Scotland and the Union.

      Meanwhile others, including myself, find this exciting and dramatic.

    52. Gregissik says:

      So your logic is that if the ruling is upheld it shows Scotland does have influence, but if the ruling is overturned it shows Scotland still does have influence…?

      A site that used to be based on blatant fact has unfortunately defended into twisted logic.

    53. laukat says:

      @rev stu – I agree that this action in itself does nothing for Independence.

      However the UK state looks to be unstable on a number of fronts and the effect of events like this morning is that Bojo now has to react in probably a more extreme way. Where you get action and counteraction that become more and more extreme the centre usually gives and a new entity is formed.

      In the same that the Berlin Wall fell because Günter Schabowski allowed East Germans free passage to the west it’s not impossible that the UK falls apart without another referendum because of unintended action in response to prolonged pressure.

      I would like to see a clear plan from the FM and SNP as its frustrating seeing nothing when there is level of chaos in UK politics but I’m not sure that there is viable plan beyond building pressure.

      The idea of declaring the next GE as a de facto Independence vote faces the same hurdles as getting a section 30 agreement (i.e. what do we do if Westminster doesn’t recognise it?). The idea of going to court to prove who has the ability to call a section 30 order also has a problem in that if the courts found in favour of the Scottish Government, Westminster would appeal and change the law in the intervening period to get the outcome they desire. Withdrawing MPs form the UK parliament without more widespread public support will be dismissed as a stunt.

      So all that I think remains for the FM is when she demands a Section 30. You can argue about that should have been done by now but to my mind her only hope of getting it passed is to have public opinion deem it as a matter of necessity. With polls at 50/50 we’re still a bit from building that tidal wave that demands a referendum or UDI.

      Unfortunately I can see no other options for Scotland because as we already know the UK is not setup to deliver what Scotland wants or needs and we still have large swathes of Scottish people who will not recognise that Scotland is being shafted.

      I feel the frustration about the SNP leadership in light of daft policy proposals on Trans rights. This site and others excel when we present realistic options on how to achieve Independence. If we are going to complain about the SNP or FM we need to present a realistic alternative way forward that achieves the one thing that unites us.

    54. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “It does look very much like someone will have to take the UK government to court and force it to fulfill its legal obligation to respect that right”

      Which is EXACTLY WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING FOR A YEAR AND A FUCKING HALF.

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-elephant-in-the-courtroom/

    55. Cubby says:

      The legal ruling is another brick in the wall building up to Scottish independence.

    56. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “So all that I think remains for the FM is when she demands a Section 30. You can argue about that should have been done by now”

      It has been done by now. It was done two years ago. The UK government said “Piss off”. We said “Oh, okay then”.

    57. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “The legal ruling is another brick in the wall building up to Scottish independence.”

      I’m getting quite tired of people spouting meaningless slogans instead of arguments.

    58. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “So your logic is that if the ruling is upheld it shows Scotland does have influence, but if the ruling is overturned it shows Scotland still does have influence…?”

      No, it’s not. Read the words.

    59. Kris Duthie says:

      Come on man, We need you!
      Don’t let them brake you, They want you to lose hope. They want us all to lose hope. Many people might feel the same inside but we have to hold it back.
      I understand why you feel the way you do right now but you have a huge platform. People with far less fight and knowledge than you come here to build themselves up,whether you intended that or not.
      Please,if you need to take a holiday or a long break or something. Anything you need to do so you don’t end up unwittingly doing the other sides job for them.

    60. torquil fflufington smythe says:

      Surely a misleading heading to this article:—THE HUNCHBACK OF NUMBER TEN IS NOT NOTED FOR HIS WITHDRAWEL SKILS

    61. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “is the implication of that comment not that a conspiracy is at work, and Wings/Rev is deliberately undermining the case for independence, despite the hundreds of thousands of words to the contrary?”

      Yes, it is. And for the avoidance of doubt, while making arguments against the contents of the post remains absolutely fine, anyone posting the implication that this site’s suddenly become a Unionist fifth column in the pay of MI5 or whatever will find themselves banned without any further warning.

      I’ve given the last eight years of my life to this cause at considerable personal cost and I’ll be fucked if I’m going to have some wanker show up here and call me a double agent.

    62. Street Andrew says:

      Fuck ALL the way off.

      Me too,I’m afraid.

      I think you might be losing the plot. Losing some objective balance anyway and that has been the strength of your contribution through Wings..

      Probably comes of living in England too long…… ?

      I think perhaps you need to “Calm down, dear”.

    63. laukat says:

      @Rev Stu
      “It has been done by now. It was done two years ago. The UK government said “Piss off”. We said “Oh, okay then”.”

      Yes and I think what the FM learned from that was that the UK government is always going to say No unless she has the Scottish Public up in arms to the extent that UDI isn’t unrealistic

    64. K1 says:

      If we’d had a labour/libdem mix mash at Holyrood and didn’t have the likes of Joanna and the calibre of our other MP’s and MSP’s in the current political climate challenging Westminster’s madness, where the fuck would we be now?

      I get the ‘managing expectations’ wi yer sour negative spin on everything, but you know what, this is a good day for Scotland.

      I’ll say it again…I have family and friends down south and I don’t want them having to suffer the insufferable Tory fuckers post any kind of Brexit. What we do now isn’t about saving fucking England, it’s about giving a fuck and unlike some, I’m not interested in fantasies of no deal and the consequences for everyone on these islands.

      So if our lawmakers make a ruling that scuppers or delays or tangles up that bloated arrogant shower of fucks at Westminsters, then I’m delighted.

      NO ONE has any idea how any of this is going to play out wrt our independence, right now it’s about us staying in the EU for as long as possible, we already scuppered them in March, and we’ll continue to frustrate thier aspirations to turn the whole of the UK into a fucking banana basket case for as long as it takes.

      I’ve said it once and I’ll repeat it a thousand times, ideologues are dangerous, whatever side of the constitutional crisis one is on.

      It’s not independence at ‘any cost’.

      Waited over 300 years, can wait a bit longer while the intelligent adults in the room attempt everything possible to ensure that all of us are not shafted by a bunch of Eton madrassa upper crusted monkey suited wankers to destroy all our institutions and way of life.

      End.

    65. Artyhetty says:

      If the Scottish government stop Brexit, ( they won’t be able to) it would not be good for Scotland, not least it would anger our English pals who already believe Scotland is the bully rather than the other way around.

      The court decision however, in Scotland to my mind is not a bad thing. It does expose the fact that Scotland has a judiciary independent of the English system. It always has done.

      This is important for people in Scotland and in England. We have lots of newbies ( sorry for using that word!) in Edinburgh, well off people moving to Scotland who know diddly squat about Scotland’s constitutional make up, nevermind what’s devolved and what powers are reserved to England’s Westminster so called ‘UK’ government.

      I had friends in England totally blaming the SNP for deporting people FROM Scotland not so long ago, they had NO idea that immigration is a reserved power to their English government. Same with a petition from some activist group not so long ago against the ‘SCOTTISH MOD’ for seismic blasting(?) and putting Scotland’s sea animals in harms way etc. I had to point out that Scotland does not have a ‘MOD’!

      Devolution is a con, it is not working, it is not fit for purpose. People need to know that.

      Challenging the PM and his cronies is no bad thing. Let’s see how it all pans out in the very near future. It gives us something to discuss here, no?

    66. dadsarmy says:

      Okey-doke, so I guess there’s two outcomes of the UKSC next Tuesday.

      1). The UKSC overrules Scotland’s highest court, and reverses the decision. This isn’t a ruling of one single judge in the Outer Hosue, it’s 3 judges in the Inner House. So that puts our judges in their place then. That’s a political win for Indy and can be exploited.

      2). The UKSC upholds the decision of Scotland’s highest court. Which makes it all the more likely in future, that any case that comes before the CofS will have a final ruling, even if rubber-stamping happens in the UKSC. That’s a legal win for Indy.

      3). Next case in the CofS perhaps, is a challenge to something the ScotGov do. That’s a [redacted] 🙂

      Basically speaking the PM of the UK is like a dog on one of those long leashes, with the lead being held by the First Minister. If it has some sense like May it stays away from trees, or at least doesn’t run round them in ever-decreasing circles. Bozo on the other hand is not a sensible dog, he’ll bark up any wrong tree…

    67. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Yes and I think what the FM learned from that was that the UK government is always going to say No unless she has the Scottish Public up in arms to the extent that UDI isn’t unrealistic”

      Indeed. And if we’re waiting for a popular uprising we’re in for a hell of a long wait, so the only thing to do is actively pursue a legal solution.

    68. CM says:

      “Nothing that happened today is of any meaningful consequence for the UK’s prospects of leaving or remaining in the EU, and the only kind of news it represents for the cause of independence is bad news.”

      Utter Bullshit. Once the Supreme Court rule against this, seeing as how they’ll basically ignore the letter of Scots Law, it’ll add a few more to the Indy cause long-term. Why the negativity when, taking Indy blinkered specs off for a second, today’s result is at least a dirty nail in the coffin of Boris & cohorts? Soak up the fact that today, little inconspicuous Scotland made headline news on the BBC, ffs.

    69. JPJ2 says:

      2 points strike me:
      This judgement is a victory for the SNP. As they remain the best hope for Scottish independence, this will boost support for the most important pro Independence Party.

      Also, as CNN have just pointed out, if the U.K. Supreme Court agrees with the English Court and not with the Scottish Court, this will boost independence.

      I therefore believe this court decision is positive for independence.

    70. K1 says:

      I want Thpnr to come back, when is that happening? I miss your comments and insights Alex.

    71. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “People with far less fight and knowledge than you come here to build themselves up,whether you intended that or not.”

      And it’s my duty to tell them the truth. Because the more you build on a foundation of lies, the harder you’ll fall in the end. We can only win with the truth, even when it’s a hard truth.

    72. yesindyref2 says:

      I’ve given the last eight years of my life to this cause at considerable personal cost and I’ll be fucked if I’m going to have some wanker show up here and call me a double agent.

      Join the club, there’s been too many wankers doing that, and they STILL are, one in particular as another long-winded one isn’t posting at present.

    73. starlaw says:

      Glad I’m going North on Holiday next week as Scottish accent as well as Scottish pound might not be welcome in Engerlandshire.

    74. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I want Thpnr to come back, when is that happening?”

      When he apologises.

    75. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Soak up the fact that today, little inconspicuous Scotland made headline news on the BBC, ffs.”

      Who gives a shit? I want us to win independence, not get a little attention on the telly.

    76. jfngw says:

      If the Supreme Court overturn the case it may persuade a few more to vote Yes, not the ultra unionist obviously, they would happily disolve Scotland.

      It may have more effect in England as it may persuade more Bretixteers that they need to get shot of Scotland and pressurise their MP to agree to a referendum. Although personally I’m not too interested in a S30 order for a sovereign people.

      Admittedly I would have been more interested in testing Scotland’s peoples sovereignty in court, can another country remove our citizenship of the EU. It could be politician’s are afraid to test it in court, if they lose then the claim of right would prove to be meaningless and in effect we would be ruled as being Scotlandshire.

    77. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I’ll say it again…I have family and friends down south and I don’t want them having to suffer the insufferable Tory fuckers post any kind of Brexit.”

      Then you don’t want independence. Which is fine, but you’re on the wrong website.

    78. K1 says:

      Och! He was being cheeky not trolling, your’ve known him long enough to know his style.

      Besides you have a bet on wi him…how’s that gonna get resolved if he’s no here. 😉

    79. Douglas says:

      Stuart,
      Technical: I think your first point is incorrect:

      The judgement means that the Prorogue is nullified as if it never happened.

      Currently Parliament is technically still in session and the MPs are AWOL.

      The Prime Minister doesn’t need to reconvene Parliament but he might want to do so to give the illusion of control.

      The MPs need to get down and conduct a ‘work in’.
      Someone else has suggested adapting Jimmy Reid’s speech for the shipyard work in.

      The effect on Independence? No sure but it all does make the U.K. look even more ridiculous.

      There is so much money riding on forcing Brexit through before the EU anti tax evasion directive in January that they could resort to ANY action (legal or not) to make it happen. That’s not even considering the British Nationalist response to anything Tartan getting in the way.

      This is the U.K. tearing itself apart.

      To borrow a phrase:
      This is ‘redolent with opportunity’

    80. K1 says:

      Oh please Stu, I’ve been on the website for 6 fucking years, we voted Remain, that’s what this mess is about, our independence is entangled wi this process and it’s total mess.

      I get the negative spin, but I also don’t know the future. The decision today is a good thing, and as others have pointed out, if UK supcourt goes agains it (most likely), then the potential increase for support for indy rises.

    81. Doug says:

      Anything that gets the britnats’ knickers in a twist is fine by me. Likewise for English nationalists finding another excuse to hate Scotland.

    82. Bob Mack says:

      @Star law,

      I’m off to Cornwall, but that’s Celtic like ourselves.

    83. Alt Clut says:

      Seems to me it’s simple. The judgement brings more “confusion to our enemies”.Last I heard that was a good thing. If Johnson is found to have misled the monarch that’s more confusion and another good things. Big struggles have many unexpected facets. All need to be used.

    84. Breeks says:

      Act of Union 1707

      Article 3 (united parliament)

      That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be Represented by one and the same Parliament, to be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain.

      The Parliament of Great Britain is unlawfully prorogued under Scot’s Law.

      Convene a Scottish Parliament outside the Parliament of Great Britain as is your right under Scot’s Law, but denied by the unlawful prorogation of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the United Kingdom is no longer represented by one and the same Parliament.

      The Act of Union is breached because of the unlawful prorogation which Scotland lawfully and properly rejected under Scot’s Law, which unlawfully denied Scotland it’s rightful government.

    85. Adrian B says:

      The legal chatter is that Boris has to resign.

    86. Lochside says:

      So The Court of Session has made a controversial ruling…but it still has to put it up to the so-called’Supreme Court’, an institution which under the Act of Union should not exist and is incompatible with the protected status of Scots Law.

      Yet Tony Blair was allowed to get away with creating it and the supine Scots legal system colluded with its imposition. So in a supposed equal Union, we have a subordinate parliament, a subordinate executive and a subordinate legal system.

      No matter what decision the ‘Supreme Court’ comes to with its token house sweaties on board, it is still an imposition and insult to our continuing craven status in the sham Union.
      BTW Chicmac, I just heard on BBC radio a leading ‘Scots lawyer’ from Pinsent Masons ( sic!) clearly state that ‘The Supreme Court is the Ultimate Court of the UK’…anyway we’ll be out of the EU before any appeal could be heard by the ECJ.

    87. laukat says:

      @Rev Stu
      “Indeed. And if we’re waiting for a popular uprising we’re in for a hell of a long wait, so the only thing to do is actively pursue a legal solution.”

      I’m assuming you are referring to a legal case on who is the competent authority to hold an Indyref? If so I don’t see how that does anything.

      Scottish Government has already taken the UK Government to court on Brexit legislation and won their case but by the time the judgement was passed down the UK government had changed the law to make the judgement worthless. What stops them doing the same on section 30?

      The legal case on section 30 would have more effect if the Scottish public is more irate about UK decision making in general. At this point even if the Scottish Government won the case the pro union elements in Scotland would dismiss it as a waste of time and ‘stoking the fires of division’.

    88. dadsarmy says:

      So some quick news about this, first Pete Wishart has rule out Speaker to devote more time to Indy, second:

      https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17895320.ian-blackford-writes-boris-johnson-demanding-recall-parliament—letter-full/

      which I’m about to read.

      I guess third is that the media in Scotland is basically being forced to report this as it happens or be left behind, and to be honest I think there’s an increasing appetite for them to do so. It’s not just the Record.

      It could be taht the days of an anti-Indy media in Scotland are at an end.

    89. Giving Goose says:

      The clue is in the word “United” (Kingdom).
      This implies more than one entity, in this case 2 entities.
      In hindsight it was a totally stupid thing for England to “allow” Scotland it’s own legal system.
      And it is that seperate legal system that has thrown a spanner in the works today.

      Ok, I get the cynicism and the cold realism being applied, however, we are so used to dealing with a flawed and corrupt political system that it is refreshing to see another tier of society (the legal system) flexing it’s muscles.

    90. K1 says:

      Tiny small satisfaction that it knocks farage off the from headlines for a bit too.

    91. dadsarmy says:

      Mmm, it would be ironic if a Monarchy agnostic Scotland was responsible for protecting the Monarch from the unlawful PM.

      That really would bring the tears to the e’es – and the cheeks 🙂

    92. Gaelstorm says:

      Well, as has been seen already, it’s whipping up hatred of us in England, sufficient that even the dumbest North Briton can see it. So possibly more Yes votes, plus less chance of Westminster trying to hang onto us?

    93. Proud Cybernat says:

      @Rev

      Rev Stu: “…so the only thing to do is actively pursue a legal solution.”

      Any chance you can expand on that, Rev? More specifically, how do you see Scotland winning its independence? What do our politicians need to do? What do WE, the people, need to do? Genuinely interested to know your thoughts.

    94. K1 says:

      Top story on BBC News 24 at 2pm. Good stuff.

    95. Paul says:

      So we should all pack up then Stu and not bother eh? What has got in to you these Days? You are doing more harm than good.

    96. K1 says:

      iplayer…fs

    97. dadsarmy says:

      @Lochside
      It’s not the Court of Sessions has to put it up to the UKSC, it has made its ruling.

      It’s the UK Government has to appeal to the UKSC – if it dares. Otherwise the ruling from the CofS stands. Currently it’s Miller is appealing to the UKSC against the London High Court ruling against them.

      So the UK Gov is the respondent in Miller, it would have to be the appelant in Cherry.

    98. Bob Mack says:

      Stu,

      You are absolutely correct. The Scottish Government should by now have submitted a case about the legality of the Scottish people enshrined right to hold a referendum. It should have been done two years ago when Mrs May refused to write back to Nicola.

      The judges in the Gina Miller case deliberately avoided the issue of the sovereignty of the Scottish people rather than parliament. They used a fudge of the will of the people being expressed by their representatives in parliament.

      This should have been challenged,but never was.

      It is of vital importance,but left to run.

      I understand your frustration,as should every poster on this site.

      On a personal level,I thank you.
      Whenever you see something you don’t like,give it both barrels. You don’t do it for no reason.

    99. HandandShrimp says:

      The main outcome of the ruling and the likelihood the Supreme Court will ask to see the documentation that led to prorogation is that it makes Boris look even more shady than before. It may make him more inclined to get shot of Scotland…one can hope.

      I never expected this legal exercise to do much other than demonstrate how dodgy this government is. Consequently I am pleased at the outcome. Every seam picked further weakens the garment.

    100. Mad Jock Macmad says:

      The UK Supreme Court requires that Scottish Law Lords judge on issues of Scots Law as the English Law Lords pointed out they have no competence on issues of Scots Law. The Cherry Case was brought under Scots Law and practice. The judgement was made on the affidavits and legal arguments brought before the Court of Session by both parties.

      The judgement can only be over ruled by the UK Supreme Court if the Court of Session has exceeded its powers under Scots Law, in error in its interpretation of Scots Law, the evidence before it or in EU Law.

      I would have thought the Rev would have known that.

    101. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Oh please Stu, I’ve been on the website for 6 fucking years, we voted Remain, that’s what this mess is about, our independence is entangled wi this process and it’s total mess.”

      Yes, we did. And why are we getting dragged out anyway? Because we also voted No in 2014. We have to fix the second one to fix the first one.

    102. dadsarmy says:

      @Bob Mack “The Scottish Government should by now have submitted a case about the legality of the Scottish people enshrined right to hold a referendum

      Why?

      The way it would be done is for the ScotGov to announce the Indy Ref, and for some other party to take it to Court.

    103. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “The judgement can only be over ruled by the UK Supreme Court if the Court of Session has exceeded its powers under Scots Law, in error in its interpretation of Scots Law, the evidence before it or in EU Law.

      I would have thought the Rev would have known that.”

      I know that fine. What’s your point? The whole reason we’re here now is that the court today judged that the court got it wrong previously. Plainly the Supreme Court could judge that it was the appeal court that got it wrong and the first court was right.

      I have no idea whether it will or not, but the point is that it makes no odds either way. The chances of Parliament being recalled are slim and there’s nothing for it to do even if it was.

    104. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Any chance you can expand on that, Rev? More specifically, how do you see Scotland winning its independence? What do our politicians need to do? What do WE, the people, need to do? Genuinely interested to know your thoughts.”

      [getting a headache]

      Scroll up the thread for the link.

    105. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “So we should all pack up then Stu and not bother eh?”

      No. Nobody has said any such thing. What we should do is pursue the cause of independence, not sabotage it by saving the UK from Brexit.

    106. Capella says:

      @ K1 — Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      11 September, 2019 at 1:29 pm
      “I want Thpnr to come back, when is that happening?”

      When he apologises.

      Hi The PNR – I agree with K1 I’d like to hear your take on this too.- somebody has to climb down and apologise and guess what? That’ll have to be you. It’s only a wee apology.

    107. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “It could be taht the days of an anti-Indy media in Scotland are at an end.”

      Jesus, there’s a lot of wishful thinking going on today but that might just take the cake.

    108. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Scottish Government has already taken the UK Government to court on Brexit legislation and won their case but by the time the judgement was passed down the UK government had changed the law to make the judgement worthless. What stops them doing the same on section 30?”

      The fact that the two things aren’t at all similar legally.

    109. Spikethedee says:

      Perhaps a controversial opinion here, but I think the SNP have played the right hand, at least so far.
      Trying to appeal to the more sensible and rational mainstream of rUK politics by not simply saying “No Brexit, no way” for three years, they have at least offered solutions, or adjustments to existing Government ‘plans’, such as staying in Customs Union/Single Market etc. They can’t be accused of simply objecting to everything, but have put forward proposals that Tories/UKIP/Brexit Party supporters couldn’t really stomach. If things do go Brexit-shaped (particularly No Deal), then they can argue that “We tried to do the best to mitigate a bad situation, proposed alternatives and tried to work with others, but Scotland got out-voted and ignored, so that is why we want Independence”.

    110. Bob Mack says:

      @Dadsarmy,

      You prove the Revs point. If that was the completely legal stance,why have the Scottish Government sought a section 30 rather than just go ahead anyway. They have the majority in both parliaments ( albeit with green support).
      They have smart lawyers including Joanna. They know it might not be accepted,and as we have seen with the section 30 request,just ignored.

      Referendums are advisory,but no legal status.

      ,

    111. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Trying to appeal to the more sensible and rational mainstream of rUK politics by not simply saying “No Brexit, no way” for three years, they have at least offered solutions, or adjustments to existing Government ‘plans’, such as staying in Customs Union/Single Market etc”

      Your faith in the British public’s appreciation of fine political nuance is touching.

    112. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “The legal chatter is that Boris has to resign.”

      …and thereby trigger the election he’s been trying to call for the last week?

    113. dadsarmy says:

      This is getting even better, they jsut can’t help themselves. From the BBC:

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49660689

      “The BBC’s political editor, Laura Kuenssberg [sic], said the law in Scotland was different to that in England and the ruling would put “massive pressure” on the Supreme Court over who to side with. ”

      Hahhaha hahaha hahaha

    114. K1 says:

      Highly suggest anyone who has access to iplayer go on to the site click channels and then NEWS channel, rewind to start of the programme, very interesting take from ‘our’ side in terms of what this actually means legally, i.e. that the Westminster is effectively still sitting and is not prorogued. Worth a watch for better insight and meaning of this court of session judgement.

    115. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I think you might be losing the plot. Losing some objective balance anyway”

      Cold objectivity is precisely what’s happening here, while everyone else is going “LOL we beat Boris Johnson so that MUST be good for us because we don’t like Boris Johnson”. But it isn’t, and I’ve carefully and clearly laid out why, same as I always do. The fact that this time you don’t like the conclusion doesn’t make it wrong.

    116. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “very interesting take from ‘our’ side in terms of what this actually means legally, i.e. that the Westminster is effectively still sitting and is not prorogued”

      So what? What’s it going to do?

    117. K1 says:

      Fair enough Capella. Alex, just write sorry and give us your input. PUHHHHLEEEEESES 🙂

    118. dadsarmy says:

      Another snippet:

      Jim Cormack, a constitutional law expert at lawyers Pinsent Mason in Edinburgh said: “The judges have decided this was a clear case in which the government had stepped outside of the normal room for manoeuvre it is allowed by the courts, when it gave its advice to HM the Queen.

      He added: “This decision of the Scottish appeal court radically changes the legal landscape ahead of an expected hearing before the United Kingdom Supreme Court next week.”

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49650729

      Lovely jubbly 🙂

    119. K1 says:

      Scrutiny and causing general chaos within the Tory party. 🙂

    120. vlad (not that one) says:

      Veni, vidi, fugi.

    121. Bob Mack says:

      @Rev,

      What’s it going to do?

      Perhaps amend the clusterf@#ck Kinnock amendment.

      I’m going nuts here. Unlike some others I want a no deal if it comes to pass. Maybe I’m wrong ,but I see that as the eventual route to our independence. I just don’t know.
      Some will suffer,but what country has gained indy without?
      Very few.

    122. dadsarmy says:

      @Bob Mack
      You prove the Revs point. If that was the completely legal stance,why have the Scottish Government sought a section 30 rather than just go ahead anyway.

      Not at all, as Sturgeon says, the S30 is the “gold standard” and also puts the legality of the referendum beyond doubt – and beyond a challenge in court. Why do it the hard way, when there is an easier one?

      Incidentally, this CofS and the resultant UKSC may put the spotlight not just on the Rule of Law, but on the fabric of Democracy itself. Which might put pressure in itself, on the UK Parliament to agree to a S30.

      From the Rev “but that might just take the cake

      I like cake. I like pie too! Pass the cream.

    123. Bob Mack says:

      Just to add to the mix, Lord Ashcroft poll finds 51% in the North of Ireland want a United Ireland.

      Boy ,when empires break up its all the way.

    124. North chiel says:

      Is “ a homeless” Boris now heading from No.10 to “ bed & breakfast in The Tower” for “ telling porkies to Her maj” ??

    125. Mist001 says:

      Funny that Joanne Cherry et al are happy to challenge the legality of prorogation but none of them want to challenge the legality of section 30.

      Doesn’t that tell anybody anything?

    126. Bob Mack says:

      @Dad’s army,

      “To put it beyond challenge in court”

      Honestly,that should have been done by now, by the Scottish Government. What they are saying is they are not sure of the legality of any other route bar a section 30

    127. Lochside says:

      Dadsarmy @ 2.04pm…are you denying that the Supreme Court existence subordinates the Court of Session as the final arbiter of justice for Scotland? If the UK Gov has to appeal to the former to overturn judgement does that not confirm this? I gave you the statement verbatim by the Pinsent spokesman, who’s a partner in the firm regarding the ‘Ultimate’ nature of the SC.

      Are you a constitutional lawyer? The fucking point is the subordination of Scotland continues at all levels of our democratic and constitutional life…the fact is that we don’t have any actual powers as our leaders keep tinkering around the edges instead of going directly for dissolution of the Union based on the continuing breaches of the Acts.

    128. Helen Yates says:

      I’ve given the last eight years of my life to this cause at considerable personal cost and I’ll be fucked if I’m going to have some wanker show up here and call me a double agent.

      I’ll second that, honestly we really are our own worst enemies.

    129. dadsarmy says:

      @Mist001 “Funny that Joanne Cherry et al are happy to challenge the legality of prorogation but none of them want to challenge the legality of section 30.

      Because there’s no such challenge possible even in an alternate parallel universe!

      Doesn’t that tell anybody anything?

      Yes, that there’s no such thing, no such beast, it does not exist, it is meaningless.

    130. Adrian B says:

      @Mist001

      I don’t understand your conspiracy. Salmond wanted a Section 30? He didn’t challenge it either – what are you trying to say?

    131. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      Hi Stu.,

      Normally I am 98.5% in agreement with you.

      But the YOUR new Ministry of Wet Blankets department blanket might just have missed a wee bit of dry sunlight in today’s political anorak drama festival.

      I just read through the BBC BTL comments section and was genuinely shocked at the violent and vitriolic public HATRED OF SCOTLAND AND THE SCOTS by little Englanders and Brexiteers

      Could be bad, could be good!

      Having 17,000,000 angry Brexiteers incite mass hatred on the Scots and Scottish nation is not exactly a good thing, but…

      Several of the more rabid posters are looking to seek a U.K. Referendum to boot Scotland out of the UK.

      Like many, my brain is in pan-fried-Brexit mode.

      Stuart, is there any way you could run your magnificent brain and analytical skills, plus some of that Stirling & Bathian dry wit you possess into the meta detail of what the McRunes predict may happen if we can muster England to have our IndyVote for us?

      On today’s form, Scotland would win IndyRef2 if England and Wales were included in the vote.

      Best, Al.

      P.S. I was delighted to see John McTernan on Sky news last night. Could this see a return of “McTernan Predicts” feature articles 🙂

    132. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      Sorry, last message keyboard stuck and typo. The “YOUR” should have been in lower case. Apologies at my rudeness.

      Suffering from premature ecommentation 🙂

    133. dadsarmy says:

      @Bob Mack
      It can’t be done by the ScotGov. All they can do is pass the legislation for the Indy Ref framework, and then call the Ref – and see what happens. They can not take it to court themselves.

      @Lochside
      re you denying that the Supreme Court existence subordinates the Court of Session as the final arbiter of justice for Scotland?

      I an neither denying, nor confirming. Even the UKSC itself does it on a case by case basis, there is no overall sweeping judgement possible.

      As for your “I heard it on the radio”, snigger.

      But I’ll repeat what a Pinsent spokesperson DID actually say:

      “Jim Cormack, a constitutional law expert at lawyers Pinsent Mason in Edinburgh said: “The judges have decided this was a clear case in which the government had stepped outside of the normal room for manoeuvre it is allowed by the courts, when it gave its advice to HM the Queen.

      He added: “This decision of the Scottish appeal court radically changes the legal landscape ahead of an expected hearing before the United Kingdom Supreme Court next week.”” – according to the BBC.

      radically changes the legal landscape

    134. Bob Mack says:

      @Dad’s army,

      Sorry but that is wrong. One month after Nicola sent the section 30 request but receiving no answer was reason enough to commencement court proceedings.It should have been done.

    135. dadsarmy says:

      Anyways, things to do, and this by LPW to read:

      https://www.thenational.scot/news/17895299.andrew-tickell-3-scots-judges-saw-tory-lie/

      but before I do a thought that occurs, is that for the UKSC to overrule the CofS would mean that is has to make a judicial judgement that the CofS was making a judicial judgement when it shouldn’t be making a judicial judgement, because the issue of prorogation is political and not justiciable.

      That’ll cause a little scratching of judicial heads!

    136. Capella says:

      @ Lochside – not really. The highest Court of Appeal used to be the House of Lords. The Supreme Court replaced the House of Lords. Since 1707 the Court of Session is the highest court in Scotland but not the highest appeal court – same as in England. Of course, the House of lords was always stuffed with many English lords while the Scots were limited to c 17.

      Aileen McHarg has pointed out though that the Court of Session is a UK court and so has direct jurisdiction over the UK Parliament.

      Aileen McHarg is Professor Of Public Law, Strathclyde University. with expertise in Constitutional and administrative law.

      Boris Johnston is breaking the law every day that Parliament remains prorogued ( Joanna Cherry).

    137. Capella says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      11 September, 2019 at 2:17 pm
      “The legal chatter is that Boris has to resign.”

      …and thereby trigger the election he’s been trying to call for the last week?

      Not necessarily. The Head of State can ask Jeremy Corbyn, as leader of the official opposition, to form a government as Boris Johnston has no majority. Jeremy Corbyn would need a coalition and the SNP might agree to support him in exchange for a S30.

      I have no idea what the Commons arithmetic is ATM.

    138. Adrian B says:

      @Bob Mack

      Incorrect – It might be what you would have liked to happen, but it isn’t fact nor truth that one month after sending a section 30 request that legal action against not being granted a Section 30 could have been taken.

    139. K1 says:

      New MT just posted…less controversial…light relief. 🙂

    140. Bob Mack says:

      @Adrian B,

      The time frame was incidental. It could be a week or a month.
      The point is that Holyrood passed it in a vote.

      Are you aware that you can take Westminster to court for infringing your rights..
      Mrs May stated”now is not the time”. That is a direct refusal, so therefore she could be legally entitled to respond to set out given time frame.

      Quite legal.

    141. Alex Morrison says:

      Whilst on conference season the Parliament is still open and operation just mean that there is no sitting schedules and MPs can be called to a sitting. Prorogued Parliament is shut down, so Rev you are right but wrong as well.

    142. Lochside says:

      Dads army…’heard it on the radio ‘ snigger’….meaning?, yeah it was the same ‘expert’ that I heard you are quoting. Make your point but cut out the cheap shots.

      ‘radically changes the legal landscape“….we’ll see how radical it turns out!

    143. Terry callachan says:

      Some new staff at the Supreme Court
      Lord reed is the new head honcho and he is anti Scottish independence

      http://ukscblog.com/lord-reed-to-be-the-next-president-of-the-uk-supreme-court-three-new-justices-also-appointed/

    144. Ghillie says:

      Well said Marcia and Cubby and many others =)

      YES! Very well done Joanna Cherry QC, Jolyon Maugham QC and others 🙂

    145. mogabee says:

      Adrian B

      Why not? Surely a challenge should have occured at that point as a consequence of refusal.

      Otherwise we go round in circles.

    146. jfngw says:

      @Capella

      I can’t see Jeremy Corbyn holding together a combination of SNP, LibDem’s and Green. Even if he could get them on board some of his own MP’s won’t be guaranteed to support him. If he can cobble something together it would just be to extend Brexit then call an election, that’s the only support he could possibly expect from the other parties.

    147. schrodingers cat says:

      FREE THEPNR 🙂

    148. dadsarmy says:

      Mmm, from Tickell:

      The idea that Lords Carloway, Brodie and Drummond Young are woad-painted Nats is for the birds

      LOLlers

    149. Xaracen says:

      Sorry but that is wrong. One month after Nicola sent the section 30 request but receiving no answer was reason enough to commencement court proceedings.It should have been done.

      Are we sure that this was an actual formal S30 request that was formally refused, or just ignored?

    150. Adrian B says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      11 September, 2019 at 2:17 pm
      “The legal chatter is that Boris has to resign.”

      …and thereby trigger the election he’s been trying to call for the last week?

      A finding that someone has lied is a finding of fact that can only be appealed if it is manifestly wrong…. Can that even be argued?

      We are going to need to wait until next week to see what happens with the Northern Ireland Court and The Supreme Court> It might be a big mess if a London Court overturns the Scottish Court.

      A new Government MAY be required with a new leader, but whether there will actually be a general election isn’t certain – who would call it?

    151. dadsarmy says:

      @Capella
      Aileen McHarg was also a signator for Lawyers for YES, and a co-starter of Scottish Constitutional Futures Forum at which stage she was NOT a YES 🙂

      Same as Christine Bell in fact, both moved over to YES during Indy Ref 1.

    152. Sinky says:

      The difference that London commentators ignore is that “the unlimited sovereignty of parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no part in Scottish constitutional law” Lord Cooper in 1953.

      The people not parliament are sovereign in Scotland. Another reason for independence.

    153. MadCatWumman says:

      Positives

      It pisses off the gammon to the extent they want us gone & forget we are their wallet.

      It shows exactly how corrupt bawjaws & his cronies are!

      It shows Queenie & her suits up as either being stupid or deliberately corrupt!

      It shows the world (again) what shysters we are up against.

      If Supreme Court agrees – it shows we are right & Scottish Law beat them to it!

      If they disagree it shows we have no voice against the British est

      If they overrule – it opens a whole can of constitutional worms

      I can see why snp want to be seen to be trying to stop Brexit ( both at home & in EU) but I cannot fathom why they would risk Indy to do it.

      Unless they have more than one pan on the boil & something in place with EU – what? I have no idea!

      I’m all for playing ‘chicken’ & living on adrenaline, but not at the expense of independence.

      If they fk this up – there is no plan b!

    154. schrodingers cat says:

      what does this all achieve?

      62% voted remain, 45% voted yes

      everything that is done is aimed to convert about 10% from no to yes

      I believe this is working

      regardless of how our independence is won, ie by what mechanism eg s30 indyref2 etc, the one absolute requirement is that we have a majority

      with all the usual caveates pertaining to opinion polls, i believe we now have a slim majority in scotland for independence and bojo’s reckless pursuit of a no deal and the snps policy of high profile objection, will ensure this majority grows.

      ps, hi dads 🙂

    155. Adrian B says:

      @ Mogabee,

      What would you challenge and on what grounds would you make such a challenge?

    156. dadsarmy says:

      @Lochside “Make your point but cut out the cheap shots.

      and how’s about “Are you a constitutional lawyer? The fucking point is . . .

      Are you another one can dish it out, but can’t take it yourself? Am I supposed to turn the other cheek while you deride and swear at me?

      FUCK that for a game of soldiers!

    157. Nana says:

      English judges explain decision to reject prorogation challenge

      Lord Pannick QC, who represented Gina Miller, had tried to overcome those problems by ”advancing a novel and sophisticated argument resting on parliamentary sovereignty”, they acknowledged.

      http://archive.fo/zN1cD

    158. Phronesis says:

      ‘It is “as if the prorogation order had never existed” following this morning’s judgment from the Inner House of the Court of Session in Cherry – a “remarkable” case that could have “lasting implications for our constitution, for the reviewability of major prerogative powers and for the courts themselves”, legal experts have told Scottish Legal News.
      A court comprising the Lord President, Lord Carloway, Lord Brodie and Lord Drummond Young ruled that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was unlawful… “The Supreme Court will now determine this matter but in terms of its rules it can only suspend the judgment of a lower court in exceptional circumstances and simply failing to seek such an order from the lower court does not seem to qualify as ‘exceptional circumstances’

      https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/inner-house-s-remarkable-judgment-on-prorogation-could-have-long-lasting-constitutional-implications

      Democracy dies in a ditch unless the rule of law is respected.

    159. dadsarmy says:

      @Terry Callaghan. From that article:

      The UK Supreme Court has announced that The Right Hon Lord Reed will succeed Baroness Hale of Richmond as President, upon her retirement in January 2020.

      so it hasn’t happened yet, and won’t happen by next tuesday either!

    160. schrodingers cat says:

      Xaracen says:
      Are we sure that this was an actual formal S30 request that was formally refused, or just ignored?

      —————–

      an important point. the reason nicola didnt pursue this s30 request was because a ge was called and support for the snp dropped to 39% in scotland.

      we can only pursue independence with any real vigour when we have a majority support in scotland for indy. this policy by nicola of opposing brexit may annoy some indy supporters who find the delays infuriating but the polls are moving in our direction.

      a majority is a prerequisite to any subsequent pursuit of indy

    161. Lenny Hartley says:

      yesindyref2 Good to see you back, hope health good.
      My tuppence worth on this is that it can only be a good thing, Moral on the Indy side has been sagging, this little victory against the Brit Establishment puts a spring in to our step, fairly brightened up my day anyways.

    162. North chiel says:

      Could Boris & Rees Mogg be “ lifted” if they set foot in Scotland? What about possible “ extradition proceedings” ??

    163. Lochside says:

      From Pinsent & Mason’s official site:

      ‘The UK government has said that it will appeal today’s decision to the Supreme Court, which is the FINAL UK court of appeal. Cormack said previously that the Supreme Court could choose to hear appeals from all three cases either together or consecutively.’ …BTW, He used the word ‘ULTIMATE’ instead of FINAL’ on the interview.

      Capella:

      ‘Since 1707 the Court of Session is the highest court in Scotland but not the highest appeal court – same as in England. Of course, the House of lords was always stuffed with many English lords’

      The whole point I keep trying to make is that Whatever the Court of Session decision is..the UK Supreme can ignore it. Like the Holyrood assembly we are subordinate to England’s justice system and rule. Is that plain enough?

    164. dadsarmy says:

      @Sinky
      It will be interesting to see if Cooper comes up next Tuesday, as it really could force a different judgement for Cherr, from that one for Miller. Which would be verrrry interesting, but outstanding!

      @Nana
      Thanks for that, interesting to see their reasons. However, the Guardian article is misleading in that it seeks to imply they gave their opinions AFTER the CofS judgement. In fact the written judgement just came out 2 hours after, but was obviously written BEFORE the CofS judegment.

      Two hours after the Scottish appeal court ruled that Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen to suspend parliament was “unlawful”, three of the most senior English judges explained why they had come to a diametrically opposed conclusion.

      Naughty naughty, Grun 🙂

      Where’s Heed when you need him?

    165. Lochside says:

      Dads Army…Don’t you worry,I can dish it out all right. I asked you a straight question and the ‘fucking’ part was not aimed directly at you. But you appear to be a thin skinned individual with a huge ego, so I’ll let you get on with your sad life.
      Don’t address me again and I will happily ignore you in future

    166. Terry callachan says:

      I agree with. Stu

      Why on earth are SNP trying to save england from the brexit it voted for when we know that the number of people in Scotland in favour of Scottish independence will increase and reach the required level if Brexit goes ahead.

      Once independent Scotland can have as many referendums as it chooses
      We could have one on leaving the EU
      Joining the EU
      Using our own Scottish pound
      Using the euro
      Getting trident out of Scotland

      Lord Reed a Scot became deputy president of the Supreme Court 2018
      He takes over as president january 2020

    167. Nana says:

      @dadsarmy

      see more here. I’ve been posting all morning in the comments section.
      https://indyref2.space/wednesday-11th-september-2019/#comment-180

    168. Gary says:

      Rev….. Read the posts and again I totally see where your coming from.
      If the Scottish courts had any teeth, they would have declared the treaty of union over long ago due to the way it has been breached over the centuries!

    169. Gregory Beekman says:

      What this court case does is show just how much power the Prime Minister has and that devolution is a temporary privilege that can be withdrawn at any time.

      Hopefully, that’ll be enough to convince a majority of Scots that an independent Scotland under the rule of a modern parliament is far more preferable.

      But it does make you wonder: if the SNP are happy to take Westminster to court over Brexit, why not over the right to hold a referendum?…

    170. Capella says:

      @ Lochside – is that plain? Well not if chic mac is correct above. He says that the Court of Session can appeal directly to the ECJ which is above the Supreme Court.
      https://wingsoverscotland.com/wet-blanket-department/#comment-2486593

      AFAIK the UK will still be under ECJ jurisdiction so long as it is in the Council of Europe, which is separate from the EU.

    171. Terry callachan says:

      To dads army…very true

      Lord Reed doesn’t take over til jan 2020 but he is deputy president at present and will be president from January 2020

      He is anti Scottish independence he only became deputy president last year ,quick rise to the top just in time to be used against the Scots I would say

    172. The English claim of rights is that Parliament is Sovereign, not the prime minister or the queen. The English Parliament was never put into abeyance like the Scottish Parliament on the signing of the Treaty, therefore the English Parliament became the Parliament of Great Britain.
      The Scottish Parliament was reconvened on devolution.
      The claim of rights was passed by the Scottish Government in 1689.
      The English claim of rights was passed the same year.

    173. dadsarmy says:

      @Lochside
      And the “snigger” wasn’t aimed at you, what a thin skinned individual with a huge ego you are, so I’ll let you get on with your sad life.

      Don’t address me again and I will happily ignore you in future

      If you make mistakes like saying a court has to take a court to court, them I WILL correct it if I can be bothered. You said:

      So The Court of Session has made a controversial ruling…but it still has to put it up to the so-called’Supreme Court

      Do you stand by that mistake?

      Well do you, punk?

    174. dadsarmy says:

      @Nana
      From the judgement “Lord Brodie considered that whereas when the petition was raised the question was unlikely to have been justiciable, the particular prorogation that had occurred, as a tactic to frustrate Parliament, could legitimately be established as unlawful.

      kind of backs up what I thought about the delay. It could be the CofS might have found it difficult ruling on Monday before the prorogation, but were able to take it into account once done, hence ruling today.

      Which does raise some interesting possibilities!

    175. Liz g says:

      Nana @ 3.25
      Thanks for the link…. A very interesting development indeed.
      If it’s true that the English Court reached it’s judgement based on Westminster Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Scottish one didn’t?
      Mibbi the McCormick opinion is about to get an airing?
      Quite a conundrum!!
      The Scottish Judges are out voted in the Supreme Court and the majority decision stands….. We could potentially be seeing the incompatibility of the two legal systems coming on to the Scottish voters radar just in time for indyref two. 🙂 🙂

      Although for the avoidance of doubt ( I’m looking at you breeks) I don’t think for one minute it will affect Scotland’s Legal position,only highlight it.

      IMHO Even if they didn’t know that this is what they were actually doing on 18th September 2014?
      55% of Scots for the first time in 300 odd years ratified the Treaty of Union as it was understood on that day.
      Not as it has been written or interpreted over the Centuries but as it operated on that day.
      Which includes the Supreme Court having a say over the Court of Sessions and it’s deference to parliamentary sovereignty. This cannot be undone Legally only Politically.

    176. JMD says:

      In my own simplistic and not particularly well informed view I can only see this as pissing off more English nationalists and moving them further toward starting to get more vocal about booting Scotland out of the precious so called “union”.

      Obviously the WM regime would try to nip that in the bud but if the demands became loud enough?

    177. Juteman says:

      I’ve been on here for maybe 7 years, but don’t post much these days.
      Go and have a holiday, Stu. A week hunting bears in Greece would sort you right out. 🙂

    178. manandboy says:

      On the Court Judgement :

      “If you’re driving dangerously and if one police officer does nothing but the next one does, it doesn’t matter: you’ve still been arrested. That’s what happened here.”
      Jonathan Mitchell QC

      http://archive.is/NxUfW

    179. Ghillie says:

      Shrodingners Cat, Well said, true, and surely salient.

      Joanna Cherry and team are well and truly holding Westminster’s feet to the fire =)

    180. David says:

      They came to a Scottish court maybe because they are Scottish I accept it will probably be reversed by the supreme court .
      Even if the decision is reversed the documents revealed have been fascinating and BBC saying judges in legal jargon say Boris misled the Queen.

    181. Spikethedee says:

      Your faith in the British public’s appreciation of fine political nuance is touching.

      Rev, The point I was trying to make was that the SNP could counter any other party’s attack that “you only want to break up the UK, you’ve got no constructive policies”. Trying to reverse a decision that, as mot people would probably agree, would actually strengthen the case for Independence, would, IMHO, neutralise that particular line.

    182. Bob Mack says:

      This gets better and better. Apparently Gina Miller was refused a hearing in the Supreme Court. Three judges declared it was a political issue rather than judicial. Rev’s twitter.

      Now the Court of Session in Edinburgh is a higher court and can only be overuled by the Supreme Court.

      This pitches the Supreme Court against a ruling by Scotland highest Civil Court (unanimous.)

      What a party. The only show in town if your aN indy person.

      See some of the English public as predicted want rid of us.

    183. Cubby says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell@1.11pm

      Sorry you didn’t like my post. That’s often the case by other posters on Wings but I try not to let it get me down. It was never intended to be an argument but just confirmation that I held the opinion that this would aid independence to some small degree as a minimum. The exact assistance will be discovered as it plays out.

      I think some other posters have already made some arguments for how it will help and wee ginger dug also states some ways in which it will help. So I won’t trouble you with repeating them as you have moved on to another thread.

    184. call me dave says:

      So the SupCrt will have to say that the ScotAppealCrt got it’s facts wrong and made a mistake (or)

      SupCrt will have to say that the ScotAppealCrt were wrong to interfere in’high’politics and that they shouldn’t have even if the case against Boris was proven (or)

      SupCrt will follow the ScotAppealCrt which whose judgement was correct and result of the Scottish case stands.
      ————————————————————-
      Conundrum for the SupCrt indeed which has 12 judges to choose from to hear the case. How many I don’t know but an odd number?.

      So suck it’s up Scotland (but the union a bit more shaky) or

      Off to the Tower with Boris and ignomy. (but Union very shaky)

      Interesting times. Must look out for the newest popcorn flavours

    185. Cubby says:

      Bob Mack@5.25pm

      “This gets better and better”

      Hi Bob, I thought you expressed the view that the unlawful ruling was of no assistance to independence. Changed your opinion?

    186. Gary says:

      The argument is being made, by those who brought the case in Scotland, that the fact that the Court has stated the prorogation illegal means that it is, legally speaking, as if the prorogation never took place ie there is no need to ‘recall’ parliament, politicians should simply return to parliament immediately. Of course in OTHER civil cases, for example where damages are paid, damages are not paid until all appeals and courts are exhausted. It appears the government is relying on this precedence to continue as they are until the case is heard in the Supreme Court. Of course, had the previous Conservative government not put the Supreme Court above the Court of Session (yes it’s that recent) the government would have to had resort the House of Lords for legal remedy, yes, the same House of Lords the prorogued. In other words they’d have had to recall parliament to present their case AGAINST recalling parliament. So this case DOES prove how Scottish Courts ability to make judgements has been deliberately eroded by the Tories. Usually just making judgements on specifically Scottish cases, a court sitting in England can interfere in ‘Scottish only’ matters. So our judiciary is no longer independent.

      If the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Sessions final judgement then the ENTIRE prorogation is at an end. There is no picking and choosing about which days they wish to have or not have. Parliament will be FORCED to sit through Conference Season…

    187. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Not too well versed on the rules of Judicial, Rock – Paper – Scissors … but a tenner to a turd says: English Court trumps Scottish Court.

      Does anyone know, why this could be so?

    188. Cod says:

      “If the judgement is upheld by the Supreme Court it undermines the SNP’s long-argued position that Scotland has no influence in the UK when it matters.”

      No it wouldn’t. If the judgement is upheld it will show only that a challenge to a ruling under Scottish law was influential. Nothing to do with any power of the Scottish government, nor of the influence or not of either the Scottish government or the Scottish people (of course, that probably won’t stop the Unionists from trying to claim otherwise, I’ll grant you).

      And if the judgement is overturned, as seems highly likely, then it could be argued that not only does it not show any influence of the Scottish government, but in fact shows that even Scottish law is subordinate to English law.

    189. manandboy says:

      What a day!

      Including the vitreol flowing north from English Nationalists, many of whom wish to see the back of Scotland.

      That says to me that the UK Government has kept the wraps over Scotland’s wealth keeping England afloat, in England as well as Scotland.

      How will Boris break the news to them?

      There seems to be no end to Tory Lies, forward or backward.

    190. kapelmeister says:

      The UK Supreme Court, a major constitutional change, was set up without gaining permission from the people of Scotland via a referendum.

      Further, since the minority Scottish representation on the UKSC does not fulfill recognition of the equal status of English and Scots Law then any overturning of the Court of Session’s verdict would surely be of questionable validity.

    191. Cubby says:

      Kapelmeister@5.57pm

      You are spot on. Just like the treaty of Union the UK Supreme Court is set up by Westminster to favour Westminster/England.

    192. Iain says:

      You’re overthinking it, Stu.

      Simply: (1) having an independent judiciary which says what is obviously true and honest makes Scotland look good to Scots.
      (2) contradicting the English justiciary’s judgement will piss off England.

    193. twathater says:

      @ Helen Yates well said , and Stu keep up the good work most of us know whose side you are on and on whose behalf you have suffered 8 years of UNRELENTING shite , threats and denigration , it annoys some people that you are not following the slowly slowly catchee monkey scenario , when all the time that scenario could lead to slowly slowly defeat

      Breeks has posted time immemorial about a definitive legal challenge and assertion to Scots sovereignty and has constantly been derided , yet this is a perfect example of why this should have been done . If the SG had sought this legal confirmation we would not even be considering ANY impact the SC would have on today’s judgement . The majority of Scots voted to remain in the EU , English VOTERS voted to leave , so there would only be negotiation to dissolve the union and let England go it’s own way

      As Lochside says the SC is not representative of Scots law and should not have final say

    194. Cod says:

      “ushered in a hard-right UK government for the next five years or more which will never allow a second indyref”

      There’s a point here which seems to be getting missed, repeatedly, and that is that it does not matter who gets into power in Westminster after the next election, or whether they are hard right, or centre right, (I’d say or centre left, but we all know Corbyn is not getting into power under any combination of factors), nobody is going to grant a Section 30 to the Scottish government. Nobody, under any circumstances, even in the event of a rejuvenated SNP vote and 50 plus Westminster MPS in a General Election, put into power on the back of a campaign,specifically stating a vote for the SNP is a vote for independence.

      And before anyone says UDI, how are you going to manage that when every Unionist held Council in the country will refuse to take part, thus depriving large parts of the country the right to shape any decision?

      Sturgeon has to play it the way she is doing, so she can point to the fact that she has tried every possible method of saving the country and getting an independence referendum via proper, legal means. Once the Section 30 is refused, even on the back of a landslide election victory for the SNP, she will take it to court for legal challenge. Anyone who believes she, or the SNP leadership, have not already prepared the groundwork and researched the legal grounds for such a challenge is deluded. Or at least I fervently hope so.

    195. Vestas says:

      I think the UK govt will drop their appeal at the last minute & admit “mistakes were made”.

      Practical upshot is bugger all happens as Westminster is closed for party conferences.

      Virtually nobody (out of the maybe 40% who’ve noticed today’s events) will remember it in a week.

      England is still gung-ho for Brexit (any type, just do it) so its a meaningless event to most people.

      I do however find the idea that Lord Carloway is a closet cybernat absolutely fucking priceless 😀

    196. Willie says:

      The Law it seems does not apply.

      The highest court in Scotland has declared that the prorogue is illegal. But shut the parliament remains.

      The Law it seems does not apply.

      Parliament in Westminster says no Brexit on 31st October 2019 but the prime minister appears to say he will ignore the law.

      Meanwhile the government, through the commercial media publicly advertise that the UK is leaving on 31st October 2019 – again in contravention of parliament.

      Time to bring our MPs home and let our parliament take control.

      You cannot, or should not, be able to pick and choose what laws you abide by, which ones you don’t. And the Treaty of Union, that is repudiated too

      Time to walk. Enough!

    197. wull says:

      I already posted something on this at the end of a previous post (either the one before this, or the last but one). It needs some revision, and simplification. So I’ll try again.

      According to EU regulations, when a member state is exiting from the EU that state must abide strictly by the requirements of its own Constitution. This point should have been emphasised by the Scottish government in its communications with the EU, insisting not just that the Scottish people WILL not be dragged out of the EU against their will, as Ian Blackford continually says, but they CANNOT.

      Why not? Because, the people being sovereign in Scotland, if that were to happen it would directly contravene the British Constitution, which actually has two constitutions operating within it, each one applicable to a different geographical area. The Scottish constitution, in which the people of Scotland are sovereign in Scotland, MUST be respected by the UK government and if the UK government attempt to ignore or override that constitutional fact the EU – by their own EU rules – cannot treat with them (the UK government).

      Although today’s judgement is not centred on a sovereignty issue, it does help to highlight this point. Since the prorogation is, as of now, invalid, the Westminster parliament has not in fact (i.e. in law) been legitimately prorogued and the session we thought had come to an end on Monday is in fact still sitting. If Boris Johnson were to attempt to prevent the members from taking their seats, and continuing with their business, besides breaking the law there would be a further consequence that the EU would no longer be able to treat with him or his so-called ‘government’, which would now be unconstitutional.

      In those circumstances the Queen, I think, would be obliged to ask someone else, drawn from those members who do turn up in order to continue with the current and ongoing session, to form a government. It wouldn’t have to be Jeremy Corbyn whom she asks – it could be anyone attending the Chamber although, obviously, she would try to pick the one with the most likely chance of commanding a majority. Much would depend on who turns up, and who stays away.

      The most likely way would be for those who do turn up to decide on someone and indicate to the Queen or her advisers who they have settled on, so that she can call him to form the required government.

      Of course, in order to prevent this outcome and continue in office, all Boris Johnson has to do is turn up, with his merry men and women. He could then simply put forward another motion of prorogation, which would fall within the more normal timetable, making it clear this time that it is, as usual, in view of the upcoming Party Conferences etc.

      If that goes through, by then it will look as if this was all a waste of time which, as Rev. Stu points out. It will seem to have achieved precisely nothing, because, materially, the outcome is just the same as it would have been: the prorogation was delayed slightly, but goes ahead nonetheless. There will be a few irate MPs who feel they have had to interrupt their time off, or time back in their constituencies, to come back to Westminster for a vote that was basically unnecessary.

      On the other hand, I think it can be argued that it WAS necessary, and even VERY important. I did not think Joanne Cherry’s case stood any hope of being upheld by the SC judges. However, now that I read the advance summary of the why’s and wherefore’s of the respective judgements set out by these three judges, they confirm a gut feeling I had when the prorogation went through.

      At the time I felt that, because of that prorogation, this would go down in history as the day that the RULE of LAW, and with it the UK’s parliamentary democracy, DIED. Boris Johnson was putting all of that, and all the procedures aimed at protecting it, to the sword.

      Aided and abetted, advised and pushed by the unelected and unscrupulous and all-too-powerful Dominic Cummings, he was deliberately riding roughshod over the parliament and its procedures. Just as he had done over his parliamentary Party, making it abundantly clear to anyone within it who dared to oppose him on anything at all that they would be frogmarched out of that Party as unceremoniously as Javid’s employee had been out of Downing Street. All this for one purpose only – in order to take all power into his own hands.

      His clear intention is that the Executive will rule without any interference from the Legislature, which will be reduced rto being so cowed and acquiescent that it will always do exactly what the Executive wants. And the Executive won’t even be a Cabinet: it will be the Prime Minister alone. And not any old Prime Minister but, specifically, Boris Johnson himself, in person.

      The Cabinet is to be composed only of complete lackeys who will do whatever he likes, whenever he wants. If he changes his mind with every new wind, or just every 5 minutes, so too must they. That is the meaning, by the way, of the resignation of Amber Rudd. She saw that – and, never mind the fact that her political opinions are far away from mine, fair dues to her – she saw through it, could not stomach it, and will do all she can to oppose it.

      This amassing of all power unto himself has been the pattern from Day 1 of Johnson’s Premiership. This is not some temporary aberration. Be very sure that it will continue. For this is his project, and it always was, from the very beginning.

      The disgraceful comments on the three Scottish judges of the Supreme Court which a conveniently anonymous Downing Street spokesman iterated today, on his behalf, simply continue this trend, and drive the stake harder. So much so that Tomkins – yes, Tomkins – denounced it. And although he too is very very far from my politics, I am glad he did so. And, in fact, not surprised. He is, after all, a Professor of Constitutional Law, so he does know something about it, besides which – no doubt with family memories of the atrocities that occurred – he surely knows a great deal about the horrors that Fascism leads to.

      So, full supporter of Scotland’s impending, once and very-near-future independence that I am, in this instance, I certainly take my hat off to Tomkins as well. As someone who no doubt knows more than most of us about these things, he sees the signs in this man Johnson, and it is very clear that he does not like what he sees. Not one little bit. He has very correctly, and very clearly, pointed out the extremely dangerous course Johnson is taking in his attacks on the judiciary.

      Although there are many things Tomkins does not understand about Scotland, and should not get involved in, he is right here, and many of a Republican bent within the movement would do well to remember that he is that very peculiar thing, an anti-monarchy Tory Republican.

      But I am not making apologies for so many other, less endearing aspects of his politics. Politics is complicated after all: it is not just the Goodies against the Baddies!

      This where today’s judgement is important. We do not want our southern neighbours to slip down the runway into some modern form of Fascism, and we certainly do not want to go there ourselves. For someone with Fascistic or megalomaniac tendencies, or his adviser(s),the unwritten British constitution, insofar as there is such a thing, must seem like comparatively easy meat. The fact that the Scottish courts today put up some resistance to this monster which is hurtling at break-neck speed towards us, is to be applauded. The fact that he immediately went on the attack against them shows just how important it is that such resistance is demonstrated, and greatly needed.

      Otherwise, within a year, or maybe two, we will find that the courts, the parliament and the (real, if admittedly limited) guarantees it once provided, the institutions and conventions and principles which bridled political power, will all have been swept away and cast asunder. And we will all be at the mercy of this ruthless juggernaut, which is in fact a total stranger to all things merciful.

      It did not take Hitler long to grab control of all institutions in Germany, either making them his own or sweeping them away to replace them with fabrications of his own, made in his image. We know that the schoolboy Nigel Farage used to march around the playground in imitation of him, and it has been said that he was much impressed by some kind of reading of Mein Kampf. I do not know how far these things are true, or whether the schoolboy Johnson had similar fantasies when he was dreaming about becoming King of the World, but what I do know is that both these gentlemen are potentially and actually dangerous – and of the two, I think Johnson is probably even worse than the other one. For those who are taken in by what they see as their ‘charm’, beware – and don’t forget how charming Adolf could be wonderfully charming as well, if and when he wanted. It was all phoney …

      A couple of days ago, when Johnson prorogued the parliament, was it the day the Rule of Law, in the old UK, eventually died? Time will tell. Indeed, it might depend a lot on what happens during the next few weeks. If Johnson gets away with it, he will be emboldened to pounce on the next thing, and – whether we like it or not – we will all be further and further down the slippery slope. Scotland too.

      In the end, I beg to disagree with Rev. Stu: I think Joanna Cherry did well, and, in this instance, so too did the Court of Session. It might not be directly about independence – but, boyo, is it important! And it might still have implications for independence, especially if it encourages the EU to pay a bit more attention to the UK Constitution, and a bit more insistent that the UK’s own government adheres to it. All of it, imcluding both the clearly attested sovereignty of the people in Scotland, and of parliament in England (and, I presume, in Wales and Northern Ireland since, to my knowledge, they follow English law).

    198. dadsarmy says:

      Ah here we go, should have checked earlier.

      https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/brexit-related-judicial-review-cases.html

      9 judges, including Reed and Hodge (Scottish), Kerr (NI) and Lloyd-Jones (Wales), most excellent!

      https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/biographies-of-the-justices.html

      With Hale of course as President.

      As a point, don’t know whether it’ll come up or not though I’d think so, but on Scots Law the judges defer to the Scottish ones.

    199. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Capella @ 14:54,

      Well reminded. I seem to recall in the old days that appeals on issues of Scots Law were always ajudicated by a group of Scottish Law Lords who were duly familiar with the relevant legal background and underlying principles.

      What we have here though with this so-called “Supreme” Court (a misnomer given the court’s evident reluctance to touch anything with even a whiff of “politics” about it) is a clash between two quite distinct legal systems and yet a widespread assumption that they can somehow be resolved as one (with the unvoiced assumption that the English view would “naturally” prevail).

      However, this need not necessarily be the case; the court could in principle determine a different result according to each legal system. Given past experience, though, with this bunch of constitutional fearties, they are likely to wash their corporate hands of the business instead.

      And yet, and yet… this is unresolved business. Sooner or later the SC is going to have to live up to its presumptious name and resolve the proper mutual standing of Scotland and England within a Union regulated by the terms of the formation treaty.

      Unless everyone has become so exasperated beforehand that we have already “upped sticks” and left.

    200. dadsarmy says:

      Mmm, this is fun, where are you Nana?

      https://twitter.com/jjmitchell

      One for example:

      7th: In this respect, HMG missed several tricks, perhaps irredeemably, by treating the CoS process with barely-veiled contempt; most obviously on the production of the documents which ultimately gave the game away.

      That’ll flocking teach them, smug briskets.

      But in reply to some comments:

      6th: and UKSC will give no ‘primacy’ to either legal system but will treat them as of equal status, as they are.

      And Scots Law has indeed, decided already. Which, I think, means it could be down to Reed and Hodge. And then this:

      Nevertheless, when a court tells you that what you’re doing is unlawful, you can’t just keep on doing it and expect to avoid the jail unless you win your appeal. The state is ruled by law, not lawlessness. So if UKSC agrees with CoS, we’ll be at the end of this line

      Mmm, doing time … ?

    201. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      schrodingers cat @ 15:29,

      The reasonable expectation of a majority is a prerequisite to any subsequent pursuit of indy.

      Sorted.

      There is never going to be a “red bow wrapped” guarantee. That’s politics. You eventually have take a punt and lead from the front, otherwise step aside and take up gardening.

      (Not you personally, of course! The generic “you”.)

      PS: Agree about <i<Thepnr. Rough handling on both sides, so time to be big and set it aside for all our benefit.

    202. Meindevon says:

      I came to the party a bit late today as I’m in the States. Not sure about the intricacies of whether it’s good or bad but all I know is I’ve had a smile on my face since waking up and reading all about it.

      Also telling lots of my USA friends about the outrage below the line on English newspapers about us having the temerity to get involved in ‘their’ Parliament. They are quite enthralled by it.

      However I’ve got lots to do today and getting nothing done as I can’t put my phone down in case I miss something! Ach, who cares.

    203. Duncan says:

      The very fact that it has to go to a ‘higher’ court in another country for ratification doesn’t undermine the argument that Scotland should be able to determine its own future. Grabbing onto a branch as you’re being pushed off a cliff is not the kind of influence you would expect from a union of equals.

      Remember, many who voted ‘No’ actually believed that myth and this shitshow is cementing their view that the only other option is to take control.

      As futile as it might seem, it could actually help to keep asking for the sect 30, every time its denied that emboldens the new support.

      But, regardless of increased support, the mechanism for a plebiscite on Indy remains unclear. I quite like the idea of the FM resigning, triggering an election for a replacement, the pro indy majority selecting no one else, thus producing an extraordinary Scottish GE. 1 manifesto pledge – to dissolve the 1707 Treaty of Union. We’d need to do that within a month. There’s no gauruntee it’ll work, but I agree our best time to make a play could be fading away.

      Also a very good opportunity for a Wings party to soak up all the list seats. Thoughts?

    204. Daisy Walker says:

      I don’t know what I think about your article. Food for thought, very interesting. And extremely wise to not get caught up in the excitement of a possible win, and look again at how it translates into results. Thank you.

      What would have happened if the SNP had not been involved in attempting legal means to stop the illegal closure of the UK Parliament?

      I for one would have seen it as an extreme failure of effort. Suspiciously so.

      All here are political anoraks. The public (all over the UK) much less so. And people vote – not with reason (although they think they do) – but by their feelings.

      What feelings does Proroguing Parliament induce?
      Strong and stable? Calm and collected? Capable and in control?

      What feelings does this Legal Win produce? – what emotions are being disclosed length and breadth of the UK about this result? Most certainly English Nationalist comments are coming to the fore in a most unpleasant manner – for all to see.

      Last time out – IndyRef had one message (and only one way to Indy) and Better Together had multiple – We love you Scotland, Lead us don’t leave us, strong and stable, broad shoulders, Devo Max, your pensions safe with us, Strong/safe Pound/currency.

      I would suggest the above court case is on the front stage for very publicly ripping all of that apart, on a UK and international level (whereby our biased media cannot stem the flow), and it is also splitting the English vote (although probably not by much) in as much as they are partners in this case of law, and individuals are now increasingly stating publicly that they completely understand Why Scotland should go Indy.

      And NI and Wales are following suit.

      I don’t think winning – on its own – is enough to get us over the Independence Line. I think in addition, it needs for the British Establishment to LOSE the UK. And I’d have to say they seem to be doing a Sterling job of it so far, hope they keep up the good work.

      And lastly, where do we stand, as democrats, if we stand by and let them illegally shut down one of our parliaments, without taking proper legal action to address that.

      What emotional message do our parliamentarians send out by being part of this legal action. Intelligent, calm, upholding the law, civilised? I would suggest so.

      I have lived to see a day that a month ago I would have sworn could never, EVER, happen. I find myself agreeing with Thatcher’s men Lord Paton, Kenneth Clarke and Michael Hesteltine. It might not be the best or wisest tactical decision towards gaining an Independent Scotland – but it is not one I will ever be ashamed of – opposing the WM coup (in my own private way). I’m sure they never saw the day either.

      Best wishes to all.

    205. Thomas Valentine says:

      I do disagree that the SNP’s campaign to stay in the EU is damaging to independence. They are demonstrating to all that they did everything within the current setup to get what Scotland voted for. The NO side will know this even though they will publicly deny it. They are the only ones working within the Scottish results of two referenda. Keeping the UK going and staying inside the EU.They are letting the UK show that nothing Scotland votes for matters. Only what is decided in England.

      I have little doubt that the Supreme Court dominated by English judges will overturn the Scottish Courts. Providing even more proof that Scottish opinions have zero value to the UK(Greater England). When they go back to the voters they can say they did everything possible. Every door has been slammed shut. It will be independence now or sit down and shut up for a very long time.

    206. brewsed says:

      The wet blanket outlook is, I suggest, overly pessimistic.

      1. Parliament may be recalled, political egg-on-face for the lying oaf, but it may then go into recess for conferences, which is different from being prorogued though similar in effect as the hoose is not sitting.
      2. The Supreme Court may uphold the decision by the Scottish Courts. Outrage dawn sarth. Good news for Scottish independence.
      3. I am not convinced the First Minister has, yet, sought a Section 30 order. The rumbles heard previously were the response would be have been delivered had one been asked for. But see 2. above.
      4. See 2. above.
      5. But if the Supreme Court does reject the Scottish, English and Northern Ireland cases then democracy is in trouble.

    207. Nana says:

      Boris Johnson defies MPs releasing some Yellowhammer docs – but not aides texts
      http://archive.fo/V6Guc

    208. call me dave says:

      @Daisy Walker

      Excellent Daisy 🙂

      You too Nana.

    209. Nana says:

      Hi call me dave

      here’s a thread on yellowhammer
      https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1171857956935294977

    210. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Neil Mackenzie at 12.43

      Well said.

    211. Nana says:

      The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has written to Dominic Grieve QC MP and Hilary Benn MP, in response to the Humble Address Motion passed on Monday 9 September 2019.

      https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-humble-address-motion

    212. call me dave says:

      Yellowhammer docs:

      1. No bi-lateral agreements set up with any other countries so far for trade

      2. Reduced choice of certain foods

      3. Public water supply (chemicals shortage) some restrictions

      4. Lorries about 70% will be delayed in the first few days.

      5. Mainly Ok for medical supplies some shortages

      More that I couldn’t hear properly.

      Gov not going to publish or release private messages as instructed by parliament.

      UK citizens to lose rights to medical treatment eventually and other rights currently available. etc etc.

    213. call me dave says:

      Jings! See Nana’s link above for the whole thing. 🙂

    214. Mark Russell says:

      Four men – friends from schooldays – rented a large apartment in a collective for the last two decades. Charles, Hamish, David and Mick share the tenancy on an equal basis, but Charles – with the highest income has contributed generously to their living expenses over the years – yet always respected the views of the others in matters of any importance concerning their home. They’d had their share of disputes with neighbours in the past, but in recent years relationships had improved greatly and life was good. Until Charles fell out with the landlord.

      It had been simmering for years, then one day, Charles announced that he’s had enough and told the other three that he wanted to move. David said ok – but Hamish and Mick were reluctant. They liked the landlord and the neighbours too – so they said no. That drunk more wine and argued some more then Charles tossed a coin – and it fell in his favour.

      Next morning he served a notice to quit on the landlord – and tells the other three afterwards. Major argument. Bigger fallout. They have 30 days to find another place – and the landlord reminds them that they also have to pay a termination fee and the full-year maintenance charge for the residents association. Charles tells them he has no intention of paying this and the dispute intensifies.

      In a final showdown the following week, Hamish and Mick tell Charles they are staying put. They’ve spoken to the landlord and he’s very happy to let them have the flat on their own – without incurring any new tenancy fees – and they’ve also spoken with their neighbours who all urged them to stay too. Even David is having second thoughts.

      Charles explodes, packs a suitcase and tells them he’s off on holiday and can’t be contacted for the next two weeks. He’s not due to return until the night before his notice to quit expires. He still hasn’t found a new place to live – but he tells the other three that they will be moving out, no matter what – and he wants them to pay a couple of grand up front to help him find a new place for them when he gets back.

      What happens at the end of the month?

    215. Colin Alexander says:

      I doubt the UK Govt and Boris Johnson will give a fig about this court ruling. They probably had this figured out that even if it’s ruled unlawful, it will still have achieved its goal of running down the clock to Brexit day.

      But it might make some more voters in Scotland realise: we’re better off out of this anti-democratic, fascist-like, corrupt UK state.

    216. call me dave says:

      Yeah! Three Judges weren’t fooled.

      But they planned for a Scottish Court to intervene like that. Boris and Cummings must be related to the folk who planned the D-day landings, genes passed down the line. 🙂

      Brexit achieved at any cost and Boris in the court maybe not jailed but reputation trashed and out of office…good plan!

      I think I hear whistling in the wind.

    217. jockmcx says:

      Keep calm,

      Thiis is all great fun.

    218. Colin Alexander says:

      “The Scottish Parliament was reconvened on devolution”.

      I wish people would stop repeating this political hyperbole from Winnie Ewing as if it were a fact. It was the beginning of the SNP’s campaign to turn the Unionists sow’s ear into a Scottish silk purse. But that does not change the reality of the situation:

      The 1700s Scottish Parliament exercised Scottish sovereignty.

      The 2000s Scottish Parliament exercises colonial subservience on behalf of the British Empire.

    219. jockmcx says:

      Oh’ i almost forgot!
      Keep voting SNP…u know it makes sense.

    220. dadsarmy says:

      Scottish Parliament Official Report Vol 1 No 1

      https://www.scottishcorpus.ac.uk/document/?documentid=1237

      the Scottish Parliament, which adjourned on 25 March 1707, is hereby reconvened.

      Pipe your smoke stick it in and that.

    221. Nana says:

      Re yellowhammer docs

      So lots of people asking what the redacted part is…

      see here
      https://twitter.com/RosamundUrwin/status/1171873763295682560

    222. Bob Mack says:

      VOTE INDY—-YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE.

    223. Colin Alexander says:

      dadsarmy

      Aye, that’s right. Winnie said that in the speech at the opening of Holyrood.

      It disnae make what she said factually true. I’m no suggesting it was a deliberate lie either. It’s a political assertion or opinion, like “once in a generation”.

      Does the Scotland Act say it’s the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament?

      Does Westminster say it’s the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament
      ?
      Has a court of law ruled it’s the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament?

      Naw.

    224. Cubby says:

      Colin Alexander@9.41pm

      “It disnae make what she said factually true”

      I agree just as you saying in a earlier post that Sturgeon said she would only hold a referendum with a S30. I asked you to put up your evidence/source for this but as usual you ran away and didn’t answer. So why don’t you stop posting stuff that you can’t back up. Oh I know the reason for that.

      Just because Mr Alexander says it does not make it factually true.

    225. Daisy Walker says:

      Been catching up with the National and just read Alyn Smith MEP’s election pitch to be the new MP candidate for Stirling.

      Seems like only months ago he was telling us he was going to fight Scotland’s corner to keep us in Europe. Now he’s jumping ship before we’ve even left it.

      This looks appalling.

      As our longest serving, senior MEP I honestly would have thought the connections he has in the EU would have meant the SNP would have kept him on as a SPAD to continue in Brussels and lobby there on Scotland’s behalf.

      What was it the SNP Leader of the HoC’s was saying, repeatedly? Oh yes, ‘Scotland will not be dragged out of the EU against its will.’ Looks awfully like Alyn doesn’t believe that Ian.

      Alyn says Westminster is where the fight is, and we will win that fight by having fewer tories…

      Presumably like we won, when we wiped out Maggie Thatcher’s lot and left them with 0 tory MP’s in Scotland, or ‘won’ when we got 56 MP’s out of 59 and only 1 tory amongst them.

      The Labour party Sold us Hope and Sold us Out since the day they were created. Mr Smith’s current behaviour, in the current climate, cannot help but ring alarm bells.

    226. Roland Smith says:

      Actually I am quietly pleased the way things are going. English voters are waking up and starting to realise the Union is not in their interest either. Another few weeks of this shambles, if we have a forced No Deal Brexit and then eventually a toxic GE is all to the good for Indyref2. Providing of course the SNP stands on a manifesto commitment to have the referendum in 2020. If they don’t a feeble 59 even are even less use than the feeble 50 of Labours days.
      However I see that NI businesses and unions are happier to see a border in the Irish Channel. Maybe SNP should have a quiet word with Johnson and say they would support that if it’s moved as the Rev suggested to the border between Scotland and England. Everyone happy then and makes Indy even easier.

    227. Gfaetheblock says:

      Daisy,

      Agree, can’t see any connection alyn has to stirling , lives in edinburgh, born in Glasgow, educated in Saudi and England. Feels crass and careerist. Wonder what the local party think about this. If you look at the last SNP MP for stirling Twitter, you can see @stephen4stirling has been out canvassing this week. Was Alyn?

    228. Colin Alexander says:

      Cubby

      I posted two links to back up my assertion. My post was blocked.

      youtube: Nicola Sturgeon speaks about the prospect of Scottish independence in heated interview | ITV News Published on 26 Apr 2019

      Guardian 7 March 2019: ” As she faced opposition demands for clarification at Holyrood, Sturgeon insisted she had no plans to call a second referendum without a section 30 agreement, similar to the one agreed by the Scottish and UK governments in 2012, which paved the way for the 2014 vote.

      “I am not open to that possibility,” she told reporters. “I want and consider that the basis of the referendum should be the same as the last time. [The] legal basis in future should be the same as the legal basis in the past.”

    229. QuietLass says:

      Daisy Walker 7.6pm
      Long time lurker Agree with your post.

    230. Ron Maclean says:

      From BBC Scotland Politics website 25 April 2019

      ‘The first minister hopes a “framework Bill” – Scottish Parliament legislation setting the rules for any future referendum – will be in place by the end of this year.
      In her long-awaited statement to MSPs on Wednesday afternoon, she said: “We do not need a transfer of power such as a Section 30 order to pass such a framework Bill, though we would need it to put beyond doubt or challenge our ability to apply the bill to an independence referendum.”‘

    231. Big Jock says:

      If the Supreme Court uphold the Scottish court decision. Boris could be gone by Wednesday. A GE will be required in 6 weeks.

    232. defo says:

      Mark Russell
      Hamish gets David and Mick to ‘off’ Chas, whilst framing the landlord for the dirty deed?
      😉

    233. Cubby says:

      Colin Alexander@10.29pm

      Sorry Mr Alexander doesn’t do it.

      Pity your links didn’t make it.

      Anyway what I have ever heard her say or read she said is she would prefer a sec 30 not must.

      Guardian as a source – get real. Just another Britnat lying journalist. Anyway your Guardian quote also says SHOULD not must be the same.

      Sorry but you fail. If you make important assertions like you did you MUST be able to back it up. Especially if you pull up other people for doing the same.

    234. kapelmeister says:

      The long-serving Scotland Correspondent of BBC News, Lorna Gordon, described the Court of Session in a tweet today as “A court in Edinburgh”.

      So we pay the BBC to verbally downgrade Scotland’s major institutions.

    235. Mark Russell says:

      defo:

      Deliciously devious – if only the SNP were similarly enlightened! 😉

    236. Mark Russell says:

      Out of curiosity – what the difference between “unlawful” and “illegal”?

    237. Colin Alexander says:

      Cubby

      Did you watch the youtube video? Ms Sturgeon was stuck for an answer to: How do you deliver an indyref if WM are opposed to one?

      The SNP insist WM will cave in to the pressure for an s30.
      I doubt it.

      But, I’m no gonnae argue the toss over predictions, that neither side can prove in advance, like Project Fear v the Yes campaign of 2014.

      So, we’ll see.

    238. Rob says:

      Some mischievous thinking going on on Richard Murphy’s blog…

      “Will the Scottish Court’s decision lead to Article 50 notice failing?
      Posted on September 11 2019

      In the light of the decision of a Scottish Court on the illegality of Boris Johnson’s request to the Queen that Parliament be prorogued I have tweeted this comment:

      Article 50 says ‘Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements’.

      Right now we’re not following our constitutional requirements.

      So hasn’t Article 50 notice failed?

      Or will it if Parliament is not recalled?
      It’s an open question, but one worth considering, I think.

      I will be curious as to the EU’s reaction. I suspect it could say we can’t leave. It may not want to, but it might ask that the constitutional rules be followed. It may not be able to ignore the precedent to the contrary.”

      https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/09/11/will-the-scottish-courts-decision-lead-to-article-50-notice-failing/

    239. Thomas Currie says:

      This article pitches the case only with regard to Proroging and Independence. But it really is more fundamental than that. Are we heading to a fascist state? I never thought I would say the word but as the current government skews further to the right we already know how you can wake up one morning and that is were you are.
      If the Supreme Court does hold up the decision then it shows they agree Boris was lying to the Queen and if he doesn,t then step down then nothing will make him do so at all which is more concerning than what it means for Scottish Independence as this time.

    240. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Mark Russell at 12:11 am.

      You asked,
      “Out of curiosity – what the difference between “unlawful” and “illegal”?”

      See:
      https://wingsoverscotland.com/from-the-information-commissioner/#comment-2486895

    241. William Habib Steele says:

      It seems that the Scottish National Party is no longer the national party of Scotland. It has become a British ( i.e. English) National Party, adopting a British ( i.e. English) vision.

    242. Cubby says:

      Colin Alexander@8.16am

      “But, I’m no gonnae argue the toss over predictions”

      Bit of deflection there Mr Alexander when you have been proven to be wrong and making misleading statements. I’m not arguing the toss over predictions. You know fine well the point I am making. So I’ll repeat it again for you.

      Sturgeon has a very strong preference for a sect 30 Indyref2 but has never to my knowledge, and obviously not yours either, said it MUST be the case. Why would she tell the Britnats her possible plans if an s30 is not forthcoming. Now people like you may well want her to splurge every thought on this matter out there for the whole world to see but why should she.

      The point at discussion was you failing to prove your assertion that she said she will ONLY go for independence with an s30. Try having the good grace to admit your comment was wrong and misleading. Was it accidental or deliberate misleading? I think you know my answer.

      Nearly every post you make is anti Scotgov/SNP and attempts to undermine the morale of independence supporters by posting misleading information and you claim to be an independence supporter.

    243. AuldAlliance says:

      What a ridiculous argument. Glasgow had a successful Commonwealth Games….was this misconstrued by the public as the Union working?

      The fact an SNP politician launched a successful appeal using the Scottish courts is just as likely (or indeed more likely) to be demonstrate Scotland working as a pragmatic, autonomous state (with the limited powers it has), and INCREASE support for independence.

    244. Adrian B says:

      Joanna Cherry QC and Jo Maugham QC have been busy again today:

      https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/12/anti-brexiters-new-legal-challenge-scotland-to-force-article-50-extension?CMP=share_btn_tw

      “Their submission names Johnson in person, and asks the court to force the prime minister to sign the letter seeking an extension to article 50 mandated by the Commons vote on Monday backing an emergency motion tabled by Hilary Benn, the Labour MP. The so-called Benn Act requires Johnson to get MPs to vote for a new Brexit deal or agree to a no-deal exit by 19 October or if he fails to do so, ask the EU for an extension to article 50 until 31 January 2020.”

      The UK Government tried forcing a 2 week delay to this and failed. Wonder what they were hoping to achieve by 26th September?

      #Article 50 Extension, #Nobile Officium Power, #Boris Johnson

    245. “the only kind of news it represents for the cause of independence is bad news”

      ??

      What an odd conclusion

      It makes the Scottish legal system look sane and reliable – just like the SNP – giving courage to the waverers to get off the fence.

      We only need a few more %

    246. David Mills says:

      The influence I am seeing is at home this has tipped a royalist swirhering but leaning NO in indy2 to a screaming YES bring the referendum on now and it a YES this time.

      If it have the same effect around the country Ashcroft next Poll could very interesting

    247. Wynn Thorne says:

      William Habib Steele – are you alright?



    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