The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


What they wish for

Posted on April 09, 2017 by

There’s an interesting article in today’s Sunday Times, about a cunning plan by which the Scottish Government could bypass the veto of Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh and legislate for a second independence referendum – forcing a direct showdown in which the UK government would have to openly trample the Scottish Parliament and its electoral mandate.

If pursued, it would reopen the current absurd argument in which the Unionist parties claim that the Scottish Government has no “mandate” to pursue a second referendum, despite mandates arising solely from the ability to win votes in Parliament.

(If an absolute majority for one party was required to pass legislation, Holyrood would of course have done absolutely nothing for most of its life.)

And that reminded us that our last Panelbase opinion poll was so vast we still hadn’t finished releasing the results of it, including one rather surprising finding.

By a margin of almost two to one, the most favoured of Scotland’s four different electoral systems was the widely-discredited First Past The Post, which gives a huge advantage to the most popular party at the expense of the rest and tends to produce extremely disproportionate Parliaments.

Yet oddly, it was voters of the party which would have the most to gain from such an arrangement in Scotland – the SNP – who were the least supportive of FPTP. A total of 42% of the Nats’ voters backed some kind of proportional representation system, compared to 39% of Lib Dems (PR’s traditional advocates), 33% of Labour voters and 32% of Tories.

The enthusiasm of SNP voters for fair representation for all just managed to edge PR ahead of FPTP when all three PR systems were combined, by 35% to 27%.  But for both Tory and Labour voters, FPTP was preferred to any kind of PR, despite the latter being almost the only reason they have any MSPs at all.

And if you take all Unionist voters together, FPTP is preferred to PR (all three variants combined), albeit by a very narrow margin:

FPTP: 34.6%
PR (any kind): 33.9%
Don’t know: 31.5%

(Excluding DKs: FPTP 50.4%, PR 49.6%.)

By comparison, SNP voters prefer PR of some sort by 42% to 24%, a whopping 18% margin. (Excluding the DKs it’s a resoundingly comprehensive 64% to 36%.)

Things then got even more intriguing. When we asked respondents if they’d like all elections in Scotland conducted under a single system instead of four different ones, the answer was overwhelming and went right across party lines.

So let’s see how the SNP’s mandate would shape up if the electorate had its way.

In 2016 the Nats won 59 of the 73 FPTP seats at Holyrood. If we multiply that directly on a pro-rata basis to fill Holyrood’s 129-seat chamber, that would come out at:

SNP: 105 seats
Con: 12 seats
Lib Dem: 7 seats
Labour: 5 seats
Green: 0 seats

But we can be more precise. In the 2016 regional vote, where PR encourages and rewards votes for small fringe parties like the Greens, Lib Dems and Scottish Labour, the SNP still won every single region in a canter. (The closest was South Scotland, where they still thumped the Tories by 120,000 votes to 100,000. In most regions their winning margin was closer to 2:1.)

Councils helpfully publish the details of the list vote down to a constituency level, and thanks to the sterling efforts of alert Wings contributor Al Harron, who compiled all the data into a handy table, we can tell exactly how it would have gone. In that scenario Holyrood would have looked like this:

SNP: 105 seats
Con: 15 seats
Lib Dem: 6 seats
Labour: 3 seats
Green: 0 seats

Or for a bit of variation we could try combining the FPTP votes at Holyrood with the FPTP votes from the Westminster general election of 2015 (where seat boundaries are different), which would make Holyrood three seats bigger overall and give the SNP the most crushing victory of all:

SNP: 115 seats
Con: 8 seats
Lib Dem: 5 seats
Labour: 4 seats
Green: 0 seats

Remember, the Scottish electorate has told us that they want all elections conducted under the same system, that FPTP is their favourite of the four options, and Unionist voters as a whole prefer FPTP to any kind of PR.

Under those terms, by any measure the SNP would have in the region of 85% of all seats at Holyrood. (That’s the equivalent of the current Tory government having 553 seats out of the 650 in the House Of Commons.) It’d be a position of utter dominance unparallelled in a democracy anywhere in the world in living memory. And it’s what Unionist voters have told us they want.

When they talk about mandates, it might be worth keeping in mind.

Print Friendly

    2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 09 04 17 12:56

      What they wish for | speymouth

    2. 09 04 17 16:00

      Roundup, Sunday 9 April 2017 – Discourse.scot

    236 to “What they wish for”

    1. Ian McCubbin says:

      Again excellent research and polling. How can we get this to majority in Scotland. It’s crucial to have this message out.

    2. Donald MacKenzie says:

      That is fascinating.

      That invited the question as to what extent they have thought about governance at all and, instead, are really displaying conditioned behaviour bred into them over generations.

      If that was the case, then the arguments to win them over to ‘Yes’ are going to have to even more simplistic than we perhaps thought.

    3. Darren Docherty says:

      😉 The madness continues…
      …popcorn anyone?
      Is it just me, or do the yoons appear to be shitting themselves?
      Smug as fU.K
      Doc

    4. cearc says:

      I see that the LDs (the party of proportional representation) have the highest no. of don’t knows 42% on voting systems.

      You’d think that after decades of banging on about it they might have come up with a preferred method by now.

    5. R-type Grunt says:

      Turkeys really do vote for Xmas.

    6. Dr Ew says:

      “If an absolute majority for one party was required to pass legislation, Holyrood would of course have done absolutely nothing for most of its life.”

      I think that’s closer to the original intention than some would care to admit.

    7. Rick Guthrie says:

      Nice Read that article.well researched.REspect

    8. geeo says:

      And worth pointing out, under all your scenario’s, LABOUR finish 4th !!

    9. Iclare says:

      Yesterday, elderly lab voter on door told me we (snp) had set up Holyrood so we took control. She couldn’t tell me where she got this info from it was ‘just a fact. It’s in all the papers.’ She had received the leaflet explaining how to vote but thought it came from SNP.
      This came up as we were discussing the way to vote, using numbers, at Council Elections. Awful nice but obviously thought I was some sort of trained assassin.

    10. Marcia says:

      Interesting data from the poll.

      Prior to the Scotland Act in 1998, one of the proposals being muted at the time was for each UK Parliamentary seat to be allocated 2 seats for the Scottish Parliament under FPTP. That was rejected as it was assumed to be to biased to Labour. How times have changed.

    11. Robert Kerr says:

      I ask once again.

      Is the situation which exists for four different voting systems in Scotland a deliberate device to confuse the voters?

      If so it is very undemocratic.

      Postal votes will help of course. Activists can explain to old folks. Oh dear!

    12. galamcennalath says:

      I think people ‘fall back’ on FPTP because they understand it!

    13. Dr Jim says:

      But Nicola Sturgeon still couldn’t speak for everybody up Ruth Davidsons street (fact) so there!

      And she would still scweam and scweam scweam about it

      How about a height restriction put on the SNP, like nobody under 6’10” is allowed to be a candidate, or nobody who has full control of their bladders, there must be something to keep the horrible Nats out
      Oooh! I know, policies, no policy making allowed

      Or just plain old NO to everything except the glorification of Westminster and all who sail/sink in her

      Heil May and down with Scotland

    14. Ken500 says:

      If the majority, especially the Unionists, support FPTP for obvious reasons. Why was STV. D’Houte inflicted on the Scottish electorate. A total and absolute disgrace of monumental importance. No wonder people do not vote.

      FPTP – most simple easy way that the electorate understands for obviously reasons. One person, one vote. The candidate the majority want get in and the one they do not want gets voted out. There is supposed to be a credible opposition and a majority opposition can out vote the administration in some cases. A bigger majority gives stronger government. For the mandate if there is one and it is carried through. Unfortunately for corrupt politicians that is not always the case that they do comply.

      Instead of having to vote for Party/candidates of whom people can’t stand the sight. The 2nd and 3rd choice getting in. First preference votes thrown in the bin. Regurgitated 3rd rejects coming back time and time again to ruin the economy. In the most disgusting way. Liars and charlatans in their own self interest of abusing and wasting £Billions of public funds on non mandated projects not supported and low value for money. While starving innocent vulnerable people to death, worldwide. Inequality and unfairness. Unequal and unfair tax evaded public money and non mandated illegal invasions going on. The corrupt criminal should be put in jail for their carry on. Hidden under the Official Secrets Act.

      The private sports clubs are being supported with £Billions of public money. The higher receipt of public money often decide who wins. Not playing the game but complete manipulation of public funds. To give Directors and shareholders massive illegal receipt of public money for illegal activities and massive tax evasion.

      The football companies illegally letting paedophiles run the Club. Embezzling from the public with total tax evasion and illegal practices. Of monumental false accounting. All backed up by often wasted massive public funds for illegal, violent and abusive behaviour. Encouraged by the Clubs to line the corrupt Officials pockets.

      They corruptly abuse the Law with criminal accounting and embezzlement. The Club who receive the most public monies win. Cheats on steroids. No wonder the terraces are empty. The majortity public, indirectly financing it, are sick of it. It is necessary to clean up their Act.

    15. Ian says:

      Just imagine the ‘One-party state’ screeching if that were the case.

    16. David says:

      This stuck with me from the debate on Scotland’s Choice earlier this month:

      http://www.scottishparliament.tv/Search?Keyword=scotland%27s+choice&keyword-submit=Search
      1:32:32

      Jackson Carlaw:

      “The First Miniser’s own compromised mandate, to which she regularly refers, rests on an election in which, uniquely, she remained in office despite losing her majority, something no Prime Minister has successfully saught to do in over 100 years at Westminster”

      Sadly none of the SNP MSPs called him out on the difference between the two systems.

    17. Breeks says:

      I think an understated problem about any of these voting systems is the perception that the method is having a material and inappropriate influence on the result. The voting system should be sacred, not pilloried as a licence to fiddle. Same goes with the franchise.

      First past the post gives power to numerical inferior with questionable mandate, PR was apparently designed to prevent an outright majority, and both PR and Single Transferrable Vote, and d’Honte turn votes into a commodity than be horsetraded to return rejected MSPs to their seats. Just seems fishy.

      At the end of the day, we are muddying the water between victory and defeat, and left with a perpetual rerunning of the same threadbare arguments and ambiguities which can never be settled. We need a political “refresh” button to clear the air.

      My personal preference is for PR, but the allocation of list seats needs reconsidered. Proportional Representation is meant to be that, representation. It seems to exceed the term representation when it facilitates List seats compromising an outright majority.

      Proportional Representation is there to ensure the representation of defeated parties and ideas, and thus make sure that unpopular or misunderstood arguments are still given exposure and that all voices, even weak or obscure voices, are still heard in a debate. Debates don’t forget are meant to enlighten, introduce new arguments and influence peoples’ opinions. But a robust and sound debate should not perpetually hamstring or compromise a government’s capacity to make a decision.

      There is also something very wrong in a system where an outright majority is won, but the result is overturned and the seat handed to a losing candidate. That is not providing representation for lesser supported views, that is blatantly distorting the result. The winner who loses surely has a legitimate grievance with that system. Multiply such results 129 times for Holyrood seats and you immediately see the problem.

      So PR for me, but the allocation of List seats needs addressed. The objective of the system is to improve representation, not set aside a legitimate majority. Perhaps the proportion of List seats needs to be proactive; something like contributing to an outright majority minus one. You don’t kill off majorities, although you perhaps do kill off landslide victories. Perhaps a percentage, rather than a majority minus one.

    18. gus1940 says:

      O/T

      This morning our wonderful colonial masters in London (that genius Fallon I think) are accusing the Russians of being guilty by proxy for the alleged Poison Gas attack in Syria.

      Instead of waving their willies as if The UK was still a world power perhaps they might stop to consider that The UK is guilty by proxy for the killing of countless innocent civilians in Yemen.

      Given that The RAF is a constituent of the coalition which has been bombing and shelling Mosul for weeks killing god knows how many innocent civilians The UK is guilty by a damned sight more than proxy for that.

      The Syrian alleged Poison Gas attack has allowed our politicians and their media fan club to conveniently forget last week’s Mosul bombing which was reliably reported to have killed hundreds of innocent civilians.

      Unsurprisingly we have not been shown any pictures of dead children in Mosul.

    19. DerekM says:

      Och if the yoonies want it we should give them it stop them all blubbing like weans.

      It is not perfect none of them are,i actually like the PR system it is not that i have a problem with,it is the parties inside the PR system i have a problem with because their loyalty lies with another parliament.

      Plus i think FPTP makes parties actually have to work to get the vote and does not lead to as many dead head seat fillers.

    20. Scott Renton says:

      This is particularly pertinent when we hear Conservative cries of “no mandate”. You can flip it this way, to show the SNP’s crushing Holyrood FPTP majority, or attempt to model Westminster using d’Hondt, where the Tories would see their dominance shredded.

    21. theMadMurph says:

      The Ferret did a similar article about the route to a referendum a couple of days ago.

      https://theferret.scot/can-scotland-hold-second-referendum-without-westminsters-permission/?utm_source=push

    22. Andrew Coulson says:

      DrEW, 11:40 am:
      “I think that’s closer to the original intention than some would care to admit.”
      I don’t think this is fair to Donald Dewar: I think he recognised that a PR parliament/government is liable to be totally paralysed unless it rules by broad consensus. The Scottish parliamentary system was set up with the intention that if most MSPs approached issues of legislation with an open and intelligent mind, prepared to consult with experts and then think for themselves — the policies that were implemented would be at least as good (for the whole community) as those that come out of the ‘elective dictatorship’ style of Westminster governance. And usually better. Actually, ‘elective anarchy’ would be a better description of the post-Brexit-referendum Westminster governance structure, so the contrast should be all the stronger. The fact that it isn’t, is largely down to the almost relentless oppositionism of the unionist parties at Holyrood.
      I hope to live long enough to see an independent Scotland provide the English with an object lesson on how good a parliamentary governance based on PR and consensus can be!

    23. Kennedy says:

      What is the procedure for bypassing the POs veto? If anybody knows can you dumb it down a bit for me please.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if the unionists tried the veto due to fear of another referendum.

    24. Capella says:

      Has the Scottish Government power to change the voting system? Elections seems to be a reserved matter but Local Authorities a devolved matter.

      I read – but can’t now find the reference – that when the d’ Honte system was set up in Scotland, it allocated more list seats than other countries do. Perhaps a revised d’Honte would be best for Holyrood?

      O/T it was Ross Greer. Scottish Green, who wrote to MEPs and got the letter signed by 50 supporting Scottish membership of the EU if independent. Good article in the Sun of all places:

      https://archive.is/tsccT

    25. Robert Peffers says:

      @Robert Kerr says: 9 April, 2017 at 11:56 am:

      “I ask once again.
      Is the situation which exists for four different voting systems in Scotland a deliberate device to confuse the voters?”

      Don’t be silly, Robert. Most Scottish unionists are so confused by voting that asking them to pick up a pencil and mark a ballot paper has them confused as to which end of the pencil makes the mark on the paper.

    26. Kennedy says:

      Are we going to war to avoid a referendum?

      For a while anyway?

      Can Scotland refuse to fight in the power elites phoney war?

    27. Robert Peffers says:

      @galamcennalath says: 9 April, 2017 at 12:02 pm:

      “I think people ‘fall back’ on FPTP because they understand it!”

      More likely it is because they do not understand it but imaging, wrongly, they understand FPTP, but don’t.

    28. Ken500 says:

      Boris Johnston scared to face the Russians because of the nonsensical, corrosive statements. He has been making about them. Fears of meeting them face to face. A foreign secretary without honour that runs away because of his erratic behaviour. Typical Tory ‘psycho bastards’. Ruining the world economy. Killing, maiming and starving vulnerable people the world over. So they can tax evade and abuse the Law. Breaking the Law at every opportunity. To line their own and associates pockets.

      The dope on the rope coward runs away.

      Consult Boris Johnston – wikipedia – which gives pointers to his irrational, trouble causing, dishonourable illegal behaviour.

    29. heedtracker says:

      Yet oddly, it was voters of the party which would have the most to gain from such an arrangement in Scotland – the SNP – who were the least supportive of FPTP. A total of 42% of the Nats’ voters backed some kind of proportional representation system, compared to 39% of Lib Dems (PR’s traditional advocates), 33% of Labour voters and 32% of Tories.”

      That’s a great to thing learn though. Progressive, liberal, democratic Scotland, is what its all about.

      FPTP is not the norm, except “The method is widely used in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and most of their current and former colonies and protectorates, and a few other countries,” wiki says.

      Hmmm.

    30. Ken500 says:

      The Scottish Gov does have the power to change it. Does it need a (SNP) majority. Otherwise the other political parties will not agree. For obvious reasons they see it giving them more chancers getting in. That is why it was mooted in the first place. To stop the SNP getting a majority. The Unionist/Green Parties see other electoral systems as letting them get into more power, They don’t represent the public wishes. They represent themselves and their own ambitions.

    31. Artyhetty says:

      Very telling indeed. Either the unionists have not a scoobie about the voting system, or they are basing their preference on a fantastical idea, that they could, no, should be the party of rule!

      No doubt if we did have such a huge SNP majority, we would be treated as a rogue state, and we all know what happens to them.

      Gus1940@12.13

      It is absolurely horrendous what is being perpetrated on the people of Yemen. Sickening to the core. The two guilty countries, US and the UKgov, do not care about their own people, so they certainly don’t care about people in other countries either. They care only about themselves and their rich pals.

    32. galamcennalath says:

      Robert Peffers says:

      ….they understand FPTP, but don’t.

      There will always be some people who simply don’t have a scooby.

      Don’t know if there is research on misunderstanding. However clearly a percentage of people think Holyrood is some sort of STV where they should vote differently on the two votes. Or, in STV council there are a high number of wasted ballots as people put Xs.

      We need one system throughout all voting. This would reduce confusion and people would begin to understand how that system worked.

      I quite like the Holyrood mixed system. The list selection needs democratised.

      Some countries have lists only. Possible most democracies?

      STV is less common globally, but might be used.

      FPTP is a democratic abomination! Virtually abandoned elsewhere. MPs can be elected with 25% of votes cast and majority governments formed at WM with 35% votes cast. Setting aside coalitions and national governments, no party has formed a government with a real 50% majority in living memory.

      We need one system throughout which offers representative government.

      Interesting who does whate elsewhere ….

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation

      In politics in general, Scotland could do a lot worse than simply complying the European norm!

    33. Robert Kerr says:

      @Andrew Coulson.

      If Donald Dewar thought that he had no idea of the vicious tribalism extant in SLAB.

      This whole business is interesting. History making is now

    34. Clydebuilt says:

      The poll results are a reflection of the relative understanding of politics between the two sides, combined with an ability to think logically. The Yoons don’t get much right do they. AND that is what has kept Scotland in the Union.

    35. Robert Peffers says:

      @theMadMurph says: 9 April, 2017 at 12:20 pm:

      “The Ferret did a similar article about the route to a referendum a couple of days ago.
      https://theferret.scot/can-scotland-hold-second-referendum-without-westminsters-permission/?utm_source=push.

      Sadly, TheMadMurph, The Ferrit article, in its first few words, propagates a very big lie that far too many supporters of independence are ready to accept as Gospel truth.

      The lie is that the so called, “Section30 Order”, is a permission of any kind.

      The, “section 30”, being quoted is the 30th section of, “The Edinburgh Agreement”. It is thus an agreement between the two signatory parties who agreed on the terms laid out in , “The Edinburgh Agreement”.

      The signatories are:-

      (a) – David Cameron on behalf of the Westminster Government that has made itself the de facto Parliament of England by use of EVEL.

      and (b) – Alex Salmond on behalf of the Government of Scotland.

      Signed Agreements are legal contracts between the parties doing the agreeing – they are not permissions in any shape or form.

      BTW: The Edinburgh Agreement only is applicable to the referendum the parties agreed it applied to and that referendum is long done and dusted. (As the Yoons so constantly bleat at us).

      The present Scottish Government plainly said in their manifesto that changes in circumstances would call for another referendum and they are now about to keep their word.

      So, there you go – not only does no one need permission to hold a referendum because holding referendums is not illegal but, unless agreed before hand, referendums are legally only advisory.

      I’m sure, though, that the SG will take their supporter’s advice if the result suits them – just as Westminster’s May did with the Brexit referendum.

      Thus the present First Minister of Scotland has no legal requirement to seek anyone’s permission to hold a perfectly legal referendum.

    36. DerekM says:

      Maybe we should have a referendum to decide which electoral system to use.

      I hear they really like referendum lol

      Could Ken veto it yes will Ken veto it now there is a question.

      Maybe Ken could tells us if he plans to fail miserably at his job.

    37. McBoxheid says:

      I think if a parties list candidates were elected by balloting their whole party membership, it would help enormously in cutting out the dead wood that keep getting places high on lists by parliamentary party members only. If you look at the Labour party for instance, the parliamentary Labour party rejected their elected leader twice and when the whole party had a choice, he was reelected. Leaving the list to parliamentary members only is not nearly as fair as letting everyone in the party decide.

    38. Vestas says:

      If you’re looking at voting systems post-indy then the current STV-WIGM system for council elections would be ideal for the primary chamber at Holyrood. You’d need to up the number of seats/ward up to somewhere between 5 and 9 to get proper “PR” as the lower the number of seats the greater the advantage to “large” parties.

      For the second chamber d’Hondt is ideal as it usually doesn’t result in majorities/hegemony by one party. That would seem sensible for a revising chamber (one will be required, can’t go on with the committee system post-indy).

      FPTP is an abomination and I do wonder about the sanity of anyone advocating it as a voting system pre or post-indy. All you have to do is look at Westminster and you’ll see EXACTLY how much of an abomination it is!

    39. carjamtic says:

      O/T

      The use of military threats against another European democratic country,the use of military language against the democratic parliament of Scotland is very noticeable.

      The threat to our friends in Spain by the former Tory leader,the use of the term ‘recruiting sergeant’ by M Fraser,the mounting of tanks by R Davidson,gives a clear insight in their mindset.

      Devoid of any democratic argument,they revert to type,divide and conquer,but hey ho,this is not the first ugly Tory rodeo/military shit show we have witnessed recently,very sad to see W Rennie and K Dugdale support such behaviour,unless of course they agree with it.

      These warmonger’s really don’t like democracy and obviously fear the ballot box.

      ‘Nae mair will oor bonnie callants,merch tae war when oor braggarts crousely craw’

    40. John says:

      More representative and discusive types of processes are fine for an independent country, but for a dominated one they are simply about divide and rule. FPTP, then when its OUR decision maybe something more progressive. D’Hont was specifically about divide and rule.

    41. Robert Peffers says:

      @Andrew Coulson says: 9 April, 2017 at 12:28 pm:

      “I don’t think this is fair to Donald Dewar:”

      Aye! And you are entitled to hold that opinion.

      ” … if most MSPs approached issues of legislation with an open and intelligent mind, prepared to consult with experts and then think for themselves — the policies that were implemented would be at least as good (for the whole community) as those that come out of the ‘elective dictatorship’ style of Westminster governance.”

      Aye! And perhaps pigs maun fly?

      However, even if they wished to fly they cannot do so because they are physically unequipped with the means to do so.

      There is no form of voting system that assures the voters will return only elected representatives equipped to, “approached issues of legislation with an open and intelligent mind, prepared to consult with experts and then think for themselves.”

      In that respect the voters themselves are perhaps not all equipped with the means to make rational decisions either – but that’s democracy for you.

    42. K1 says:

      Thing is even without the polling to back this up it’s astoundingly obvious that if FPTP was in place in Holyrood elections that the SNP would indeed have a massive majority the likes of which all other parties could never attain.

      Ah could never understand the unionist mentality on this subject. What’s miraculous is what happened in 2011 with SNP gaining a majority and what’s dumbfounding is the claim that losing that majority in 2016 whilst their actual share of the popular vote increased somehow delegitimises their majority.

      Ah mean how thick dae ye actually huv tae be tae ‘sell that’ as a legitimate ‘stance’ especially as a current MSP in Holyrood?

      Here’s Murdo Fraser doing just that a week or so ago…lest we forget:

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5qG1FE46js

    43. Vestas says:

      Also the legal issues seem fairly clear to me.

      A treaty of union exists between Scotland and England.

      If there is no legal method of either party withdrawing from that treaty without the consent of the other party then the treaty itself is illegal under currently interpreted international law.

      If it were written into the treaty that neither party could leave without the consent of the other then that treaty MAY still be legal. It doesn’t so it isn’t 🙂

    44. McBoxheid says:

      McBoxheid says:
      9 April, 2017 at 1:34 pm

      I think if a parties list candidates were elected by balloting their whole party membership, it would help enormously in cutting out the dead wood that keep getting places high on lists by parliamentary party members only. If you look at the Labour party for instance, the parliamentary Labour party rejected their elected leader twice and when the whole party had a choice, he was reelected. Leaving the list to parliamentary members only is not nearly as fair as letting everyone in the party decide.
      ____________________________________________

      What I forgot to mention was that this way each candidate that wants to be considered foe a list seat has to win enough votes from within the party to get position on the list. E.G. they have to be elected to the list and not just given the position because their face fits with the current party leadership.

    45. K1 says:

      Oops…forgot tae take out https…

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5qG1FE46js

    46. Dr Jim says:

      Folk talk about what the polls say or show and they begin to forget we don’t do democracy by what the polls show or what the Media says

      If the polling companies want to stand for parliament then they can, same with the media, of course that would make them come under direct public scrutiny and be voted upon their actions so I don’t think they’ll want to do that, much as they’d like to

      So I’ll just stick with the government and the representatives I voted for and not depend or even be the slightest interested in what a poll says or doesn’t say about whether my government gets to do something it said it would when I gave them my vote

      After all if we ran things according to polling companies it would prove conclusively that the Tories and Theresa May had no mandate for anything let alone running around Brexiting or talking war stuff or slashing peoples desperately needed support or making women prove they’ve been raped, Oh sorry, the new phrase is non consensual sex, because that’s much nicer eh, and using sneaky law making in the middle of the night to do it

      Polling is trolling nowadays!

    47. Louis Collins says:

      I have been watching and listening and here are some thoughts. I am sorry if I am stating the obvious, but then I did read the new users page.
      Most, if not all, of the arguments put forward in the comment sections in articles, such as this Sunday Times one, can be applied to Westminster to at least some degree, and those same arguments are more damning of Westminster and the Unionist parties.
      Political mandate to run the country, SNP has a bigger one. Election mechanism, Holyrood fairer.
      Manifesto pledges, SNP open and honouring them, Conservatives are open if you look, but now largely forgotten and current policy coincides with them only coincidentally or in forced U turns.
      Similar comparisons can be made for Brexit and Indy Ref 2.
      I work in a village in the Central Belt and I get a mixed pro, anti and indifferent feeling. The anti feeling is very emotive and, on the whole, expressed in a negative way. The pro tends to be a quiet knowing of being in the right, but not wanting to get into a slanging match, open for a debate and positive ideas, but not anywhere near the negative attack mode of the anti. And the indifferent, they tend to be open to a very quick nudge of “imagine if we could…” positive encouragement.
      Long post of thoughts, sorry.

    48. Lenny Hartley says:

      Robert Peffers, this is article 30 of the 1998 Scotland act, it has nothing to do with the Edinburgh agreement.
      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/30

      Do you really think that the Scots Government would have written to May requesting a Section 30 order to hold a referendum if it was not a legal requirement?

    49. Andy MacNicol says:

      I think candidates should be given a choice when they wish to stand for election. The list, or FPTP. Not both. If they are rejected by the electorate in a FPTP ballot that is because they are not wanted. That they then get a second chance is wrong.

    50. Cactus says:

      Yeah, “if the electorate had its way”, we would be SO Pro-Scotland by now. The projected results are a convincing mandate any-which-way you look at it, therefore…

      > > > > > > > > >

      Just seen this:

      Less than 1 week left to register to vote

      Elections may be taking place in your area on 4th May. You must register by 13th April to vote, you can do so by clicking Register Now.”

      Have some-things changed? Messin’ with the digital countdown clock.

      Not too long to go now.

    51. Robert Peffers says:

      @Lenny Hartley says: 9 April, 2017 at 1:49 pm:

      “Robert Peffers, this is article 30 of the 1998 Scotland act, it has nothing to do with the Edinburgh agreement.
      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/30

      I Know, Lenny, that the Scotland Act is what they are trotting out as the supposed ruling of Westminster on the Scottish Referendum.

      Yet when that indy referendum was called for by Salmond the Scotland Act was, far as I can recall, not brought into play.

      The Scotland Act makes provision for Westminster to make changes, or to amend, the powers granted by Westminster to Holyrood. But to change the Scotland Act would thus require a bill to amend the act going through Westminster and, according to the Supreme Court, getting the consent of both, Holyrood and the HOL.

      Did not the Supreme Court rule that any change requires the agreement of Holyrood and that Westminster did not do so?

      Far as I can remember neither of these events happened at Westminster or between Westminster and Holyrood.

      Instead we just had Cameron & Salmond sitting down in Edinburgh and thrashing out things between them as, “The Edinburgh Agreement”. Which, far as I know, was not Cameron seeking Salmond’s permission to alter the Scotland Act. If it had been only Cameron would have needed to sign it. Furthermore, I don’t see any such amendments made to the Scotland Act you cited.

      ” … Do you really think that the Scots Government would have written to May requesting a Section 30 order to hold a referendum if it was not a legal requirement?”

      Yes. Which is exactly what Nicola said she would do. Making clear she did not require Westminster’s permission and would hold one anyway.

      Which has been the point I’ve been making. The Edinburgh Agreement was only in reference to Indyref1.

      For it to be a change in the Scotland Bill it would need Westminster to have the Bill amended and seek approved by the Lords and also by the Holyrood Parliament. As the SC ruled.

      So Nicola said she would ask for a Section30 but was going to hold a referendum anyway. No one needs legal permission to hold a referendum because holding a referendum isn’t illegal as long as it is only advisory or is agreed beforehand to be legally binding.

      So Holyrood holds an advisory referendum and then says they will take the advice the electorate gives them. Just like May did for the Brexit referendum and keeps justifying doing so as the will of the, “British”, (sic), electorate.

    52. Arbroath1320 says:

      Excellent article as always Stu.

      Based on this article I have decided that it has to be FPTP voting system for me from now on.

      Oh NO!

      I’ve turned into a pumpkin unionist! 😀

      Think I’d best get my hat and coat now, don’t want to cause civil war or anything like that.

      HARK! I hear Ruth Davidson calling me now.

      I don’t think it would be appropriate on a site such as this to advertise what exactly Ruth Davidson is calling me other than to say some interesting words are heading my way. 😀

    53. Albert Herring says:

      One vote to be used for both constituency and regional/national? votes.

      50/50 constituency/list MSP’s (ensures full proportionality).

      Smaller parties may stand as “X Party” provided their candidates contest at least x no. of constituencies.

      List MSP’s to be elected in order of best losers to prevent placepersons.

    54. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Andy MacNicol @ 14:00,

      I think I see where you are coming from, Andy, but it somewhat misses the point, if I may say so. With a “split ballot”, no-one among the voting public has a clue about the intended function of each part. (In point of fact, there doesn’t actually seem to be any.) Thus we get all these conflicting arguments about how to best exercise votes in each part. It’s a proper guddle which does to a certain extent bring PR-based elections into disrepute.

      Although the basic idea of using some kind of PR system was definitely intended to ensure the SNP never achieved a majority (so 2011 was an unintended anomaly), I believe the two-ballot system was not part of some kind of conspiracy as such, but rather a means of satisfying the “constituency representative” fetishists. With the handy by-product that list MSP’s (then mostly SNP) would appear to be “second class” compared to the (mostly Labour) “first class” constituency representatives. Now of course the tables have turned. (And some people too easily ignore the fact that list MSPs are still elected by real votes.)

      But there is nothing to prevent the same system being employed via a single ballot, which would simplify enormously the task faced by electors.

      However, that doesn’t address the “party list” element contained within it. To me, as with others, a most unsatisfactory element, however the parties (are allowed to) choose their list. Not least because the selection process is woefully lacking in transparency to the ordinary voter. The LibDems do it by internal OMOV elections, I believe, which nevertheless meant eg. that old party hack Mike Rumbles was able to replace Alison McInnes, who was widely regarded in Holyrood as a competent and hard-working MSP.

      That’s the great advantage of STV. It puts more choice in the hands of the voter. Parties have to field candidates who have wide appeal. (Which is why parties themselves tend to be cool on it, apart that is from the SNP.) Despite the theorising about maximal effect we do here, the system itself is actually very simple to understand. You just rate candidates in order of preference, as few or as many as you please.

      Some people hearken back to FPTP because it’s their comfort zone amid the confusion of all these relatively novel alternatives. But the results are commonly a democratic farce.

      FPTP gives the illusion of a mandate where none actually exists. Which is why the Tories are treading on dangerous ground indeed when they accuse the SG of not having a mandate, given their non-existent UK one covered by the fig-leaf of FPTP.

      (Some of course wish to return to it precisely because of the illusion of dominance it can provide, but that’s not an honourable motivation.)

    55. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Robert Peffers @ 14:49:

      Far as I can remember neither of these events happened at Westminster or between Westminster and Holyrood.

      I believe you remember incorrectly, RP.

      I refer to The Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013

      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/242/introduction/made

      Which states:

      This Order is made by Her Majesty in Council in exercise of the powers conferred upon Her by section 30(2) and (4) and 113(4)(a) of the Scotland Act 1998(1).

      In accordance with section 115 of, and paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 7 to, that Act(2), a draft of this Order has been—

      (a) laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament; and

      (b) laid before and approved by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.

      So an order in council was made at the behest of UKGov, true, but had to be approved by both WM and Holyrood.

    56. Vestas says:

      @ Robert J. Sutherland 2:50 pm :

      Well explained.

      However people are going to have to get used to the idea of a different system for the second chamber (revising chamber) as well.

      There has to be more “hysteresis” to political change in the second chamber so there’s some resistance to transient political extremism.

      An aside to readers – Hysteresis is an electrical term where the effect of something continues after the source is shut down. Think SLAB and voters 🙂

      d’Hondt (with minor list changes) would seem to be the ideal for that second chamber.

      Look at how its brought the SNP into having to work differently with the greens (like it or not, I don’t) at Holyrood despite getting the largest vote ever.

      This “drag factor” is required to mitigate the loonies that get elected from time to time. The downside is people prominent in each party will be there as long as they choose.

      STV-WIGM at Holyrood primary chamber, d’Hondt (with mods) for secondary chamber.

      STV-WIGM gets rid of the “vote donkey first round” and actually delivers something approximating the people’s will. Assuming greater than five seats/ward of course.

      Welcome to the “modern” world people….

      You CAN do this – dear gods there’s an episode of Hill St Blues in 1982 showing people voting on “local” (city/state) elections registering multiple votes on multiple issues/candidates in both elections 🙂

    57. john edgar says:

      Yoons are yoon-less. Do not insult the turkeys!
      As long as there are three yoon MPs at Westminster, then democracy of upon mandate is secure. Any other non-Yoon party is not legal.
      That is yoon-entitlement.
      Even where one of the three upon parties has no MP, like the Tories after 1997 had for a while, that still does matter, as yoons are fixed in the unwritten UK constitution as the HoL has all yoons.

    58. Taranaich says:

      Councils actually publish details of the list vote down to a constituency level, and thanks to the sterling efforts of alert Wings contributor Al Harron, who compiled all the data into a handy table, we can tell exactly how it would have gone.

      That was quick! Only too happy to help.

      It’s interesting just how tenuous the Tories’ grip on 2nd place actually is, and how strong SNP support is throughout the country. I posted some stuff on Twitter, but I figure I’ll carry it over here too:

      – There are five constituencies where Lib/Lab/Con candidates won, yet the SNP had the most votes on the list. These are:

      AYR (John Scott)
      SNP: 14,938 / 39.64%
      CON: 13,991 / 37.13%

      DUMBARTON (Jackie Baillie)
      SNP: 13,059 / 38.85%
      LAB: 8,433 / 25.09%

      EAST LOTHIAN (I. Gray)
      SNP: 12,729 / 33.52%
      CON: 10,570 / 27.83%
      LAB: 10,020 / 26.38%

      EDINBURGH WEST (Alex Cole-Hamilton)
      SNP: 12,835 / 32.2%
      CON: 10,199 / 25.59%
      LIB: 8,321 / 20.88%

      NORTH EAST FIFE (Willie Rennie)
      SNP: 10,860 / 31.82%
      LIB: 9.054 / 26.53%

      There’s also one constituency where a Labour candidate won despite his party ranking after the Tories *and* the SNP:

      EDINBURGH SOUTHERN (D. Johnson)
      CON: 11,215 / 29.16%
      SNP: 8,934 / 23.23%
      LAB: 8,425 / 21.75%

      And, in the interests of full disclosure, also one constituency which the SNP won despite having (marginally) fewer votes than the Tories on the list, though the Greens more than make up for that deficit:

      PERTHSSHIRE SOUTH & KINROSS-SHIRE (Roseanna Cunningham)
      SNP: 13,668/37.78%
      CON: 13,966/38.55%

      Edinburgh West, Edinburgh South, & East Lothian are particularly shocking as the winning constituency candidate’s party didn’t even get second place on the list, but third: Likewise, Labour are so far behind the SNP in Dumbarton that the only possible explanation for Jacqui Baillie’s victory is tactical voting.

      Furthermore, the SNP’s list vote is hugely powerful, even considering the Greens’ presence. No less than 6 constituencies gave the SNP over 50% of the list vote, with 42 – a majority of all constituencies – giving the SNP over 40%, and another 20 giving them 30%.

      When you look at the other parties, it’s an entirely different story. Even though 3 MSPs got over 40% of the vote in their constituencies, only 1 constituency gave them over 40% in the list (Ettrick, Roxburgh, & Selkirkshire), and only 9 gave the party over 30%.

      Despite Orkney & Shetland giving huge majorities to Liam McArthur & Tavish Scott (both 67.4%), the list vote for their party was barely half that – 35.66% and 33.36% respectively – which shows some truly epic tactical voting on the Islanders’ part.

      Perhaps most astoundingly of all, not a single constituency gave Labour more than 30% on the list – not one. Not the three constituencies which returned Labour MSPs, not the places where Labour was second place, not even the places where the Tory vote was in single digits.

    59. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      O/T, but on the subject of reserved powers, this is the start of The Scotland Act 1998:

      General reservations
      The Constitution

      ¶1
      The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—

      a) the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,

      b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England,

      c) the Parliament of the United Kingdom,

      d) the continued existence of the High Court of Justiciary as a criminal court of first instance and of appeal,

      e) the continued existence of the Court of Session as a civil court of first instance and of appeal.

      ¶2
      (1) Paragraph 1 does not reserve—

      a) Her Majesty’s prerogative and other executive functions,

      b) functions exercisable by any person acting on behalf of the Crown, or

      c) any office in the Scottish Administration.

      Note in particular ¶1:b. No guff about “four nations”, instead a formal constitutional reaffirmation of a Union between two kingdoms, Scotland and England. That’s legal recognition if ever one were needed of the true constitutional position of Scotland. One up for you Robert Peffers!

    60. Ken500 says:

      Why have a second chamber? It just gives access to more eligible troughing which has to have.
      no powers. Otherwise there is a conflict of interest and nothing gets done. Ie US Congress. What a complete and utter muddle. Running around attacking others. Instead attending to the trouble and problems at home. Complete diversion and distraction. The undemocratic wasters get out clause.

      If it is necessary for Scotland to have more ability to cope with further business, on more extended powers and Independence. Just extend Holyrood with FPTP electoral system. There might actually emerge a credible opposition. Instead of a useless, intrusive ratbag opposition of no principle at all.

    61. Capella says:

      O/T Alex Salmond interview on Marr. Note the bonnie background scenery – probably Strichen. And the big Co-operative truck crossing the bridge behind him
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFXN14oXFYk

    62. Robert Peffers says:

      @Kennedy says: 9 April, 2017 at 12:40 pm:

      “Are we going to war to avoid a referendum?
      For a while anyway?
      Can Scotland refuse to fight in the power elites phoney war?”

      That’s just one more thorny unresolved constitutional matters, Kennedy.

      When you sign up to any of the services, even as a Civil Servant of any kind, you are required to take an oath. Not to the United Kingdom Parliament but to Her Majesty the Queen. It is, by law. Her Majesty’s Royal Navy, Her Royal Air Force and her Soldiers of the Queen. It is Her Majesty’s Government too. Her Majesty’s Customs & Excise and Her Majesty’s Treasury.

      This is where the questionable Constitutional Questions begin to become blurred for Their Majesty’s Parliament of the three country Kingdom of England staged what they claimed was a, “Glorious Revolution”, in 1688 and in doing so they rebelled against their Monarchy which, in 1688 was still under the rule of law of Divine Right of Kings. After deposing their rightful Monarch the rebel parliament of England offered the crown of England to King Billy & Queen Mary of Orange on condition they legally delegated their Divine Right, (sovereignty), to the rebel parliament. This made the three country Kingdom of England a, “Constitutional Monarchy”.

      At this point in British history the Kingdom of Scotland, (which shared the same person as their Monarch), was still not only an independent Kingdom but had not been under the rule of law of Divine Right, since 1320 and the Declaration of Arbroath.

      Yet the English Parliament simply assumed that, as they had deposed their monarch, this also applied to the still independent Kingdom of Scotland. Even today English History refers to 1603 as the Union of the Crowns. Yet this was only a personal union for the Monarch who wore both crowns for as Scotland was still independent English changes did not legally apply to Scotland.

      The English called the Jacobites, who did not agree to have the imported House of Orange as their monarchy, Rebels. Yet you cannot rebel against a monarch who is not your own and the wars with Scotland that began in 1688 saw English military still slaughtering Scots troops and innocent civilians at Culloden in 1745, almost 40 years after the English Parliament forced the Treaty of Union on Scotland in 1706/7.

      So how come Scotland, that never become a Constitutional monarchy is treated as part of a Constitutional Monarchy today? How come that Scotland today, whose law is guaranteed sacrosanct in the Treaty of Union, is being treated as a dominion country of the de facto Kingdom of England Parliament today?

      Just where is the legislation that gave the people of Scotland’s legal sovereignty to either Westminster or the Queen of England who, under Scots law, is Queen of Scots but not Queen of Scotland?

      So there’s the rub on Scots not fighting for the Queen as it is to the Queen they swear their oath of allegiance not to the de facto parliament of England.

    63. crazycat says:

      @ Cactus at 2.44

      Where did you see the statement that you quoted?

      There are elections on May 4 elsewhere in the UK – but not everywhere, so if what you saw was intended for universal consumption, some of those who read it will not be getting a vote next month.

    64. Lenny Hartley says:

      Robert Peffers getting back to whether section 30 is required or not, I agree with you that it’s not required to hold a referendum but not having one holds the SG open to the possibility of Yoons starting legal challenges. So if we can get one all the better, if not I’m sure the SG will have a plan.

    65. Free Scotland says:

      How about a new set of rules for those who sneak in through the back door on the list? The voting power of such members in the chamber could be set by using a banding system in proportion to the number of votes received in the election. So, for example, a directly elected member would have 3 points to count towards every vote made in the parliament, those who got through on the list with a good number of votes from the electorate would have 2 points, and those who got through on the list by the skin of their teeth would have just 1 point. Members like James Kelly and seven-time voter reject Murdo Fraser would have zero points, just to drive home the fact that their presence in the chamber is an affront to democracy and to make them think seriously about giving up the undeserved day-job.

    66. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Free Scotland,

      Alas, the cheap “back door” jibe is all too easily deployed while we have two-ballot AMS elections. Too often by people with short memories who forget that most SNP MSPs were once elected that way. And a few still are.

      Still, the thought of Annie Wells MSP getting 0.0001 of a vote is a very tempting prospect indeed! =laugh=

    67. Robert Louis says:

      Lenny Hartley at 442pm

      That is correct, Section 30 is NOY a requirement per se, rather it is convenient. As Alex Salmond explained this monring, initially David Cameron told him their would be no referendum, but he eventually saw such a stance as not only undemocratic, but untenable.

      Theresa May will do the same. How do I know? Because not once has Theresa May said she will not provide a section 30 order, despite being asked many, many times that specific question. Hence we have the worn out phrase ‘now is not the time’.

      Either way, the referendum will be held.

    68. Graeme says:

      Whatever Theresa May does or doesn’t do there will be a referendum I’ve no doubt about that, my problem is how will I deal with another NO vote the prospect is almost unthinkable and losing the will to live hardly describes it.

      The independence question will not go away now until there is independence I firmly believe that resistance is futile but that doesn’t mean we’ll win it next time round but I believe it is inevitable within the next 20 years

      How simple this all would have been had we voted YES last time round, but we’re Scots and as such never do anything the easy way

      Graeme

    69. Robert Louis says:

      Graeme,

      We started last time, with the polls showing 25-30% yes. This time, we start at near 50%. Add in the mightmare of Brexit and an out of control extremist right wing Tory Government, and I think we will win.

      As you say, either way, the issue will never go away. If we lost would I just go home? No chance, I’d be pushing for another referendum till the day I die.

      Scotland and its politics have changed forever.

    70. gus1940 says:

      Excellent article in the Mail On Sunday by Peter Hitchens re the gas attack.

    71. Cactus says:

      Hey crazycat @ 4.24 ~

      As quoted on a general advert I saw on the Facebook feed, under the heading “Local elections 2017”

      It gives you the option to ‘Share’ or ‘Register Now’. The ‘Register Now’ link takes you to the official Gov page.

      So it should be trending.

      I look in fae time tae time tae the FB, but don’t post there.

    72. heedtracker says:

      When they talk about mandates, it might be worth keeping in mind.

      A Scottish Constitution would be something, instead of a second Holyrood chamber, with the right to impeach crooks in office and especially as Mayhem’s crew are going to Henry the freakin Eighth to get their Great reform bill ram raid going.

      https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/constitution

    73. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Andy MacNicol at 2pm

      I’m with Andy on this one. Laying aside the irritation notion that some people insist on having that the list vote is for them to vote for some other party other than their FPTP choice. There is no need for a second or list vote to provide proportionality.

      I would insist that all candidates stand on a FPTP ballot after which a totalling of votes cast for any party in groups of seats (exactly as the regional lists)would then promote some of the losing FPTP candidates into Parliament from a list of candidates put in preferential order by the parties.

    74. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      That should read “irritating” not “irritation”in my last post

    75. Sandy says:

      Fergus Green @ 7.32 am.
      Theprt & others, advice taken.
      Rather than ignore trolls (Judge & co), some of use amuse ourselves, if only to lighten the occasion, by extracting the urine from the same.

    76. TYRAN says:

      Would Murdo still get in? I think anything where you’ve been well beaten seven times and still get a seat is some sort of honk.

    77. Graeme says:

      You know I don’t necessarily buy into this argument that because last time we started at 28% and pushed it to 45% means we’ll increase support next time maybe it will go the other way this time,

      I have always supported independence all my life in spite of the fact I was never convinced of the economic argument I supported Scottish independence because I’m a Scot I didn’t need any other reason

      I am now only convinced of the economic case for independence because of indyref1 and the wee blue book etc which I think has exposed the truth and changed the minds of many others like me

      Indyref2 has come sooner than we thought and it will be tougher this time most of the convertable have been converted and we are left with the hard core and although people are slowly changing over to our side, I just hope enough change in time

    78. packhorse pete says:

      Capella says:
      9 April, 2017 at 4:11 pm
      O/T Alex Salmond interview on Marr. Note the bonnie background scenery – probably Strichen.
      Many thanks, Capella for the link to Alex’s interview.

    79. packhorse pete says:

      Capella says:
      9 April, 2017 at 4:11 pm
      O/T Alex Salmond interview on Marr. Note the bonnie background scenery – probably Strichen.

      Many thanks, Capella for the link to Alex’s interview.
      He mentioned about the huge groundswell of support for Scotland from Europe. This link makes it clear.
      http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/scotland-would-be-most-welcome-as-full-eu-member-50-meps-say-35607576.html

    80. Robert Peffers says:

      @DerekM says: 9 April, 2017 at 1:29 pm:

      “Could Ken veto it yes will Ken veto it now there is a question.”

      Ken could veto it for the Presiding Officer has the job of deciding what is, and what is not, the powers devolved to the Holyrood Parliament. I did not find where it says his decision was final but I very much doubt that it is.

      Another of the Presiding Officer’s duties is to select the questions that are to be asked at FM’s Question Time.

      Maybe Ken could tells us if he plans to fail miserably at his job.

      No need, we already know he is biased and has recently shown bias by not stopping some quite obvious, mainly Labour, disruptive tactics.

    81. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Graeme @ 18:00,

      While there’s bound to be diminishing returns in converting people to “yes”, I can’t agree with your assumption that the remaining “no’s” are all hard core. There’s plenty of evidence to the contrary, eg. Stu’s recent polls, which show that diehard Unionists are only a fraction, albeit a substantial one, among the doubters.

      If you always had doubts about the economic case (something I never had, even while I still hoped for some kind of devolutionary evolution, along the lines of the now-infamous saying “devolution is a process not an event”) but could be convinced by proof to the contrary, don’t you think that others are also capable? There’s plenty of evidence that they can, not least that excellent series of Phantom Power videos.

      Don’t forget, it’s no longer “yes” versus some imagined “status-quo”. With Brexit we are heading for an economic disaster of the first magnitude in which even the little lattitute we currently enjoy will be heavily trampled upon.

    82. Rock says:

      Robert Peffers,

      “Most Scottish unionists are so confused by voting that asking them to pick up a pencil and mark a ballot paper has them confused as to which end of the pencil makes the mark on the paper.”

      We all know your attitude to any poster who doesn’t agree with your point of view.

      But to display such unbelievable arrogance and sneering against half of the Scottish electorate?

    83. crazycat says:

      @ Cactus

      Thanks for the information; I don’t do Facebook, but it sounds like it might just be a general encouragement to register, UK-wide.

      We’ll be getting our election nae bother – should be interesting!

    84. Rock says:

      Robert Peffers,

      “Yes. Which is exactly what Nicola said she would do. Making clear she did not require Westminster’s permission and would hold one anyway.”

      Nicola has said nothing of the sort.

      Stop making pompous untrue statements.

    85. Rock says:

      Robert J. Sutherland,

      “Graeme @ 18:00,

      While there’s bound to be diminishing returns in converting people to “yes”, I can’t agree with your assumption that the remaining “no’s” are all hard core. There’s plenty of evidence to the contrary, eg. Stu’s recent polls, which show that diehard Unionists are only a fraction, albeit a substantial one, among the doubters.”

      Diehard Unionists are a fraction which is very close to 45% of the electorate.

      If we are stupid enough to again waste scarce time and resources on trying to convince the selfish middle classes, the British Nationalist elderly, the English and the sectarian Orange bigots, we will definitely lose again.

      There are too many armchair pundits posting here as if Yes is already in the bag.

    86. Liz g says:

      Robert Peffers……Are you trying to make out there’s a law that says you can be arrogant????
      If so which law eh???
      Tell me now so ah can write a strongly worded letter tae the national about this disgraceful legal system trying tae act like it’s sovereign of something …Makin aggressive arrogant law’s.

    87. Rock says:

      Despite bastards getting in through the backdoor, Proportional Representation makes the Scottish parliament democratic.

      Unlike the elected dictatorship that is Westminster.

      Most EU member states have proportional representation.

      The EU should have thrown out the undemocratic UK a long time ago.

    88. george wood says:

      @Rock 6.59pm

      You want us to give up on persuading the middle classes, the elderly and the English and expect to win?

      Giving up on a huge chunk of the population that is very likely to vote is not very clever.

      Doing that would make it so much harder as we would have to persuade an almost impossible percentage from the rest of the electorate which may not even bother to vote.

    89. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Rock @ 18:59:

      which is very close to 45% of the electorate.

      Just another fable of your own imagining. Prove it!

      Your negativity is a curse. I don’t know how you can even bother to get up each morning.

      Every convert is a win, no matter from whom. It could just take one more vote to win, so why should you care? But you have no answers, just plenty of fart-wind.

    90. Capella says:

      @ Packhorse Pete – thanks for the Belfast Telegraph article confirming the support in EU for Scotland becoming a member if independent. Very positive .

    91. Rock says:

      Robert J. Sutherland,

      “Rock @ 18:59:

      which is very close to 45% of the electorate.

      Just another fable of your own imagining. Prove it!”

      What was the unionists’ percentage share of the vote at the last Scottish election?

      How much of that do you think was soft Nos?

    92. Robert Louis says:

      Robert J.Sutherland at 638pm,

      I think you are correct. Since htel ast referendum, their has been a seismic shift in what the opiton is for NO voters. Their is NO status quo anymore.

      In addition, as you say, the remaining NO’s are not all hard core, and I think experience shows that.

      Their is another factor however, that I think we all rarely consider, and that is voices from within England. I’m talking about people in general, celebrities and other commentators on line and in the printed media. Last time around their were so many very strong voices telling people in Scotland to stay, but this time around (and we already see it happening) their is around 48% of the electorate in England who are actually very angry about Brexit, and might very likely cheer Scotland on to independence, with best wishes. A different ‘mood’ you might say.

      Things are very different this time, and starting at near 50/50 YES/NO, I think means we actually have a great chance to push to not just a YES vote, but a very strong resounding YES vote.

    93. Robert Louis says:

      Packhore pete and Capella,

      That is a great article in the Belfast Telegraph. It is clear, that many within the EU will be very happy for Scotland to continue on in membership. Our choice will be isolationist zenophobic extreme right wing brexit, or independence within the EU.

      Quote from article :“In the letter to Holyrood’s Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh and MSPs, the signatories pledge their support in ensuring the transition to membership is “as swift, smooth, and orderly as possible”.

      The cross-party group includes p arliamentarians from Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, Sweden, Greece, Hungary and Malta.”

      These are powerful and important countries.

      For those who haven’t seen it, here is the link again;

      http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/scotland-would-be-most-welcome-as-full-eu-member-50-meps-say-35607576.html

      Add this to the fact that Spain has now made it unequivocally clear they would not veto Scotland’s membership (they never actually said they would), and already we can see this time, the referendum will be a very different ballgame.

    94. Rock says:

      george wood,

      “Giving up on a huge chunk of the population that is very likely to vote is not very clever.

      Doing that would make it so much harder as we would have to persuade an almost impossible percentage from the rest of the electorate which may not even bother to vote.”

      That chunk of the population is the most hard core No vote.

      The official Yes campaign failed miserably last time because it wasted time and resources on trying to convince people in the then “SNP heartlands” to vote Yes. They voted No in large numbers.

      Those who normally wouldn’t vote were persuaded by RIC to come out and vote Yes in places like Glasgow and Dundee.

      Without them Yes would have struggled to reach 35%.

      The only way to win is to persuade more of the most deprived members of society to come out and vote Yes.

    95. Robert Peffers says:

      @Robert J. Sutherland says: 9 April, 2017 at 3:09 pm

      “I refer to The Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013
      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/242/introduction/made
      Oh! I remembered that bit – no bother.

      “So an order in council was made at the behest of UKGov, true, but had to be approved by both WM and Holyrood”

      There it is /|\ – That’s the bit I don’t remember.

      Furthermore it seems to also not be remembered by the Supreme Court – or did I miss that bit too?

    96. Robert Peffers says:
      9 April, 2017 at 4:16 pm
      @Kennedy says: 9 April, 2017 at 12:40 pm:

      “Are we going to war to avoid a referendum?
      For a while anyway?
      Can Scotland refuse to fight in the power elites phoney war?”

      That’s just one more thorny unresolved constitutional matters, Kennedy.

      When you sign up to any of the services, even as a Civil Servant of any kind, you are required to take an oath. Not to the United Kingdom Parliament but to Her Majesty the Queen.

      ==========================================

      Not to be pedantic but would just like to say Robert that I joined the Royal Navy as a 15 year old at HMS Ganges. At that time the Royal Navy did not swear an oath of allegience to the Queen. Royal perogative.

      I would like to also say that one of those daft reality programmes about the Royal Navy in the last year the recruits did swear some kind of oath, BUT in my timewe did not.

    97. Cactus says:

      Aff topic ~

      I got hold of the most recent ‘The Extra’ for south-side Glasgow. Tis like a friggin’ party political broadcast for the tories..

      The outer ‘souvenir’ cover is shocking! Amongst other madness, it says, I quote:

      ‘SEND STURGEON A MESSAGE:’
      NO INDY REF 2
      ‘Vote For a Change in East Renfrewshire’

      I checked their website and there was no direct reference to their 4-page tory souvenir cover pulloff.

      http://www.glasgowsouthandeastwoodextra.co.uk/news/politics

      I’ve scanned it (in 8-parts) and will send in for reference.
      Cheers.

    98. Robert Louis says:

      George Wood at 722pm,

      I think you are absolutely correct. No single demographic should be excluded, since many of us already know people who have shifted their views, middle class, elderly, even in my case a unionist (who is really angry about London and Brexit – in his words, he feels betrayed by London after voting NO last time).

      These people show, although anecdotal, that it would be foolhardy to try to say one demographic alone should be our focus.

      Every vote counts, no matter what the demographic. We are a broad church, no matter of age, background, creed or nationality. We want them ALL! 🙂

    99. galamcennalath says:

      Challenged by a Tory. Thought others might like to hear my response. They didn’t like it.

      Tory, “What happened to the ‘once in a lifetime’, then?”

      Me, “Gone, along with the Tory manifesto commitment to the EU and the single market!”

    100. Thepnr says:

      Will there be a referendum bill passed at Holyrood without a Section 30 order?

      I suppose there will, as the Times says it’s likely that Westminster will have to take the Scottish Parliament to court to prevent that.

      This is all to the good and nothing I would fear.

      Looking at the Unionist tactics now to defeat another referendum it would seem they only have two. Attack the Scottish economy using GERS and talk about referendums until people are sick of hearing the word.

      I worry a bit about the second as just the other day I was talking about the referendum with a work mate and he told me he had signed the petition against another referendum even though he claims to have voted Yes in the first.

      I soon found out why, he was also a Leave voter and when I pushed him further about why he voted Leave and why he didn’t want a further referendum he clamped up.

      Let’s not fall out, another referendum will be too divisive and not enough want one”. “I don’t want to speak about it.

      I guess that this is the tactic for the Unionists talk about it so much that people themselves won’t want to talk about it?

      I won’t be listening and will continue to do what I do. So should you.

    101. Robert Louis says:

      galamcennalath at 824pm

      Excellent. I think I would relish some silly Tory coming to my door.

    102. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      galamcennalath @ 20:24,
      Brilliant! I love it.

      It’s unanswerable, and in such a quotable neat little package too.

      Exactly the kind of smart riposte that our representatives need to have “ready and loaded” for use in interviews…

    103. Meg merrilees says:

      Seems THeresa May hasn’t just forgotten about Gibraltar; it would seem that ownership of Rockall could also be in dispute. It is claimed by the UK , as part of Scotland but Brexit could leave the claim open to dispute by the R o. Ireland, Iceland or Denmark.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-39544607

      Apparently, as recently as 2014 it was agreed by Ireland and the UK that it was part of Scotland. Now Brexit could make the fishing rights paramount to that area and could make or break the N. Ireland fishing industry. Goes without saying that it would affect the Scottish fishing industry too, but that isn’t mentioned in this article… funny that!

      The sooner we get separated from WM the better – I don’t trust them with the likes of St Kilda and other remote islands.

    104. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Robert Peffers @ 20:03:

      it seems to also not be remembered by the Supreme Court …

      Yes, funny that…!

      I’ve been fairly sceptical of all this constitutional theorising, but yet, if Theresa keeps stalling on ScotRef, some of this evidence they have left lying around might just come back to bite her on the bum one of these days.

    105. Meg merrilees says:

      The Tories are using the ‘broken record’ trick.
      Repeat something often enough and people begin to believe it, e.g.

      “The people of Scotland don’t want another Independence referendum”
      “Nicola Sturgeon should get on with the day job”
      ‘The SNP is failing Scotland’…
      when, in fact, the opposite is true. Where would we be without Nicola?

      We have to discuss things as much as we can to expose these lies and spread the facts.

      Truthless has made a point of mentioning independence on absolutely every opportunity she can since 2014; many have commented on the number of times she has mentioned Independence and referendum in a negative way on an regular basis. She has made it her mission to mention it when no-one was even seriously discussing it, to try and get people bored with it and turned off.

      A family member is standing for election/ canvassing in the NE. Word is that the SNP is not welcome on the doorstep in that specific constituency – hopefully that won’t be the case on the day! Also hoping that Brexit will make the Ruth Harrison party too toxic for them to seriously elect. However, I think the oil downturn and fishing woes are being blamed on the ess enn pee and those lies are firmly lodged.

      Another family member wants to vote for indy but is adamant about leaving Europe and another is a complete lost cause now (both older age group). So, there is much to do and I’m pressing nieces and nephews to make sure they and their friends are all registered to vote.

      We need to get out and help our candidates locally (if we can – even just an hour stuffing envelopes) and take Scotland’s future to the people.

    106. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Thepnr –

      Keep at ’em mister!

      🙂

    107. Kennedy says:

      Robert Peffers, thanks for the reply.

    108. Ian Foulds says:

      Louis Collins – Long post of thoughts. at 1.44pm

      Good to see a sensible observation. Stick with it and ‘enjoy the ride’

    109. Iain More says:

      My ribs hurt after reading above.

      So Unionist voters tell us they want FPTP. I got the impression they didn’t want elections far less Referendum unless they are Referendum they can win that is. My real impression though of a Yoon is of somebody who would prefer to live in a military dictatorship where the head of State is the descendent of a German.

    110. Iain More says:

      The Yoons don’t do irony because the STV system employed at the Cooncil Elections will save a good many of their worthless electoral necks. Well if there is the usual bout of apathy that is.

      It is unfortunate that the Cooncil elections weren’t held on the same day as the Holyrood Elections or even the Westmidden Election because most of those quizzer Yoons would be oot on their arses!

    111. The Judge says:

      I see the pub bore Peffers and his many characters have taken over the whole post again.

      And the “Rock” has surfaced.

      Peffers Head Tracker Rock (All the one person). We all know you are a Troll and a very bad one at that.

      The Judge is convinced you are using at least another FOUR names.

      They will be outed.

      Peffers, why don’t you start your own blog instead of ruining the Reverend Stuarts.

      And take all your names with you.

    112. Lenny Hartley says:

      James Caithness re Rn swearing an oath to the Queen. Thanks for mentioning that, one of my mates was in the RN early sixties and he is adamant he never swore an Oath to her, I’ve often called his memory into question. But now I’ll let him off the hook!

    113. Thepnr says:

      Aye Ian

      I don’t have a problem in nipping heeds if they are needing nipped!

    114. Cadogan Enright says:

      http://indyref2.scot/dark-money-unionist-astroturf-groups-astrotyoons-sprout-anew

      Rev, what about keeping a page covering the background of all the ‘Independent Research’ dank money groups.

      There must be at least 11 that appear regularly on the BBC

    115. Dr Jim says:

      I don’t do doorstep campaigning anymore because I’ve got the wrong temperament for it and I know it but there are some who don’t know it and just do it anyway even when they know they annoy more people than not

      The reason I’m saying this is I met a guy in Asda one time while I was checking all the papers for nonsense and he decided to convert me to a Yes voter even though I swiftly told him I already was, but he didn’t care about that he felt compelled to inform me I was the wrong kind of Yes voter being an SNP member and I should immediately convert to his vision of Independence or I’d be damned forever as part of a Tartan Tory machine who he and his party were only using to get them Independence before they were dumped for the New Order

      I was standing with the National in my hand which he decried as SNP garbage, truthfully I’m not a fan of the National but it is what it is, on our side, so I look at it and read some of it, but I digress from this not gentleman of ardent passion about his “vision” of Independence

      Around four times I tried to excuse myself from this now becoming irritatingly stupid individual but still he persisted in being a space invader despite my increasingly large hints and by now visible annoyance, I should have mentioned his attire and appearance which was a middle aged long haired combat jacket twenty badged unshaven unkempt dope smoking dropout person

      I mention all that because much of the time I was examining the badges which were various ban the bomb stuff (original looking) RIC Che Guevara but not one badge mentioned Independence, it was all power to the people stuff

      By the time I did extricate myself from this moron who’s lack of informative truth was astonishing BTW I was so annoyed, 1 it’s not legal for me to just deck somebody in this country, and 2 I was ready to vote Tory in the hope he might be destroyed later by the real Nasty party

      So if I believe I’m the wrong type for doorstep campaigning I hope for all our sakes folk like the man I encountered take a good look at themselves their attitude and just do leaflets with their gubs firmly closed because these guys cost us votes they don’t win friends and influence anybody!

    116. Cadogan Enright says:

      Dark money

    117. The Judge says:

      “Rock Peffers”

      Come out, come out, where ever you are!

      The Judge would like a word with you.

    118. HandandShrimp says:

      I think for a lot of Labour and Tory voters there is still the memory of how FPTP used to favour then and disadvantage both the SNP and Liberals who both polled well but fell just short of the tipping point of capturing a lot of seats. The SNP hitting 50% overshot the tipping point by some margin and hence they took 95% of the seats.

      I tend to the view that if we were to look at changes to the vote then Tory and Labour position might change if they thought that the pro-Yes vote of 48%+ would stay with the SNP. Perpetual minuscule opposition would not be an attractive proposition. In truth I don’t think it would be good for democracy full stop.

      I would like one system of election. I think I prefer the Holyrood system, the Council STV system is a bit too convoluted for my taste.

    119. Artyhetty says:

      re;Megmerrilees@8.32+8.59pm

      Totally with you Meg. We need to keep apace with unionist tactics, their propaganda knows no bounds and they have all of the er, levers of money and power, to support them.

      DrJim@9.37

      An interesting account of your encounter! Aye, power to the people. If they are ignorant, and unaware of how their government works, or doesn’t, and how their voting system is organised, or not, they are utterly powerless. I honestly bet that many do not know what is devolved to Scotland, their own country, and what is not.

      Talking to a friend today, works in the SNHS, not happy with it, though says some if it is fantastic. You can bet your bottom dollar they are of the opinion that any problems are the fault of the ScotGov. Had little time to discuss it further, but tried to drop a few pointers in.

      People mostly, do not know what GERS is, they do not know what their councils are responsible for, or exactly really where their taxes go, or that the Scottish police and fire service are forced to pay VAT to the UK treasury. They do not know that all other parts of the UK are not charged VAT for police and fire service, or that here in Scotland they are forced to pay millions of £s to connect to the national grid, as opposed to those in the south of england,where the companies, are paid to coonect to the national grid!

      Ignorance is a very good political tactic. Ensure that folks have more daily grind worries than any civilised, 21st century person should have, and bobs your uncle, job done, turkeys voting for xmas, gaurenteed.

    120. Artyhetty says:

      Any spelling mistakes in my last comment are purely the fault of the internet, or maybe cooking while typing stuff. hmm.

    121. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      See in the past year? I’ve noticed more examples of “the disruptive element” posting btl on Wings.

      Some of that element are subtle and are able to keep their disruptions mild, continuing week after week, usually in the evening – although there are “others”, you know “others”, who appear to post from within “office hours”.

      Others are so overcome by their own self-generated excitement at seeing their trivia in print ON THE WEB(!) that they forget their required subtlety.

      No names required. We recognise the crap…

    122. JLT says:

      Well argued, Rev.

      There is nothing more you can say to that. As said …well argued.

    123. Ian Brotherhood says:

      There’s something sinister about this ‘Judge’ character.

      I really don’t like ‘it’ one wee bit.

      (Just want to get that ‘on the record’.)

      🙁

    124. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @BDTT (10.22) –

      Our posts have overlapped, and my last hasn’t appeared yet, but aye, totally agree.

      Early years of WOS, we had regular BTUKOKers popping in, and not many lingered. But it was possible to have at least *some* exchange of views with them. Can’t remember any specific names, but some of them seemed okay, and sounded like ‘real’ people.

      These characters we’re having to tolerate now are different league. They must be ‘the 77’. It’s inconceivable that they wouldn’t try to get a foothold here, but it’s impossible for us to assess how successful they are in turning-off lurkers, occasional visitors. I know Rev’s advice on ‘bacon rolls’, but I suspect I’m not the only one who struggles with maintaining a consistent approach to them – fight them, or ignore them?

      I don’t have any answers, but I really hate to see regular Wingers falling-out over it.

    125. Stephen McKenzie says:

      Ian Brotherhood 10:25

      Ignore him, he’s just a dick hiding behind his made up name.

    126. shug says:

      I came across a person who stopped buying the herald as he thought it a nationalist rag. I stopped because it is a unionist rag. It is very interesting we both stopped buying for the opposite reason.
      Just as yes voters are very set in their ways – they have and understand the argument. No voters are exactly the same – they absolutely believe in their position.
      To get them to change we need them to see a flaw in their position very softly. But they need to determine they are wrong. It is not for yes voters to harangue them into changing

    127. The Judge says:

      Lighten up everybody, Peffers and Co will soon be gone.

      We need to stick together on this one.

      Wings is not the property of Peffers and his band of Trolls.

    128. Robert Louis says:

      Ian Brotherhood at 1025pm,

      I think you make a very good point. Quite sinister indeed.

      Ian Foulds at 913pm. Exactly, good observant posts are always welcome on here.

      Oh, and The National has another interesting front page for tomorrow, featuring Boris the clown the UK Foreign Secretary…the Trump poodle.

    129. HandandShrimp says:

      Hi Ian

      I just tend to skip over the argumentative sub-threads. Life is too short for such stuff.

      I didn’t mind discussing things with Captain Caveman. He was up front about being a Unionist and had a sense of humour but we have had our fair share of trolls…mostly Viking Warrior in various guises 🙂

    130. heedtracker says:

      They will be outed.

      Who ever you are, getting outed is hardly a threat chum. Its not like being in a closet you dreary creep. What ever next.

      Fact is, which ever electoral system is used, BBC is a massive power in whatever this democracy actually is.

      BBC led tory press, all extremely conservative, very pro tory, very pro GOP US, very war loving, very anti left. Its all so anti left, they all genuinely think they can take down Corbyn and shut down Scottish democracy. Two big BBC tasks that are not mutually exclusive.

      That’s not news. Its the great British 4th estate. What is incredible, they seem to be losing control of Scotland. And look at what’s being shaken out of power, like historic dust.

    131. The Judge says:

      Waiting on Head Tracker sticking in his tuppence worth.

    132. Robert Louis says:

      Ian Brotherhood and BDTT,

      Totally agree. Could well be the British army 77th Brigade. Unionists despise wings, because it is so very effective. It would be surprising in some ways, if they did not target the site.

      If I recall, there were in the past very long periods when the actual website was under near constant cyberattack, which necessitated specialised web hosting and security.

      Importnatly, what that and idiotic 77th Brigade demonstrates, is that the union with England is effectively dead. They cannot now make ANY convincing arguments in its favour, so they resort to smears, lies and cyber attacks. That is where britnat unionism is at. Pathetic, really.

    133. Thepnr says:

      @Ian Brotherhood

      fight them, or ignore them?

      Ignore them, don’t encourage them. Ignoring is easy, just laugh quietly to yourself.

      It’s up to you decide who the bacon rolls are and might I remind all who read or post on Wings what the Rev says about this. Despite what others might say.

      2. Play the ball, not the man (or woman).

      And by all means disagree, by all means disagree forcefully – but argue with people’s views, don’t insult them personally. And that includes calling them “trolls” or implying they’re undercover Unionists. We’ll decide if someone’s trolling or not. But in the meantime, if you think they are, ignore them.

      If you know what a “troll” is, then you’ll also know that getting you angry and talking about them, derailing the conversation off the subject, is exactly what they want.

      Email us about suspected trolls if you want. But don’t engage them in debate if you doubt their motives, and DEFINITELY don’t engage in on-thread discussions about whether they’re a troll or not.

      I tried saying the same a couple of weeks ago some agreed and some didn’t. I stand by my view from then they are not worth the effort so ignore.

    134. The Judge says:

      Peffers, you and your trolls are so predictable.

      Peffers, Rock, Head Tracker etc…

      Which one of your many names will chip in next???

    135. Sarah says:

      O/T “the power of the press” not looking so powerful when it comes to fundraising for good causes. The Grauniad has an article about Joshua Littlejohn’s fundraiser for the Social Bite village and the yield from that article so far? 11 donations in 12 hours totalling about £300.

      Oh dear.

      Which reminds me that Lindsay Bruce’s ScotRef Express fundraiser isn’t exactly steaming ahead either….

    136. Cactus says:

      In the key of G:

      Whistling.

      “I Don’t Know, If You Can See..”

    137. The Judge says:

      Lets all fight for our Independence together.

      We don’t need to be preached to by people like Peffers and Co.

      We are stronger than that.

      My message to Wingers regarding Peffers:

      “Ignore the Bore”

    138. Cactus says:

      Aweright shug ~

      “shug says:

      I came across a person who stopped buying the herald as he thought it a nationalist rag. I stopped because it is a unionist rag. It is very interesting we both stopped buying for the opposite reason.
      Just as yes voters are very set in their ways – they have and understand the argument. No voters are exactly the same – they absolutely believe in their position.
      To get them to change we need them to see a flaw in their position very softly. But they need to determine they are wrong. It is not for yes voters to harangue them into changing”

      Good post 🙂

    139. Effijy says:

      Bad Judge this character if you ask me.
      I’d prefer a Peffers any day!

      I’ve been intrigued by the TV Series Homeland, in which the show some potential machinations of a Secret, Secret Service who act to control the media across the USA.

      In the story they edit some live war footage of a new female president’s son, who died in action.
      Rather than the reality that he ran into enemy fire to retrieve a wounded comrade, they edit it to look like he is running away.

      Bribing another soldier who was there, and now broken in every way, leads to a pretty substantiated case.

      This new president wants to bring the secret service to book for some illicit acts, cut their budget, and remove their presence from the Middle-East.

      This sets the secret secret service to take actions to remove her from power and replace her with a sympathiser.

      Secret secret sevice government funding is used to manipulate TV, Radio, Social Media, and Newspaper articles, which outrages millions who live off the headlines, and don’t challenge media information.

      This could explain how 5 different newspapers could all generate pictures of Jim Murray with lights behind his head acting as a Halo.
      This might explain why Carmichael’s lies about French Gate were aloud to fly without a shred of evidence, or repercussion against Carmichael.
      It might explain why Scotland wasn’t allowed to see the hit TV series Outlander, that was seen across the English speaking world, as it gave a true depiction of how the English could kill Scots for wearing Tartan, speaking their native tongue, or playing the bagpipes.
      It might explain why all 37 newspapers available in Scotland in 2014 were ALL against Scottish Independence?

      I have no doubt that there is a UK Secret Service with Tax payer funding to ensure all lines of communication are controlled, be it to distort, bury, or created outrage from fresh air.

    140. DerekM says:

      Yep Ian it is an age old trick so old i might have invented it.

      It is a deliberate attempt to put doubt into readers minds that the forum is stage managed out an office someplace.

      And that posters are not who they say they are and it is all to get money,wake up you are being scammed.

      Its a classic lol

    141. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      A commenter (or three) on here just doesn’t understand the meaning of the noun “subtlety”. Nor the adjective “subtle”.

      Wingers are a tad more streetwise when it comes to PISH.

      http://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=NHVuPhOUDH4

    142. Robert Louis says:

      Thepnr at 1053pm,

      Sound advice.

      Meanwhile, maybe I am reading things incorrectly, but perhaps indyref2 may become the least of Westminster’s worries. The N.Ireland secretary has said if a new Government is not formed from talks between DUP and Sinn Fein, then Westminster will start taking back powers to London. The problem is, that is not what is in the good friday agreement – their should be another election – so Sinn Fein are opposing a return to London rule.

      Just for the record, Sinn Fein are demanding things like recognition of the Irish langauge and the legalisation of gay marriage. The neanderthal DUP oppose both of these.

      My guess is, that the DUP have been asked by their London Tory chums to intentionally make sure the talks fail, so London can take back control during brexit. I guess Sinn Fein already know this.

    143. The Judge says:

      Well surprise surprise, DerekM butts in.

      One of the many names, eh Mr Peffers???

    144. Cactus says:

      A warm welcome to all the new regular readers.

      Will be nearing 400,000 unique readers going at this rate.

      How ye doin’ on this roller-coaster ride Scotland…

      Ride the waves!

    145. The Judge says:

      Stay strong Wingers, together we will defeat “Pefferism”.

    146. Robert Louis says:

      Oh my god, ‘it’ really is a machine. Would it pass the Turing test though? Probably not.

    147. Chick McGregor says:

      Those of us long enough in the tooth will well remember the days when Unionist politicos like Foulkes when presented with a demand for an independence referendum replied that there was no need for one because we could simply vote for a pro independence party at each general election. Every general election was effectively a referendum.

      Of course, we all knew that if and when the prospect of a pro indy MP majority ever became a likelihood, that this position would change.

      When the SP was set up, the electoral process was designed to never allow a majority for pro indy parties just in case a pro indy majority might be elected there.

      As predicted, when a pro indy majority in the SP threatened to manifest itself, a referendum became the new indy goalpost.

      Following the amazing surmountation of those barriers by pro indy parties, e.g. pro indy majorities for the last two Holyrood administrations, we have had an indyref1.

      The latest shift in the goalpost, following the near victory for Yes in indyref1 appears to be that we must attain 50+ % of the electorate for pro indy parties before we can even have another referendum.

      To put that in context. If we apply the same criterion to the indyref1 result, which BTW at 84.6% of the theoretical electorate was the highest turnout in UK democratic history, then the No vote with only 46.8% of the electorate, failed this new mandate test.

      A 50% of the electorate rule, while making Cunningham’s infamous 40% rule seem almost reasonable, means that everyone who is registered but has died, everyone who is registered at an old address but has subsequently moved and not re-registered, everyone who has been seconded abroad for career reasons, everyone who is currently registered but unable to vote for medical reasons e.g dementia, coma, insanity, everyone on the register but now imprisoned and for several other reasons would be counted as a No voter.

      At every election or referendum there is a significant percentage of those on the electoral register who cannot, in fact, vote. All counted as No.

      Even if an indyref2 matched the 84.6% all-time record turnout of indyref1, Yes would need to get nearly 60% of that vote to attain the ludicrous 50% of the electorate ‘mandate’.

      I know this is farcical, but we are not dealing with fair and rational opponents here.

    148. Robert Louis says:

      Effijy at 1112pm,

      You may not be far from the truth.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice

      As regards the indy ref in 2014, I genuinely believe the entire media was strong armed – especially the BBC in the final week – where it became outrageously biased and underhanded against independence. We can all still remember the senior BBC political correspondent openly lying on the main news broadcast, regarding the First Minister of Scotland, with the phrase ‘he didn’t answer’.

      This is why we will need foreign UN or EU observers for the next referendum. The electoral commission is the proverbial chocolate teapot, when it comes to such things.

      Westminster is nothing if not underhanded, sleekit and disreputable.

      I fully expect the same is happening right now, to some extent. Spooks are everywhere, especially within the media.

    149. Capella says:

      @ Robert Louis – I remember Paul Mason at the time saying that the media were on a war footing. He’d never seen it so on-message since the Falklands War. But they can’t keep that level of shock n awe up for 18 months.

    150. Cactus says:

      Break-time.

      Ice cream & popcorn available from the foyer.

      Ha ha, right on time, this time!

      This is Extreme:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_44jokODfzM

      Play.

    151. heedtracker says:

      Woohoo! Eck brings the sunshine to Rhynie.

      Alex Salmond MP
      6 hrs ·
      On the campaign trail with Gwyneth Petrie, Kate Monahan and team in Rhynie yesterday. Special thanks to Lottie for joining us! https://t.co/rGeFVV73Ly

      He was very good on Marr today and EU v Scotland membership, straight in with how things change from

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26215963

      European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has said it would be “extremely difficult, if not impossible” for an independent Scotland to join the European Union.
      Speaking to the BBC’s Andrew Marr”

      Two years in Rhynie’s passed very quickly.

      Also, if you get the chance, check out the Rhynie Man, its an extremely imaginative name, for what is in effect, a Rhynie Man:D

      http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/aberdeen/rhynieman/

    152. Cactus says:

      Work, rest, politics and play.

    153. Liz g says:

      I see on the Revs Twitter there’s a vote to restrict elected politicians to two terms.
      To which I voted yes they should….But really only to help stoke the debate.

      I don’t think it’s as simple as that,yes/no option.
      Otherwise we would have lost Alex & Nicola amongst others many elections ago.
      That’s surely not a good way forward.
      To rule out obvious talent, doesn’t serve Scotland at all.

      But…The list seats in Holyrood are IMHO ripe for this rule.

      If a party has a particular candidate they know to be talented,then the list system (in theory) allows us,the people, to see what they are made of in the parliament.
      After sitting for Two terms the candidate should be able to get themselves directly elected.
      That would,I think, be the best use of the list system and put a stop to MSPs continued return to parliament on the say so of their party alone.
      With the additional benift of making way for new talent, because those not good enough to be elected would have to step aside.

      I also can’t see why the one system cannot be used for both the parliament and the council’s.
      How it works should form part of the school curriculum.

      Hopefully we don’t have to concern ourselves with the horrendous FPTP system Westminster cleave to as Scotland won’t be voting in those elections ever again.

      RE …The suspected Troll’s, won’t it be fun to find out, when the history of this is written,the who,the why and the how of it all.

    154. Robert Peffers says:

      @James Caithness says: 9 April, 2017 at 8:14 pm:

      ” … Not to be pedantic but would just like to say Robert that I joined the Royal Navy as a 15 year old at HMS Ganges. At that time the Royal Navy did not swear an oath of allegience to the Queen. Royal perogative.
      I would like to also say that one of those daft reality programmes about the Royal Navy in the last year the recruits did swear some kind of oath, BUT in my timewe did not.”

      I was an Industrial Civil Servant with the Admiralty and began my service in 1952. I had more than 50 years service and several times had to sign, “The official Secrets Act”, which contains allegiance to The Queen.

      Also the National Service was still in force and I was briefly called up and spent a brief spell in Korea. That war was 1950 to 1953, When civilians signed on in any service it included allegiance to the Queen.

      How did you manage to join the services without signing on?

    155. Robert Louis says:

      Capella,

      I think you make a good point, and perhaps that is Westminster’s greatest fear, they simply cannot control the media regarding brexit, whilst also trying to control the media regarding Scottish independence – even with a phalanx of civil servants and spooks.

      Hopefully this will turn out to be the case.

    156. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Handandshrimp –

      🙂

      Cavey!

      That’s the dude I was thinking of.

      He was alright, eh? Had a sense of humour, and was always promising to deliver the definitive case for BTUKOK.

      Come back Cavey!

    157. Robert Peffers says:

      @Lenny Hartley says: 9 April, 2017 at 9:34 pm:

      James Caithness re Rn swearing an oath to the Queen. Thanks for mentioning that, one of my mates was in the RN early sixties and he is adamant he never swore an Oath to her, I’ve often called his memory into question. But now I’ll let him off the hook!”

      I’m sorry to tell you, and him, that he did. You cannot join any service without, “Signing on”, and that contains allegiance to the Crown.

      If memory serves it used to called, “Taking the Queen’s Shilling”. Way back in the days of the Press Gangs it was considered to be legal to abduct someone as crew members by them accepting a coin with the monarch’s head on it.

    158. Flower of Scotland says:

      Robert Peffers

      Keep your head down and keep on doing what you’re doing! Thanks.

    159. crazycat says:

      @ Lenny Hartley/James Caithness

      According to Wikipedia (which as we all know is not infallible) – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom) :

      Armed forces

      All persons enlisting in the British Armed Forces are required to attest to the following oath or equivalent affirmation:
      I… swear by Almighty God (do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals (admirals / air officers) and officers set over me.

      Until recently no oath of allegiance was sworn by members of the Royal Navy,[25] which is not maintained under an Act of Parliament but by the royal prerogative.

      My bold – that seems to be the relevant bit re the RN. (James C mentioned Royal Prerogative in his post.)

    160. James Barr Gardner says:

      Robert Peffers says:
      10 April, 2017 at 12:07 am

      If memory serves it used to called, “Taking the Queen’s Shilling”.

      As a young man I took the Queen’s Shilling in 1971, the actual shilling was dated 1971. After the Auld Queen passes on, all these oaths are water under the bridge.

      The sooner the ties are cut from the Corrupt City of Westminster the better! Meantime let’s sort out the corrupt councils in our cities and towns. Vote SNP, Vote for Scotland!

      Many Thanks Mr Peffers for all your wise words and council.

    161. Robert Peffers says:

      @Flower of Scotland says: 10 April, 2017 at 12:16 am:
      “Robert Peffers
      Keep your head down and keep on doing what you’re doing! Thanks.”

      I’ve been far too long a political activist and for too long on the internet to get upset by loony yoonies.

      Especially those, Oh! so subtle ones, like we have had here for the past few days.

      They remind me of that long series of seaside postcards. With the big elephant, rather large lady and the wee shilpit naff o a man.

      Always the same characters but different punch lines. The large lady would say something along the lines of, “Ignore it and it will go away”. Or perhaps, “Don’t just stand there – Do Something”. The wee man usually said nothing.

    162. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Robert Peffers –

      It may not be possible to ascertain precisely why you’re being targeted, but I hope Rev Stu is taking note.

      IMO, it’s already become unacceptably vindictive.

    163. Sandy says:

      RE British civil service/forces oath. How can a Scotsman/woman swear allegiance to a queen that does not exist?

    164. Still Positive says:

      Ian Brotherhood @ 1.06

      Agree totally. Robert is targeted because he speaks the truth and the reality of this dysfunctional union.

    165. Hamish100 says:

      The brexit gang want to leave the EU in order to be more powerful yet Johnston is told to stay in England so the USa tells it what it’s foreign policy is. Farage must be proud as a little Englander.The all powerful are a sideshow.

    166. Al Dossary says:

      To back up Effijy’s statement about the TV series “Homeland”. The latest season season 6) is chilling in it’s depiction of the Alt – “deep state” and the manipulation of the media.

      This show is well worth watching – try Kodi and one of its all-in-one streaming builds if you wish to see it (I use a build called the Wookie). Google / youtube are your friend for the setup.

      There certainly is, certainly has been and certainly will be in future, state interference our country’s politics. The MSM sing from one, common hymn sheet – Always!

      Again two things of note that stuck in my mind from the BBC Scotland radio series on the rise of Scottish Nationalism that was rebroadcast in 2014.

      1. The gentleman in the 1950s who had decided to join the SNP. A few weeks after joining he was confronted by his father – the local police Sergeant was a family friend who had told the father.

      2. Another gentleman who at the same time was an active Student in Edinburgh (around the time of the post box bombings) reckoned that on more than one occasion he had been approached by what he thought to be government agent provocateurs, deliberately planting seeds of such acts – saying they had access to explosives etc.

      Meandering post a little now – I see that some 8 or so former Labour councillors in North Lanarkshire are to stand as “Independant Alliance” candidates. So in the absence of a blue Tory / Red Tory alliance I would assume that thus group intends to keep the SNP out of NLC by coalition.

      Included in the group is a certain Sam Love. The same Sammy Love who was trailing round the doors in Coltness, Wishaw telling pensioners that they would lose their pension if they voted Yes in 2014.

      https://mars.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/egenda/public/main.pl?op=ListPoliticalPartyMembers&keyid=8

    167. Still Positive says:

      I see the Labour Party are peddling the myth that over 60s will lose their bus passes to try and win in Glasgow.

      Totally shameful.

    168. Shinty says:

      Robert Peffers

      I’ve never taken the time to thank you.

      Thank you for having the patience to debunk all the shit that appears on here from time to time.
      Thank you most profoundly for the education on Scotland’s sovereignty/constitution/monarchy etc. Certainly been an eye opener for me over these past few years.

    169. Liz g says:

      Ian Brotherhood @ 1.06
      Totally agree Ian,the targeted goading and insults to Robert Peffers is indeed unacceptable.
      He is a reader and poster just like everyone else and does not deserve to be singled out like this.
      Doesn’t matter that he can stand up for himself,what matters is that it has become impossible to even debate or explore a point with him as you don’t want to be perceived (not by Robert) as attacking him as well, or worse giving these people ammunition.
      It’s every day now too or at least it feels like it.
      I do hope it is being noticed by the Rev, although I can’t see that he could do much about it,they seem to be breeding.

    170. Andy Anderson says:

      Good to read all your comments.
      My view is that the next referendum will be a hard fight based on the views of the people I know. In every case apart from one their views are totally clouded by years of media distortion. I have had success but it is a long term gentle project. Start to convert now.
      The one friend I know who is a No and Leave has the union flag through his body like lettering in seaside rock.
      Good article Stu. I had a similar type of article in the National a couple of weeks ago.

    171. Sandy says:

      Andy Anderson.
      Is it the same Andy I met on the Edinburgh-Inverness bus a couple of years ago, making your way to meet your parents on the west?

    172. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      Judge, if peffers and heed are the same person I think I’d feel admiration for his remarkable talent rather than any annoyance. There are no hallmarks that either share in their writing style.

    173. Skintybroko says:

      Robert Peffers – I enjoy reading your posts, particularly on our history, as for being a troll, well good on you the unionist blogs must be sick of the sight of you 😉

    174. Col says:

      I showed this to my boss and explained it in short to him. He was flabbergasted to say the least lol

    175. Col says:

      I really don’t understand why the SNP don’t use the same tactics against their rivals sometimes. Repeat… We are a net exporter, our neighbour has a huge trade deficit, we are energy and food production rich to the point of being in surplus. And keep repeating. They need us more than we need them

    176. Robert Louis says:

      Ian Brotherhood and others at 0106 am, and later,

      Totally agree. It is becoming obvious that their is a vindictive targetting of RP going on. It needs stopped. It is unacceptable.

    177. Ken500 says:

      Every clerk in the Civil Service had to sign a version of the Official Secrets Act. It was thought quite amusing at the time. Not now. Politicians become Privy councillors. One way of ensuring they are held in. One of the reason SNP ministers cannot speak out. The way some folk would want them to do so. BBC etc. They would brake the Ministerial Code of conduct. Ie because people voted NO.

      The SNP Gov for the whole of Scotland (within the UK reservations). They are not only an SNP Gov but the Gov for the whole of Scotland. So they cannot make too much comment, as some people would want them to on devolved matters. They have to respect a majority voted NO. Even after the lying, cheating and criminality of Unionists. The decision had to be respected. Not much respect coming back though.

      Having to swear an oath to the Queen must hold back diversity in many professions. Police, civil service etc. It could discriminate among communities or religions who do not want to swear allegiance to a Monarch or royalty for various reasons. Even those who take citizenship have to take some kind of Oath. A bit outdated. The UK is a secular place, so why all the swearing of oaths and improper surveillance. Breaking the Law and human rights of people. Criminalising people. Who have done nothing wrong. Becoming more of a Police State and a dictatorship. They can even spy on people illegally through their phones and TV. It is just disgusting. Costs a fortune which could be better spent. Governments breaking the Law.

      The Royals commemorating 1WW should apologise for what their direct descendants had done. The part they played in 1WW. The European royal families dominated by the British Royals, Queen Victoria’s (German connections) daughters and grandson’s and their inter rivalries started and caused 1WW. The ‘divine right to rule’. The millions who tragically died. It finished off most of the Royal dynasty in Europe. The lose of millions of lives from sickness too. The flu endemic after the War. An apology would not go amiss instead of gloating and glorifying in it, and illegal wars. They should be stopping it. Not trying to extend conflict. Like Westminster criminal politicians do. Manipulative liars.They are responsible for the worse migration crisis since the 11WW and are in total denial.

      The Russian saved the West in the 11WW. 26million died. The Russian President should be invited to any commemoration and thanked. Instead of Westminster and the West rewriting History. Dan Snow’s great grandfather Lloyd George (no universal Suffrage) was responsible for the Partition of Ireland and the Balfour Agreement. Led to two of the most bloody conflicts ever. He should apologise as well. Married to the sister of the wealthiest man in Britain. Tax evaders. They should apologise as well and pay their taxes. Not be above the Law. Untold greed. Swearing allegiance to Royals and the State but not paying their rightful way. Hypocrites in every way. A wealthy hypocrite with all the funeral rites of religion. The State taking away people’s right to dignity even in death. The State/Royals get all the money if people die instate, without a will.

    178. Robert Louis says:

      Col at 0639 am,

      In many ways I agree with you. Although the media is biased against them, I have seen too many interviews where they have failed to really nail the lies, and instead get drawn into convoluted nonsense. Their are also a few from the SNP who seem eager to participate in debates and interviews but honestly they are NOT very good at it. Other political parties closely control who speaks, but with the SNP it sometimes seems like it is a case of anybody who puts their hand up first.

      I honestly think their are some in the Scot Gov/SNP who really urgently need media training – including some within the cabinet.

      We are up against media specialists who work for unionists, and it is time for the SNP to really up their game.

    179. bjsalba says:

      @Still Positive
      Not just bus passes and pensions, but other things too. Up here in the Highlands the current rumour is that money from Highland Council taxes is going to the Central Belt.

      I have not been able to didentify which yoon party is peddling this pap – could be any of them.

    180. Robert Louis says:

      Ken500 at 0705am,

      That is a good comment, but I disagree with some. The SNP Gov does not need to keep silent on things because people voted NO. Westminster doesn’t, and nor should they.

      Of course the FM has to adhere to the ministerial code, but these things are not absolutes. Of course they could speak out.

      I have said this before and I’ll say it again, the SNP needs to stop being so obedient to these supposed ‘rules’, because their opponents certainly do not respect them. They should be shaking things up, not letting bad things happen to Scotland.

      Westminster, I assure you will never let Scotland easily have independence, so their will come a point when the SNP will either have to do as London says, or make a stand.

      As John Paul Getty junior (I think) was once reported to have said, “The meek shall inherit the earth..but they won’t inherit it’s mineral rights”.

    181. Ken500 says:

      Do some folk live in a cave, The SNP never never stop saying about the economy and how it has done. Under various administrations. The tax situation etc. Alex Salmibd and Co gave bern telling folk for over forty years. People would not listen. M15 and the Westminster Gov made a good job of telling lies and kept details hidden under the Officials Secrets Act. Alex Salmond and Co discovered the McCrone Report and git it releaed. Alex Salmond would have been one of the first one’s to know about the (hidden) Oil revenues etc as an economist at the RBS who gathered all the data. The SNP have been telling the truth of what was going on. People would not listen.

      Thatcher played a good part in the cover up. A major part. One of her Ministers resigned, Lang and Fordyth colluded in the cover up. So did Labour Healey, Benn, Livingstone, Brown, Blair etc.still ar it when they should be in jail. It wasn’t till Devolution 2000. That there were any comparative figures. Still confused to deceive. Westminster was acting illegally and criminally Then keeping it secret under the Official Secrets Act. They still do. They are doing it now. Trying to deceive the people. They don’t get away with it so much now because of the internet. People can find out and share what they are doing,

    182. Conan the Librarian says:

      The BBC are desperately promoting how much “we” export to China this morning.

      By train…

    183. McDuff says:

      Robert Louis

      I agree with your post.
      The SNP are too passive and need to show a more determined spirit.

    184. just catching up.
      Of course Unionists prefer FPTP at UK Level and any form of PR STV Up Here .It is indeed ‘the best of both worlds’, if you are Davidson, Dugdale or Rennie.
      The Blue Tories are implementing the most vicious attacks on our children, women, especially rape victims, pensioners, disabled, the infirm, and sick, unemployed, low paid, and families with three or more children, since the Welfare State was formed.
      This they are able to do at UK level because of the perversity of FPTP, the cuts felt more brutally in Scotland, because yet again we are ‘ruled’ by a party and a political, economic and social English agenda for which we did not vote.
      The 85% will always beat down the 15%,every time.
      We have been used as a Social experiment many time, like a Petrie dish in a laboratory.
      All day pub licences, Sunday Trading, the Poll Tax, the Smoking Ban, alcohol ban at football matches, were all ‘tried out’ Up Here before ‘national’ implementation.
      The 15% stood helplessly by while England did what it liked with Scotland, aided and willingly abetted by 53 Unionist MPs, until the last UK GE that is.
      Despite having 56 Independence MP’s returned in 2015, nothing changed. The 85% will dominate, and the 15% continued to be ground into the dirt. Fuck You , Scotland, you are a colony subject to the whim of the Motherland.
      Of course, any form of PR/ STV suits the Unionists Up Here.
      With the muscle of the Big Parties in the Motherland, the Red Blue and Yellow Tories Up Here, do not need to ‘win’ in Scotland.
      They only need a system like the present option, to garner enough placemen, and dim but nice political also-rans, and an accommodating English/US owned media and propaganda machine, to ensure that Davidson Dugadale and Rennie get maximum coverage, and any form of Self Deteremination, and the ‘will of the Scottish People’ is smothered in lies propaganda distortions and threats.
      The Unionist Parties don’t need to win a majority in Holyrood now.
      The Iron Heel of the Right Wing English Establishment has kicked in since Brexit.
      Scotland will do as it’s told. NO more democracy. You voted NO in 2014, and that’s that for ever.
      ‘Do you want Scotland to be an Independent country, or its citizens to remain slaves as a colony ruled by a foreign Government for ever?’
      Even if we vote YES the next time, I doubt that London and the Establishment will let go of their Post Imperial grip without an almighty tussle.
      The Yoons know that their days are numbered now.

    185. Ken500 says:

      The SNP Gov have to govern for the whole of Scotland not just on party political grounds. It is illegal . They have to do the honourable way. Or they could be accused of hypocracy. They are anyway. They have to govern to the mandate they are given.

      If folk do not like it they should campaign for FPTP and Independence. Instead of continually criticising the SNP. Especially publically. I.e cutting off their nose to spite their face. The SNP is the only major Party that can deliver. In the biggest battle for Scotland’s life. It’s very existence is being put in jeopardy by Westminster crooks and their associates. Criminal tax evasion, illegal wars, banking fraud etc.

      It is a major fight and strife against the powers of darkness. Why for pity’s sake do like minded folk not join the SNP, and join the fight. Put their money where their mouth is. Where their commitment is supposed to lie. Instead of sitting on the side lines, griping like ‘little red hens’. Expecting other folk to do all the work for them, Doing the heavy lifting for them while they receive the benefits.

      Get real folks. Are you in it to win it or not? Plastic (seems to be the buzz word right now) on the sidelines. or not. Join the SNP. Get all the information out there. 2/3 hours every 2 to three minths. Not much efffort for a determined Indepenista? Or do folk what the get out clause. It disnae suit. They are so special. Individualism never got a movement anywhere. United you stand. Divided you fall. A prima donna not at all. Get stuck in there. Or stop moaning and complaining. In it to win it or not? Get campaigning in any way possible.

      Get in there and pay your dues. Get campaigning and stop crapping like a plastic on the sidelines. Get real. You know you want to?

    186. Grouse Beater says:

      SKY’s Adam Boulton reminds us England is boss: http://wp.me/p4fd9j-iY

    187. jdman says:

      The Judge?
      My message to Wingers regarding Peffers:

      “Ignore the Bore”

      Or we could always just ignore you!

    188. Ken500 says:

      Sorry about any typos. On the phone. Device given out.

      Had to laugh at the Tories propaganda. Another £2Billion exports to China. A drop in the ocean. A slow boat to China. China imports £Billions to the UK. Trillions worldwide and has an extremely protectionist market which only the EU has any chance of breaking. Westminster crooks have less insight than a panda on industrial stage or foreign matters. Clueless. Fallon the total incompetent looks like he is on the drink as well. Taking the UK on the brink of the damaging Brexit disaster Trying for an International war as a diversion. ‘Psycho bastards’ off their rockers and totally out of their depth. All at sea. Trying to keep afloat. Deja Vue.

    189. Orri says:

      To clear up something.

      The Declaration of Arbroath sets up Scotland as a Constitutional monarchy. However it’s more of a presidency for life deal. In the Kingdom of England they pretend some form of Divine Right imbues the monarchy with all the power they then proudly usurp. It’s all a bit contradictory.

      In Scotland our monarch is in chains as seen in the depiction of our unicorn collared with a golden crown and leashed with a good linked chain.

      Swearing an oath to the Queen in Scotland and possibly Westminster or even on MoD property counts as swearing allegiance to the people of Scotland whom she represents.

      Also there’s a tad of missunderstanding about the role of Presiding Officer. He has no power to block anything. He advises both before a debate and afterwards if a decision is made. Holyrood could, pointlessly, declare Scotland independent.

      The thing getting knickers in a twist is that the form of words proposed prior to the previous referendum still works. A referendum asking the sovereign people of Scotland to empower Holyrood to negotiate independence does not alter the UK Constitution.

    190. ronnie anderson says:

      @ jdman Thank christ yer back , unlock that Toy box there’s plenty Trolls tae go in it.

    191. Breeks says:

      I think there is a much healthier and broader awareness of Scotland’s constitional history and all its significance this time around compared to 2014.

      We have a First Minister making a direct challenge to Westminster and quoting reference to the sovereign people of Scotland. You never heard that in 2014, or at least I didn’t.

      Much of what I have learned has come from Wings and Mr Peffers, for which I am eternally grateful.

      Sovereignty, and by that I mean awareness of Scotland’s inalienable sovereignty being enshrined with the people, is going to be the real game changer. The fact that Mr Peffers now has a pet smear-troll rather implies that the significance of Scotland’s constitutional sovereignty is now beginning to register with the Unionists, and quite clearly it’s alarming knowledge they want to suppress.

      You’re too slow trolls. Scotland is waking up and re-examining things that have been taken for granted and there is nothing Unionism can do to airbrush the truth.

      Scotland has a taste for the truth, a nose for propaganda, it hears a calling for change, and it sees a brighter tomorrow.

      The funny smell is unionism shitting itself.

    192. BBC Scotland Tells Lies says:

      Message from the BBC today is Russia Bad.

    193. Bill McLean says:

      I look forward to reading posts from Robert Peffers every day – and others of course! Keep it up Robert – ignore the ignorant and arrogant and bad mannered, they have trouble with truth.

    194. cearc says:

      Mornin, jdman.

      Hey, maybe Heedy is Robert’s wee papillon?

    195. Dorothy Devine says:

      heedtracker, and the best rowies came fae Rhynie too!

    196. DerekM says:

      @ Effijy and others

      It has just happened youtube just stopped the advert payments to alternative news and content channels.

      This was why we got all that fake news stuff coming out the fake news MSM to set up a way to remove access to funding,the claim is the advertisers are upset their adverts are being shown on these channels,yea right like an advertiser has ever been fussy where the ads get shown.

      Too many folks putting 2 and 2 together and making 4 and making good videos about it, in among all the pap that is disinformation from spooks and MSM.

      Though if i was a crowdfund site today i would be dancing a wee jig as i would expect my traffic to increase.

    197. @ breeks says:

      ‘ Scotland has a taste for the truth, a nose for propaganda, it hears a calling for change, and it sees a brighter tomorrow.

      Nice, not so bad yourself at the posting yourself Breeks.

    198. Golfnut says:

      @ Orri.

      The ‘ Declaration of Arbroath ‘ was was accepted by the highest court in Chistendom ( basically Europe ), therefor it is relevant in international law, unlike the ‘Magna Carta’ which was rejected.

    199. Ken500 says:

      Why are AOP travel (bus) passes not allowed (off peak) on the Trams? They paid for it. Instead of being classed as 2nd class citizens. The Trams under utilised and running under capacity at off peak times. More buses having to be run. More emissions. Edinburgh the wealthiest City in Scotland with subsidised transport. In rural areas, like Rhynie people have to drive because there are less buses.

    200. mike cassidy says:

      I wouldn’t worry about the Honourable Mr. Peffers.

      He lives in Kelty ffs – and will rip a new one for any troll who cares to cross his path.

    201. heedtracker says:

      Dorothy Devine says:
      10 April, 2017 at 8:56 am
      heedtracker, and the best rowies came fae Rhynie too!

      The Rhynierowie.com.

      SO homesick.

    202. Socrates MacSporran says:

      I am playing catch-up this morning, after a busy weekend, so, apologies if any of this is going over old ground.

      I noticed in their coverage of the Vimy Ridge/Battle of Arras commemorations in France yesterday, some more less-than-subtle UKOK stuff from the BBC.

      A heavy concentration on the Duke of Rothesay and his two sons participating in the Vimy Ridge events – nothing against that, my late wife was half-Canadian and I have Canadian cousins of my own, and, the presence of kilted Canadian regiments reinforces Scotland’s ties with Canada.

      The Arras events were somewhat down-played by the BBC, probably because, this was primarily a Scottih battle. The Moderator was not, in any footage I saw, identified as such, while Nicola was mentioned, but I didn’t see her on-screen.

      Certainly Vice Admiral Tim Laurence laid a wreath at Arras, but, it strikes me as a case of the Scottish ceremony got a Second Team royal (by marriage), while the Canadian one got three of the First Team.

      You would almost think, at times, The Establishment wants shot of us for some reason.

    203. Breeks says:

      Orri I’m sure we’ve had the conversation before, pleasant and good natured I might add, about the symbolism of chains on the Heraldic Scottish Unicorn.

      I remain sure the chains reflect the the Unicorn being a mythical beast that dies without its freedom and cannot be held captive against its will. The inference I have always drawn is that the chains, when drawn or carved correctly, are meant to be broken, or at least open ended, to signify the Unicorn is there in the coat of arms by its own free will. The chains do not restrict the captured Unicorn, quite the reverse, they articulate the contrary message that the beast cannot properly be chained. ( a subtle message that would not be adequately communicated by a symbolic absence of chains, however the presence of a collar and broken chain implies people have tried to hold the Unicorn captive but all have failed).

      That interpretation I would hope you agree does chime with a Scottish popular sovereignty which cannot be bound by a superior (UK Parliamentary) sovereignty.

      I understand and agree the Unicorn wears the crown of Scotland, symbolic of the Scottish monarchy, but that symbolism is not incompatible with a Unicorn that can never be chained symbolising the sovereignty which can never be subjugated.

      Whenever I see the chains commonly referring to a dangerous beast that has to be held by chains, what I see is our mythical symbolic creature becoming merely a wild horse with a horn. Something is missing. It seems too literal for heraldry, where messages and symbols were often cryptic and ambiguous, sometimes on pain of death if the truth, or joke, was rumbled.

      Our appreciation of our national Unicorn has been gently anglicised I believe.

      To look at it from the opposite perspective, why would the Unicorn symbolic in the Royal coat of arms, meant to signify a Union of two equals, why would it be chained as if on a leash? If the symbolism was compulsion or a lack of volition, wouldn’t the Unicorn be bowed or servile in posture? Isn’t a lion on the dexter side just as dangerous and unruly? Why isn’t it, or indeed the Welsh dragon ever depicted in chains? Why too is the Unicorn still with chains when it isn’t in the Royal coat of arms, but set apart in other heraldry, all by itself signifying Scotland alone?

    204. call me dave says:

      Been lurking on the golf channels for the weekend so missed all the fuss from the ‘old ghost’ from the Sunday Post.

      Don’t worry Mr Peffers many here enjoy your posts and I’m sure you’ll continue to be a welcome addition to the Scottish push for independence. 🙂

      PS:

      Jings environmentalists say that Shell’s plan to decommission the Brent rigs are illegal. They don’t have a leg to stand on…Oh wait!

    205. heedtracker says:

      Dorothy Devine says:
      10 April, 2017 at 8:56 am
      heedtracker, and the best rowies came fae Rhynie too!

      If Mr Peffers is going to be miffed about anything, its being bundled in with an idiot like me, by yoon dingdongs like that one.

      Sorry Rab, no one who reads your amazing btl commenting, ever makes that error:D

    206. Breeks says:

      I forgot to add, the Unicorn is also mythologically linked to purity and virginity.

      Something that cannot be captured, because once it is captured, it is gone.

    207. Brian Powell says:

      Socrates MacSporran

      At the battle of Arras there were 44 Scottish Battalions and 7 Canadian Battalions and was one of the ‘successful’ battles of the big attacks. So does seem strange not to show it.

    208. heedtracker says:

      Socrates MacSporran

      Vimy Ridge/Battle of Arras commemorations in Canada, are of huge importance to Canadians. Canadian state sends young Canadians to Vimy Ridge.

      http://www.vimyfoundation.ca/significance-of-vimy-ridge/

    209. cearc says:

      Whoops, look likely that the toast will land marmite-side down!

      https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-07/london-or-rotterdam-unilever-set-to-test-may-s-brexit-strategy

      Mmm, marmite on toast, kitchen here I come.

    210. Socrates MacSporran says:

      heedtracker

      I am all too aware of how important Vimy Ridge is to Canadians. my late Canadian father-in-law (one of the original Canadian ice hockey players in Scotland, who stayed-on) made me know about its importance. (As an aside, he survived the Dieppe Raid in WWII).

      I would never down-play the importance of remembering Vimy Ridge, my point was – since Charles, William and Harry were all in that part of France, surely one of them could have been sent to the Arras events. And, certainly, I felt the BBC was not that keen to show the Scottish event.

    211. heedtracker says:

      Scotland should do this too. There are several other Canadian pilgrimages like this one.

      http://www.vimyfoundation.ca/programs/vimy-pilgrimage-award/

    212. heedtracker says:

      Socrates MacSporran says:
      10 April, 2017 at 10:20 am
      heedtracker

      I am all too aware of how important Vimy Ridge is to Canadians.

      I know but I wasn’t. Its just this year, Canadian cousins told me about one of them going to Vimy Ridge, in those words and I had no real idea what it meant, as a pilgrimage, or commemoration, to them, or much of a clue about what Vimy Ridge actually was in WW1.

      Is my point.

    213. ianbeag says:

      Nana – come back, we need your links!

    214. Flower of Scotland says:

      Robert Peffers

      Obviously someone (Unionist) doesn’t like your history lessons and the truth is frightening for them.

      I’ve learned a lot on Wings. I’ve got lots of Wingers comments stored in my notes for future use and I do use them as ammunition in a debate.

      Most folk can spot a troll a mile off. I think it’s best to ignore them. Without oxygen they can’t survive.

    215. Robert Peffers says:

      @Sandy says: 10 April, 2017 at 1:07 am:

      “RE British civil service/forces oath. How can a Scotsman/woman swear allegiance to a queen that does not exist?”

      Oh! The Queen exists, Sandy. She is legally, “The Queen of England”, and the Kingdom of England has two British Dominions – Wales is an English Principality and N.I. is an English Province.

      She is also Elizabeth, Queen of Scots. That is she is NOT Queen of Scotland. This came about in 1320 by the “Declaration of Arbroath”, and since then the people of Scotland are legally sovereign and their monarch is accepted by them as, “Defender of the People’s Sovereignty”. In fact the Declaration of Arbroath says that if the Monarch does not defend the people’s sovereignty that the people will drive the monarch out and replace the monarch with someone who will protect their sovereignty.

      I think the purring incumbent of the job may just, by purring at the news she got from Cameron, has failed to protect the sovereign people’s sovereignty.

      However, so far we Scots have not demonstrated a majority calling for a change of protector.

      So there’s the legal facts. The Queen exists but is Queen of Scots and not sovereign of Scotland but protector of the people’s sovereignty. Here’s the bit of the Declaration that applies :-

      “Yet if he should give up what he has begun, seeking to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own right and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be subjected to the lordship of the English. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”

      Just to explain. In 1320 the Pope, at that time the international leader and legal authority of all Christendom, accepted the Declaration of Arbroath that declared Scotland an independent Kingdom and that the people were sovereign. i.e. the monarch was their appointed leader who they declared they could replace. Note: It does not say they would not have another leader who would defend them – now who do we know who has done that job very well over the years since Westminster set itself up as the de facto parliament of England?

    216. Brian Powell says:

      I believe it was in 1804 that the Soldier’s Act was brought to Parliament, it was defeat by a few votes.

      The Act was introduced by Scottish Parliamentarians to stop Scottish troops being used in England’s wars, basically to not be drawn into the war with Napoleon.

      So I’m not sure Scotland should commemorate Arras unless it is to highlight Scots have been fighting in England’s wars for centuries.

      The Gibraltarians said they stopped being British in the 1980s when they started teach Gibralter’s history instead of British history.

    217. Robert Peffers says:

      @Al Dossary says: 10 April, 2017 at 1:44 am:

      ” … I see that some 8 or so former Labour councillors in North Lanarkshire are to stand as “Independant Alliance” candidates. So in the absence of a blue Tory / Red Tory alliance I would assume that thus group intends to keep the SNP out of NLC by coalition.”

      That could be a bad thing for them, Al.

      If more than one stands in the same ward you can split their effectiveness by placing them last and second last on your paper and thus splitting their vote.

    218. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      Hmm. I didn’t really know about Vimy Ridge either. The amount of fucks I give is still zero, though.

      What’s a Canada?

    219. Robert Peffers says:

      @Col says: 10 April, 2017 at 6:39 am:

      “I really don’t understand why the SNP don’t use the same tactics against their rivals sometimes.”

      They do, Col. Thing is it doesn’t get into the papers onto the airwaves or onto our screens.

      Remember Alex Salmond taking several minutes giving a detailed answer to wee fat nic Robinson during a live Scottish Government press release for The INTERNATIONAL Press. Yet there in among the World’s press was the BBC’s wee Nic aggressively attacking Eck.

      Eck took the time to explain how Robinson was wrong. Within minutes the BBC were on the air and they showed Robinson’s aggressive attack but had edited out Eck’s long and detailed answer. Yet the BBC showed Robinson making his attack and then saying, “He didn’t answer”.

      How blatant was that? Within minutes the BBC, in spite of the World’s press showing otherwise, the BBC were demonstrating BBC and Westminster lies and bias.

      I put a YouTube clip up, as did several others, and those clips are still there on YouTube for all to see. It shows the original live footage followed by the BBC edited version.

      If you go on-line and Watch Westminster Live you will see and hear our MPs daily telling the truth during every session at Westminster and the disgraceful way they are treated by the unionist members and the openly biased and manipulative Speaker.

    220. Kennedy says:

      Robert Peffers 10:48 am

      I like your final comment and totally agree.

    221. Lang may yer lum reek Mr Peffers,

      seems to be a lot of yoons don`t realise that Queen Elizabeth will still be their monarch after Independence,

      you say

      `In 1320 the Pope, at that time the international leader and legal authority of all Christendom`,

      to be pedantic half of Christendom was Eastern Orthodox which split from western church (Pope) in 11 th Century.

    222. Orri says:

      @breeks

      That’s the point.

      Prior to the union of crowns both unicorns were chained. The lion of England came from its kings and thus represented them personally. The fact that he ruled conflates it with England.

      The unicorn was the personal symbol of an early Scots king. Think of the collar and chain like any other chain of office such as worn by a mayor or chancellor and you get the image of a servant of state.

      We could both be right though. If the country and it’s sovereign are one then, just as the English eventually did, it’s best that they are controlled. So in a time where national pride expressed itself through its leader Scotland chose to represent itself with a mighty beast controlled by a gilded chain.

      Think about it, the Declaration of Arbroath limits the King of Scots to act in service to the people. The royal arms reflect that.

      Regardless of which. Whilst the codicil “according to Law” seems quaint it adds context to even the Coronation Oath the Queen took. In all the UK, Commonwealth and Dominions she reigns within the limits of the law within each.

      Fun times to be had when the First Minister uses her power to advise the Sovereign to withhold Royal Assent as her Prerogative on devolved matters. Westminster may very well legislate on devolved issues but it’s not clear if it can enact that legislation with impunity. Certainly legislation that can simply be countered by Holyrood undoing anything still within its power is pointless.

      The assumption behind the Sewell Convention has to be that consent will be granted so any legislation by Westminster is more of a convenience than an imposition. Remember the previous SNP administration stood on a mandate to increase devolution so any such transfer was with the backing of Scotland.

    223. Meg merrilees says:

      Robert P –

      Some people don’t like the truth.
      These tedious people don’t like it when you have a strong point that is completely opposed to their lies and false arguments and some people are plain ignorant. They can only reply with derogatory comments.

      Please don’t be intimidated by their rudeness and insulting posts. We need you on WOS. Your articles are always informative, logically explained and absolute gold dust in our fight for the future of THIS precious country.

      What’s more, there will be someone each day who is reading our history for the first time and standing a little bit taller as a result. I’ve used your information in countless discussions with south british folk-especially to counter the “UK is composed of 4 equal nations” argument. They are usually gob-smacked as it finally dawns on them that Scotland is not a part of England!!!

      MORE POWER TO YOUR ELBOW, MAN!

      Thankyou.

    224. Robert Peffers says:

      @heedtracker says: 10 April, 2017 at 10:05 am:

      “Sorry Rab, no one who reads your amazing btl commenting, ever makes that error:D”

      Well no! heedtracker – in Scotland everyone, except the monarchy, are equals.

      We, being legally sovereign, have only the monarch as our subject. While in England everyone is the monarchy’s subjects.

      Of course by the, “Glorious Revolution”, the English monarchy have legally delegated their sovereignty to the Parliament whose members are, theoretically, elected by the people of England who are legally subjects of the Monarch and thus are subjects of the people they elected to parliament.

      Seems a bit convoluted to me but the strange thing is that none of these things are written as a constitution for the United Kingdom and thus the sovereign of England owns the three country Kingdom of England and all who sail in her but the monarch cannot use her sovereign powers unless the parliament she owns allows her to do so. Yet, in practice it seems the Parliamentarians have assumed they are everyone’s masters including over the people of Scotland.

    225. caz-m says:

      The Beeb and English establishment really going after Russia.

      All good for Scottish Independence

    226. Macart says:

      Just back from a couple of days away with Mrs M and clocked the thread.

      Robert Peffers is one of the good guys in my book and I’ll be the one who decides what and who I find interesting or relevant.

      No one else.

    227. Fred says:

      Very good long-letter in the National today anent the Syria bombing. A guy named Hinnrichs from Dundee, always worth reading!

    228. Sandy says:

      Robert P. @ 10.48am.
      I appreciate your answer & was acutely aware of many of the details which you politely set out, obtained from many of your previous posts. Many thanks.
      However, my remark was rather tongue-in-cheek. She does exist as Elizabeth 11 in England &, by your previous posts, also Wales & N. Ireland. Am I correct?
      My sympathies go out to those who lost relatives in WW1 & WW2 , of whom I am one of many & it was heart-warming, in an odd way, to see how they are not forgotten, as shown by those at the ceremonies in France yesterday.
      However, on a lighter note, one of the speakers was a certain member of royalty who predecessors were largely responsible for the carnage of WW1. Where the h**l did he get all these medals. I thought “Kellogs” had given up handing these out years ago. At least he had the decency to wear civilian clothes.

    229. louis.b.argyll says:

      Meg merrilees says:11:41 am
      Robert P –

      Some people don’t like the truth.
      These tedious people don’t like it when you have a strong point that is completely opposed to their lies

      Aye, they don’t like it up ’em.

    230. tamson says:

      That’s a really depressing poll finding, and for me reinforces why people should back off on using the term “list MSP” as a form of abuse. Fact is, FPTP is an awful system, and other parties – especially the Tories – are exploiting voters’ general disinterest and ignorance of systems.

      The current FM was a list MSP for 8 years. In fact most current senior SNP MSPs started out on the lists. I don’t recall any SNP supporters back then criticising the system.

      By all means criticise the selection method for list MSPs, but not the lists themselves. I’d prefer the German system where list MSPs are simply picked from the party’s best runner-ups in the region’s constituency vote. And remember that doesn’t necessary mean they have less legitimacy than constituency MSPs: the SNP runner-up in Edinburgh West did better than the Tory winner in Edinburgh Central, for example (another flaw of FPTP).

      This way, Anas Sarwar couldn’t sneak in, and the hopeless Annie Wells wouldn’t have got in either, at least 3 other Glasgow Tory constituency candidates did better than her.

    231. Robert Peffers says:
      9 April, 2017 at 11:51 pm
      @James Caithness says: 9 April, 2017 at 8:14 pm:

      ” … Not to be pedantic but would just like to say Robert that I joined the Royal Navy as a 15 year old at HMS Ganges. At that time the Royal Navy did not swear an oath of allegience to the Queen. Royal perogative.
      I would like to also say that one of those daft reality programmes about the Royal Navy in the last year the recruits did swear some kind of oath, BUT in my timewe did not.”

      I was an Industrial Civil Servant with the Admiralty and began my service in 1952. I had more than 50 years service and several times had to sign, “The official Secrets Act”, which contains allegiance to The Queen.

      Also the National Service was still in force and I was briefly called up and spent a brief spell in Korea. That war was 1950 to 1953, When civilians signed on in any service it included allegiance to the Queen.

      How did you manage to join the services without signing on?

      =====================================================

      Robert, I served, and never swore an oath to the queen. Your advise a lot of people to google things. You should google this. I NEVER swore an oath of allegience as those in the RN weren’t required to. I don’t care if you were a civil servant, YOU weren’t in the Royal Navy.

    232. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)

      Robert scroll down to the paragraph headed ”ARMED FORCES”.

    233. Just been reading through some of the posts reference Robert Peffers being targetted. Please do not lump me in with those attacks. I support Robert Peffers and read his posts with interests and have learned quite a bit from those posts.

      My point is I served in Royal Navy and corrected Robert Peffers on one issue only. That I and anyone in the RN did not swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen, he disagreed, he was wrong and I corrected his mistake.

    234. QUOTE

      Armed forces[edit]
      All persons enlisting in the British Armed Forces are required to attest to the following oath or equivalent affirmation:

      I… swear by Almighty God (do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals (admirals / air officers) and officers set over me.

      Until recently no oath of allegiance was sworn by members of the Royal Navy,[25] which is not maintained under an Act of Parliament but by the royal prerogative.

      UNQUOTE



    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. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top