The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

What you wish for

Posted on April 14, 2019 by

The Conservatives’ disastrous handling of, and failure to deliver, Brexit seems to have finally begun to hurt them in the polls, with a clutch of recent stats showing Labour with a significant lead for the first time in many months.

Most seat projections on the numbers show Labour failing to reach a majority either on their own or with the Lib Dems, but being able to get Jeremy Corbyn in to Downing Street with the assistance of an increased number of SNP MPs.

But then what?

Because it’s assumed by many independence supporters that the SNP would demand Holyrood be given the power to hold a second indyref as the price of making Corbyn PM. Indeed, given the Scottish Government’s lack of action on establishing any other legal route to doing so, it appears to be the SNP’s only actual strategy.

But reading the papers this morning a rather alarming thought occurred to us: what if Corbyn faced them down?

Imagine that Labour were to offer the SNP a second EU referendum in return for their support, but no second indyref. Having so vigorously committed themselves to a “People’s Vote”, the SNP would risk getting the blame for Brexit if they turned the offer down, something which could hurt them badly in Scotland.

(The extent of that damage shouldn’t be overstated – it might win back a chunk of the 500,000 voters who deserted them in 2017, roughly the same proportion of SNP supporters who voted Leave – but it would almost certainly be enough to scupper any chance of a pro-indy Holyrood majority.)

An indecisive election which led to yet more political chaos would enrage voters both in Scotland and the UK, and it’d be the Nats who copped most of the flak, both from Remainers and left-wing voters who want independence but would still prefer a Corbyn UK government to a Tory one in the meantime.

We wrote earlier this week that we thought the SNP’s unambiguous backing for a PV on Brexit (rather than its previous agnostic position) was a mistake both strategically and literally – ie that it came about by accident. That’s an opinion. But what surely can’t be disputed is that throwing their lot in completely with the PVers makes it very hard for them to refuse any deal that offered one.

Of course, there are a lot of ifs in the above. We still don’t think there’s actually going to be a general election, because on those numbers it would be suicide for the Tories. But we said that the last time (and we were right), but it happened anyway.

Even if there IS an election, it’s very far from certain that Labour would campaign on a manifesto for a second EU vote. If they did and the election came out in line with the current projections, it’s certainly also arguable whether they’d risk losing the chance of power just to stop Scotland having another indyref, which ultimately costs Labour very little whatever the outcome.

But the mere thought of the scenario made us uncomfortable, so now we’re making you uncomfortable with it too, because sometimes life’s just rotten that way.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 14 04 19 14:56

      What you wish for | speymouth

    547 to “What you wish for”

    1. Mikey2407 says:

      The SNP could argue that a supply and confidence arrangement would be dependent upon the government granting a 2nd IndyRef . Otherwise they could support the new Labour admin as they saw fit on a vote by vote basis.

    2. HandandShrimp says:

      There are always pitfalls to any political plan. Would the temptation to be PM overcome Corbyn’s dislike of working with anyone (including Labour MPs)?

      To be honest I have no idea but a bucket load of SNP seats would get brows furrowed in Westminster, Whitehall and GCHQ. That has to be good.

    3. Andrew Gallacher says:

      What if the SNP made a confidence and supply arrangement with a minority labour government rather than being part of a coalition? Wouldn’t that allow them to back a ‘people’s vote’ and withhold support for other legislation if Corbyn refused to grant a Section 30 order?

    4. Republicofscotland says:

      I can’t say it enough I wish Sturgeon would concentrate on saving Scotland from the union, than saving the union with the EU.

      No deals, no backing of Corbyn or May that will be cast up in years to come, if were still tied to this broken union.

    5. dakk says:

      Cheers for that Stuart.

      You might be feeling even more uncomfy in an a few minutes when Derek’s Dons come up short again at Hampden.

      Actually,I have a gut feeling the law of averages means the dons might fluke this one against an ordinary Lennon managed Celtic.

    6. Col says:

      I thought it was our right to hold a referendum without the permission of anyone in Westminster??

    7. Gary45% says:

      Corbyn is obviously gaining support down south, because every time there is evidence of him doing so, the Zionist Anti- Semitism brigade start crying wolf at him. Take a wee look at the Labour members who accuse him and look at their background. Criticise anything about Israel and you will be accused of Anti-Semitism.
      I know he is clueless about Scotland, if I lived down south he would probably get my vote, but then again some of his cabinet would need to go.

    8. Muscleguy says:

      It is also possible that a Lib-Lab coalition might also be viable, even if narrowly and then assuming SNP support for many of their policies thus leaving the SNP out cold without an indyref support.

    9. Alan says:

      I don’t think the SNP would refuse. They will certainly attempt to get some kind of guarantee from Labour to hold IndyRef2 if the second EU referendum has a similar result to the first.

      But ultimately, they should support it. If Labour then refuses to allow IndyRef2, that damages them in Scotland. If the whole UK remains, then we need a fresh, string-free mandate anyway.

      By the time the smoke of EURef2 clears, it will have been six or perhaps seven years since 2014. And with two EU referendums happening in the intervening time, the concept that IndyRefs are once in a generation becomes an argument in favour of IndyRef2 rather than against.

      I do fear that we will be too close to the next Holyrood elections to use the current mandate if the UK again votes to leave. But heading into those elections after an UK government(either Tory or Lab) has ruthlessly blocked IndyRef2 either in the courts or by Westminster legislation…

    10. CameronB Brodie says:

      Though I’ve been prepared to trust the SNP’s leadership, they appear to be seeking to use the masters’ tools to dismantle the master’s house. This is not the post-colonial feminist way and threatens to disappoint. I may have just bought a dummy though, so I’ll just keep posting stuff and trust that my inalienable human rights will be protected.



      The Right to Development at a glance

      The Source of International Legal Personality in the
      21st Century

      The citizens of the Union and their rights

    11. Marcia says:

      I have read quite a number of comments of impatient shouts for a Independence referendum now. Not everyone eats and breathes politics like we do. One political event might cause a frenzy on political sites but be ignored by those not interested in politics, which is the majority of the public. It takes time for the general public to catch up with us.

      The recent polls seems to suggest that the general public are now getting up to speed with the Brexit nonsense and the Tories are suffering in the polls. Now we can see why they don’t want to hold these elections. It is the time to persuade your friends to vote and Vote SNP ( or Green as a 2nd option if they dislike the SNP) at the EU election. The 2 two sub-samples of the YouGov and BMG polls this weekend show a substantial rise in the SNP vote. Early days but very encouraging indeed. Electing more SNP MEPs will help for the forthcoming Independence referendum.

    12. Hamish100 says:


      SNP and Scotland does not need Labours approval for a second reverendum.

      We decide on our own thanks.

      However, always happy to return more power to this nation

      Would the centrist Corbyn allow?

    13. Brian Powell says:

      There has never been the slightest hint that Labour in No10 would help the SNP. Firstly they actually want to destroy the SNP, secondly they need to keep Scotland for it’s resources to fund their mistakes in Westminster.

      In fact that brings me tot perfidious nature of Labour in Scotland for the last decades. They wanted our votes to boost Labour in Westminster, then stole our resources to bankroll Labour in Westminster.

      How dumb are we?

    14. Jason Smoothpiece says:

      Labour will be cheered by the little bounce in the polls however they are so incompetent it may be short lived.

      Labour like the Tories are a mess just now.

      The question is when is the next general election coming.

      I see Hugh Gaffney MP had his troops out over the last few days campaigning. I was going to say does he know something? The answer of course is no he knows very little.

      However does he know if a GE is on the way?

      Hugh Gaffney for Labour leader I say, go Hugh.

    15. Rosemary MacKenzie says:

      Corbyn is very slippery in my view and not to be trusted in anything. Scotland cannot save England from itself.

      The best thing for Scotland is to concentrate on the next Independence Referendum which should be quite soon. Scotland should NOTIFY Westminster that it wants a section 30 order – it can decide on timing for a vote whenever it likes so that needn’t be framed in the notification. If Westminster refuses, then Scotland announces an advisory referendum on the issue of indepenendence. This should be run in a colleagial, inclusive, and positive manner with lots of solid information to people. The Wee Blue Book is brilliant as a starting point.

      Have to get a para in here, don’t want any hammers. On winning the vote, and if Westminster doesn’t co-operate, Scotland can take the Act/Treaty of Union to the International Court and get it revoked.

      Meanwhile, the SNP should be trying very hard to get all Scotland’s MEP allocation as SNP. This sends a very strong message to the EU.

      Sounds simple but sometimes simple is the best route. But please don’t go begging to Westminster for a Section 30, just notify. Scotland has a right to run an independence referendum and to decide on its own future. It is not a cash cow for Westminster.

      Scotland needs a written constitution as part of the process. Is anyone working on this?

    16. Mogabee says:


      Been told that only voting SNP in EU elections is the preferred direction.

      Christ Stu, thanks for this latest conundrum! Not like there’s enough confusion around. 😀 : D

    17. Luigi says:

      Of course, there are a lot of ifs in the above. We still don’t think there’s actually going to be a general election, because on those numbers it would be suicide for the Tories. But we said that the last time (and we were right), but it happened anyway.

      This, IMHO, is what wrong -footed everyone (including the SNP) in 2017. Noone thought May would be so stupid. Well, back then anyway. Sheer folly resulted in the Brexit impasse, and a Tory majority dependent on the DUP for survival. The tory’s recovery in Scotland at the same time was due to a combination of clever Ruthie soundbites (no surrender), a regrouping SNP (changed plans) and sheer dumb luck. Probably mostly the latter TBH.

      That said, we are where we are and there are a number of dangerous bear traps for all the parties. Whether a red tory or blue government after the next GE, the strategy should be the same – apply for an S30. If as expected, the answer is nbo, then take it to the courts. If a red tory government needs propping up, then confidence and supply – only support select bills and do everything to keep the blue tories out.

      If it’s another blue tory government, then the SNP contingent at WM should create merry hell.

      This is all about pcrception – optics as usual. The SNP will have factored in all these potential scenarios and have several game plans ready. They won’t be caught out again like they were 2017. Perhaps 2017 was a useful wake up call, after all. 🙂

    18. John Thomson says:

      The political system in the UK is broken but scotland does have a choice and it is wether to possibly influence the remainder of the UK before leaving in the hope that our neighbours are more thoughtful and pleasant to live with or not. Either way we are out of this total mess.

    19. Luigi says:

      In 2017, the SNP adopted the “this is not about independence” message that worked so well in 2015. Unfortunately, it did not work well two years later. Thngs had changed.

      I do hope that this softly softly, avoidance of independence is now well and truly over for SNP GE campaigns. The soft tory/SNP protest vote has long gone. It’s now about independence from now on.

      IMO, the SNP have to campaign unequivocally on a clear independence ticket on every election from now on.

    20. Dave Beveridge says:

      May or Corbyn?

      It’s a bit like asking whether you want that tarantula to lay its eggs in your nostril or your arse crack.

    21. ian stewart says:

      Far too many what if’s and guess work in this article, When the SNP do as well as predicted in a GE. No need to beg bargain or deal. Just demand a Sec30 or declare UDI. Its really not that complicated.

    22. Bill Hume says:

      If the history of British politics teaches anything, it’s that smaller parties entering coalition with larger parties always ends in grief for the smaller parties.
      Please SNP, don’t touch this with a ten foot bargepole.

    23. JD 2014 says:

      Why are we even contemplating doing deals with Westminster parties? Nicola needs to call Indyref2 before 31 October – even if only a consultative one – and there should be two questions on the ballot paper. 1. In or out of the UK, 2. In or out of the EU. This would give clarity on the Scottish position and we would have to abide with the results from both questions.
      If we vote no (heaven forbid) then we have to go along with whatever the lunatics in Westminster dictate. If we vote for Independence but remain in the EU, then so be it, that’s democracy. If we vote leave the EU, then so be it, that’s democracy. At least Scotland’s position would be clear. She really needs to stop banging on about a People’s Vote and give us a Scottish People’s vote, then take it from there. This could also be a way round the conundrum of nationalists voting leave – as I did. We are a democratic country and would abide by a democratic vote. Enough really is enough!

    24. Artyhetty says:

      Marcia@2.21pm and Brian@ 2.27pm

      Agree wholeheartedly with what you say.

      What’s to stop SNP saying they would only support a Peoples vote if a section 30 for an independence referendum would be granted as soon as required?

      It’s all hypothetical though, the Tories will not risk a GE right now, or before Brexit. Labour are all talk and no action, promising the earth to the ‘people’ and then delivering bugger all. The ‘people’ fall for it every time, except in Scotland where their lies, scheming and fabrication were revealed in 2014.

      Labour are red Tories, the people in rUK will realise it only when it’s too late.

    25. Adrian B says:

      “Republicofscotland says:

      I can’t say it enough I wish Sturgeon would concentrate on saving Scotland from the union, than saving the union with the EU.

      No deals, no backing of Corbyn or May that will be cast up in years to come, if were still tied to this broken union.”

      If we vote tomorrow to leave the Union, then we would still be in the Union for another 2-3 years, likely longer as Westminster is preoccupied by Brexit – which sane folk are trying to avoid, hoping for some miracle softer option and solutions.

      Sorry to break it to you but our neighbours are stuck with us for a while longer until there is some solution to Brexit. Only then would NS or anyone else be able to lead us to other options.

      Devolved government is hampered for a reason, limiting responsibilities to health, education and some other minor powers over local traffic makes many think that Scotland already has more power than it in fact does have. If you want more power then educate the population to possibilities that come with local decision making in other key areas.

      Nicola Sturgeon is only one of many people that would like Scotland to be Independent, to be able to make full use of all powers of State that all normal countries take for granted.

      The “Grass Roots” of the Yes Movement isn’t motivated – dozens of groups are doing bugger all, leaving the same regular few doing stuff. participating in marches isn’t campaigning – its a nice day out for the troops – but it isn’t the well needed core campaigning.

      The Grass roots doesn’t and should be relying on taking key direction from any politicians.

      You want a vote? Then convince former no voters that an Independent Scotland is in their interests, the interests of their local community and Scotland/Britain as a whole over the shorter and longer terms.

    26. bjsalba says:

      And remember EU nationals can vote for an MEP.

      They need to make sure they are on the voter roll.

      Tell any EU national you know.

    27. Capella says:

      At the next GE the SNP manifesto should be a straightforward independence vote. With enough support a second indyref would be academic.

      But I don’t see the Tories allowing May to be so stupid as to call a GE with poll figures like that. Although, the longer they wait, the more momentum the BREXITEERS will generate and they will eat into the Labour voter base too.

      Bit of a dilemma for both Labour and Tory IMO.

    28. CameronB Brodie says:

      Rosemary MacKenzie
      “Scotland needs a written constitution as part of the process. Is anyone working on this?”

    29. Gary says:

      Labour and tories, in fact all unionist parties, would sacrifice winning an election to keep Scotland in this horrible union.
      The SNP must ba aware of the traps the unionists (backed by their unionist media) will set!!
      A possible solution for the SNP is to simply demand that Article 50 be revoked, for no other reason than that Scotland voted to remain and that their priority is to the people of SCotland! As it should be.

    30. frogesque says:

      Rev, you throw that at us then bugger off to watch the footie?

      Joking aside, there is a bit of a temptation to underestimate the wider YES movement by concentrating on just the SNP.

      Not easily quantifyable and probably zero effect on WM seats but we are here and working hard for Indy.

    31. Dr Jim says:

      What if, imagine, well you’d have to because there isn’t going to be a GE any time soon because the Tories might be making a mess of Brexit because they don’t want to lose support but they’re not totally stupid, they know like we all do that Corbyn will commit political suicide on the same subject long before the SNP come into play on this

      If there’s one thing both Westminster parties agree on it’s not to allow the SNP an inch in what they believe is their English parliament, both parties hate the SNP and Scotland with more passion than they ever did in their history

      In every TV radio newspaper interview with any of them the SNP doesn’t exist and that message has clearly been transmitted to the broadcasters too

      Scotland is the big threat to them so keep them silent

      I’ve seen Christine Jardine of the Lib Dems or Vince Cable or any of the brand new party Tiggers and even folk you never heard of in your life more on TV than i’ve ever seen the SNP reps

      The Westminster plan for dealing with Scotland is to ignore us completely then when we raise our voices some other way they’ll be all shocked and surprised there’s anything wrong at all, and Independence?? well nobody ever mentioned that before oh what a surprise because surely that’s all done with now because nobody wants it anymore everybody’s happy up there in Sweaty Sockland,and they’ll coincidentally have polls that have just come out confirming that very invented fact

      So I think it’s probably safe to say depending on Westminster to do or not to do certain things is most likely not the plan of the SNP

    32. Gary says:

      I know the SNP are demanding that article 50 be revoked. To be clear, as a strategy that should be their sole position on this, not trying to find a way for this to happen by supporting a peoples vote, or a second referendum, a simple veto. We didnt vote for it! As Joanna cherry said, we are not seeking to enforce remain on the rest of the Uk, but neither should the rest of the Uk be able to take Scotland out of the EU against its will !

    33. Ottomanboi says:

      All the British parties are fundamentalist unionist. The SNP has nothing in common with them.
      There is, it seems, an altogether unhealthily cosy relationship with Westminster and its alien culture.
      The Scottish National party ought to be giving the old British lion nightmares not tending its self-inflicted wounds.

    34. jfngw says:

      To quote Michael Russell in today’s Sunday National

      “We have a mandate for an independence referendum but the constitution requires Westminster to agree to it”

      I would take it he is confirming the SNP position that only a section 30 order gives them the authority. We cannot hold a referendum unless England agrees to it, of course the opposite is true, England could hold a referendum whenever it wants, confirmed by the EU referendum that the majority of Scottish MP’s voted against (only one voted for it).

      So much for sovereignty, because even if 100% of Scots vote SNP we still could not guarantee a referendum without England’s permission. Maybe we need a more radical party to achieve independence.

    35. Adrian B says:

      Labour positions on negotiations with Theresa may’s Government is to prolong any agreement until after Euro Elections.

      Labour need keep playing both sides (prospective Labour Leave and Remain Voters). When they isolate one then a large chunk of the base vote will disappear. Labour support the ending of free movement for everyone in the UK.

      The Tories need to keep Labour talking and eventually come to an agreement to move Brexit forward. Labour will then have voted and shaped Brexit – so will be unable to use Brexit against the Conservatives.

      Rees Mog and Co have done a sterling job in preventing Brexit, while making the PM go for the most outlandish version of Brexit to keep her party together.

      Theresa May will stay as PM until Brexit is achieved – she will have saved the Tories, She hopes that the union will remain safe with Scotland and labour will have helped to come to agreement to shape Brexit.

      The Tories don’t need a General election any time soon, the pressure for them is to deliver some sort of Brexit and give lots of soundbites about the Country moving forward to counteract bad brexit stories.

      The SNP is stuck trying to soften Brexit – because we (Scotland) are leaving the EU with the rest of the UK and Gibraltar.

      If you want Scotland to have some sort of national and international level of trading and have access to free movement to provide the skills needed throughout the Scottish economy in any upcoming transition period then it has to be done while we are still a part of the UK.

      If the UK leaves the EU without a deal or with a bad deal – no free movement and limited or no access to the single market (there is no good deal for Scotland), then it is Scottish produce and Scottish jobs that are local to you that are under threat.

      The knock on effect is other local suppliers and shops with lower turnover that spirals downwards. At this point you can forget an Indy campaign from happening.

    36. Ken500 says:

      There will be another IndyRef when it can be won. Simple There is absolutely nothing to stop it. A S30 order can be gained through the Courts. The undemocratic way Scotland has been treated ensures success. The demographics are changing. It is just a question of timing. Corbyn was reported in favour.

      Irish reunification?

    37. Gary says:

      We shouldnt be drawn onto the unionists battleground. By keeping this simple and demanding article 50 be revoked as our people didnt vote for it, reinforces our position as a soverign nation and signatory member of this horrible union. We know that the Unionists will disrespect our wishes but that plays into our hands. We must use this fiasco to our advantage

    38. Adrian B says:

      Jerramy Corbain doesn’t want a peoples vote – it wouldn’t back his policy direction. Labour have repeatedly dodged a peoples vote in the house of Commons.

      A second vote isn’t something that the Tories want either.

      The SNP think that a peoples vote – however unlikely could cause issues for Labour and the Tories – the public back lash from leave voters, the leave campaign, Nigel Farage would kick off in spectacular fashion.

      A Peoples vote is dead and it has to remain dead today so that it isn’t introduced for Scotref. Just as Labour hobbled the Devolution vote back in ’79.

    39. Adrian B says:

      Scotland isn’t Sovereign – it has a Devolved Government. Power resides in Westminster!

      You need to gain Independence to be able to have Sovereignty.

    40. Illy says:

      If the SNP have any balls, then that won’t happen.

      Because they’ll have run on a manifesto of “Independence for Scotland, nothing else” at the Westminster election.

      So no more referendums needed.

    41. TD says:

      Holding Indyref2 is not the objective. Gaining independence is the objective. Indyref2 is one (probably the most likely) mechanism for gaining independence – but only if we win. To do that, we need to get the support for independence a bit higher than it currently appears to be. That is what we need to concentrate on. I do not want the Scottish government to hold a referendum until the odds of winning it are strongly in our favour, because to lose a referendum would mean that I for one would probably never see an independent Scotland. I think we are still in the “Hold, hold” phase of the battle.

      So in the scenario where Labour are the largest party at Westminster and the SNP are in a position to give them a majority, should the SNP do so? In my opinion, not in any formal way. But on matters where there is a meeting of minds, they could support a minority Labour government. This approach gives the SNP the freedom to oppose when they feel it right to do so and the ability to pick and choose from Labour’s agenda which bills to support. We need to remember that with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, a government does not fall because it loses a vote. We only need to look at the recent shambles in parliament for numerous examples which prove that. So a minority Labour government could stumble on for years with the SNP exercising considerable power and influence.

      Whether the SNP should use its influence to engineer a second independence referendum is a matter for judgement at the time, depending to a large extent on polling figures. What the SNP should not do is treat holding another independence referendum as some sort of victory. It isn’t – it is simply a means to an end. But it can also be the means to the long term abandonment of hope of independence. So the SNP need to be very careful about demanding Indyref2 until they are very confident of victory. I will be delighted when Nicola Sturgeon forms the view that Indyref2 will be won and at that time she should move decisively to bring it about.

    42. zander says:

      Vote labour and get the snp will be the tory cry, so i wouldn’t panic yet

    43. Republicofscotland says:

      Adrian B @3.33pm comment.

      So this isn’t true then.

    44. Mary McCabe says:

      I’ve never thought it likely that Corbyn would allow Scotland a second indyref as a condition for the SNP giving him a supply and confidence deal. He wouldn’t want to go down as the PM who finally lost London its centuries-long control of Scotland. Also: taking a major decision like that on his own without any other Westminster support is out of character for him.
      On the other hand it is the ONLY possible strategy for Scotland getting a Westminster-sanctioned (and therefore undisputably internationally-accepted) indyref.
      As for a second EU referendum, Corbyn wouldn’t need to offer the SNP anything “in return” for that – it’s now the official policy of the SNP, Labour and the LibDems and so it would probably go ahead.
      The only alternative way of pressurising the UK is doing a Parnell: first putting in a request for Article 30 and then, when it’s refused, having the SNP MPs disrupt Westmnster so much that it becomes unbearable for the rest of them. But even that might not work.
      Pleae, can somebody come up with a better idea? PLEASE!

    45. galamcennalath says:

      I’ve never been keen on an EURef2. For a number of reason. England voted to leave the EU so that should honoured. And Scotland doesn’t need an EURef2, our will is crystal clear on the EU.

      The real constitutional outcome of EURef1 is that the UK cannot continue if England wants a hard Brexit.

      Most importantly, though, EURef2 could quite easily return the same result – Scotland Remain, England Leave – then what? The SNP must know this, and have plans. They must, surely?

      Alternatively, Brexit could stopped. That will really not go down well in England. The far right will flourish.

      Either way, the SNP has to realise there is no acceptable future within the UK. Yes, we know independence is their policy. There can be no better opportunity than the chaos now. We all need to work towards Indy. That should be the only target, everything else should only a means to help achieve that.

    46. Effijy says:

      SNP’s first priority should be to take the Scottish Parliament’s mandate that if England tries to ignore our overwhelming majority to Remain within the EU we then take Indy Ref 2.

      I’d agree a second peoples vote would likely see us remain in the EU so I can understand them working toward this option.

      Unfortunately divorce from Westminster has to be my first priority.

    47. geeo says:

      Adrian B says:

      14 April, 2019 at 3:33 pm

      Scotland isn’t Sovereign – it has a Devolved Government. Power resides in Westminster!

      You need to gain Independence to be able to have Sovereignty.

      Sorry champ, but when you post gibbering pish lie this, nobody with 2 brain cells will take you remotely seriously.

      Must try harder.

    48. TD says:

      Adrian B at 3:30 pm

      “Scotland isn’t Sovereign – it has a Devolved Government. Power resides in Westminster!

      You need to gain Independence to be able to have Sovereignty.”

      You are confusing sovereignty with power. In 2014, the Scottish people foolishly acquiesced in the continued exercise of power over Scotland by Westminster. But the Scottish people did not relinquish their sovereignty. I’m not sure that there is any mechanism by which they could do so. When the Scottish people choose to use their sovereignty to take power back, we will be independent. We will always be sovereign, even for as long as we are in this rotten union.

    49. frogesque says:

      Did any of the other Nations that took their independence from the British State have to go cap in hand for an S30?


      Did they fuck!

    50. galamcennalath says:

      Who is confident IndyRef2 will deliver another NO win? It’s better obvious few BritNats politicians, pundits, or propagandists do!

      Handing over a Section 30 is signing a death warrant for the UK. Will any PM do it? Is any short term price high enough for a WM gov to destroy the UK? I suggest that’s rhetorical.

      IMO there will be no S30.

      However Indy arrives, it cannot be by that route as far as I can see. Democracy can function in umpteen different ways with a S30.

    51. Adrian B says:


      Power devolved is power retained. The Scottish Government does not have the powers of State.

      I have an Independent mind, but my country is run by a larger country, which is the one that makes decisions on behalf of the people of Scotland because they have a larger population.

      The will of a UK vote overrules the vote in Scotland at every general election, heck even policies at Scottish elections, just as it did with the Brexit referendum.

      In 1979 Westminster created a 40% rule to overturn any likely vote for Devolution by the people of Scotland. Labour fought against Scotland. It wasn’t until the EU wanted to see Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have some government control that Devolution finally came about – something under threat of reversal with powers moving to London, A city in a country without devolved national government.

      I feel far from Sovereign – only Scottish Independence can unlock sovereignty for the people of Scotland. Many of our Scottish neighbours understand Westminster, they understand and like some power devolved to Scotland, they need to be ready to become a Scottish State, then you can really use Sovereignty for a positive change in direction from the path that we have been on for too long now.

      Persuading previous no voters is key to providing a further upward trend from the 45% vote in 2014. The law of diminishing returns means that the last bit is harder to gain.

      We must work towards listening and talking with (not at) previous no voters – they are the ones that can make the change happen for all of Scotland.

    52. galamcennalath says:


      ….umpteen different ways WITHOUT a S30.

      Of course.

    53. Ian Mackay says:

      My view on a Section 30.

      We shouldn’t need it. It should be Scotland’s decision alone.

      However in view of the softly-softly approach from the SNP I think they will ask for it.

      IF Westminster refuse – they shouldn’t; it plays into the SNP’s hands, & can you imagine Tories trying to justify their own EU referendum which was done without asking the EU!! – then the SNP should just call a consultative referendum.

      IF Westminster then take Holyrood to courts over the holding of the referendum then I hope someone in the SNP is trying to fast-track the process. If the Supreme Court argued against the sovereignty of the Scottish people then the Union is done anyway; and what price the EU Courts would overturn that decision anyway (as long as we are still in the EU!)

      My guess is that a Section 30 won’t be refused. Or at least, shouldn’t be refused politically.

      BUT What with the Brexit disaster and the political carnage engulfing the Tories (and to a lesser extent, Labour) they make think that they are already are at rock bottom and refusal couldn’t hurt them further.

      Both Conservative and Labour have shown themselves to be political imbeciles. If Brexit has taught us anything it is that they will muddy any path.

      It’s time for Scotland to be clear. We need to set a path and go for it.

    54. Orri says:

      May had to go for a GE because in all probability she would have lost her majority if too many bye-elections were fought due too electorate fraud on a massive scale. Very hard to win a marginal seat in an election being re-held because you’re party cheated the last time.

      If they had lost the majority then more questions would have been asked about the soundness not only of the referendum result but the circumstances under which it was called. If not for that GE Brexit would have been cancelled long ago.

      The GE was a gamble that she could gain a majority of even a single vote making Brexit a manifesto commitment. That would make it easier to use the Parliament Act to overrule the House of Lords and remove the legitimacy of the referendum and its result from the equation.

      Unfortunately for her Labour did the only thing they could by campaigning as pro Brexit but anti Tory Brexit so what might have been a landslide became a massive defeat.

      So what we’ve got is a Tory party supported by the DUP claiming votes from a party voted specifically to oppose them unable to get an agreement to do anything.

    55. Legerwood says:

      Bill Hume says:
      14 April, 2019 at 2:46 pm
      If the history of British politics teaches anything, it’s that smaller parties entering coalition with larger parties always ends in grief for the smaller parties.
      Please SNP, don’t touch this with a ten foot bargepole.””

      Why on earth would you think for one minute that the SNP would go into coalition with any party in Westminster?

      The SNP made it quite clear during the 2015 General Election when there was all the talk of a hung Parliament that they would NOT go into coalition with Labour but would support them on a confidence and supply basis. That is still their position.

    56. jack whelan says:

      I honestly cannot see the English voting in Corbyn in a hundred years.
      The North have turned against him and all his faffing about has destroyed any credibility he held.

    57. Hamish100 says:

      Will Corbyn and his ilk return the Vow that was promised?

      Post War 80 years of lies

    58. Welsh Sion says:

      Opinion poll from today’s Observer:
      Labour 36% (+1% change from 28 March)
      Conservative 29 (-6)
      Ukip 11 (+2)
      Lib Dem 8 (-1)
      Other 6 (+3)
      SNP 5 (+1)
      Green Party 4 (-1)
      Plaid Cymru 1 (+1)

      Guardian graphic | Source: Opinium surveyed 2,007 UK adults from 9 to 12 April 2019.

    59. yesindyref2 says:

      I think, the only point for us of the EU elections is if Indy Ref 2 is called before them. A full set of Pro-EU MEPs and most being pro-Indy, that does send a message. An Indy Scotland wants to be in the EU, and voted for it.

      All this waffle about “Let’s show the EU and the world that Scotland wants to be in the EU” HELLO HELLO HELLO we’ve already done that as a devolved country. On their own, I have no interest in elections that put up MEPs for 3 months or so, for no real purpose. It’s not something I’m going to jump up and down about and get all excited.

      With no Indy ref 2, it’s just a distraction from the real game in town. And another can kicked down the road.

    60. Wee Alex says:

      Labour need to get back to the days of 40 plus Scottish seats so they can get overall control. They will never concede a referendum

      The Tories need Scotland’s wealth and only allowed a vote last time because opinion polls showed it would be lost by a huge margin.

      We can forget about a new referendum, both parties have too much to lose.

      That will be the starting point on any election. Do the SNP make a referendum their no 1 manifesto commitment?

      I’d say it has to be, but if is a huge risk. It really would allow Davidson to campaign on Stop the SNP.

      Tough call.

    61. Orri says:

      Any People’s Vote has the problem that there should be no possibility of the SNP agreeing to putting indyref2 on hold even if Scotland swung the result to Remain.

      That’s the essential problem. And the SNP leadership have probably thought of the answer.

      Any People’s Vote needs at a minimum the compromise of Scotland, and other regions of the UK, remaining in the EU should they so choose even if only England leaves.

    62. brewsed says:

      The assumption here is that there will a UK general election before the next Scottish parliament election, which due to be held on the 6th of May 2021. There are 248 English local government elections to be held on the 4th May this year followed by EU parliamentary election, possibly being held on the 23rd May. If the results of these elections are as polling currently suggests, the Tories may just retreat into their shells, pull the draw bridge up, stick their fingers in their collective ears and go ‘la, la, la’ until the 5th of May 2022 when the next UK parliamentary election is due. Or something else may happen. As they say in QI, ‘Nobody knows’.

      Meanwhile, I see there is some misunderstanding about how the EU elections work. In England, Scotland and Wales the voting system for the European elections is the d’Hondt system of proportional representation – regional closed list. It is not the same in Northern Ireland where the system is Single Transferable Vote (the same system as used for Scottish local government elections). See:

      Hopefully we do not have an outbreak of tactical voting suggestions.

    63. Arbroath1320 says:

      Thinking outside ma wee box here and in an alternate universe … obviously.

      I wonder IF there was a General Election and the S.N.P. stood on a mandate of “vote for us and help us deliver the largest number of M.P.’s to Westminster and we will begin immediate negotiations with the Westminster government on the break up of the union and deliverance of Scottish in dependence” ticket how Corbyn would react to that especially if, as current polling seems to suggest, anything from 54 to 57 S.N.P. M.P.’s would appear to be going to Westminster.

      I’ll get ma coat and hat … Cheerie! ?

    64. yesindyref2 says:

      Regards sovereignty or self-determination, which are the same but also different, even unionists have commented that in 2014 the People of Scotland exercised our self-determination / sovereignty by taking part in Indy Ref 1, with such a huge turnout.

      Unfortunately on that occasion it was a NO to full independence BUT a YES to continuing to have a devolved Parliament. That is the People of Scotland making our determination of our future at that moment in time, and in and under the conditions that existed at that moment in time. That self-determination, however, we can do at any time we want to. That’s also the nature of self-determination, there’s no set time limits on it. It exists every decade, every year, every day and every single solitary second.

      And that is recognised, though some would talk stupidly about “generation”. There exists no such thing in self-determination, to repeat, it exists every decade, every year, every day and every single solitary second. And no one person can negate that self-determination of the People of Scotland as a whole.

    65. Arbroath1320 says:

      Rosemary MacKenzie says:
      14 April, 2019 at 2:32 pm

      Scotland needs a written constitution as part of the process. Is anyone working on this?

      Check this out Rosemary.

    66. North chiel says:

      In a GE scenario, who knows what the SNP mandate might be prior to the vote? In the abscence of the previous request from our FM for a “ section 30 agreement” ( not permission) to hold a referendum, might the SNP stand on a majority of MPs being elected ( as per Thatcher era) being sufficient to withdraw from the treaty of union? . A second option could include say 4 month deadline for ratification via referendum ( if majority on SNP MPs elected on this mandate). If no agreement over ratification ( section30), then formal vote in Holyrood to end union treaty and possibly withdraw our Mp’s from Westminster in conjunction with International “ appeal” and instigation of legal proceedings through international courts? The EU issue should also simoultaneously be highlighted internationally with the 1 of the 2 signatories to the 2 Kingdom U.K. wishing to remain in the EU by a significant majority.
      The SNP would be “ selling themselves” very cheaply indeed , if all they required from Britnat Labour in return for support was the “ section 30” agreement. Surely they would insist on nothing short of a decisive power shift towards Holyrood ( as in an interim independence position effectively?) under no circumstances should they enter into any formal coalition or confidence and supply agreement with the 2nd eleven Britnat establishment party without a legally binding “ deal” which moves Scotland “ significantly” towards Independence, prior to a section 30 agreement on a independence vote.
      I am quite sure that our leadership have a strategy in place for all scenarios going forward, and our FM and her advisors will have a “ route plan” towards independence as the situation develops. Certainly I am not overly concerned as regards this particular posting from Rev Stu .
      If no agreement along these lines then the

    67. yesindyref2 says:

      Good grief, I just realised I hadn’t read the article. Ooopsie!

    68. Street Andrew says:

      “The SNP could argue that a supply and confidence arrangement would be dependent upon the government granting a 2nd IndyRef ”

      No point doing that without an assurance that UK Labour won’t arrive in force to skew the indyref result in conjunction with the Tory/Lib Dem Alliance. Plus behind-the-scenes dirty tricks and dirty money. And lots of sincere ‘vows’. We have been somewhere like this before more than once.

      Tories shafted the Lib Dems like this on PR…… Labour is a staunchly unionist party as presently constituted.

      If the SNP is prepared to sup with Labour they need to be taking a very, very long spoon.

    69. Dr Jim says:

      A political generation is five years

      A Unionist generation is *for-e-ver* or until all hope of democracy has been crushed

      Unless Unionists want to call a referendum then it’s anytime because there’s more of them in England and they outvote Scotland 10 to 1

      That’s how fairness rolls in Unionland

    70. Orri says:

      A section 30 is the transfer of legislative power between Scotland and England. It is needed in both directions of travel. It has notably been avoided in the power grab.

      However there’s nothing guaranteed to boost the chance of independence than Wesminster revoking an S30 transfer due to indref2 being pro indy. The longer they avoid said S30 the clearer it become that democracy is out the window.

    71. CameronB Brodie says:

      Mary McCabe
      I reckon the law is on our side but then I’m not a lawyer. I don’t think the legal route is how I would want the new Scotland to be born anyway. It wouldn’t give the new enterprise the boost that a popular demand for indy would. It also places reliance on institutions that are outwith our control.

      Remember, the legal understanding of the British constitution, is that is draws its’ legal moral authority from Magna Carta, not the Treaty of Union. This prevents the Treaty from being used as a tool of constitutional dissolution.

      Treaties as Binding International Obligation


      Enforcement of International Law

      The Brexit Bill and the Law of Treaties

    72. As we all know Scotland is a independent Country already the Treaty did not end Scotland as a Independent Country.The referendum is to see the return of a Scottish independent government.Winning the referendum will give the Scottish Executive/Government the right to annul the Scottish Act of Union and rescind the Treaty of union of the Kingdom of Great Briton.Mr.M Russel writes the constitution requires Westminster to agree,Westminster has no constitution and Scotland’s old written constitution was written before this Union came into being.The Scottish “Claim of Right”gives the Scottish people the sole right to who they want to be ruled by and it is still law today.

    73. yesindyref2 says:

      Remember, the legal understanding of the British constitution, is that is draws its’ legal moral authority from Magna Carta, not the Treaty of Union. This prevents the Treaty from being used as a tool of constitutional dissolution.

      This isn’t actually correct, and you know that, don’t you?

    74. CameronB Brodie says:

      Sorry, I don’t agree that the Brexit vote should be honoured, as the legal process was fraudulently hijacked. You can’t go about changing administrative law to suite the criminals. That’s fascism, frankly.

    75. Hamish100 says:


      You don’t have to get excited over the EU elections

      Just go out and vote SNP.

    76. mike cassidy says:

      Its not the unionists that worry me.

      Its the cats.

    77. Peter Mirtitsch says:

      No way Labour are going to do any sort of deal with the SNP. They are now so deeply entranched in being against them than fighting the Tories, it would be anathema to them. I think it a good “Brer Rabbit in the briar patch”gamble, that will pay off. IF by some weird quirk, Labour did agree to everything, and let’s say we got another brexit referendum (I refuse to call it the PV, since ALL refererenda involve people), and the result was overturned, the English would freak, and want measures taken so that Scots couldn’t interfere at Wesminster in such a manner again. Now, with EVEL potentially being the start of the slippery slope, one might have even more justification for saying that effectively ENGLAND have broken the union,. and we would be perfectly justified in actually nullifying it. This would be especially so, as actions like that from Westminster would probably drive up support again.

    78. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      “Indeed, given the Scottish Government’s lack of action on establishing any other legal route to doing so, it appears to be the SNP’s only actual strategy.”

      Inclined to disagree. As I see it there is a very considerable amount of attention being paid to various possibilities. But the Referendum is the formal agreed route at the moment and there is no reason to let our enemy know that we are examining other legitimate options.
      Everything changes if a referendum is opposed but a referendum is the best route.

    79. sandy says:

      With a PV, it is inevitable that England’s vote will win the day.
      IMO, the most democratic way under the dubious present set-up would be for the following.
      Take all the votes for remain/leave as a percentage for each country, Scotland, England, NI, Wales then divide by 4. Resulting percentage wins. Fair?
      Then, maybe not. With all the apparent instability in towns & cities in present-day England, riots, violent demonstrations, etc would possibly ensue resulting in more destruction & crime thus making it more & more unattractive to would be immigrants, but then, perhaps partially solving their intransigence to their current immigration policies.

      No, why do we not just throw in the towel in trying to prevent England’s slide to what may become oblivion & concentrate on our own future? If they come to us for advice, so be it. Let them decide their own future.
      Military control? Echos of Haiti, Lybia, Sudan, etc.

    80. Not Convinced says:

      I could imagine a scenario where Labour is a minority government putting forward their budget, and end up in a bit of a pickle. The SNP propose an amendment to their budget which Labour votes against, but the Tories vote in favour of. The thus amended budget then comes up for the vote, the Tories vote against, the SNP for and what will Labour do? Vote for their budget as amended by the SNP, or vote with the Tories against their own budget resulting (thanks to the Fixed Term Parliament Act) in a USA-style government shutdown?

    81. Graeme says:

      As much as I respect and believe in Nicola Sturgeon I’m beginning to believe we need a Mary Lou MacDonald unlike Nicola she doesn’t mince her words with the Brits, in an interview with Owen Jones she said something that will resonate with me forever

      “We are not British we are not pretending we’re not British we genuinely aren’t”

      That says it all for me

    82. yesindyref2 says:

      I’ll almost certainly vote, yes, with a postal vote it’s easy even if away on a trip. If it was per region and David Martin, Catherine Styler or Alyn Smith were the candidate I’d vote for them, but the way it is on a whole proportional basis it will be SNP as they’re still closest to Indy + EU.

      April 23rd is the crunch date for seeing what’s going on.

    83. HYUFD says:

      Of course even if an indyref was demanded by Sturgeon as the price of supporting Corbyn it would almost certainly lose, thus killing off independence for a generation.

      If the SNP held the balance of power at Westminster that by itself would kill off the nationalists 2 key arguments, 1 that Scotland never gets the UK government it wants and 2 that independence is the only way to avoid a hard Brexit (given a Corbyn minority government would either pursue BINO or hold EUref2). The Unionist cause meanwhile would rally behind Ruth Davidson as the only alternative to the Corbyn Labour and SNP alliance

    84. Ottomanboi says:

      Sovereignty is not given, it is taken
      Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.

    85. CameronB Brodie says:

      I was uneasy about suggesting that it prevents the Treaty from being used as a tool for dissolution but I wasn’t really up to looking out sources. Lets just say it makes thing complicated.

      The British constitution draws its’ legal moral authority from Magna Carta, which underpins English moral law. It is English moral law that underpins administrative law concerning the unitary governance of Britain (see Brexit). However, English law has been broken in the process of gaining the vote to leave the EU, yet the Prime-minister has advanced legislation that transforms the legal personality of Scotland’s residents. It is apparent that the Prime-minister considers the British constitution as ‘optional documentation’ so she probably thinks the Treaty of Union is a bill of sale.

      As far as I’m concerned, this is unconstitutional government and dictatorial in nature. The Prime-minister is obviously an English utilitarian, who tend to become a bit fascistic if not held in check by moral law.

    86. Ottomanboi says:

      WordPress has a prob with Turkish????

    87. yesindyref2 says:

      The British constitution draws its’ legal moral authority from Magna Carta, which underpins English moral law.

      If that’s your own view, rather than you presenting the way the “British establishment” think, then I disagree with almost everying in it.

      1). There is no “British” Constitution as there is no political entity legally called “Britain”, and hence no such thing legally as “British”.

      2). Magna Carta is purely English, predates the Treaty of Union, and therefore only has a bearing on one Act of Union, the English one with Scotland. It’s the Claim of Right 1689 which bears on the Scottish Act of Union with England.

      “English moral law” is indeed the way the “British” establisment look at things, and the basis for most if not all of their writings. Hence not only biased, but factually and legally incorrect.

    88. CameronB Brodie says:

      It handled it better than Japanese.

      Which reminds me, though I have a moderately educated diction, the Post Office re-delver service AI couldn’t understand me. The machines have a way to go before they are likely to take over, though I do acknowledge Buccleuch is a bit difficult for non-Scots who are not already familiar.

    89. CameronB Brodie says:

      What is legal fact and what is legal interpretation? In the real world, Britain has a constitution that draws its’ legal authority English moral law. That is not an opinion, it is an historic fact that we must overcome.

    90. CameronB Brodie says:

      Some constitutional legal theory and legal studies.



      This thesis investigates the philosophical assumptions which underpin established theories of the British constitution, paying particular attention to the influence of traditional (and sometimes outdated) theories of legal positivism. I attempt to identify, analyze and challenge these assumptions, exploring how recent developments in legal theory can inform and enrich our approach to British constitutional theory.

      Drawing, in particular, on the anti-positivist theory of Ronald Dworkin, I contend that an understanding of the British constitution must begin with an understanding of the principle of legality: that is, the principle that government may only exercise coercive force in accordance with standards established in the right way before that exercise. The principle of legality (properly understood as reflecting the value of integrity), I argue, shapes or controls the many other principles that underpin British constitutional practice, principles such as the separation of powers, democracy and individual human rights.

      Once it is appreciated that each and every fact about British constitutional practice must be justified by arguments of political morality, there is little difference, I argue, between the so-called ‘unwritten’ British constitution and the ‘written’ constitution of, say, the United States. In particular, there is no plausible philosophical basis for ascribing unlimited legislative powers to the Westminster Parliament. The extent of Parliament’s legislative powers (and the extent of the powers of the executive branch of government), I suggest, must depend on how we conceive of the legal principles that justify Parliamentary power, most notably the principle of democracy.

      Democracy, properly understood, I argue, means that Parliament (or government) has a duty to treat each member of the British community as an equal; or, to state the right which corresponds to that duty, democracy means that individuals have a moral right against government to be treated as an equal.



      Democracy as the legitimating condition in the UK Constitution

    91. yesindyref2 says:

      @CBB “Britain has a constitution

      There IS no geopolitical legal entity “Britain”. Only the UK.

      There is no geopolitical country of Britain, it does not exist in the UN, it has no government, it is not a member of the World Bank, nor the IMF, nor WTO (check it out). The member is the UK.

      Therefore there is no such thing as a “British” Constitution. No such thing at all. That’s fact, and would blatantaly obviosult be legal interpretation of the fact.

    92. gus1940 says:

      According to The Sunday Mail the Bird woman is a ‘Paragon Of Impartiality’

      Let’s not have any laughing at the back.

    93. Thepnr says:

      Aileen McHarg. Professor of Public Law at the University of Strathclyde wrote this article in March 2017. This is just the final third of it and for a better understanding around Section 30 it’s worth reading all of it but is too long to post here.

      Basically the legality issue around having a referendum has not yet been tested and this article presents a good bit of background to how the Section 30 came about in the first place and what might be the result of such a request being refused in future.

      It looks to me, though I have no legal knowledge that the Scottish government most certainly will request a Section 30 and if refused will go ahead anyway and expect it to be challenged in the courts.

      The uncertainty surrounding the legal and constitutional right to hold a second independence referendum is a recipe for conflict. The Scottish Government has made clear that it expects a section 30 order to be granted, asserting its mandate to hold a referendum, and that it expects the terms of the referendum to be ‘made in Scotland’.

      However, the UK Government seems minded not to co-operate, with some urging it to reject a second referendum altogether. Although an outright veto seems unlikely, a conditional agreement could be equally contentious. The UK Government’s response so far suggests that it may seek to impose conditions as to popular support and timing. It has been reported that the Prime Minister is considering making a section 30 order conditional upon the SNP winning a majority at the next Holyrood election, or that a second referendum should take place only once the Brexit negotiations have been completed.

      However, in the absence of a clear constitutional understanding of the parameters of Scotland’s right to secede, the constitutional justification for either condition is not clear cut. Why should the holding of a referendum on independence be dependent on the existence of an electoral mandate, and even if it is, why is the current mandate of Holyrood’s pro-independence parties not sufficient?

      Similarly, why should a referendum predicated on the principle of Scotland being taken out of the EU contrary to the wishes of a majority of its voters be permitted only once Brexit has actually taken place? Both are likely to be perceived as being motivated by tactical rather than principled considerations, the former establishing a procedural hurdle that the SNP is unlikely (given the Holyrood electoral system) to be able to surmount, the latter postponing the independence question until a time more convenient to the UK government. Both risk playing into a narrative of constitutional intransigence of the part of the UK government which is likely to bolster the independence case.


      In relation to the 2014 independence referendum, it took months of constitutional shadow-boxing and behind-the-scenes negotiation before agreement was eventually reached between the UK and Scottish governments. The conditions for reaching agreement in 2017 seem even less promising than they did prior to October 2012, given that the constitutional stakes are so much higher on each side. At the same time, though, it won’t be in the interests of either government to let the issue drag on.

      Politically, the Scottish Government appears to have the stronger hand, with the precedent of the 2014 referendum and a clear change of circumstances in the form of Brexit to justify a second vote. Moreover a focus on process, and in particular, reinforcement of the message that Scotland is not in control of its own constitutional destiny is likely to benefit the Scottish government’s case for independence – as well as to detract attention from other issues on which it might be more vulnerable.

      As noted above, if the UK government cannot be persuaded to come to (reasonable) terms the Scottish government also has the option of legislating for a second referendum without a section 30 order and taking its chances before the courts. Underlying all this is the sense that the constitutional mess in which the UK government finds itself is one entirely of its own making. It is difficult to see how placing obstacles in the way of a second independence referendum can do anything other than make things worse.

    94. yesindyref2 says:

      Thanks, you found it. I was looking back in 2012 for it, but that was one by Davuit Broun. The one you posted was the one I was looking for. So it was (also) Aileen McHarg after all, my favourite constitutionalist still 🙂

      Doesn’t time NOT fly sometimes. Memories of 2017 become 7 years old 🙁

    95. CameronB Brodie says:

      Thanks for that insight.

      That is not an opinion, it is an historic fact that we must overcome employ to our advantage.

      If Scotland is dragged out of the EU against the democratic wishes of Scotland’s electorate, the British constitution looses its’ legitimating condition and Britain becomes an authoritarian English dictatorship. Marvelous.

    96. yesindyref2 says:

      With all your links and posts about the “British Constitution” I thought that you were trying to show the effect of “British” propaganda, or that you were trying to hack off RP.

      Now I’m not sure – perhaps you should clarify the REASON for posting about 586 abstracts about the non-existent “British Constitution”?

      Do you believe in it, or are you trying to show people it does not exist, except in the ignorant minds and scrawlings of constitutionally untutored rUK constitutionalists?


    97. CameronB Brodie says:

      Sorry if “That is not an opinion, it is an historic fact that we must overcome employ to our advantage”, was confusing, I was correcting an earlier comment.

    98. CameronB Brodie says:

      Looks like the formatting gremlins are after me. I’ll go an lie down. 😉

    99. yesindyref2 says:

      I’m not talking about typos or minor confusions of writing and formulation, I’m asking the direct question:

      What is your purpose of continually posting about the “British Constitution” which does not exist?

    100. CameronB Brodie says:

      It exists, it has legal effect and force on our legal personalities (see Brexit). I do not support it an way, shape, or form. Not only is Scotland a nation and nations are best suited to running their own affairs, the rule-of-law is under pressure from the New Right, a global problem that will be added to if Scots allow their EU citizenship to be violated by Westminster.

    101. Bill Glen says:

      Or we Still end up with a hard Brexit, Blackford calls for a Suspension of the Union, And the baw is up oan the Dyke 🙂

    102. yesindyref2 says:

      No, it – does – not – exist. “Britain” has no legal existence. Add to that other list, the member state of the EU is “UK” or “United Kingdom” NOT Britain. Therefore a “British Constitution” – does – not – exist.

      “British Constitution” is either sheer ignorance, or Unionist propaganda.

      British or Unionist propaganda should not be repeated by an Independence supporter unless refuted in the same posting.

    103. yesindyref2 says:

      @Bill Glen
      We really do have no idea how many kites the SNP are flying, which are doomed to crash and burn, which are not intended to fly, or which one perhaps has been secretly fitted with a super booster to send us into Independent Orbit.

      But April 23rd is a crunch date, with Sturgeon updating Holyrood, as the Unionists taunt, with the date of the next Holyrood update of the next Holyrood update of the …

      … or something we can get our teeth into and have a happy meal.

      Mixed metaphors are extra price.

    104. geeo says:

      Cameron, stop it ffs.

      Can you not read ?

      There is no such country called Britain, as yesindyref2 says, we are in the EU/U.N/NATO etc, as the United Kingdom, so you simply cannnot insist upon your ‘british constitution’ horseshit.

      There is no such thing, for the simple reason, IT DOES NOT EXIST !!

      Are you seriously saying there is ‘British Law” ?

      WM can ACT how it likes, but LEGALLY the united kingdom is, and always has been, a union of just 2 LEGALLY EQUAL Kingdoms, the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England.

      Both legal systems are continued in accordance to Article 19 of the Treaty of Union.

      Scots Law cannot be subjugated by English law, nor can Scots People’s sovereignty, again, conditions that the Treaty of Union is built on.

      If there was any notion of a ‘british’ constitution, the above statement simply cannot exist, yet there it is, in the TREATY OF UNION itself.

      So please, no more of your british constitution garbage.

    105. CameronB Brodie says:

      Are you having a laugh? Of course Britain has a constitution, we are not living in a state of anarchy. We live in welfare-state, allegedly. That requires administrative law, which the British constitution is an example of.

      Human rights and the UK constitution

    106. geeo says:

      Simple confirmation test.

      If anyone actually wants to believe in a british constitution, LINK TO IT so we can all read it…

    107. CameronB Brodie says:

      Can you read?

      What is the UK Constitution?

      Constitutions organise, distribute and regulate state power. They set out the structure of the state, the major state institutions, and the principles governing their relations with each other and with the state’s citizens.

      Britain is unusual in that it has an ‘unwritten’ constitution: unlike the great majority of countries there is no single legal document which sets out in one place the fundamental laws outlining how the state works. Britain’s lack of a ‘written’ constitution can be explained by its history….

    108. yesindyref2 says:

      UK does not fucking equal Britain.

    109. yesindyref2 says:

      UK does not fucking equal Britain.
      UK does not fucking equal Britain.
      UK does not fucking equal Britain.

      Repeat 1 thousand fucking times.

    110. aLurker says:


      Once again, an impartial observer is left wondering why you continue with this peculiar use of language, and why you continue to evade simply answering the simplest of questions.

      Considering the following permutations of wordings,
      anyone can see the pattern here.

      Are you having a laugh? Of course the continent of North America has a constitution
      Are you having a laugh? Of course The United States of America has a constitution

      Are you having a laugh? Of course Europe has a constitution
      Are you having a laugh? Of course The European Union has a constitution

      Are you having a laugh? Of course the planet Earth has a constitution
      Are you having a laugh? Of course The United Nations has a constitution

      The silent majority would _really_ appreciate it if you would desist from your insistance
      that the georgaphical area sometimes known as Britain has a constituion


      you should provide evidence that it does. Simple.


    111. CameronB Brodie says:

      Do you not get the significance of me using the British Academy? It is culturally authoritative, so irrefutable by BritNats. It highlights how despotically the Prime-minister is acting, and that’s pure Sun Tzu. 😉

      Human rights and the UK constitution
      5 Conclusion

      The relationship between politics and law is controversial, contested and difficult. Legal controls attempt to protect rights and encourage respect for the rule of law: in response, politicians often chafe at what they perceive as the erosion of their democratically-derived authority. Getting the balance right between respecting the decisions of elected politicians and protecting rights can be difficult.

      The UK’s unwritten constitutional system gives primacy to representative government, on the basis that Parliament represents the voters. As a result, British judges have no power to strike down decisions of the legislature. However, the executive is required by law to respect rights and is answerable to courts if fails to do so.

      Administrative law, Convention jurisprudence and the HRA all impose certain legal constraints on the exercise of public power, which are intended to encourage the growth of a culture of justification and respect for individual rights….

      N.B. The Brexit vote was fraudulently hijacked, so does not provide moral foundation for administrative law.

    112. CameronB Brodie says:

      Why are you denying the reality that Scotland is being dragged out of the EU under force of the “British constitution”. It isn’t possible to deal with a problem unless it is clearly defined, that is what I am trying to do. Just because I acknowledge something, it doesn’t mean I support it.

    113. CameronB Brodie says:

      “UK does not fucking equal Britain.”

      Stop splitting fucking hairs.

    114. yesindyref2 says:

      I supported you because I presumed wrongly that you were posting about the non-existent British Constitution to show how not only Scotland, but the rest of the UK, England in particualr, had been propagandised to equate UK – Britain and then = England. In all its writings.

      Clearly I got it badly wrong, and I withdraw support for all your previous many many postings with links about the “British Constitution” in the past, now and in the future.

      It’s Unionist bullshit.

    115. aLurker says:


      > Why are you denying the reality that Scotland is being dragged out of the EU under force of the “British constitution”

      The use of quote marks implies that interpretation of the phrase “British constitution” is required.

      That is a BIG STEP FORWARD



      Stop right there and do not attempt to fucking put your lies into my mouth.

      If you are going to resort immediately to such disreputable tactics, you sir, are a fraud.

    116. sassenach says:

      I miss Robert Peffers.

    117. cassandra says:

      @ssassenach 7.53pm

      He has just posted – ALurker.

    118. CameronB Brodie says:

      Is it not terrifying that we have gotten so close to Brexit, on the back of criminal politics? The Brexit vote was hijacked!

      Jack Simson Caird: Taking Back Control: Brexit, Parliament and the Rule of Law

      Over the next six months of the Brexit process, the UK Parliament will make a number of decisions that will have a profound impact on the UK’s constitution and its legal systems. In a Bingham Centre for the Rule Law Report published this week, The Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration: A Preliminary Rule of Law Analysis, we argue that the next six months represents a major test for the Rule of Law in the UK.


      Parliament has two main roles in the final months before exit day. The first is to take the big political decisions that will shape the UK’s relationship with the EU after exit day. The second is to supervise a process of constitutional and legal change through the legislative process. To ensure that the Brexit process does not damage the Rule of Law, Parliament must give equal attention to both.

      Dr Jack Simson Caird, Senior Research Fellow in Parliaments and the Rule of Law, Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law

      N.B. A blind-eye is always helpful when undertaking British constitutional legal praxis.

    119. CameronB Brodie says:

      Whatever, I’m not here to force knowledge on folk. You can only lead a horse to water.

      “Unionist bullshit”

      It’s called reality, I aim to change that to Scotland’s advantage.

    120. yesindyref2 says:

      Interesting idea. The problem is you have to try to make sure you understand what a poster is saying or trying to say, before going off on one. The mentioned poster in question just fires and goes ballistic without first identifying the target:-)

    121. aLurker says:


      your suggestion is incorrect.

      I would much prefer that the estimable Red Hot Chilli Peffers ™ 😉
      was here, with his well honed arguments, but he is not.

      I however, will not allow Cameron B Brody to misrepresent the entirely reasonably posts that I have made, while he refuses to answer the simplest of questions on this forum.

      Hwere is a random link that some may find of interest.

    122. sassenach says:

      cassandra – everything is now getting totally beyond my simple understanding.

      Will go for a lie down.

    123. cassandra says:


      Just like the Candyman if you say his name 5 times he will appear.
      ALurker, nice try. Your ego is too much to stay lurking.

    124. Hamish100 says:

      yesindref 2

      Your’e labour semmit is showing–“..if it was per region and David Martin, Catherine Styler or Alyn Smith were the candidate I’d vote for them,”

      Catherine Styler detests the SNP and Independence David Martin Labour made a career of not upsetting anyone.
      Still you said you will vote SNP so you can’t be all British/UK’ish/ Scottish lol

    125. CameronB Brodie says:

      One last effort to get through to you.

      Brexit Is Destroying Britain’s Constitution
      Whatever the outcome, Brexit has triggered an irreversible collapse of Britain’s political, legal, and social order.

    126. Thepnr says:

      My own view is that if there is to be a general election before the UK has left the EU then the Labour party will have to get down off the fence and campaign for a second EU referendum or rule one out.

      In fact this might happen before the UK takes part in the EU elections if their talks with the Tories fail and the EU elections go ahead. I can’t see anywhere to hide for any party and their positions on Brexit will have to be made clear if they expect to win seats.

      As far a general election happening before Brexit then I reckon there is a high probability that it will. May won the last VONC by 325 to 306 and since then 4 Tories have defected to Change and another resigned the whip (Nick Boles) but the real threat to May and her government is probably from the DUP or hardcore ERG members.

      They will never accept her agreement, nor will they accept her agreement with a Customs Union tagged on, that would be even worse. I reckon in either scenario of one of these deals passing then the DUP would bring down the government rather than allow the Withdrawal Bill to become law.

      Having said that I don’t think there will be any deal passed with or without Labour, more likely is that the UK takes part in the EU elections and when that becomes reality May is doomed. If she goes then the chances of a general election will increase dramatically especially if a hard right Brexiteer is elected leader. Then the soft Tories will mutiny and there will be many resignations. Even Ken Clarke has said he would resign under that scenario.

      May is doomed, the Tories are doomed and a general election is more likely than not before we have left the EU.

    127. Terry callachan says:

      It’s well known that Scottish people living in Scotland voted overwhelmingly in favour of Scottish independence in 2014.
      They will do so again.
      Perhaps even more Scottish people will now be in favour of independence because of brexit and because of the way England’s Westminster has treated Scotland.
      What will change the NO voters of 2014 to YES ?

      The SNP are trying to travel a tricky route that persuades as many of those in other groups who previously voted NO to Scottish independence to now vote YES.

      Let’s look at some of the large groups .
      Let’s take a look at how a people’s vote might affect matters

      I think those who previously voted NO to Scottish independence but want to remain in the E.U.will still vote NO to Scottish independence if a people’s vote takes place and remain wins why would wining a people vote change them from a NO Scottish independence vote to a YES vote ? the people’s vote would just give them everything they had in 2014.

      I think those who previously voted NO to Scottish independence but want brexit to happen will still vote NO to Scottish independence if a people’s vote takes place and remain wins ,clearly they will blame N Sturgeon for supporting it and would be in no mood to change from NO to YES in a Scottish independence referendum.

      People living in Scotland who were born in other EU countries and do not have British citizenship or nationality mostly voted against Scottish independence in 2014 but were not allowed to vote in the brexit referendum, I think they will now feel very vulnerable and are depending on the brexit agreement to give them leave to remain in the UK, I also think they will now be more likely to vote in favour of Scottish independence even if a people’s vote takes place and remain win ,they see N.Sturgeon as an ally.

      People from the rest of the UK who live in Scotland voted overwhelmingly against Scottish independence in 2014 I don’t see that changing even if a people’s vote takes place and remain wins, the majority of them are from England and Wales and won’t change their stance on Scottish independence if we remain or leave the E.U. but some of those from Northern Ireland who are a much smaller group just might change their mind now that they have seen Westminster’s willingness to put the good Friday agreement in the trash can if it suits England’s want.

      Labour voters in Scotland are generally people who think they are socialists and see Corbyn as their leader not Leonard.Many have been shocked at how Westminster treated Scotland during brexit but if a people’s vote takes place and remain wins I think most will be happy to continue as they were.

      I’m sure there are lots of other large groups to be considered but these are the large groups that spring to mind when I look at this whole mess.

    128. CameronB Brodie says:

      May is safe in her position for a year from the failed vote-of-no-confidence. That’s Conservative party rules, apparently.

    129. Normski says:

      Be cautious about quoting Britain Elects polling stats. They are not always accurate and can be massaged to favour the biases of those behind the account.

      Basically they are a couple of students and Little Englander Yoons.

    130. MacMina MacAllan says:

      Is it time for new political parties?

      What a farce when the two-party system at Westminster causes total government meltdown due to both main parties supporting Brexit but both so spilt internally neither is willing to take responsibility for implementing it. Who was there for Remainers turn to? It looks like we may be about to see the emergence of some new thinking with the budding ERG, Change UK and UKIP’s offshoot the Brexit Party. At least the name gives a clue to their policy. Couldn’t Scotland just do with a new Scottish Independence Party devoted to Scottish independence?

      Theresa May has been kicking the Brexit can down the road with delay after delay and I’m worried oor wee Nicla is slouching behind her kicking the Inde can. Just waiting, and waiting, to see how May’s disaster. pans out and waiting to see what’s left for Scotland instead of demonstrating some gumption and leadership. If it’s really better to await Brexit developments couldn’t we at least be getting on with ratifying our constitution and getting our central bank up and running to keep the pot boiling?

      I thought Nicola showed amazing perspicacity in creating the mandate for Inde by specifically stating in the SNP manifesto that there would be Inderef2 “if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.” At the time we had just voted to stay in the UK to avoid losing our membership of the EU so the precise wording of that triggering condition in the manifesto was an inspired example of very astute foresight. But that trump card has not been played and I doubt its validity is going to expire before it’s ever implemented.

      Joanna Cherry and colleagues did a great job in getting a formal legal decision at the highest level confirming that the UK could unilaterally cancel the article 50 request to leave the EU. Why has she and her team not been putting the same effort into getting similar clarity on the Inde position. We need to know without shadow of international doubt whether Holyrood has the mandate and power to hold a referendum without Westminster approval or control. That should have been resolved ages ago and either way the decision will be vital. Either we can hold a referendum whenever we like, or it is made clear that we are a colonial vassal state with only pretendy devolution and have to do something about it. Instead we’ve been meekly accepting Theresa May and her parrot Mundell forever squawking “Now is not the time.”

      Why are the SNP so focussed on saving England from its well-deserved, self-inflicted fate to the detriment of the Inde case? Why did they support the “Common Market 2.0” proposal which, had it been passed, would have shot down our mandate for independence? (it was only very narrowly defeated). If the SNP succeeds in saving England from disaster it only makes the case that Scotland does have an influence in the union. So much influence indeed that Scots are getting to stay in the EU against England’s wishes. Stand by for a tsunami of Tail Wagging Dog headlines. Aye, gin the SNP save England the ba’s oan the slates an Ah doot Inde’s oot the windae.

      The SNP has a part to play, and I often wish they would play it harder, but we need another inde supporting party too. What if we had SNP standing only in constituency seats and leaving the other partner (see SIP above?), to mop up all the list allocation with no penalty for holding constituency seats? What chance then a huge majority for independence without proving mandates, begging for a section 30 order or needing another referendum?

      PS Thanks Thepnr

    131. Thepnr says:

      @CameronB Brodie

      Yes she’s safe until Dec from a VONC by her won party but not from the opposition who can call one anytime in her government.

      The “men in grey suits” can also persuade her that it might be time to resign for the good of the party you understnd. Failing that they can just change the rules when it suits them if they felt the need.

    132. Cactus says:

      The ghost of trilogy Brexit, yet to come (maybe 31/10/19, maybe less)

      Just over 200 spooky days remaining:

      Thrash it out peeps! 😉

      JJ’s request show begins at 9pm, the 1st Quiz starts at 10PM

    133. Petra says:

      Voicing even more ”uncomfortable thoughts”, Stu, amounting to depressing conjecture alongside another moan about the SNP? Who needs the Scotsman, this weather, when you can visit Wings?

      Far too many ”if’s” and ”buts” being outlined in your article, based solely on a General Election being held. Neither party, Tory nor Labour, will be pushing for a GE in the very near future, imo, for all the obvious reasons. And if that’s the case all of your ”discomfort” was for nothing. More so ours.

      You say, ”Imagine that Labour were to offer the SNP a second EU referendum in return for their support, but no second indyref. Having so vigorously committed themselves to a “People’s Vote”, the SNP would risk getting the blame for Brexit if they turned the offer down, something which could hurt them badly in Scotland.”

      Do you really think that the SNP with Independence at the forefront of their mind, that they have in fact, ”so vigorously committed themselves to”, would agree to such an offer? If anything it would be an agreement to an EURef2 PLUS a Section 30 order … all based of course on a GE being held at all and Labour ultimately holding all of the cards. Forget that one.

      You also say, ”Indeed, given the Scottish Government’s lack of action on establishing any other legal route to doing so, it appears to be the SNP’s only actual strategy.”

      Do you really think that the SNP would be so foolish as to inform all and sundry of their plans, especially at such a crucial time in our history? Just because you don’t know what’s going on doesn’t mean that the party hasn’t been considering / investigating other legal routes.

      We were due to leave the EU on the 29th March. I reckoned that your ”wee book” would have been dispersed to around a million Scottish households long before then. I’m just wondering what accounts for that ”lack of action?” No mention of that now. Why I wonder? Because you don’t want to divulge your strategy to all and sundry? Because the fat lady hasn’t sung yet?


      @ Gary says at 3:27 pm … ”We shouldn’t be drawn onto the unionists battleground. By keeping this simple and demanding article 50 be revoked as our people didn’t vote for it, reinforces our position as a sovereign nation and signatory member of this horrible union. We know that the Unionists will disrespect our wishes but that plays into our hands. We must use this fiasco to our advantage.”

      Gary where did you get the idea from that Scotland is in a position to demand that Article 50 be revoked for our citizens only? If you have some evidence to support your statement, please point me in the right direction.

      The reason that the ECJ entertained the demand from Cherry et al and ultimately afforded the UK the capacity to revoke Article 50 is because the UK is one of the EU’s 28 Member States that has been involved in Internationally recognised treaty making over the last 46 years. Scotland is NOT one of the 28 EU Member States. The last that the EU heard of us, Scotland, was when a majority of Sovereign Scots voted to remain in the Union followed by an EURef, pertaining to the whole of the UK, that voted to leave the EU. In other words they won’t entertain us until we are Independent, which means that we won’t have to revoke A50 at all.

      Do you really think that Joanna Cherry, a truly committed Independentista, with a comprehensive knowledge of the ins and outs of the legality of revoking Article 50 wouldn’t have used it to benefit the Scots, IF she thought that it was possible to do so? The only way to get out of this h*llhole is to convince over 50% of Sovereign Scots that our get out of jail card relates to ultimately revoking the Treaty of Union, by taking any number of routes to achieve that objective.

    134. Clootie says:

      The SNP do not have to align with anyone if no compromise or deal is offered. You simply highlight your ability to use your block vote at a time of your choosing. Let the sword hang over Labourd head.

    135. call me dave says:

      Philosophy is not my strong point but I enjoy a good read of the ‘Calvin and Hobbes’ tomes and I have a large collection of such.

      I believe Hobbes just won the masters too what a tiger!

      There should be Scottish input to this ‘British’ constitution if it exists surely, but many experts tell us on big Auntie that it’s not written down, so that is suspicious.

      So it’s what they say it is when they get to choose which ever book or historical event they decide… seems a bit unfair to me.

      Who are they? Not us.

      Lets have that Scottish constitution that’s in the production stages.

    136. yesindyref2 says:

      Is there something about “Non-aligned” as I describe myself, you don’t understand?

      Those three are part of the Super Six after Jardine dropped out, who took the Article 50 revocation case to the ECJ:

      A number of Scottish politicians have led the charge to seek a decision from the ECJ, including Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, Labour MEPs Catherine Stihler and David Martin, SNP MEP Alyn Smith, SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC and Scottish Lib Dem MP Christine Jardine.

      also the six quoted here:

      People of principle – regardless of party.

    137. James Barr Gardner says:

      TRIDENT ! Will this be a Red Line for Red Tory Jezza ?

    138. twathater says:

      jfngw says:
      14 April, 2019 at 3:21 pm

      To quote Michael Russell in today’s Sunday National

      “We have a mandate for an independence referendum but the constitution requires Westminster to agree to it”

      So I am confused , are the people of Scotland sovereign , or are we constrained by and subjected to gaining the consent of the unionist parties in wastemonster

      Is the assertion that wastemonster is the sovereign arbiter of what happens within the UK including within the devolved nations actually the truth of the matter

      If this is indeed the reality of the situation where is this treaty of union between 2 kingdoms

      Who in actual fact does the wastemonster parliament represent , who is the wastemonster parliament that can introduce without consultation EVEL , whereby Scottish MP’s are excluded from discussing and voting on what is considered english only matters

      Quite honestly Scotland has been subjected to this abomination for over 300 years , mostly due to the fact that we have had unionist supporting MP’s and parties governing us who are quite happy for this abomination to continue

      We in Scotland have elected a majority SNP SG to carry out the wishes of the sovereign people of Scotland , the sovereignty of the people of Scotland which was ratified uncontested by the wastemonster government in 2018 , so why do we have a Scottish government minister telling us that we cannot hold a referendum to gauge peoples feelings towards independence without a S30 order , and what constitution requires wastemonster consent when we are constantly told that the UK doesn’t have a written constitution

      IMO this has gone on for far too long , this constant uncontested compliance of wastemonster rules , this reiteration of wastemonster supremacy , as people have referred to , we have a cadre of very well educated and intelligent people why have they not seen fit to challenge legally the concept and construct of the wastemonster parliament

    139. Lenny Hartley says:

      Re Russel in The National
      Its time the feckin SNP grow a pair of balls, im sick and tired of them playing by Westminster rules, seriously considering resigning my membership.

    140. Hamish100 says:

      Stilher aint non-aligned, Jardine aint non-aligned, Martin aint non-aligned when it comes to Scottish Independence.

      I understand perfectly.

    141. Shug says:

      SNP should forget saving the UK from brexit and stay neutral.

      They despise your advice.

      As I say that the more Nicols suggests the best option the more they will not take it on principle

      It is quite funny really

    142. Thepnr says:

      All this talk of “saving” England from Brexit is utter bullshit. The SNP are trying their damnedest to keep Scotland IN the EU. The very simple practicalities of that mean that the entire UK must remain in the EU if Scotland is also too remain.

      There is no possible Scotland only deal available until Scotland becomes Independent, we are not yet Independent so what is it that so many appear to fail to understand?

      If the Scottish government wishes to fight for the choice made by the sovereign people of Scotland by 62% to 38% to remain in the EU than they MUST fight for the UK to remain in the EU.

    143. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Lenny Hartley @ 21:13,

      I must admit that when I read that article today, my reaction was negative. It gave the impression that the SNP leadership don’t have any workable plan. Or at least a proactive Plan B after the S.30 request is refused, as it inevitably will be. I just hope I’m wrong about that.

      Patience is needed, but it won’t last forever. People need to believe that there’s a realistic hope of getting out of this mess in the near future, otherwise support will just start to bleed away.

      Very disappointing after the great showing of Ian Blackford in the HoC lately.

    144. Thepnr says:

      @Robert J. Sutherland

      Of course there is a plan for what the next steps to be taken will be if and when a Sction 30 order is refused. Nicola Surgeon wrote a letter to Theresa may and indicated such, here’s an extract.

      It is also worth noting that the clear precedent of the 2012 Edinburgh Agreement should make reaching agreement on this occasion a relatively straightforward process – addressing any concern you may have that discussions would be time consuming for your government when they are also preparing for EU negotiations.

      In light of the above, there appears to be no rational reason for you to stand in the way of the will of the Scottish Parliament and I hope you will not do so.

      However, in anticipation of your refusal to enter into discussions at this stage, it is important for me to be clear about my position.

      It is my firm view that the mandate of the Scottish Parliament must be respected and progressed. The question is not if, but how.

      I hope that will be by constructive discussion between our governments. However, if that is not yet possible, I will set out to the Scottish Parliament the steps I intend to take to ensure that progress is made towards a referendum.

      Refusal of a Section 30 order should not be assumed to be a given, there will be legal challenges and according to what I#ve read it is Westminster who is likely to come off the worse. I wish a large chunk of Independence supporters would show a bit more faith for the people who have gotten them to where we are now.

      That is within touching distance, have the balls to see it through to the end and lets not be falling for any MSM bullshit trying to pull your spirits down and using your own fears against you. Well, fuck that for a game of soldiers.

    145. Heart of Galloway says:

      Heart of Galloway says:
      Polls are all very well but the last REAL plebiscite in Scotland – last week’s Leith Walk by-election – was a significant straw in the wind.
      SNP gain from Labour, SNP and Green vote up, Tory and Slab vote down, Indy vote 61 per cent.
      It looks odds on that we will contest the Euro elections on May 23, a vote in which Scotland will have the chance to remind Europe to ‘leave the light on’ for us.
      The campaigns in Scotland and England will take entirely different paths, ours coloured by an internationalist desire to remain in the EU family of nations, England’s by recrimination and nasty English nationalism.
      Voter motivation will also come into play: the SNP’s (and Greens’) resolute pro-EU stance and positivity will strike a chord in a country 70 per cent behind retaining EU membership.
      Conversely, Corbyn’s craven obfuscation and May’s epic-scale mendacity over Europe will cost their parties dear.
      My prediction IF Scotland takes part in the Euro elections on May 23?
      For the reasons outlined above the SNP are a stick-on for 2 seats.Labour and the Tories can expect just one apiece.
      That leaves two up for grabs – but who will claim them?
      I reckon UKIP clown Coburn is oot, which leaves the Greens, Lib Dens and SNP as players.
      Most likely scenario is that Lib Dems and Greens pick up one each,leaving a score of Indy and UKOK tied at 3-3.
      That in itself would be a major advance from 2014’s 2-4 defeat and would bode well for IndyRef2.
      However, it is not outwith the realms of possibility that the pro-EU surge could see the SNP and Greens pick up seats 5 and 6, delivering a 4-2 Indy victory. Imagine what that would do to the political dynamic at this critical time!
      Little wonder May is desperate to avoid a UK Euro vote – the symbolism of electing new MEPs when she vowed no such thing would happen will tear her party apart – and provide final proof that Scotland and England are taking very different political paths in the world.

    146. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Thepnr @ 21:31,

      Hmmm, support for Remain in Scotland has now gone up to something like 75% as the facts start to assert themselves, but it could go up to 99% and it likely wouldn’t matter a damn if a sufficent number of Leavers in England held fast to their delusions. What then?

      The best one could say would be that it illustrated more than ever how we are overruled by an English super-majority, but that’s little consolation for a result that would still leave our precious future hostage to that of England.

      The prospect becomes even worse, if that’s possible, if a PV were to change the result to Remain due to English votes alone. People here might just breathe a sigh of relief and say “we’re thoroughly fed up with referendums, so go away and leave us alone now”.

      The only outcome that might be interesting were if Scottish votes swung the result from Leave to Remain. We might then even get an offer to bog-off!

      Don’t get me wrong, I think the support for PV was right and deliberate, not accidental. I surmise that the thinking, whether cynical or just realist, is that PV won’t happen, because neither May nor Corbyn want it, and the SG is instead just waiting for some kind of Brexit to be decided before launching an indy campaign.

      This kind of waiting yet again for others to decide our future isn’t very inspiring, though. We could well do with something more proactive.

      As things stand, however, there is likely to be EU elections after all, so we will just have to focus on those for now and do the best we can to register a high degree of support for indy through those.

      Step by step.

    147. yesindyref2 says:

      Great stuff! Here’s another couple of data points for you. Though it was great having such sweeping SNP gains in 2015 that there were 56 SNP MPs and only 1 each of the 3 unionist parties, it was sad to see Mark Lazarowicz and Michael Moore go. Probably one or two others I forget now.

    148. McDuff says:

      The SNP should have nothing to do with Labour or any Westminster party for that matter as they would be tarnished by association. Look what happened to the LibDems after their coalition with the Tories.
      The SNP are also in danger of becoming a lacklustre political party with a lethargic attitude to independence which will drive away voters.
      As I have said before, they should stand back and let Westminster implode, its their mess let them sort it if that is remotely possible,

    149. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Thepnr @ 21:43,

      Thanks for that on both counts, a very useful reminder to lift the spirits.

      Never mind the BritNat MSN, I just wish that Mike Russell could manage to write a piece in the indy-supporting press that came somewhere near that standard instead of merely repeating the same old constitutional platitudes.

    150. sassenach says:

      Thepnr @ 9-43pm

      Thanks for the post, I’m sick of all the ‘concerned’ folk on here giving advice to our FM.

      She knows exactly what she’s doing, and it’s in Scotland’s interests – why do people doubt that?

      In the present Westminster clusterfcuk it’s a miracle she’s not thoroughly disheartened when she hears some of the garbage on this site (by ‘supposedly’ indy supporters!!). I think we have a lot of Britnats jumping in to take advantage when it sounds like there’s dissension in our ranks. Haud hard folks!

      Wings used to lift my spirits, the last few articles have started to depress me. Gie’s a break Rev!! ( God help us next week after the Dons game today!!).

    151. defo says:

      Corbyn is well up for an election.
      There’s a purge needed in the party, or ultimately, he’s over.
      The great emptying out of the Bliarite careerists.
      Expect astronomical levels of ambiguity in the manifesto re brexit position.

    152. Thepnr says:


      “The SNP are also in danger of becoming a lacklustre political party with a lethargic attitude to independence which will drive away voters.”

      You post exactly the same stuff every time, if there’s anything likely to drive down support for Independence it is posts just exactly like yours and Wings has become infested with them in recent weeks.

      Here’s the simple facts, support for thye SNP is rising, the Tories and Labour and leaking voters all over the place because quite simply they and their leaders are totally USELESS.

      People moaning about Nicola Sturgeon need to open their eyes a bit wider and have a good look at what the other lot have got. Support for Independence is steady but you can damn well expect that to change as the Brexit mismanagement by Westminster continues.

      There has never been a better chance of Independence and it will be increasing in the very short term, get a grip folks seriously. You have to ask yourself exactly what it is you’re moaning about? You’ll get an update on timing from the SNP after the Easter recess, what else could she have said before now? Absolutely nothing, she doesn’t have a crystal ball either.

      If you want Independence then be prepared to fight for it and put your heart and soul into supporting it, not only in the good times but through the bad as well. Fair weather supporters should stay at home just in case it rains. Nobody else wants to march alongside a moaning, grumbling sourface do they?

    153. CameronB Brodie says:

      The “Right to Development” is an inalienable human right that aims to guarantee universal opportunity for individuals to enjoy involvement in political, economic and cultural development. It also guarantees local ownership of all natural wealth an resources. That sort of progressive stuff is not for folk living Scotland though. The British constitution defines Britain as One Nation, so its’ doubleplus good Tory philosophy and its’ traditions must be maintained. ;(

      Advanced International Relations and Advanced Global Politics 2
      4: The Controversial Role of Culture in International RelationsTopics: –

      1. Types of Cultures: Political, Economic and Strategic Cultures
      2. The Pervasive Influence of World-View
      3. Culture and Foreign Policy
      4. The Issue of Culture Diversity
      5. Cultures: Sources of Conflict, Sources of Cooperation
      6. The New Cultural Internationalism
      7. Bibliography, Resources and Further Reading

      1. Types of Cultures: Political, Strategic and Organisational Cultures

      ‘Culture’ is difficult to define but an easily understood and important concept in international affairs. At the basic level culture is ‘the human made part of the environment’ which can be communicated, and which provides the patterns, meanings and knowledge of human activity socially and in relation to the world (See Hudson 1997b, pp2-4 for some further definitions).

      Part of the problem with culture is that it is so inclusive that it is hard to know what to exclude (Hudson 197b, p2), and therefore it is very hard to ‘operationalise’ the concept and make exact behavioural experiments about it. It tends to be a fuzzy concept that is hard to usefully define.

      Rather than try to cover all the meanings of ‘culture’, we can start this discussion by briefly outlining three areas where culture is often found useful in discussing international affairs. They are the related areas of political, strategic and organisational cultures, suggesting that different societies may structure these three areas of human activity in different ways.

      A technical definition of political culture can be given: ‘Political culture is all of the discourses, values, and implicit rules that express and shape political action and intentions, determine the claims groups may and may not make upon one another, and ultimately provide a logic of political action’ (Hudson 1977b, p10). However, as Valerie Hudson has noted, this is very hard to distinguish from general notions of culture (Hudson 1997b, p10), since politics is deeply concerned about power and human relationships…

    154. CameronB Brodie says:

      ….British constitution is traditionally interpreted as defining the unitary British state as One Nation

    155. Hamish100 says:


      Yeh what I said earlier you’re a labourite at heart.

      “… it was sad to see Mark Lazarowicz and Michael Moore go. Probably one or two others I forget now.”

      Certainly Moore wasn’t the worse and a lib dem.
      How about BBC regular Tom Harris? A Tory in labour clothing? Jim Murphy – easy to forget, Margaret Curran, Douglas Alexander, All attacked Scottish Independence

    156. Terry callachan says:

      The stance of the SNP supporting a people’s vote doesn’t make good sense

      On the one hand SNP say Scotland voted a majority in favour of staying in the E.U. and that should be respected and it’s diabolical that England’s Westminster is rejecting it.

      Then on the other hand the SNP say a majority in England voted to leave the E.U. but that should not be respected

      I disagree with pnr that we should all be happy if SNP can keep us in the E.U. no matter what !

      If it means reducing the chances of Scottish independence which a remain win in a people’s vote most certainly will then I don’t want the SNP doing what it is doing at present I want them to call a referendum for Scottish independence now and go to court if necessary to prove Scotland has the right to determine its own future and the right to have an independence referendum as often as it likes and whenever it wants

    157. geeo says:

      CameronB has pretty much nailed his colours to the mast now.

      Unionist propagandist.

    158. CameronB Brodie says:

      Does the Scottish government not have a budget for public service information? Would it not be an idea to use some of this to educate Scots as to their legal personality and human rights, with particular regard to Brexit and our EU citizenship?

      Handbook of International Relations
      Chapter 7: Norms and Ethics in International Relations

      The principles of international society are bound to change – interview with Andrew Linklater

      Ethics in World Politics: Cosmopolitanism and Beyond?

      Indigenous Perspectives on International Relations Theory

    159. CameronB Brodie says:

      Nah, your just a chauvinist with a narrow and closed mind. Away and take your face for a walk.

    160. yesindyref2 says:

      I should be flattered you’re fascinated by me, but I’m afraid it’s not reciprocated.

    161. Thepnr says:

      @Terry callachan

      Not surprised that you disagree with what I think as generally I have found myself disagreeing with everything you have ever posted on this site especially your anti English bias.

      This SNP are not interested in what the majority in England voted for in the EU referendum. Why would they be since they represent the people of Scotland?

      So the fact England voted leave means nothing to the SNP, it is Scotland’s vote they demand is respected and no more than that.

    162. Legerwood says:

      sassenach says:
      14 April, 2019 at 10:08 pm
      Thepnr @ 9-43pm

      Thanks for the post, I’m sick of all the ‘concerned’ folk on here giving advice to our FM.””

      Whole heartedly agree.

    163. yesindyref2 says:


      Open Government Partnership

      Scotland’s membership of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) supports our commitment to openness, transparency, and citizen participation across everything we do as a government.

      Our second OGP Action Plan promotes trust and co-operation between government and civil society.
      About open government

      The OGP aims to secure commitments from governments around the world to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.

      After launching in 2011 with eight founding governments, the OGP now has more than 90 member countries, as well as hundreds of civil society organisations.

      When governments join the partnership they must endorse the Open Government Declaration and commit to the following principles:

      increase the availability of information about governmental activities
      support civic participation
      implement the highest standards of professional integrity through administrations
      increase access to new technologies for openness and accountability

      Scotland in the OGP

      In 2016, Scotland was selected as one of 15 pioneer governments around the world to join a programme to bring new leadership and innovation into the OGP at all levels of government.

      We developed the first OGP Scottish Action Plan in partnership with civil society to set out how we would use the opportunity to improve the lives of people living in Scotland, to learn from others, and to share our experience of Open Government. We delivered the first Action Plan over 2017.

      We have been invited to speak at a number of international conferences, and the Scottish Civil Society Network Chair has been selected to attend the International OGP Steering Group.
      Second OGP Action Plan

      Our second OGP Action Plan was published in January 2019 and contains five commitments to be delivered by September 2020. This follows approval by the Open Government Steering Group and Scottish Ministers.

      In response to independent recommendations regarding our first Action Plan, we took the following actions in developing our second:

      improving governance via an OGP Steering Group co-chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for Government Business and Constitutional Relations and the Chair of the Scottish OGP Civil Society Network
      widening our public consultations
      using open planning methods that allow others to view our progress and get involved

      In developing the content of the plan, we opened up the process for wider public input. This engagement included running a series of public events in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Inverness and Stirling to gather ideas for the Action Plan, as well as crowdsourcing potential commitments through the website:

      Full paper here (sorry about the URL length)

    164. CameronB Brodie says:

      It would be ethically immoral for the SNP to seek to change English political culture, so hopefully that is not their intention. However, it would also be ethically immoral for the Scottish government not to do all in its’ powers to prevent Brexit from happening, as Scotland is directly and negatively affected.

    165. CameronB Brodie says:

      We also voted against it. They are obliged but that obligation requires they take this fight to the death.

    166. Cubby says:

      There is no British constitution. There is no UK constitution. Just a lot of agreed conventions/procedures etc etc.

      There are plenty of articles written on the subject attempting to explain the situation from an English perspective.

      There is only the Treaty of union 1706/7 .

      The question to ask is why the great British empire could not create a written constitution during the over 300 years it has been in existence. Just too busy invading, killing and looting other people’s resources or are there other reasons?

    167. yesindyref2 says:

      Just a quick sample like the previous one. Well, quicker:

      Our update on progress in implementing UN Human Rights Council recommendations in five thematic areas following the third Universal Periodic Review of human rights in the UK in May 2017.

      Ministerial foreword

      “It is by building access to all human rights that society becomes stronger and more able to resist unpredictable shocks.”
      UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet

      In December 2018, the Scottish Government published its response to recommendations made by the United Nations Human Rights Council following the third Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the UK’s human rights record.

      At the time of the review in May 2017 I had the pleasure of serving as Convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities and Human Rights Committee and I very much welcomed the Scottish Government’s publication of a formal response to the UPR recommendations. This was the first time Scottish Ministers had responded in detail to the UN Human Rights Council’s recommendations.


      Some people forget the SNP is actually the Scottish Government 😎

      Oh well, time to do something else.

    168. Thepnr says:

      I know nothing about a constitution and am not in the slightest interested because it’s an argument unlikely to be won.

      I do know that there is law some of it, made in Westminster applies to the whole UK and then there is separate Scottish Law.

      The Scotland Act is UK Law and it says that matters pertaining to the Union are reserved. This is why the Section 30 became a “thing” before the last referendum.

      Don’t think that none of this hasn’t been argued over and over by better and more knowledgable legal minds than ours, because it has.

      Many believe that Scotland did not require a section 30 order to get away from the fact that matters about the Union are reserved whereas others did. Cameron really didn’t care as he thought any referendum was doomed to failure and so to avoid forcing the issue agreed for a Section 30 order that gave temporary powers to the Scottish Government to decide on the rules for a referendum including the question and the timing.

      So here we are again and just maybe this time it will have to be tested by the courts, all that rally matters is to believe that if Scotland decides to have a referendum then it will do so. It’s likely that the courts would agree with that but nothing of course is certain.

      I’d say we just have one anyway and that would scare them more then anything else that could be done to a Westminster that saw fit to refuse a Section 30 order in the first place.

    169. Dr Jim says:

      Westminster thinks of itself as the Monarchy it replaced

    170. yesindyref2 says:

      2 x indeed.

    171. Dr Jim says:

      Everybody knows Boris Johnson’s a complete incompetent Numptie who invents his own latin and no one has respect for him, but when he’s Prime Minister they’ll all bow kneel and insist the *nation* gets behind him and respects him and he will be Churchillised

    172. Dr Jim says:

      It’s not just Scotland that has a problem with bowing and scraping and tugging the forelock, these people down there are bowing to an actress off a soap

      And they question our intelligence?

    173. Dr Jim says:

      The UK teaches other cultures about democracy by sending a Prince to shoot at them from a helicopter

    174. Wiggiwiz says:

      It looks more like Corbyn will be forced by the PLP to push for a PV in the EU elections as that would give Labour a mandate to demand it from the Government if they win, which it looks like they will.

      With the Tories’ screaming about not ignoring the will of the people, they’ve painted themselves into a corner where a mandate relating to our relationship with Europe – in actual European elections – will force them to either ignore the democratic will, or concede to a People’s Vote. That means Labour wouldn’t even have to negotiate for it, and can focus on using the negotiations to push for their ‘realistic’ customs union Brexit, with the PV in the bag.

      The idea that Corbyn has a cunning plan to save a PV for six moves ahead in a tactic to prevent indyref2 is to flatter ourselves. He’s made it pretty clear he doesn’t give a second thought to Scotland. Whenever he has to talk on the subject his eyes go dead as he recites the second-grade offcuts that the branch office usually give to SLab MSPs with the long words and logic removed. They’re out to get the Tories, and once the tactics are made clear to Corbyn, he’d be a fool not to make a PV the entirety of Labour’s EU election campaign.

    175. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dr Jim
      Got it in one and that is dangerous as Westminster could topple to extremists at any time. Well, more so.

      What is Institutional Culture?

      European Union and the Politics of Culture

      Why Democracies Collapse: The Reasons for Democratic Failure and Success

      Solidarity in diverse societies: beyond neoliberal multiculturalism and welfare chauvinism

    176. CameronB Brodie says:

      I was referring to “Westminster thinks of itself as the Monarchy it replaced”.

    177. Willie says:

      Both Tory and Labour want to destroy the SNP.

      Both Tory and Labour want to do everything they can to resist Scottish Independence. One only need to remember the ‘ Vow’ to get that sentiment.

      Corbyn is a British Nationalist. He is vigourosly anti Scottish independence and pro British Independence in his support for Brexit. Corbyn knows fine well that one of the big drivers for Brexit for the Elites is that out of the EU the UK will be able to reduce workers rights, reduce environmental protection, prevent citizens appealing to supra national courts like the ECJ or on human rights, allow the UK to operate as an offshore banking iisland.

      The Great Repeal Bill as it was called is very much part of the Elite Brexit agenda yet Corbyn throws his lot in with the Brexiteers.

      I don’t know what strategy our First Minister is playing, but for many, a strategy for Scotland”s independence relying on either Corbyn or Rees Mogg or Boris Johnson giving Scotland the right to leave strikes me as a flawed strategy.

      And we thought Labour in Scotland was the Feeble Fifty.. …………well history repeats!

    178. Thepnr says:

      @CameronB Brodie

      We had this discussion before, you’re posting to many links and taking over the thread in every article. Please rein it in a bit or stick them on Off Topic.

      Believe me Cameron 90% of the Wings “audience” would not want to read any academic paper ever.

      Where are YOU in all of this? What is your opinion on the actual article posted by the Rev or other peoples posts?

      C’mon Cameron you have your own voice and what you post is being mostly ignored. Just too highbrow I’d guess because it’s boring and has little to actually do with Scotland’s fight for Independence.

      How many people have you actually met in Scotland that care about:

      Solidarity in diverse societies: beyond neoliberal multiculturalism and welfare chauvinism

      Your on the wrong website with this stuff, there are others.

    179. yesindyref2 says:

      Let’s get some legal definition into this “Constitution” thing. From Lady Hale for example, Deputy President of the UK Supreme Court in a speech about Constitutions:

      A word search for the word “British” finds only two: “British Insurers” and “British citizenship”. That’s zero, nil, zilch, nada “British Constitution”.

      Search for “UK Constitution” finds one:

      “This does, of course, illustrate the gaping hole in the power of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to act as guardian of the UK Constitution in the same way that other Supreme and Constitutional courts do the world over. We cannot strike down Acts of the UKParliament. But please do not think that I – or any of my brethren – want us to be able to do that. ”

      There is one reference to “United Kingdom Constitution”.

      There are three ways in which we have definitely become the guardians of the United Kingdom Constitution. “.

      You’d think she’d know, the UKSC is the nearest thing the UK has to a Constitutional court!

      It’s worth reading on from the last quote for her views over the “devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”.

      For instance this: “everything which is not reserved to the Westminster Parliament is devolved to the Scottish Parliament,

      and this: “Crucially, it recognised that the Scottish Parliament was not to be regarded in the same light as an ordinary local authority. The wider ground s for judicial review of administrative action, which can be used to attack the decisions of local government, did not apply.

      That was back in 2016. A lot has happened since then, for instance the EU Continuity Bill, which found bar one item, the Bill was legal at the time.

    180. Thepnr says:


      You’re another McDuff with nothing but moans.

      “I don’t know what strategy our First Minister is playing, but for many, a strategy for Scotland”s independence relying on either Corbyn or Rees Mogg or Boris Johnson giving Scotland the right to leave strikes me as a flawed strategy.

      And we thought Labour in Scotland was the Feeble Fifty.. …………well history repeats!”

      What evidence do you have that Sturgeon is relying on Corbyn, Mogg or anyone else? It’s complete bullshit!

      Than we get the feeble fifty, you lot really are a laugh.

    181. yesindyref2 says:

      Sorry Thepnr, took me time to put that together and didn’t see your posting.

      Yes, most of the stuff is so far off the beaten track it’s not relevant to Indy at all, except in as much as the planting season in Scotland is (tends to be later than the southern based gardening books would tell you!).

    182. CameronB Brodie says:

      Fair enough, I’ll leave my future in the hands of an electorate that is woefully under-educated about politics and simultaniously victims of a dysfunctional political system, and sit quietly on my hands. How do you know what the readers will want to read? Has the Rev. had any noticeable problem with me? Have you not read anything I’ve posted about AGENCY?

      Critical political philosophy and administrative law and stuff are irrelevant. Sorry but that’s stupidity on stilts.

    183. Col says:

      How to overthrow? Popular uprisings!? Can we shout long and hard enough for change when they control the narrative?

    184. geeo says:

      Cameron thinks i am a chauvinist !!

      His best gibbering pish yet. Bravo. Deary me.





      a person displaying aggressive or exaggerated patriotism.



      relating to or characteristic of a chauvinist.

      “a chauvinist rejection of foreign interference”

      synonyms:jingoistic, chauvinistic, excessively patriotic, excessively nationalistic, sectarian, isolationist, flag-waving, xenophobic, racist, racialist, ethnocentric;

      I have to say, anyone reading my posts and coming to that conclusion about me, needs to be taking their meds more regularly..

      Comedy Gold from a state propagandist.

    185. CameronB Brodie says:

      If I’m bowing out I’ll leave you with some Educational Psychology and bit of Cognitive Theory and stuff. Given this was my first ‘teaching gig’ I thought I’d done reasonably well to hit at least one of the requirements of the STEEP educational strategy, i.e. providing high quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs.

      Changing Institutions, Enviornments and People: Using Science to Improve Achievement.
      Resistance to Change: Unconscious Knowledge and the Challenge of Unlearning


      The goal of this chapter is to propose that widespread evidence of our failure to achieve individual, organizational and social change may be due, in part, to the impact of automated and unconscious knowledge. After a brief review of the results of personal and collective change programs and the accuracy of self-reported change, the discussion turns to an overview of research on the learning, operation, self-monitoring and unlearning of automated knowledge.

      Evidence from task analysis is presented to make the case that about 70 percent of adult knowledge is fully automated, unconscious and not inspectable even when it is active because: 1) Adults are largely unaware of many of the
      goals they are pursuing and the strategies they are using. The consequence of this situation is that we are largely unable to accurately report our attempts to change; 2) When change strategies fail, one of the important but largely unexamined causes is the interference caused by the automated and dysfunctional cognitive behaviors we wish to change, and; 3) We know very little about how to unlearn dysfunctional automated and unconscious knowledge to clear the way for new covert and overt behavior.

      The chapter ends with a suggestion that if we increase the resources invested in the study of the unlearning of automated knowledge we may increase the success of attempts to achieve and recognize successful personal and social changes.

      Critical Educational Psychology:
      fostering emancipatory potential within the therapeutic project

      What is Self-Efficacy Theory in Psychology? Definition & Examples

      The System to Enhance Educational Performance (STEEP): Using Scienceto Improve Achievement

    186. CameronB Brodie says:

      Nah, your chauvinism takes the form of believing in your own pish and closing your mind to commonly held perceptions of reality. That is to be expected from the perspective of Educational Psychology, which tells us that males are more resistant to new knowledge than females. I take it you’re a bloke.

    187. Dr Jim says:

      Why would the UK restrict themselves to a constitution when they can bestow on themselves the powers of God by pretending the titular head of state the Monarchy has passed them such powers

      No need to overthink that one

    188. Dr Jim says:

      God must be a man because if it was a woman she’d have had an earth makeover ages ago

      Whole new planet different colours tones better animals weather, man God’s just sat there scratching his……….

    189. CameronB Brodie says:

      OK, how’s about a compromise? I’ll not disappear as I know my practice is as recommended by Educational Psychology and the STEEM approach to fostering emancipatory potential. So I’ll only post one link per post. Of course, I might post more often. 🙂

    190. CameronB Brodie says:

      STEEP approach, actually. 😉

    191. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’m probably over-egging it with “as recommended”. I do hit one of the recommended procedural components though. Not bad for a beginner dealing with issues on-the-hoof. 😉

    192. yesindyref2 says:

      Interesting article here on the Treaty of Union but you’d have to register with jstor (maybe a throwaway email addy):

      Still reading, there seem as always to be assumptions that can and should be challenged, and I personally hate the word “Certainly” in modern historical texts about something which was then (1964) 257 and more years old [1] , but it does have a lot of interesting things so far which don’t contradict current understanding (as well as some that do). Time for a roll-up 🙂

      Oh, you might be able to get it elsewhere from the details here where you also get the first page preview:

      [1] history gets rewritten, and the more controversial it is, the more it gets rewritten. There is plenty of evidence that records, letters and archives in Scotland were burnt, not so much those in England however.

    193. CameronB Brodie says:

      The social sciences, such as history, weren’t following a post-colonial methodology in the 1960’s. That was the age when scientific positivism reigned supreme and social inequality was enhanced by the lack of a gendered approach to research.

      That’s simply contextual back-story. I’m not judging the article but British historiography back then was still to adopt a “four nations” approach.

    194. yesindyref2 says:

      Mmm, that was an interesting article. Some fits, some is new, some doesn’t fit, some bits missing or dismissed. It’s a curious mix of non pro-union, anti-Scots parliamentarians and parties, dismissive of “modern” claims about the invalid “dissolution of parliament”, while also dismissing the more extreme of modern unionist claims. While not really going into Darien for some reason. I’m pretty sure I never read it before, though if you go back 35 years or more, I can’t tell, I read lots. I devoured books and things like that.

      I’d have to say it’s still unionist in nature. One of these days people might actually piece together the real story, there are bits and pieces in the likes of castles and houses all round Scotland and in museums, and new material emerging occasionally. Hopefully that’ll be long after Independence!

      Having written that, it’s definitely unionist! But I am biased – as everyone is.

      Nope, definitely unionist. Very much so. The blame is all Scots, Anne and her lot were the good guys. I’ll take a rain check on that one.

    195. yesindyref2 says:

      A couple of wee points, there was an early illegality, something forget what, succession, wasn’t addressed for 90 days whereas it should have been done in 20. Another was a Scots Parliament passed Bill which Queensberry was afraid to pass to Anne to sing. Can’t be arsed re-reading to check, and it’s not word scannable.

      Ho hum, next!

    196. yesindyref2 says:

      That whole thing started by the way by attempting to search the UN Treaties database to see if the Treaty of Union was ever registered. Found a few going back to the 1100s, but then got distracted. Another job not finished – any takers?

      Probably zzzzzzz for me, cuppa tea first.

    197. yesindyref2 says:

      On that note:

      and follow through amd through and … starting with “Treaty Series of the United Nations”.

    198. Dr Jim says:

      Treat yersel tae yer bed

    199. Alex says:

      Wake up folks. Scotland does not need Westminster’s permission just read Craig Murray’s ” The Scottish parliament Does have the Right to Withdraw from the Act of Union. This man was a former ambassador.

    200. Ottomanboi says:

      INDEPENDENCE….ours to claim, take and seize.
      Enough of the soft gloves and fancy political moves!
      New mindset, New direction. New national politics.

    201. Martin says:

      You are, of course, correct. The only saving ggrace I see is that Corbyn wants brexit and I doubt he would actually go for a people’s vote. Thankfully I doubt there’s enough time for a GE (especially with a resusltant hung parliament) and a PV.

      More worrying ofr me is the mess the tories are making of brexit is, anecdotally amongs many of my pro indy friends, making them pause about indy and say “maybe that too would be a total mess.” I am increasingly concerned that the window for indy2 is closing rapidly and we may well miss the peak timing.

    202. galamcennalath says:

      Corbyn will put himself and his party first. Given the collapse of the Tories in the polls, he will want an election more than anything else. He will not want to compromise with May now.

      May will want to avoid an election. Her priority will be to deliver Brexit asap. She hasn’t had much success on that front so far. Might the polls drive the ERG group to back May? A ‘bad’ Brexit (in their eyes) or Corbyn as PM, which is worst for them?

      One thing is consistent with Brexit…. no one ever makes the obvious moves!

    203. Patrick Roden says:


      “The SNP are also in danger of becoming a lacklustre political party with a lethargic attitude to independence which will drive away voters.”

      The SNP would certainly drive away ‘members’ if they became ‘lacklustre’ towards independence, but to drive away voters?

      Where would an independence voter switch to? Labour? Tories? Lib-Dems?

      The only other party that supports independence in our parliament is the Greens and the way they have supported the repeal of the OBAF legislation really damaged them in the minds of most reasonable voters in Scotland.

    204. Papko says:

      “anecdotally amongst many of my pro Indy friends, making them pause about Indy and say “maybe that too would be a total mess.” I am increasingly concerned that the window for indy2 is closing rapidly and we may well miss the peak timing.”

      Same here exactly, One obvious reason why Indy will be smooth and pain free, whilst Brexit is a disaster.
      Is the talents of the SNP leaders at the helm.

    205. In my view Nicola Sturgeon should have been concentrating on solidifying the case for independence and what legal process she would pursuing to achieving independence,
      if as seems more than likely that Westminster would refuse to grant her a section 30.

    206. galamcennalath says:

      A City AM opinion piece on the case for a GE

      A GE would force parties to clarify their Brexit plans in manifestos.

      However, I have my doubts if there is sufficient discipline within Lab or Con to keep all elected MPs adhering to the published party plan.

    207. Peter Mc Culloch

      re Nicola consolidating the legal positions for pursuing Independence

      make sure you have all the facts before you form your views. Are you absolutely certain that she has not actually been doing just that?

      I think you might be surprised if you knew.

    208. Brian Powell says:


      “maybe that too would be a total mess.” I’ve never heard that said from any SNP/Ind supporter.

    209. Craig says:

      I just hope that someone in the SNP remembers what happened in ‘79.

    210. manandboy says:


      In any dispute, hard facts, reason and logic are no match for unbridled emotion, loss of self-discipline and a head full of propaganda and lies.

      Such is England today – like a group on a plane, heavily inebriated by ‘taking back control’and beligerently disposed, causing disruption and distress to all and sundry, while threatening the very security and safety of the aircraft itself.

      Brexit remains Scotland’s biggest current issue, not least because divorcing an unstable and unpredictable serial abuser, who is totally opposed to the divorce for wholly selfish reasons, becomes a lot harder when the abuser incurs a nervous breakdown – which is kind of what Brexit is.

      What happens next is impossible to predict, and yet the progress of Scotland’s independence aspirations is tied to it. Such is Scotland’s collective predicament – and it is not the sole responsibility of one person, the First Minister.

      Patient endurance through this time of England’s Brexit turmoil is not a very uncomfortable option for the Yes movement, rather a very uncomfortable necessity. But, as they say, ‘it’s amazing what you can live through’ .

      “At least one analyst has described the economic consequences of Brexit in terms of a slow puncture: the air is slowly seeping out of the economy. To the tune of £600 million a week. That this hasn’t changed the terms of debate reveals Brexit’s biggest lesson. Once the nationalist genie is out of the bottle, what happens next isn’t driven by economics.”

    211. John MacRae says:

      The last wee while has had me recalling the Monty Python ‘Spot the Loony’ sequences.

    212. Nana says:

      Sorry for late links, I had an early hospital appointment

      This week, the Full Scottish is presented by Anne McLaughlin and she is joined by guests Deidre Brock, SNP MP for Edinburgh North and Leith and by Scottish actor and film director, Iain Robertson.

    213. orri says:

      At the end of the day independence means that sole jurisdiction for Scotland’s territory moves from Westminster to Holyrood. That’s it.

      All a referendum has to do is ask the legally sovereign people, in Scotland which is all that counts, to authorise that transfer of powers.

      All an S30 does is transfer the right to Holyrood to legislate on behalf of Westminster. In this case the specific would be redrawing the limits of jurisdiction of the Westminster Parliament to exclude Scotland’s Territory. Despite claims to the contrary the S30 could include full transfer of legislative powers should Scotland vote for it.

      Given that Ireland’s Parliament declared independence it’s messy but possible to leave Westminster to change their own sodding laws to reflect reality or face a challenge in the UN regarding it’s claim to the sovereign territory of another state. The EU would probably be more than willing to not only recognise Scotland’s independence but sponsor us in the UN at this point.

      In recognising the “Claim of Right” Westminster have pretty much conceded the point already.

      The problem with an S30 is that it might be argued that a GE might result in a government using the principle that no government may bind it’s successor to justify rescinding it. That said you can bet any Tory in Scotland supporting a demand from the DUP that the legislative force of our independence referendum be removed even if the vote wasn’t cancelled would have a slim chance at re-election.

    214. Terry callachan says:

      A rash statement there by pnr I think.
      For him to say that the SNP don’t care about England voting as a majority to leave the E.U. is quite incredible, childish really but I guess he had to say it to support a lot of the other stuff he has said.

      Of course the SNP are interested and I would say deeply concerned that England voted as a majority to leave the E.U. its better to have neighbours who are not vastly dissimilar in political views to your own .
      My point was one that says it is hypocritical for SNP to say
      it is wrong for Scotland’s majority that wants to stay in the E.U. to be ignored
      but right for England’s majority that voted to leave the E.U. to be ignored
      and that is exactly what SNP are doing when they work hard for another brexit referendum

      for pnr to say SNP are only concerned with Scotland’s majority getting to stay in the E.U. shows that the point has gone straight over his head ,or he is obtuse.
      N.Sturgeon I like, but there can be no doubt that when she took part in the huge gathering in London in support of a second brexit referendum ( people’s vote )
      she was meddling in England’s political debate doing the very thing that so many of us complain about when England’s politicians come to Scotland to tell us how it should be in Scotland

      I think she was wrong to do it and got carried away
      As for pnr I think he is wrong for other reasons

    215. Ottomanboi says:

      What is starkly obvious in the current political climate is that the British state is becoming ever more anglo-centric and culturally chauvinist. This can only increase.
      Unless there is a highly skilled performance in prospect from the SNP leaders Scotland could be stuck in the worst of all possible worlds.

    216. Meg merrilees 15 April, 2019 at 9:53 am

      I really do hope that I am surprised,because I believe we will be in for a hell of a fight to remove the grip of the dead hand of Westminster from Scotland.

      We only have to see how Westminster has behaved with the 27 countries of the EU, threatening, bullying delaying etc

      Does anyone seriously believe it won’t behave any differently against us and use every dirty trick, threats, gerrymandering of any referendum, scaremongering, legal devices and delays possible against us.

    217. SilverDarling says:


      The main concern I have heard is the Holyrood parliament term coming to an end without the process being started for Indy. I believe Theresa May’s intransigence is in part trying to do that as well as delay Brexit. The FM has said when she knows what is happening with Brexit we will know what is happening with Indy. By making one somewhat dependent on the other it allows May a certain advantage – if she calls a GE the entire cycle is messed up again.

      I have never heard any Indy supporters doubt the competence or ability of the SNP or SG to facilitate the process of Indy.

      The 2017 GE showed how easily good competent people can be manoeuvred out when the SNP is caught on the hop. The SNP were stung by that and indications are they have been preparing for a GE again as I have seen campaigners out in my area.

    218. There is no British constitution, the Government in power make it up to suit themselves. Scotland being one of the signatures to the Treaty of the Union of Parliaments could repeal the treaty if it so wishes. This would be upheld in international law.

    219. Thepnr says:

      @Terry callachan

      I may be “obtuse” but you’re clearly an arse. The SNP cannot fight or in any way support Scotland remaining in the EU without supporting the whole UK remaining in the EU.

      The UK is the member state of the EU and not Scotland. Clearly then when Nicola Sturgeon attends a march calling for a 2nd referendum she is doing so on behalf of the people of Scotland who voted 62% to remain in the EU.

    220. There is no British constitution, the Government in power make it up to suit themselves. Scotland being one of the two signatures, the other being England, to the Treaty of the Union of Parliaments could repeal the treaty if it so wishes. This would be upheld in international law. England would repeal the treaty in a minute if it was to their advantage.

    221. Macart says:


      Thanks for the links Nana. Hope everything went ok at the hospital. 🙂

    222. ronnie anderson says:

      Cactus is on Indylive. radio just now

    223. Terry callachan says:

      The discussion about a S30 is really interesting
      Personally I don’t think it’s a big issue
      If enough people in Scotland are serious about Scotland being an independent country they will force the issue by voting for it in elections and if with a majority in favour of Scottish independence at the polls that doesn’t work they will like people across the world do it by marching on the streets in ever greater numbers
      S30 is just another example of England’s Westminster throwing its weight around in an attempt to bully us

      England keeps enough people in Scotland in poverty or on low wages to deprive them of confidence in themselves and deprive them of hope
      People with no hope often turn to booze and drugs to escape the thought of being as they are all their lives England’s Westminster organises that ,they are good at it and have done it across the world with good effect

      There are good and bad people across the planet in every country in every town city and street and in every political party including UKIP and the Tory party ,people in Scotland are quite happy to criticise UKIP as a whole or criticise the Tory party as a whole it would be silly to do so and always add an addendum “except for the good people”
      Like wise I say it’s the same for criticism of England
      pnr like some others here are afraid to mention the word “England” they fear being called a bigot or racist being called that is almost guaranteed but it’s about time people in Scotland stopped avoiding the truth here which is that it’s the people of England and I include those English people living in Scotland most of whom are only here to work ,who vote in the government at Westminster who voted for brexit who continue to vote in the people who disgracefully disregard what Scottish people want who take who disrespect our elected politicians including our leaders and who take us into wars thousands of miles away who store their nuclear weapons which really are the only weapons of mass destruction we are ever likely to see as they pass through our streets with huge police escorts, who disfigure our views of the world by censoring news that people across the world get to see quite freely , who have saturated out country with English newspapers that together with the bbc and stv feed us lies and distortions about our own country.

      It is england and it’s people that is doing this to Scotland “except for the good people” who see the injustice as wee see it.
      Call it as it is and stop shying away from doing so

    224. Dr Jim says:

      The *British* said We want Scotland at the heart of Britain
      then the *British* said Get out of our parliament and go back to Scotland you’re not wanted
      Then the *British* said We want Scotland to negotiate with us over Brexit
      Then the *British* said Scotland’s not involved in Brexit talks because that’s *British* stuff
      Then the *British* said Scotland has no right coming to England UK Britain to get involved in Brexit stuff because it’s none of your business
      Now the *British* say Brexit will be sorted in behind closed doors talks with a political party that’s not you and Scotland will be told the result later once us *British* have done it
      Then the *British say Scotland is British so will do as it’s told

      It seems pretty clear that the *British* don’t like Scotland or the people in it until they want us to vote for their political parties who then tell us to get out of their country once we’ve done it

      So why do they want us at all?

      If you haven’t worked that out yet there’s no hope for you

    225. CameronB Brodie says:

      Terry callachan
      England is largely innocent, Westminster, largely incompetent. It is paranoid to think HMG’s commitment to neo-liberal government and austerity, is directed solely at bending Scotland’s will and embodied identity. This is a characteristic of neo-liberal government, which seeks to empty human existence of quality and meaning. This is because there will only be room for market principles in the utilitarian minds of future little Englanders (see England’s education policy).

    226. Dr Jim says:

      I bet if the people in England realised that Scotland’s parliament doesn’t have full control of its affairs and that it’s ultimately controlled by Westminster they might object a whole lot less to Scotland *taking back control*

      There are still people in Scotland who don’t know or understand the powers of our parliament have been deliberately limited by Westminster

      There are also unscrupulous people in Scotland and England who pretend the Scottish parliament does control all the powers thus making demands of it that it cannot fulfill so the uninformed can be more easily misled

      Those unscrupulous people are contained within the Tory Labour Lib Dem alliance, and of course everybodies favourite people the *Journalists*

    227. CameronB Brodie says:

      Neo-liberalism is a form of fascism, as it seeks to transform society through the power of economic force, not democratic demand.

      Social Consequences of Neoliberal Economic Crisis and Austerity Policy in the Baltic States


      This article tries to outline the social consequences of neoliberal economic crisis and the domestic austerity policies in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, commonly known as the Baltic states. In order to recover from the shock of global and Eurozone economic crises, since 2008, the Baltic states adopted severe austerity policy comprised of enormous cutbacks of government expenditure in social welfare, health care and education, and labour market reforms that made employment relationships more insecure. Baltic political leaders highlighted their austerity model as the right policy for economic recovery and claimed that it can be emulated by other crisis-stricken countries in Europe.

      However, the austerity policy’s success claims contradict with its revealing social consequences such as increased national debt, unemployment, out-migration, negative demographic change, poverty, inequality, social exclusion, deterioration in health security and misery to the common people. Moreover, the austerity policy contradicts with the principles of the European Union’s (EU’s) ‘social Europe’ model and representative democracy which prioritize the role of state to guarantee well-being of its citizens. Hence, the social cost of economic crisis and austerity and its implications for sustainable development in the long run in the Baltic states are examined here.

      Keywords Austerity policy, labour market, migration, neoliberal globalization, economic crisis, social consequences,

    228. Colin Alexander says:

      Conservative manifesto 2015:

      “We will then put these changes to the British people in a straight in-out referendum on our membership of the European Union”.

      Current SNP website: “We have been leading the charge for a second EU referendum in Westminster”.

      I won’t vote for second-hand Conservative Party policies, even if it’s Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP that’s peddling them now.

    229. jfngw says:

      Jeremy Hunt explaining the ambitions of the EU to Japanese students, it’s a bit like Arlene Foster lecturing on the benefits of Catholicism.

    230. Ahundredthidiot says:

      I think all these Brexiteers are just gutless cowards.

      They should find the courage to rise up against the injustice of it all.

      Remainers are backing a dictatorship with calls for a second eu ref, no ifs, no buts.

      Imagine our own incredulence if we had won in ’14 and then were bullied into another ref, shocking.

      NS needs to back off PV2 and call indyref2…….after a wee break tho, cos everyone is knackered.

      Eyes on the prize folks, to hell with england and their eu exit, Scotland needs to be Independent first and foremost.

    231. CameronB Brodie says:

      Scottish independence and a rights-based approach to government that is supported by a written constitution, would go a long way to giving global neo-liberalism the boot in the nads it needs.

      Neoliberal austerity and unemployment

      ….Mass unemployment is perhaps the most obvious and shocking contemporary manifestation of the consequences of neoliberal austerity programmes. Even advocates of austerity make no bones about this.

      For example, the Chief Economist and Deputy Secretary-General of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Pier Carlo Padoan, freely admitted in the OECD Yearbook 2013 that ‘[a]usterity programmes to restore order to public finances can add to the woes of already struggling economies, leading to more job losses and social hardship’. Opponents of austerity (e.g. Bambra, 2013), put it more strongly: ‘…following Stuckler and Basu (2013) it is not economic downturns per se that matter but the austerity and welfare “reform” that may follow: that “austerity kills” and – as I argue here – that it particularly “kills” those in lower socio-economic positions.’

    232. Proud Cybernat says:

      Does anyone seriously believe it won’t behave any differently against us and use every dirty trick, threats, gerrymandering of any referendum, scaremongering, legal devices and delays possible against us.

      Aye – so let’s all just sit on our arses and do nothing then. Is that what you’d prefer?

      Anything worth fighting for never comes easy – how old are you?

    233. Thepnr says:

      There are at least 4 examples of where EU countries have had a second referendum over either EU membership or EU treaties.

      Ireland has had them twice, first over the signing of the Treaty of Nice and in which they voted No in 2001 by 54%, given a second chance they voted Yes in 2002 by 63%

      Again Ireland voted No to the Lisbon treaty in 2008 by 53% but the following year voted by a whopping 67% to say Yers to the treaty.

      Scotland seeks a second referendum on the question of Independence after the people voted No in 2014 by 55%. Are there actually Independence supporters who will argue that Scotland cannot have a 2nd Independence referendum again as it is undemocratic and signs of a “dictatoraship”?

      If you are then quite clearly you do not belive that people are entitled to change there mind and would like to express that chnage of mind at the ballot box.

      You can’t have it both ways, wishing for a second referendum for Independence but against the same being allowed over EU membership. People do change their mind and especially so when they realise that they were lied too, that one side overspent illegal sums of money. that there personal data was sold and adverts targeted to manipulate their vote.

      I’d say that under these circumstances they absolutely are entitled to and should in fact be demanding a second vote.

    234. Hamish100 says:

      Colin Alexander says:
      15 April, 2019 at 12:36 pm
      Conservative manifesto 2015:
      “We will then put these changes to the British people in a straight in-out referendum on our membership of the European Union”.
      Current SNP website: “We have been leading the charge for a second EU referendum in Westminster”.
      I won’t vote for second-hand Conservative Party policies, even if it’s Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP that’s peddling them now.

      The your vote want count and you can stop greetin on here!! Every cloud has a silver lining.

      ps when is this taking place?

    235. Thepnr says:

      Norway also voted twice on EU membership which they rejected in 1972 by 53% and rejected again in 1994 by 52%

      Denmark voted No to the Maastricht Treaty in 1991 by 51% but a second vote a year later produced a Yes result of 57%.

      The UK of course unlike other EU countries did not have referendums on any of these treaties and who knows what might have happened if they had.

      Were Ireland, Norway and Denmark being undemocratic when they gave their citizens a second chance to support or reject a particular view?

      The last I looked those three countries look among the least likely places ever to become dictatorships, they weren’t then and they aren’t now.

    236. Clootie says:


      For accuracy, Ireland didn’t simply change their vote on the same proposal. The treaties were amended and then presented to the public who had voiced their concerns.

    237. Ghillie says:

      I expect the SNP are on it =)

    238. Proud Cybernat says:

      @ Clootie

      That’s true. But it’s also true that for the vast majority of the UK public, Brexit is now also different to what they were told it was going to be. That magical post-EU land filled with Unicorns and Sherman tanks and big red buses with £350m a week for NHS is no more.

    239. Thepnr says:


      I wouldn’t argue with you there.

      It’s pretty clear what a Remain vote meant in the EU referendum but what did it mean to vote Leave?

      Did anybody know what Leave meant and are they any the wiser now? I think not and once it becomes clear what they’re actually being asked to vote on then another referendum should take place.

    240. Iain mhor says:

      Regarding the perpetual discussion of whether an S30 is required for a referendum; may I suggest a re-reading of Prof. Stephen Tierney’s blog from a couple of years ago.
      Many will already be familiar with it, but it bears revisiting.
      Prof. Tierney was a constitutional advisor to the Scottish Government in 2014, he did have a hand in the drafting of the final bills and he was at the heart of the debate.

      He lays out the positions for and against and explains the ramifications in a concise and clear manner.
      The general reasoning is that there is no bar to proceeding without an S30, but it is better served as a political issue to be resolved and not to tempt a resort to legal means.
      The logic behind the reasoning is well worth considering.

    241. Proud Cybernat says:

      Musical Unions…

    242. Thepnr says:


      That was a very interesting article you linked to. I hope the Yes campaign have a good look at it to.

    243. Ottomanboi says:

      The Japanese are a very polite people, they will sit and listen indulgently to this ‘bakana igirisujin’ ie crazy Englishman and wonder at the extent of his conceit and arrogance.
      He, the one who can’t recall whether his wife is Chinese or Japanese, will return to the great mother country well pleased bearing a sieveful of ‘promises’.

    244. yesindyref2 says:

      Interesting retweet by Sturgeon:

      The SNP had a fantastic candidate & a positive message. The Tories had a tired anti-SNP line & made it all about Ruth Davidson. SNP vote share went up, Tories lost more than a quarter of their support.

      The Tories now the main opposition at Holyrood sound like Labour when they were in 2011, and we know what happened then. Vital the SNP stick to this, leave Labour alone mostly, and more attack the Tories at Westminster than Holyrood. Nothing wrong with a little negativity aout the Holyrood Tories of course, more when they deserve it but not constant. Some I’ve seen goes too far, SNP beware and don’t fall into the Labour / now Tories trap.

      The message is though it seems to me, Scotland does prefer a positive message than a negative one – or none at all as we see fro Labour in Scotland all too often.

      Personal judgement – the SNP guy loks pleasant, someone you could vote for.

      I didn’t bother reading his Scotsman article.

      This impartial advice brought to you by the NAPAS – Non-Aligned Political Advisory Service.

    245. jfngw says:


      In fact Hunt’s description of the EU is realy his wishes for the UK, it should be one country and that country should be called England. It’s in his upbringing I think.

    246. yesindyref2 says:

      Yes, the UK press of corse presented it as theEU forcing Ireland to vote ES which is a bit thick but predictable for the anti-EU and partially anti-foreigner press.

      What happened showed the real power a small member state has. Big states will go into early concensus after a load of shouting and compromise heavily at times. Smaller nations only need to compromise most of the time when it’s unimportant, but certainly not when it is important – to them, particularly uniquely to them. Everyone understands but more to the point, when the EU needs unanimity it has to be unanimous 🙂

    247. yesindyref2 says:

      (fx: shakes tobacco out of the keyboard – enough for a roll-up!)

    248. Thepnr says:

      In 1973 Ted Heath took the UK into the EEC as a member. He didn’t bother to ask what anyone living in the UK thought about this before making his decision.

      Then when Harold Wilson replaced Ted Heath as Prime Minister a referendum was held in 1975 asking whether or not the UK should remain a member of the EEC.

      The answer was an overwhelming Yes with 67.2% of the vote.

      Over the next 40 years the EEC changed into what we now know as the EU as different treaties were applied and added to existing treaties. The UK unlike some other EU countries never asked the population if they were happy with those new treaties, they just went ahead and ratified them on our behalf.

      Which is the more democratic of the two, asking the people in a referendum or making the decision for them?

    249. Capella says:

      OT – if you’ve been following the appalling Julian Assange saga, Craig Murray’s blog has many interesting links in the comments section.
      Assange’s lawyer tells Sophie Ridge what the truth is:

      Elsewhere, Chris Hedges explains what is likely to happen to Assange if he is extradited to the US.

      The British Establishment and its legal wing are now on trial. Some prominent “journalists” in the UK reveal themselves to be disustingly on the side of censorship and persecution of whistle-blowers and of publishers who give them the opportunity to publish.

    250. yesindyref2 says:

      There was a lot of agitation for Gordon Brown (+ Blair) to have a Lisbon referendum, and he stupdily resisted. Part of the reason he lost the 2010 election, that and the usual mostly anti-Labour right wing press who gave him a doing. The UK was doomed from that point forward, look what they did to Miliband, not that he was a hard target with his shiny suit and standing awkwardly looking gormless, compared to Cameron with his shirtsleeves rolled up and getting on with the kids and play d’oh.

    251. jfngw says:


      I’ve noticed that these journalist are keen on the freedom of whistle-blowers when it comes to the SNP, they are continually running stories of how they are suppressed. But when it comes to Assange they take the opposite view, makes you think they are just an arm of the UK government (some of them are I imagine).

    252. Dr Jim says:

      Save the Whales = left wing loonies
      Save the rainforest = left wing loonies
      Save the oceans = left wing loonies
      Renewable energy = left wing loonies
      Save the polar regions = left wing loonies
      Save the planet = left wing loonies

      All these things we said are now true and accepted as fact yet the right wing and the media still call us loonies every time we point something else out

      Who instructs the media to behave in this way towards what we say yet gives platforms and unending airtime to people like Farage when we loonies keep telling them he and his ilk are bad people
      How often do we have to say Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees Mogg and Theresa May are behaving in exactly the same way as bad folk behaved in Germany in the 1930s

      We keep being proven right and yet they still tell us we’re loonies

    253. galamcennalath says:

      Thepnr says:

      Which is the more democratic of the two, asking the people in a referendum or making the decision for them?

      To be honest, I would have to say, depends because we are still in the UK.

      If the UK was capable of running referendums properly, then I’d be keener on them. Take the recent case of Switzerland where the result of a referendum was struck down because there were mistakes in government stats which prevented voters from making a reasoned decision. There will be a rerun.

      That is a million miles from UK antics. Voters making a reasoned decision in EURef? Quality information made available to them? It was a disgrace. Then our own IndyRef which was derailed in the final weeks by purdah breaching false promises.

      In some states a referendum is an attempt to clarify the will of the people, while in the UK it’s all about manipulating the outcome to fit some agenda.

      For the flawed UK, I reckon the best way to test the will of the people is by party manifestos and elections. That’s an ingrained system which vested interest find harder to undermine IMO.

      It’s all shite, and we really do not live in a democracy by modern European standards. However in the battle between the people and the powerful, our votes are the best we’ve got.

      So, should the UK have lots of referendums? Yes, if they were regulated properly for a change.

      Will they be regulated properly? No chance.

      The best we have is parties seeking mandates at elections then getting on with implementing manifesto promises.

    254. Thepnr says:


      I’m in total agreement with everything you said about referendums and how they are run. Elections and manifesto’s though I don’t see as being very democratic at all under the UK system where with FPTP you can have 100% of a parties manifesto committed too with less than 40% of the vote.

      That too is pretty shit when 60% have to accept that they may get nothing that they seek. The whole UK political system and way of doing things needs standing on it’s head with refinement taking place from the bottom up.

    255. Gary45% says:

      Colin Alexander@12.36
      Nice try son.
      You put the ball on the penalty spot, no goalie and still hit the corner flag.

    256. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dr Jim
      Right-wingers hate science as it tends to contradict their world view, which is based on tradition and seeks to protect inherited privilege (see Jacob Rees Mogg). Why do you think the Tories blocked the publication of publicly financed social science before the last GE? It was because science does to Tories what salt does to slugs.

      Time for some Social and Political Psychology and stuff?

      Not All Education is Equally Liberal: The Effects of Science Education on Political Attitudes


      Education stands as a potent predictor of political attitudes; however, the underlying mechanisms and moderators of this relationship are not well-understood. We hypothesize that the liberalizing effect of education is moderated by discipline, and that the scientific ethos that serves to guide empirical inquiries facilitates the development of more liberal political attitudes via concerns about fairness and equality.

      As predicted, being educated in a science-related discipline, as opposed to a non-science discipline, was associated with greater political liberalism; importantly, this effect could not be accounted for by self-selection (Study 1). Furthermore, concerns about fairness and equality, as captured by an individual’s social dominance orientation, mediated the relationship between studying science and political liberalism (Study 2).

      Study 3 replicated these findings and attest to their generalizability. Study 4 directly assessed the underlying mechanism, endorsement of the scientific ethos, and replicated the mediational model; those who endorsed the scientific ethos more strongly reported more liberal political attitudes, and this was mediated by their lower social dominance orientation.

      Keywords: education, social dominance, political orientation, attitudes, scientific ethos

    257. CameronB Brodie says:

      P.S. Law is the science of moral practice, so is equally corrosive to Tories.

    258. CameronB Brodie says:

      ….Law is the practice of moral science (doh)

    259. Clootie says:

      I’ve read a few articles and books over the years about how the state undermines the opposition. A standard classic is to always have at least two court cases on the go. This undermines the targets character and credibility. I look at the Assange case and the boot prints of the black art brigade are in full evidence.

      The idea is to apply such pressure that he pleads guilty to the less daunting prospect I.e. Sweden over America.

    260. orri says:

      Sweden isn’t the less daunting prospect. It’s the sex scandal that is supposed to undermine his reputation whilst conveniently getting him locked up outside the USA and unable to go to a trial which would probably be widely covered and risk information getting more publicity than the US state would like.

      That said it’s entirely possible that Assange has an ego problem or that he was honey trapped.

    261. Thepnr says:

      If Assange was to be jailed in Sweden then wouldn’t the US just seek his extradition once his sentence was complete?

      I doubt they’d ever just forget all about him.

    262. Capella says:

      Suzanne Moore, of what was once a reasonably objective albeit “liberal” newspaper, The Guardian, goes full neo-con apologist in the New Statesman. New Statesman!

      Support for him depends on a clichéd anti-imperialist view of the world. So up pop the old charmers like Glenn Greenwald, Craig Murray, and John Pilger. I once sat in a radio car arguing with Pilger over this. I, like the women who accused Assange of rape and sexual assault, apparently work for the CIA. This seems likely, I expect a cheque soon.

      She gets a big fat cheque every month from the MSM, unlike most online journalists.

      For balance, the Jonathon Cook blog has the background re Sweden. “The seven years of lies won’t stop now”

      If this character assassination, and perhaps at some future stage actual assassination, is tolerated, all journalism is in the firing line.

    263. geeo says:

      Cameron “im brainier than anyone on wings” Brodie, The unionist propagandist said this:

      “Nah, your chauvinism takes the form of believing in your own pish and closing your mind to commonly held perceptions of reality”.

      Personal abuse about my views, from a person who had never posted a personal opinion on Wings, ever.

      But hey, he knows how to quote others on their pseudo-babble.

      Here is a commonly held perception of reality, you do not have a single original, personal thought in that empty head of yours.

      Knowing how to link to the work of others is not original thought, nor is it fucking intellect.

      Quite the opposite in fact.

      It is lazy and franky, boring as fuck.

      Post youe pseudo-babble on off topic for a week, see how many folk respond to it.

      Nobody cares, Cameron, its just crushingly boring pish gibbering.

    264. CameronB Brodie says:

      Stir all you want but you won’t change my practice. The reason I tend to avoid personal opinion is I find ethical egotism less persuasive than empirical reason. I’ve been trained in this stuff, where as you clearly haven’t. 😉

    265. CameronB Brodie says:

      Do yourself a favour and stop being a bigoted prick.

      Liberals and Conservatives Both Resist Science, But Differently

    266. orri says:

      Allowing Sweden to imprison him, or even try him, would cover him in enough shit for some to stick. He would be less of a maverick hero and idol and simply an egotistical sexual predator. Far easier to win against him if the public have lost faith and are willing to allow some cutting of corners in his trial.
      Then again I could be talking about Salmond and accusations that were supposed to hang over him and via him the SNP and Yes in general like the Sword of Damocles. His “mon then” reaction was probably unexpected. The pulling the trigger on the whole thing was probably a sign of panic by the security forces. The trial will probably be delayed eternally until we enter the indyref2 campaign in earnest.

    267. cassandra says:

      @geeoCubby 4.10 pm

      Are we allowed original thought on here? I ‘thought’ (see what I did there) we all had to think like you otherwise we are tractors or something.

      Do you mean opinion? Original thought is a contentious issue –

    268. Cactus says:

      Independence must be getting ever closer

      “Well raise mah rent” said Bart

      Be massive, Scotland!

    269. CameronB Brodie says:

      I think most of us here are all pulling in the same direction, even if it doesn’t appear so at times. There are obvious malcontents and evil-doers among us but that’s politics. So do you want to get scientific about changing perceptions and bringing about the conditions for change?

      Changing Institutions, Enviornments and People: Using Science to Improve Achievement.
      Resistance to Change: Unconscious Knowledge and the Challenge of Unlearning


      The goal of this chapter is to propose that widespread evidence of our failure to achieve individual, organizational and social change may be due, in part, to the impact of automated and unconscious knowledge. After a brief review of the results of personal and collective change programs and the accuracy of self-reported change, the discussion turns to an overview of research on the learning, operation, self-monitoring and unlearning of automated knowledge.

      Evidence from task analysis is presented to make the case that about 70 percent of adult knowledge is fully automated, unconscious and not inspectable even when it is active because: 1) Adults are largely unaware of many of the
      goals they are pursuing and the strategies they are using. The consequence of this situation is that we are largely unable to accurately report our attempts to change; 2) When change strategies fail, one of the important but largely unexamined causes is the interference caused by the automated and dysfunctional cognitive behaviors we wish to change, and; 3) We know very little about how to unlearn dysfunctional automated and unconscious knowledge to clear the way for new covert and overt behavior.

      The chapter ends with a suggestion that if we increase the resources invested in the study of the unlearning of automated knowledge we may increase the success of attempts to achieve and recognize successful personal and social changes.

    270. manandboy says:

      Most of these Commonwealth Countries were once colonies in the British Empire, who have since gained their independence.
      Such a shame that Scotland is not among them, and remains effectively still a ‘colony’.
      I’m sure at least some of them could give us a few tips on how it’s done.

      Antigua and Barbuda
      The Gambia
      New Zealand
      Papua New Guinea
      Republic of Cyprus*
      Sierra Leone
      Solomon Islands
      South Africa
      Sri Lanka
      St Christopher and Nevis
      St Lucia
      St Vincent and the
      The Bahamas
      Trinidad and Tobago
      United Kingdom*
      United Republic of Tanzania

    271. Proud Cybernat 15 April, 2019 at 12:48 pm

      As you are quoting from what I said in my post @15 April, 2019 at 11:15 am, I must assume you are referring to me.

      I have never believed in sitting back and doing nothing, you should always take the fight to the enemy.

      Also I have stood since 1988 at least half a dozen times as an SNP Local government candidate and have campaigned in various by elections the length and breadth of Scotland Monklands, Govan, Hamilton, Falkirk etc.

    272. Clootie says:


      What happened to America and Ireland?

    273. Petra says:

      I see that the CCB versus whoever (or vice versa) continues. Don’t you think that it’s gone on for long enough and does the site no favours? What about giving it a rest folks?

    274. Cactus says:

      Please keep doing what yer doing y’all

      Rev is the arbiter, ask wiki

      We need THIS all

      Thrash it!

    275. CameronB Brodie says:

      Following on from the link provided by cassandra and my link re. change. Perhaps some kind soul might tweet a link to tory-fanboy, David Torrance.

      Realism, Empiricism and Social Constructionism: Psychological Theory and the Social Dimensions of Mind and Action


      This article attempts to characterize scientific realism as a viable alternative metatheory for psychological science that is superior to traditional empiricism. It is suggested that scientific realism provides a richer conception of psychological theory than traditional empiricism, and enables the theoretical psychologist to acknowledge the respects in which human actions and psychological states may be said to be social in nature, without abandoning the traditional scientific virtues of linguistic and epistemological objectivity that have been rejected by social constructionist and relativist theorists.

    276. Dr Jim says:

      If the opposition keeps doing the opposite of what you suggest then it’s clear what you should be suggesting

      Nicola Sturgeon knows that

    277. Colin Alexander says:


      Aw these countries getting EU-refs eh?

      When did the SNP Scot Govt ask in a referendum if Scotland wants to remain part of the EU? Never.

      What was stopping the Scot Govt? Nothing.

      That begs the question: If the SNP gives a fig about Scotland’s sovereignty, why are they wanting another UK referendum where Scotland will again be simply treated as a wee region of a British Unitary state? Answer: the hope a Remain vote would win next time.

      There is no electoral mandate for a second EU-ref. The SNP want another one via UK Parliament without any electoral mandate. The Unionists won’t forget that the SNP said that.

      If YES ever won, UK Parliament will now seek a second confirmatory indyref, withosaying the SNP approve of these.

    278. Cactus says:

      Good evening Colin

      How be ye doin’

      Be ye well?

    279. yesindyref2 says:

      @Peter McCulloch
      Personally I’m more worried Westminster once it’s caught its breath from Brexit, will nibble away at the Scotland Act, either directly or indirectly, even through the unelected other place.

    280. CameronB Brodie says:

      Colin Alexander
      Your narrative is rather hostile and negative, I thought you had other business to attend to. Do you not appreciate that as government of Scotland, the SNP must govern for a nation that voted to remain in the British yoonyawn? They have a legal duty of care to protect Scotland from Brexit, much the same as that which the Prime-minister has clearly abandoned.

    281. Eckle Fechan says:

      All eyes to the Spring conf. for some much needed strategic direction?

      Apologies if that’s already been said above in the thicket of PoVs expressed.

    282. Capella says:

      This comment was in moderation because of a banned word so trying again.

      Suzanne Moore, of what was once a reasonably objective albeit “liberal” newspaper, The Guardian, goes full neo-con apologist in the New Statesman. New Statesman!

      Support for him depends on a clichéd anti-imperialist view of the world. So up pop the old charmers like Glenn Greenwald, Craig Murray, and John Pilger. I once sat in a radio car arguing with Pilger over this. I, like the women who accused Assange of r*pe and sexual assault, apparently work for the CIA. This seems likely, I expect a cheque soon.

      She gets a big fat cheque every month from the MSM, unlike most online journalists.

      For balance, the Jonathon Cook blog has the background re Sweden. “The seven years of lies won’t stop now”

      If this character assassination, and perhaps at some future stage actual assassination, is tolerated, all journalism is in the firing line.

    283. Cactus says:

      Hey yous, ah had tae escape reality…

      Presently between hidden trees

      Chez Queens Park

    284. Cactus says:

      How’s that keyboard ah lookin’ yesindyref2

      Is there ever enough to?

      PLAY it again Cam

    285. Cactus says:

      Ps, 😉

    286. galamcennalath says:

      “A comprehensive history of everything awful Boris Johnson has said”

      Well, almost certainly not everything. His capacity for baffoonery knows no bounds!

      And to think there are folks in England who make this eejit PM.

      Thing is, Tories have to keep their guard up, least the ordinary voter might discover what dreadful people with horrible views they actually are. Most of them, most of the time, manage to retain the veneer of decency. Johnston is one of those who justn’t seem to care. The odd things, of course, is that still doesn’t stop him being popular among members. I suppose they all think like him in reality.

    287. Cactus says:

      The dogs and the bitches are cool 42…

      Ah’ve just met many breeds

      Ahm @ new bar bound like

      Ah’ll B in touch

      Very within



    288. CameronB Brodie says:

      Hoky doky.

      Rationalism and public policy: Mode of analysis or symbolic politics?


      This article takes up the distinction between incremental analysis and incremental politics as elaborated by Lindblom in his 1979 article. We argue that while rationalism as a mode of analysis has lost much of its prominence, rationalism as symbolic politics is still very much alive and might even be more present today than it was back when Lindblom wrote his famous 1959 article.

      The recent shift to new modes of governance whereby elected officials are increasingly delegating decision-making powers to independent bureaucracies – what Majone calls the “regulatory state” or what the British describe as “agencification” or quangoisation” – has created an important legitimacy deficit for those non-majoritarian institutions that exercise political authority without enjoying any direct link to the electoral process.

      In such a context – and in addition to growing public distrust towards partisan politics – rationalist politics is likely to become more rampant as independent bureaucracies lack the legitimacy to publicly recognize the fundamentally incrementalist – and thus values-laden – nature of their decision-making processes.

    289. Colin Alexander says:

      Good evening Cactus, I’m doing okay, thanks.

      Hope you are doing fine and enjoying

    290. sandy says:

      William Purvis @ 11.29 am.

      I stand to be corrected but I understand that England is not in a position at present to dissolve the Union on account that it doesn’t have a parliament.

    291. yesindyref2 says:

      Te kyb d imuc btr noo

    292. Terry callachan says:

      Well pnr , everyone in UK and across the world already knew Scotland had voted a majority 62% in favour of remaining in E.U. there was no need for N Sturgeon to join in England’s politics where the minority in England held their protest in London asking for another vote which of course could lead to best of three or best of five ,just silly, she attended and spoke because doing so was never going to change things in Scotland ,she knew that of course and that is why she went ,her plan was to help change things in England, pointless and hypocritical, as I said you can’t expect Scotland’s majority to stay in the E.U. to be respected if you don’t respect England’s majority to leave the E.U.
      The fact of the matter is that Scotland should remain in the E.U. and England should leave the E.U. the only way that will work properly is for the UK to cease.
      Scottish independence.
      We don’t agree
      Well we agree on one thing
      You are obtuse

    293. Colin Alexander says:

      Hello Cameron

      No hostility from me. The SNP Scot Govt governing as part of the Union, aye so what?

      As the people of Scotland voted to Remain then that’s the democratic mandate, not one for PV2.

      Being positive, the EU elections could be the chance for a democratic mandate to assert Scotland’s sovereignty to Remain.

      Part of the Kingdom of Denmark are the EU and part out.
      That’s legal precedent.

      If England wants to leave, that’s no for the SNP to try and stop. Nobody in England voted SNP.

      Likewise, if Scotland wants to Remain, England,the UK Parliament and EU should not be able to overrule the will of the sovereign people of Scotland with their EU fundamental rights and UN rights of personal autonomy and freedom from slavery.

      Come on SNP, seek the mandate to assert Scotland’s sovereignty to Remain in the EU! Show the UK and EU that Scotland’s voice must be respected and irrespective of what England votes, if Scotland wants to Remain, Scotland should Remain.

      How’s that for being positive?

    294. Cactus says:

      Yes Yes Yes 🙂

    295. Cactus says:

      It’s what aye’ve aweways wished for

      Hey Rab P


    296. yesindyref2 says:

      I can’t understand for the life of me, Unionists boatsing about Barnett, how they think we can’t do without it, and the English are subsidisng us ain’t it great? And how Nationalists are living off the Barnett subsidey with our dreams. And the likes of Average gleefully claiming it’s about £200 billion a week we’re being subsidised.


      Phew, I needed that shout out.

      It’s us “Nationalists” have self-pride and want to stand on our own two feet rather than the corns and blisters of our poorer neighbours. Though in truth it’s us have been supplying the corn plasters for decades.

    297. cassandra says:


      Has Muriel Gray been visiting Paris recently?

    298. Cactus says:

      Evenin’ Mad Unionist, ah ken yer no on THIS one, yet…

      Just thought id say hi dude OR dudette mibbies?

      Have you said yet…


    299. CameronB Brodie says:

      Terry callachan
      The Brexit vote was hijacked and the decision to activate A50 unconstitutional if it had been a “binding” referendum. You appear to be arguing the result, a very narrow majority to Leave, provides legal justification to leave the EU. Can you please explain your moral logic for such a cavalier attitude to law and order?

    300. CameronB Brodie says:

      Colin Alexander
      You want the honest answer or do you want to keep it friendly? 😉

    301. Patrick Roden says:

      So, Richard Leonard has decided at long last that he now supports the devolution of employment law to Scotland!

      How many times did Nicola offer him to join her in asking for employment law to be devolved and he ignored her?

      Seems that Dick Turpin Leonard the equal pay robber, has started noticing how much Labour is crashing in the polls up here, and how his own personal ratings (among those who have ever heard of him) is lower than a snakes belly, so has started trying to show he now cares about how Scots are effected by Westminster’s decisions.

      The question is: has Dick broken the ‘Bain Principle’

      Might be getting his erse kicked by Jeremy if he has!

    302. Dr Jim says:

      Every week people in England have money taken from them and put into a big box called the big Barnett box, then the government of England bring the big Barnett box to Scotland and give all the Scottish people money from the big Barnett box because the government in England loves the people of Scotland much much more than their own people of England

      If I were the people of England I would start a campaign to stop my government loving the people of Scotland so much that they take away their money to give to Scottish people, and put an end to the big Barnett box

      It’s not fair is it England, you should complain or at the very least why don’t you..

      Ask for an explanation, because you know it’s not love really so what is it, why don’t you ask, nay demand to be told about the big Barnett box

    303. Bobp says:

      I’ll be at the indy march on may 4th, and at the wings stall afterwards. Anybodys wanting to call me a troll can be there. And say it to my face. You better have backup with you’s.

    304. Hamish100 says:


      Norte-Dame Cathedral Fire . How sad.

      Let’s hope management from the Art school learn from this?

    305. Colin Alexander says:


      We both play the ba’, no the person.

    306. Graf Midgehunter says:


      Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris in flames, some parts have already collapsed. No injured thank goodness.

      A lovely place with a long history and one of our friends in Europe.

    307. David says:

      I don’t think there will be a general election but if you want an Indy ref SNP members will have to tell Nicola stop kicking that can down the road as well and tell her to ask to see the PM next week.

    308. Terry callachan says:

      The big Barnett box doesn’t have any money in it
      It’s just full of oil

    309. Bobp says:

      Graf midgehunter. Such a shame. Beautiful historic building. Been there when celtic played Psg in the nineties.

    310. Cactus says:

      Hey Colin, hope U tuned into oor radio channel earlier

      We’re doing it, ahm gonnae do ah ROCK show

      Ahm hooked on ah Yes feelin’ 🙂


    311. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Patrick Roden @ 19:16,

      Well, every time a NorthBritLab branch manager starts to “go native”, s/he gets shunted aside by the London bosses. To be replaced by someone “safer” – and thus less effective.

      And so the spiral cycles round and round, descending as it goes.

    312. Republicofscotland says:

      Well STV is just as bad as the BBC news now, the first three stories on tonights programme were indirect attacks on the Scottish government.

      We live in a country (Scotland) where all our tv output is controlled by another country and the contents is carefully managed.

      Even parts of Moldova (Transnistria unrecognised spit off) and the Catalan have devolved media.

    313. Bobp says:

      Terry callachan. Yes, when i get the, ah but we (england) subsidise your snhs/free prescriptions/university education etc,etc. I say, and who do you think paid for your m25,rail links, channel tunnel etc etc. Scotland subsidises you’se.

    314. call me dave says:

      Big Auntie tv news implying that the French / Paris fire brigade don’t have a plan in place.

      Aye right! …those foreigners eh! 🙁

    315. yesindyref2 says:

      Fuck me it’s gone, what a fucking tragedy.

    316. Colin Alexander says:

      Hiya Cactus


      Was listening to earlier. Will be back on again later.

    317. geeo says:

      Bobp says:

      15 April, 2019 at 7:18 pm

      I’ll be at the indy march on may 4th, and at the wings stall afterwards. Anybodys wanting to call me a troll can be there. And say it to my face. You better have backup with you’s.


      Why would that be, troll ?

      What will happen ?

    318. Terry callachan says:

      CameronB Brodie, you can say the brexit referendum was hijacked and unconstitutional but let’s face it Westminster , the government, accepted it and decided to go ahead with brexit.
      The time for complaining about the rules for the brexit referendum was when it was being foisted on us, not three years later.

      I agree the majority in favour of brexit in England was narrow ,the majority was itself legal justification, that is how the UK government operates in all matters.

      I am in favour of Scottish independence and as soon as a Scottish independence referendum gives a majority over 50% I will expect Scottish independence to go ahead.

      It is becoming popular for people on the losing side of a vote ,election or referendum to include those who did not vote at all as being on their side which is ridiculous
      In the UK it’s the majority that wins.

      If the law changes and we rid ourselves of FPTP it will probably lead to other things following suit I like the idea of proportional representation but be careful even that can be twisted as Scotland found out to its cost with its Dhondt method of election.

    319. Terry callachan says:

      Well said republicofscotland
      It’s a travesty of justice
      Propaganda from within

    320. Bobp says:

      Geeo. Why dont you and i meet up for a chat?

    321. Bobp says:

      Geeo. Or will you be busy on duty with the 77th?

    322. Bobp says:

      Geeo. Keyboard/ coward . Warrior.

    323. Dr Jim says:

      Kenny Farquarson’s just a straight out Twitter Troll for SIU and Labour now

      Scottish so called *journalists* are just sickening slimy slugs

    324. geeo says:

      CameronB Brodie says:

      15 April, 2019 at 4:14 pm

      Do yourself a favour and stop being a bigoted prick.

      Ahh…theres the supposed education on show !!

      Personal abuse does not fly well on here.

      You may want to backtrack on that comment.

      See what happens when you have to think for yourself!!!

    325. ronnie anderson says:

    326. CameronB Brodie says:

      @Kenny Farquharson
      What exactly is your expertise in public administration and policy analysis? Are you looking forward to becoming a Brexitanian?

      Democracy and Expertise: Reorienting Policy Inquiry
      Public Policy as Social Construct: Multiple Meanings in Sustainable Development

      This chapter demonstrates the ways in which policy is more fundamentally a sociopolitical construct than technical/instrumental tool, as it is approached in much of policy science. Employing a constructivist sociology of knowledge, the discussion illustrates the ways in which a policy is a product of multiple realities and, as such, is as much a matter for interpretive analysis as it is techno-empirical assessment.

      To clarify the theoretical position, the second half of the chapter demonstrates the point through the political struggle over sustainable development in environmental policy. Beyond technical knowledge, the case points to how policies are socially experienced — in particular, how they supply citizens with the social sense of collective participation in mutual ventures with fellow members of their own communities.

      Keywords: sociology of knowledge, multiple realities, policy assumptions, politics of meaning, interpretive analysis, sustainable development, environmental politics, co-production, collaborative inquiry

    327. Bobp says:

      Geeo. You couldnt wait to attack a poster called Adrian B. Accusing him of ‘ gibbering pish lies. You are just an a***hole pal.

    328. Terry callachan says:

      Bobp….. calm it bob calm it, someone bigger and better might turn up and Mally ye haha

      Hey Bobp we are mostly all on the same side here, desperate for Scottish independence but there are a few dumplings on here that call anyone that has a different opinion to theirs…” a troll”

      Ignore it or laugh it off or give as good as you get but take it all with a pinch of salt you will be surrounded by friends of independence at your march

    329. Cactus says:

      Cheers, sittin’ by oor People of Glasgow…

      We are good

      Ra Ally Arms, Nicola like xx


    330. Brian Powell says:

      What the hell is wrong with Scottish Government Ministers giving interviews to papers like the Times.

      Don’t they know these papers are out to get them no matter what they say?

    331. CameronB Brodie says:

      What do you expect with you trolling me? Dunny greet now. 😉

    332. Bobp says:

      Terry callachan. Sorry terry dont have an emoji for ‘ thumbs up, smiley face.

    333. geeo says:

      What you want to chat about, Bobp ?

      Why you troll pro indy sites ?

    334. geeo says:

      Wrong response Cameron.

      You have called me a Bigot and a chauvinist, and now a prick.

      I accused you of gibbering pish and not having an original thought in your head.

      I am offering you one chance to apologise.

      This site has rules on abusive postings and you will do well to remember that.

    335. jfngw says:

      Labours ambition for Holyrood, to be the mitigation centre against Westminster austerity policies. The same policies they abstained on.

      Labour have no ambition for Scotland beyond this, developing Scotland’s economy has to take second place to mitigation. That way they ensure Scotland cannot develop, it remains poorer than it can be and proves Scotland needs to be under Westminster control.

      The dire ambition of unionist politics encapsulated in a single policy (if it is a policy of course, you can never really tell what is their policies).

    336. Breeks says:

      I can’t believe my eyes with Notre Dame. Absolutely stunned. All of France will be in a state of shock tonight. What a terrible, terrible, thing to happen.

      My heart goes out to you France.

    337. Cactus says:

      Monday night Scotland

      Any day could be oor Revolution

      Liz g knows…

    338. Dr Jim says:

      Och ahm away tae tell ma Ma

    339. CameronB Brodie says:

      Terry callachan
      I hear what your saying about the crime being some time ago, but is their a statute of limitation on political fraud? This is a very dangerous road to go down, creating constitutional law on the back of malicious and anti-democratic political campaigning. IMHO, Britain has passed from being an ambiguous democracy to being a failed democracy.

    340. Cactus says:

      The wind the wind the wind

      Tis blowin’ IN

      Listen to it

      Smallaxe always knows

    341. Bobp says:

      Breeks. 8.08pm. What do you reckon on the brexiteers digging deep for a restoration fund appeal?

    342. CameronB Brodie says:

      Look ‘pal’, you were selling mince. I called you out. You can’t take that. You are now becoming an irritation. Grow up please.

    343. Bobp says:

      Geeo.8.02pm. Oh i dunno, the weather, the cost of medical insurance.

    344. Dorothy Devine says:

      gee , just caught up with channel 4 news coverage of Notre Dame.

      The roof appears to be gone at least the stone looks solid.

      Poor Paris – and the suggestion seems to be blame the builders a bit like the Art School.

    345. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Breeks @ 20:08,

      Yes, it puts petty squabbles between the self-important into true perspective.

      For those of us who live in Glasgow it seems all too horribly familiar. Too soon to tell of course, but also a case of renovation gone wrong? We can but offer our heartfelt sympathy. We know exactly how it feels.

      It’s hard to see an upside right now as events continue to unfold, but last summer I was in Reims Cathedral, 2nd great cathedral of France, where its kings were crowned, majestic and long since risen like a phoenix from the fire and destruction caused by sustained bombardment on the front line throughout the Great War. And so it shall be in Paris too.

    346. Cactus says:

      SO tell me what DID you wish for, iScotland

      Ahm in Glasgow, an ahm pished.

      How does that hit you


    347. Cactus says:

      How ye doin’ Ronnie, guid tae ken ye

    348. SilverDarling says:

      Watching that beautiful spire come down in flames makes me feel as if we are watching the end of the world as it happens.

    349. schrodingers cat says:

      “We still don’t think there’s actually going to be a general election, because on those numbers it would be suicide for the Tories”

      not sure i agree, the polling for tories and labour swing wildly depending on their latest position vis a vis brexit, eg corbyn’s support drops every time he backs brexit. this didnt stop him calling for a vonc

      he will call another when wm ends its holiday.

      1. the above poll would suggest he will win. treezas extension has damaged tory support among the no deal brexiteers, this is why support is rising for farage and ukip.

      2. this will cause treeza to finally resign.

      3. the tories will elect a no deal leader. treeza has repeatedly warned/threatened the labour mps about this when trying to get them to support her deal

      4. the new no deal brexit tory leader will call a ge.

      5. tory party constituencies will only elect candidates who support no deal.

      6. support for ukip and the brexit party will dissolve, we might even see farage joining the tory party as a candidate.

      this bourach is an internal fight in the tory party among those on the pro eu left and the hard right (the bastards as john major called them)

      in this battle of the bastards, it is the hard right who are winning

    350. CameronB Brodie says:

      @Kenny Farquharson
      Come on lad, do you really take yourself seriously?

      A comprehensive survey of the relationship between self-efficacy and performance for the governmental auditors


      As governmental auditing is involved in evaluating the legitimacy, economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of how the various administrative branches use their allocated resources to optimize the government’s functions, it is expected that the performance of the auditors in charge are strongly influenced by their respective qualities such as self-efficacy and experience, etc. To further understand the factors that may enhance their performance and to ultimately provide practical recommendations for the audit authorities, we have surveyed about 50% of all the governmental auditors in Taiwan.

      The result showed that any auditing experience and professionalization do positively influence the professional awareness, and acquired knowledge and skillset of an auditor can effectively improve his or her professional judgment. We also found that perceived ability, problem-solving skills, and resource sharing may significantly impact any performance involved. Our study provides a workable management guidelines for strengthening the self-efficacy of audit authorities in Taiwan.

      Keywords: Self-efficacy, Professional development, Knowledge sharing, Government auditing, Management

    351. Macart says:

      Only caught up with the Notre Dame news.

      Just awful.

    352. Cactus says:

      Keep yer ayes on ra road an yer hauns upon ra wheel like…

      Keep on driving, drivers


    353. galamcennalath says:

      Oil wealth. The UK could never have set up an oil wealth fund in the style of Norway. Instead it was essential to use up the oil income quickly. An accumulating oil fund would have made clear to Scots just how much their oil is worth. That, had to be kept as hidden as possible.

    354. Cactus says:

      For fuckings sake Scotland

      Just ordered food like

      Shahed’s knows

      He’s ken like

    355. Cactus says:

      Taxi for one

      How ye fairin’ Scotland

      Any day

    356. Cactus says:

      People aye need to talk WITH

      1) Mad Unionist
      2) Colin
      3) Independence

      Number 3 knows

      See when aye get back home JJ

      Ahm comin in tonight…

      Please call me Cactus, JJ, cheers bud

    357. Jason Smoothpiece says:


      Bang on mate, they could not confirm to the daft folk the awful truth about our embarrassing surplus of wealth.

      They also could and can do what they want with our wealth because many Scots folk are too daft to realise whats going on with Britannia.

      Perhaps when they take our water some may wake up.

    358. Essexexile says:

      Cactus (ma prickly pear)
      I just dipped into indylive radio for the first time and caught the end of a Nazareth song which I hadn’t heard for about 35 years! Good stuff.
      I hear you’re doing a stint on the station . Is that a regular slot?
      For the late night truckers out there surely!?

    359. ronnie anderson says:

      Hiv U geid up yer nocturnal meanderings noo your oan Indylive radio .

    360. Cactus says:

      Country rd, take meh HOME like like…

      Tae oor place, we belong

      Aye ahm somwhere

      Evenin’ Essex xx

    361. Cactus says:

      Aweright Ronnie, ahm onna bus back to…

      Who knows?

      Life @ 17

    362. Bobp says:

      Jason smooothpiece. I think some ‘scots’ will never wake up to whats being stolen from them. OH goad where wull we be whithoot england tae wipe oor erse…Get a life sadoos, and get aff yer f”””in knees you servile incompetents. ARE YOU GETTING ANGRY YET SCOTLAND?.

    363. Ahundredthidiot says:

      Notre Dame even been used to bash Trump, of course airborne firefighting could be an option, but it would take literally hours to mobilise, so its not an option… and it is daft to suggest it would damage the property…you..just….fly…higher.

      statues moved a few days ago begs the question why though….so too (perhaps) the colour of smoke…

    364. Cactus says:

      Hey Ronnie

      Aye do everything

      Ahm Learnin’ both

    365. Colin Alexander says:


      When will Scotland be free of this rotten Union?

      I want us to be free.

    366. McDuff says:

      Thepnr 10.13

      Firstly you can cut out the insults its not an intelligent , polite or constructive way to interact with other posters.
      Secondly I have been a supporter of independence and the SNP for over 40 years and along the way I have both praised and criticised the party and I will continue to do so as is my right despite your views to the contrary.
      As far as B

    367. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      The last wings ‘meetup’. Pics or it didn’t happen.

      Brodie claiming he was there may have just exposed a nest of shite.

    368. Dan says:

      geeo @ 8.02

      Accusing someone of trolling.

      geeo & 8.06

      Mentions site rules…

      Self awareness fail. If you’re going by the book then the site rules also covers what to do if you suspect someone is trolling.
      Hint, it ain’t bicker on the thread which just turns the comments trail to crud.

      It’s noticeable that several long term posters that added decent input have ebbed away recently. Some of them have been chased off or put off by internal bickering.
      There’s far more lurkers reading in than actually comment. Please consider how engaging in tedious pish btl might be perceived by the silent masses.

      Here’s a musical intermission. Better Days by Gun

    369. Bobp says:

      9.18pm.should have said, Scotland the (ha ha) are you brave enough?.

    370. Phronesis says:

      How to Lose a Country: The 7 Steps from Democracy to Dictatorship by Ece Temelkuran

      ‘Create A Movement
      Disrupt Rationale/ Terrorise Language
      Remove the Shame: Immorality is ‘Hot’ in the Post-Truth World
      Dismantle Judicial and Political Mechanisms
      Design Your Own Citizen
      Let Them Laugh at the Horror
      Build your Own Country…

      Then there is Brexit, of course, the three lions on England’s shirt having become three confused kittens just because a referendum was held on a whim. (No, it’s no more complicated than that, unfortunately.) A centuries-old arrogance still convinces many that Britain can go it alone, but it is gradually being chipped away, leaving Britain with a more realistic perspective on its place in the world.’

      Scotland is not lost, it is another country. The supporters of an inclusive, hopeful and resilient grassroots independence movement have taken many steps together to prepare Scotland’s readiness to take its place in the world as a small thriving democratic independent country.

    371. Ahundredthidiot says:

      Notre Dame looks like a white phos fire, burning far too bright in daylight and the yellow green smoke…..also note that there is not one media vt from a helo or drone……

      big time suspect.

      world is going to shit.

    372. CameronB Brodie says:

      Reluctant Nationalis
      Seeing as how you would have us believe you have an MA in Psychology, can I ask what has turned you against a social science world view? Could it be the reality is you have a narrow, prejudice, world view which maintains your apparent lack of good, rational, judgement?

    373. Cactus says:

      Marnin’ Colin, that’s me arrived back HOME NOW dude

      When… trustfully soon

      THIS year

    374. CameronB Brodie says:

      Reluctant Nationalis
      Don’t be shy, why do you oppose multiculturalism?

    375. Cactus says:

      What kinda union check…

      1) UK Union, Scotland will continue to be fucked like
      2) EU union, let’s let iScotland see how it could be
      3) What else?


      What say you?

    376. geeo says:

      Dan @9m.29

      Talking of rules :

      If you post YouTube links with the http:// part at the start, they’ll embed on the page rather than being posted as links. That can lead to this sort of thing. So don’t include the http:// bit or you’ll find your video in the spam bin.

      Lets not be taking lectures from you huh ?

    377. Mark Fletcher says:

      Dear God! The BTL comments on this site are fast becoming impossible to read with any pleasure. It’s become a home for waifs and strays. Could the normal – or even semi-normal – contributors please come back and provide us with some variety?

    378. Bobp says:

      Cactus. Spot on.

    379. geeo says:


      You threatening me champ ?

    380. Cactus says:

      Scotland has yet to know to being an independent member of the EU

      Let’s give it a shot

      Cheers Bob

      JJ knows

    381. McDuff says:

      Thepnr 10.13
      As far as Brexit is concerned, if a deal is stuck with Brussels keeping the UK in the customs union and voted for at Westminster and accepted by the public, where does that leave independence.
      Nicola Sturgeon has put too much emphasis on Brexit at the expense of the many other important factors that demand we leave the Union. Given all that has happened since `14 the polls should have shown a considerable increase for independence but they haven`t.
      This is how I see it and complacency is and always has been our biggest enemy. Those of you who think everything is going to be hunky dory and that there is some master plan which will spirit us into independence need to wake up or tell me why its been hidden for the past 5 years.
      There has to be a change in tack.

    382. Cubby says:


      The Queen of England QE2 can do it.

    383. CameronB Brodie says:

      Reluctant Nationalis
      Not willing to justify your political belief, or simply embarassed?

      Dealing with ethics in a multicultural world
      Willingness to appreciate less familiar views and traditions is crucial

      We are constantly reminded of the wide-ranging convictions and customs of our patients. The cultural norms of ethnic minority communities may effect health care provision in many ways.1,2 Most societies now exhibit cultural pluralism. But most of the human race continues to believe in universal ethical principles. Despite their areas of disagreement, both religious and rational fundamentalists can and must agree that freedom of belief and tolerance of the beliefs of others are essential first principles….

      ….Inevitably, in any human society, certain beliefs will be (rightly or wrongly) construed as unethical by the custodians of power, to the extent that their cultural expression is not sanctioned (such as suttee in the example cited earlier). As autonomous moral agents, we have a responsibility to question the veracity of our own beliefs. The cultural diversity that now surrounds us enables us to obtain, perhaps for the first time, an insider’s appreciation of world views other than our own.15

    384. Bobp says:

      Geeo 9.58pm. Wouldnt dream of it. I’ll stil meet you at the wings stall fur a wee chat .lol.

    385. CameronB Brodie says:

      Reluctant Nationalist
      Just in case you think my politics are based on some woke notion of liberalism.

      Multiculturalism in contemporary Britain: policy, law and theory


      We start by surveying the different issues that fall under the umbrella of ‘multiculturalism’. We then sketch the trajectory of British multiculturalism since 1945, and examine its broader legal and philosophical contexts. This narrative highlights the empirical and theoretical connections between multiculturalism and decolonisation, and that the conceptualisation of multiculturalism in political theory is more wide-ranging than in law or policy. This helps foreground neglected aspects of British multiculturalism in policy and law, and suggests we should widen the philosophical scope of multiculturalism even further.

      We then summarise the papers and draw out the connections between them. We argue that a deeper understanding of contemporary British multiculturalism inexorably leads us back to fundamental philosophical and practical questions regarding the structure and purpose of the British polity, and conclude that this indicates the need for greater polycentricity in governance.

      Keywords: Multiculturalism, national identity, Britain, decolonisation, liberal democracy, polycentricity, pluralism

    386. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      Brodie, I know it requires concentration, but try to stick to the subject I raised: did you attend the last wings ‘meetup’?

    387. Cubby says:

      Cassandra@15 April 4.22pm

      No idea why you referenced me in this post. I have not previously posted at 4.10pm. You can have all the thoughts you want as far as I am concerned. Your thoughts can and probably will be different from mine. In summary I haven’t a clue what you are going on about here.

    388. Cactus says:

      You and me babe, how’s about it?

    389. galamcennalath says:

      McDuff says:

      As far as Brexit is concerned, if a deal is stuck with Brussels keeping the UK in the customs union and voted for at Westminster and accepted by the public, where does that leave independence.

      That would represent an excellent springboard for IndyRef2. Customs union would not be an acceptable outcome for Scotland, far from it. Getting an unacceptable deal does clarify the situation and would allow us to move forward. We would get a transition period of stability to campaign and achieve Indy. Scotland would therefore never actually have to leave the single market.

      The loyal BritNat media would have us believe that CU is a soft Brexit. It certainly isn’t. It’s effectively agreeing to set the same external tariffs as the EU. It does not cover standards and regulations. With CU there would be border controls and inspection of goods. Turkey is the CU. Trucks arriving at the Bulgarian border don’t just rumble on, like within the single market.

    390. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Ahundredthidiot @ 21:38,

      Take your specious attempts at sowing idiot conspiracy theories elsewhere, please. It doesn’t suit the ethos of this site.

      Facts. Only facts. Not wild speculation.

    391. CameronB Brodie says:

      Reluctant Nationalist
      Why do you want to know?

    392. Capella says:

      Sad to see fire destroying Notre Dame, the heart of Paris. So sorry for the people of France who will be devastated by the loss. Tragic it is but at leasts no reports of anyone being injured.

    393. cassandra says:

      @Cubby 10.22pm

      Thanks for that.

      Good to know, I think…

    394. Cactus says:

      Next Quiz comin up…

      Are you listening?

      Rev’s listening

    395. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Looks like Lenny Hartley and I were not alone in failing to appreciate Mike Russell’s article in yesterday’s National:

    396. Dan says:

      Checks comments after doing dishes…

      geeo @ 9.49

      Eh, what are you on about, my post didn’t actually contain an embedded vid so give it a rest. It speaks volumes that you try to deflect and come back at me about that (even if I had made an error) rather than address the point of my post.
      The reason the YT vid hasn’t actually embedded is because I stripped the first part off when I added it to the comment box, and when I post my comment, WordPress does its thing and it then appears as a link with the https:// added.

      I’ll be at Glasgow too, so happy to show you how to post YT links if you want.

      While I am here, is anybody aware of updated info regarding the Settlement Scheme for EU Nationals now that the can kicking has gone into extra time after March 29th, and there is no longer a fixed leaving date?
      IIRC there was a fee to be paid for applications prior to March 29th.

    397. jfngw says:

      MSM taking on the Labour idea that Scotland should tax people to the hilt to mitigate WM policies. They have no interest in the poor actually, they want to force the SNP into a policy they know will turn many voters against them.

      I may be naive but I don’t think anyone earning £45-50K with a couple of children and relying on that single income is actually rich.

      Just in case anyone thinks I’m self serving hear, I’m on a pension and my income is nowhere near this sum.

    398. yesindyref2 says:

      It seems a firefighter has been seriously injured. I’ve been watching at times with tears in the eyes, and I think it’s a miracle there aren’t more so far, the bravery and I guess desperation to save Notre Dame which is so iconic around the world, but particularly in the hearts of the French. And with Easter coming too.

      Meanwhile there are near a dozen on Wings in the worst and most disgusting exhibition of behaviour Wings has ever seen.

      It’s all made me decide I’m going to improve my manners.

    399. Cactus says:

      Things may happen for iScotland before

      Stay well tuned

    400. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      me @ 22:58,

      Sorry, that link would be better as:

    401. jfngw says:

      Donald trump tweets about Notre-Dame, it seem like he believes that International Rescue and Thunderbirds was real and still actually exist.

    402. Capella says:

      @ yesindyref2 – it certainly puts all he petty squabbling into perspective. Sorry to hear about an injured fireman. They will all be exhausted by now. Hope it is under control soon.

    403. Essexexile says:

      Can’t help you, but just to say I’m equally concerned about where the extension leaves the settlement scheme. The trial run last Autumn was a frickin diaster as the software was woefully inadequate. Ok, I suppose that’s why it was a trial but it really was flawed. The scheme was due to run (I believe) for two years from March 31st 2019. I assume that date is also to be kicked down the road.
      The payment has at least been scrapped. The whole topic disgusts me beyond words to be honest, it has a distinct feeling of 1930s Germany about it.

    404. Still Positive says:

      I visited Notre Dame on Good Friday in 1964 as a 13-year-old on a school trip. It is a building full of history and atmosphere. When I think about it the smell of the candles is uppermost in my mind.

    405. yesindyref2 says:

      It seems to be under control now, and a good chance the shell and towers are saved, though who knows what condition they’re in.

      Some are saying it’s just a building, but it’s more than that, it’s heart and soul to a lot of people.

    406. Terry callachan says:

      CameronB Brodie.. is there such a thing as political fraud ?
      I don’t think there is
      Certainly nothing that could lead to a prosecution
      Who has ever been prosecuted in a court in modern times for political fraud I would say nobody basically because they are all frauds most of what they promise never comes to fruition but it’s allowed and accepted that promises are not a crime even if they don’t come true

    407. Legerwood says:

      Ahundredthidiot @ 21:38

      There were renovations going on in the Cathedral – all that scaffolding over part of the roof was a bit of a clue and there had also been some over the front of the Cathedral until a few days ago – therefore many of the priceless artefacts were removed for safe-keeping.

      Just as anyone would do if they have the builders in. Pack stuff away for safe-keeping

      It is as simple as that.

      No need to go the conspiracy theory route.

    408. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      jfngw @ 23:02,

      Yes, the old Smith Commission tax trap, heavily aided and abetted by the Labour Party, who carefully bequeathed the SG more obligations together with extremely limited means to pay for them.

      It has been rather frustrating for them and their pals in the media that, much though they have tried, the SG has very astutely managed to dodge their nefarious scheming.

    409. Cactus says:

      Evenin’ Essexexile ~

      How’s yer evenin’ gaun Winger like

      Be ye a boy orra girly?

      Ah need tae know

    410. yesindyref2 says:

      Yes, live pictures now, and it’s very much under control as far as can be seen.

    411. Terry callachan says:

      To Jfngw ..I agree with you Labour in Scotland are always suggesting ways for SNP to solve problems but they only ever involve spending huge sums of money that nobody has or taking money from people who don’t have it

      you are correct Labour want to beat SNP and will impoverish all of us in Scotland to do that simply because they have no concept of a rolling future improvement for Scotland as a nation they see only today until the the day SNP is gone and no further

      it is the britnats only plan of action, stamp out Scotland’s thoughts of independence by any means even if Scotland must be totally destroyed to achieve that goal

    412. jfngw says:

      Looks like Monday night is fight night on here. There are as many post BTL of people basically just insulting each other than any actual content. And if you disagree I’ll get ma Da to you (he’s dead but he does a good haunting).

    413. Essexexile says:

      I’ll be yer desert rose if yerl have me.
      But a boy or a girl ahm no sayin’.
      It’s a thorny issue.

    414. geeo says:


      So true, shocking to watch as it unfolded.

      No surprise to find out work was being done on it at the time, as after years of watching Air Crash Investigation, and put it this way, next time you fly, ask if the plane has recently been serviced/maintained, and if they say yes, ask for your bags and a lift back to the terminal!!

    415. Terry callachan says:

      To Bobp… meeting geeo

      ….to be honest if you meet up you may find a sandwich short of a picnic haha

    416. Cactus says:

      Fair play Essexexile, as ye are

    417. Terry callachan says:

      Phronesis… well put , I like it

    418. geeo says:

      Callachan the anti english bigot clearly does not get irony.

      Comedy Gold from tag team trolls.

    419. Cactus says:

      Has anyregularbuddy else yet to check in tonight?

      Is everybuddy here?

      REO wagon

    420. Capella says:

      @ indyref2 – well yes it is a building, but also an architectural treasure from the 13th C. The beautiful stained glass windows were made around 1260. I don’t know if the techniques for creating the red glass still exist.

      Yes it will be restored but still a shock for all of us.

    421. Hamish100 says:

      15th April 2019 – 11:18 pm
      Hey jj, ah’ve been multitasking and posting random comments over on Wings Over Scotland, as you were

      And Essexexile asks you out on a date on this site.

      Surely there is a need for another site as WoS is being ruined.

    422. CameronB Brodie says:

      Hopefully I have posted enough evidence of (white) British nationalism to provide some idea of what is a very real and predominantly English/Yoon problem (see Brexit). I’m also aware that old-skool multiculturalism had its’ limitations and it’s detractors. But the elephant in the room is Scotland’s desperate need for immigration. This is another CORE issue so here’s some stuff.



      The discredit of multiculturalism in contemporary discussions about cultural diversity and democracy is problematic since allegations of multiculturalism’s failure and undemocratic consequences are used to justify a (re)turn to assimilation throughout Western societies. Rejecting assimilationism as either desirable or inevitable, this article challenges the alleged incompatibility between multiculturalism and democracy.

      It makes the case for a (re)conceptualisation of both multiculturalism and democracy in ways that can provide the foundations for inclusive communication. To this end, the article endorses, first, aspecific kind of multiculturalism, namely, critical multiculturalism. Critical multiculturalism defines culture in structural and relational terms, underscoring the superficiality with which multiculturalism has been deployed in Western societies.

      Secondly, the article examines the constraints that liberal and republican models of democracy impose on a fair politics of cultural diversity. It argues that, largely due to its communication emphasis, Habermas’s deliberative democracy is particularly receptive to the demands of critical multiculturalism.


      ….What critical multiculturalism criticises are “the ideological apparatuses that distribute power and resources unevenly among the diff erent constituencies of a multicultural society” (Palumbo-Liu 1995, 2). Accordingly, Lugones and Price (1995) call it “structural multiculturalism.” The core of critical multiculturalism is a structural conception of culture, based on the deconstruction of two seeming dichotomies: a dichotomy between structure and culture and a dichotomy between the interests of cultural groups and a “common interest.”

      For critical multiculturalism, it is particularly important to problematise the apparent tension between each of these pairs. To assume that structure is disconnected from culture and that group interests threaten common interests leads to a problematic understanding of culture and cultural differences, which, in turn, suggests an inescapable conflict between equality (in both political and economic terms) and cultural difference. Critical multiculturalism’s structural and non-essentialist approach to culture, in contrast, enables a democratic appreciation of cultural difference….

    423. Essexexile says:

      What’s gaun on here? You ride in on yer camel just to ruin ma night at the oasis wi ma new pal Cactus?
      What is this the now? The good, the bad and the ugly?

    424. Cactus says:

      Evenin’ fine Hamish100 ~

      Pleased to see you’re both watching and listening, sexy stuff!

      You are multitasking too dude

      Name yer debate…

    425. Cactus says:

      Please keep doing what you’re doing Hamish100 ~

      You make me LOVE you even more

      WHO do you love?

    426. Cactus says:

      Meet Me Hamish100

      Meet Me Essexexile

      Check yer InBox

    427. Cactus says:

      Free bar, name yer poison Wingers…

    428. Cactus says:

      We have whisky and some ice & water should ye require

      Ye will here, ye will here

      Jacobite like

    429. Cactus says:

      Ye can listen and hear as well hehe

      Ecoute bien


    430. Cactus says:

      William Wallace

      Aye call upon ye

      Ah saw ye were logged in tae Indy Live Radio, previously 🙂

    431. Petra says:

      @ Hamish100 @11:44pm ….”Wings is being ruined”..

      It sure is and the culprits are there for everyone to see: In plain sight. The Anti-Independence Brigade have taken over, IMO. I just wonder why individuals on here think that we’re capable of reclaiming our country when they’re too henny to speak out against the very people who are making a concerted effort to destroy this site. Won’t put up a fight to save it. Oh right, some of them are “mates.” High time that they woke up and smelled the coffee. Better still grow a backbone.

    432. Dr Jim says:

      With no army to fight the army fights itself

    433. Cactus says:

      Morning Petra

      How do you do?

      Avec amour

    434. Cactus says:


    435. Mad Unionist says:

      Cactus, according to the BBC the jesus thorns have been saved in Notre dam Paris. Must be true vote for the Union.

    436. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi McDuff says at 9:59 pm

      You mentioned,
      “As far as Brexit is concerned, if a deal is stuck with Brussels keeping the UK in the customs union and voted for at Westminster and accepted by the public, where does that leave independence.”

      If the UK leaves the EU but then joins a customs union, Scotland, as a partner in the UK, has been taken out of the eu “against its will”, thus one of the conditions for activating the Scottish government’s MANDATED position can be activated.

    437. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi jfngw at 11:05 pm

      You typed,
      “Donald trump tweets about Notre-Dame, it seem like he believes that International Rescue and Thunderbirds was real and still actually exist”

      The International Rescue Corps (IRC) is a volunteer organisation involved in disaster rescue, based in Grangemouth, Scotland.
      “International Rescue Corps is an independent (i.e. non-governmental funded) United Nations registered disaster rescue service with an accredited UK National Open College Network qualification in Urban Search and Rescue.

      Being a charity, the IRC is supported entirely by donations from the public and sponsorship from industry. IRC members are unpaid volunteers and all the IRC’s services are provided free of charge—the Corps’ aim is purely to save life. The organisation is named after the fictional emergency-response organisation, International Rescue, in Gerry Anderson’s popular TV series, Thunderbirds.”

      Quotes are from,

    438. Liz g says:

      It’s such a pity about Notre Dame,all that history and human achievement destroyed!
      I understand Mary Queen of Scots was married in it too..that a wee bit of our history was involved,I think,really gives some sense of the loss for France,who had so many of their historical moments there.
      I hope the fireman who was injured is ok and, just mibbi,the loss of things from the past,will encourage people to have a bit of a care for the future!…. I can hope!!!

    439. ronnie anderson says:


      Once again Donald Trump opens his mouth & proves to the World he’s a IGNORAMUS ( the fire was caused by renovation whatever that is ) .

      When they rebuild Nortre Dame i hope the 1st thing they put in is a Fire Sprinkler System .

      All the best Paris/France .

    440. Ken500 says:

      Mary Queen of Scots spebt ger young line in France. Spoke French. She was betrothed to the Dauphin. When he died at nineteen she returned to Scotland, married in 1558 till he died in 1560. They married when she was fifteen. He was fourteen. She could have been betrothed to English king but her mother did not agree. Catherine of Guise. A member of a powerful French family. The Auld Alliance.

      Scotland loses out £Billions to Westminster that could be better spent. £3Billion tax evasion. HMRC tax laws not enforce. £Billions in Oil sector from Tory high taxes when the price had fallen. 2010 onwards. Losing 120,000 jobs. Taxed at 40% since Jan 2016. Scotland loses out £Billions on Defence Trident/redundant weaponry. Scotland can’t borrow £5Billion? To grow the economy but has to pay loan repayment on monies not borrowed or spent in Scotland £3Billion. Scotland as part of the UK gets the lowest CAP payment in the EU. Total approx £20Billion a year.

      Illegal wars, financial fraud and tax evasion has cost Scotland dear. Westminster total mismanagement and corruption. The Brexit shambles and disgrace,

    441. Ken500 says:

      Queen of Scots spent her young life in France. (Twisted typos?)

    442. Ken500 says:

      Please off topic for some raving comments.

      Hope Mr Peffers is OK

    443. Cactus says:

      Marnin’ Ken500, how ye doin’, yer fine yer fine yer fine, everything’s on topic once each thread has matured

      Aye choose to let loose in the evenings

      Back to you, have a guid one

    444. Nana says:

      Flamingo Land Limited donated £83,500.00 to the Conservative and Unionist Party

      “At what point would you start to wonder why you’re attracting so many people who appear to subscribe to Nazi-esque ideology?”

    445. Willie says:

      Watching the news I like millions of others around the world was appalled to see Paris’s iconic Notre Dame. Cathedral engulfed in fire.

      No doubt Paris will rebuild the cathedral and already there have been pledges of over €100 million to assist the reconstruction and repair.

      What however has stuck out with these early declarations of support to rebuild Notre Dam
      is how the response contrasted with the devastating fire in the equally iconic Rennie MacIntosh School of Art.

      Now I know that the honour of burning down a world class icon not once, but twice, rests with Scotland, but aside of that, Scotland’s immediate response from some quarters was that the MacIntosh needed to be pulled down, whereas in France the absolute opposite is the case.

      Thankfully, the Mack is going to be re-built. But it was maybe a closer thing than folks realise. And therein lies a big difference. Who’s like us, certainly not the French who stand absolutely resolute when disaster comes their way.

      Good on them – and they’ve already announced an enquiry into why whilst here in Scotland we can’t even get an answer to why two people tragically died in the Cameron House fire.

    446. Hamish100 says:


      Ruins web site with his rantings. Discuss.

    447. Luigi says:

      Nana says:

      16 April, 2019 at 8:07 am

      Mmm. I do wonder why this new Brexit party was set up (and apparently so promoted and platformed by the BBC). Surely not just for Nigel Farage’s vanity? – although he does have a rather enormous ego.

      Split the leave vote (with UKIP) and frustrate Scottish independence? Two birds with one stone. I can see Nigel supporting the latter, but the former? Is his ego really that big – or has he been bought off? Mmmmm. 🙂

      Worth keeping an eye on them.

    448. Luigi says:

      A big establishment push for SNP leave voters, methinks. TBH I think that the SNP has already lost these to the “Scottish” blue tories. Already peaked – on the way down now, hopefully. Not much low fruit left for them to pick IMO.

    449. Cactus says:

      In your opinion Ken500 ~

      “Ruins web site with his rantings. Discuss.”

      Ah’ll discuss anything ye want with ye

    450. Cactus says:

      Apols, that last comment was intended for oor Hamish100

      Aye trust you’re well


    451. mr thms says:

      Mary McCabe @ 3.52 pm

      “Please, can somebody come up with a better idea? PLEASE!”

      Go with the flow..

      This is an Article from Aiden O’Neill QC from 2012

      “Scotland, independence and the EU: the Barroso intervention”

      This is the interesting bit –

      “Further, Article 52(1) TEU specifies that the Treaty applies to “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. There is a respectable legal argument to be made that – given that Article 1 of the 1707 Articles of Union provides “that the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain” – the revocation of the British Union would mean not only independence for Scotland but also the dissolution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If Barroso’s automaticity argument has any purchase, then it could be said that from a matter of a strict literalist reading of the Treaties – against the background of the constitutional history of the formation of the UK – a disunited Kingdom without Scotland would no longer be the Member State which originally signed up to the European Union and therefore the dissolution of the UK into separate States would result in none of the territory of the former United Kingdom remaining within the EU.”

      That is an interesting last point.

      Had Scotland voted Yes, the UK would have had to leave the EU!

      I have my fingers and toes crossed that the Withdrawal Agreement gets the approval of the majority of MPs because only with the WA will there be a ‘transitional arrangement’.

      The only reason for having a ‘transitional arrangement’ is to make use of part 5 of Article 50 which says..

      “If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.”

    452. Macart says:


      Good catch on the James O’Brien link Nana.

      A two cup morning coming up. 🙂

    453. Nana says:

      Morning Macart

      Two sugars in mine please Sam, keeps me sweet 🙂

    454. Dr Jim says:

      Why aren’t Scotland’s media outraged on behalf of the people they purport to represent and serve
      Scotland’s people voted a massive 62% to remain in the EU yet the media in Scotland have not only accepted the UK decision to drag Scotland out of the EU they’ve normalised the situation by not protesting on behalf of their readers and viewers

      Why aren’t they complaining, why aren’t they informing Scotland’s readers of the disaster that Brexit is, after all most of their readers don’t want this so why are Scotland’s media not annoyed on their behalf

      In England the media are positively threatening their government and demanding Brexit be fulfilled on behalf of their readers and viewers so why is the same solidarity and loyalty to readers in Scotland not in evidence

      If you go out and spend your money on a newspaper in your own country shouldn’t that newspaper provide you with the same service newspapers in other countries do for their readers, why is Scotland being ignored by its own press

      Well, is it obvious yet, Scotland has no media, Scotland has no press, Scotland has no *journalists* because all of it is owned by England so they’re the views you’re going to get whether you like it or not, and if not they don’t care and they make it obvious by insulting you straight to your face

      Still going to spend your money on a newspaper today?

    455. galamcennalath says:

      How many Sky presenters does it take to change a light bulb?

      Answer, none apparently, because if they happen to be a landlord asking an astronomical £2000 a month rent they can’t be bothered getting off their arses.

      Sky News is repidly evolving into Fox where the presenters continually offer right wing opinions and sneer at everything which doesn’t comply with their agenda.

    456. Dr Jim says:

      Here’s how Scottish football has closed ranks and joined together on sectarianism in Scotland

      They’ve all decided in order to avoid any punishment and responsibility for what’s happening by the Scottish government, all of the clubs are now blaming each other simoultaneously thereby claiming it’s a societal problem and not entirely their problem meaning *you cannae dae onything tae all of us*

      When the possible loss of money comes into the equation with Scottish football clubs all of a sudden they love each other even if they hated each other the week before

    457. john boy says:

      Brill Cactus

    458. stu mac says:

      Same old tired nonsense again but this time Labour show they think no one up here knows what goes on down south – even with their own leader.

    459. jfngw says:

      When do you know a paper and its senior journalist has lost the plot. When in 2019 they are still running the story that an independent Scotland will be leaving the EU because Spain will veto it. Of course it may just be they have missed Brexit, too busy with FOI’s about how many teachers pick their noses without the use of a hanky (or similar).

      The Herald, were the facts go to die, or maybe they are just polishing up the CV in the hope of a BBC/STV job.

    460. galamcennalath says:

      Mike Russell on GMS. Usual responses about Scotland being taken out of EU against our will as unacceptable.

      However, I got the impression that he might be setting out the ground for the SNP/SG/ScotParl to say that if an EURef2 is not forthcoming then Scotland will have an IndyRef2 instead. People must have their say, one way or another.

      Also, when asked about accepting EURef2 result, he said if Scotland voted Remain again then anything else was unacceptable. That sounds to me like IndyRef2 would follow.

      The only way WM can stop an IndyRef2 is to stop Brexit, or stay in full single market and customs union. Both Labour and Tories seem hell bent on avoiding either. That’s what it seems to amount to.

    461. mike cassidy says:


      That banker link reminded me of this.

      It follows that the institution of a leisure class acts to make the lower classes conservative by withdrawing from them as much as it may of the means of sustenance and so reducing their consumption, and consequently their available energy, to such a point as to make them incapable of the effort required for the learning and adoption of new habits of thought. The accumulation of wealth at the upper end of the pecuniary scale implies privation at the lower end of the scale

      Or, as Rees Mogg put it,

      “The amount I receive is not for public disclosure”

    462. cassandra says:

      “Wings is being ruined” Really?

      Why? A few people who considered BTL their own private fiefdom where they could spout cod history and constitutional law unchallenged have been found out.

      The assumed ownership of this place by a select few has almost been the ruin of it, not the opening up to new posters. Yes, a few old timers have been clutching their pearls about letting in the rabble.Their reaction has been quite illuminating, aggression and entitlement.But why do we know more about them and their fictitious lives than the Rev, who puts time into articles that are then hijacked by the usual egotists?

      Many people here have been put off from posting by that entitled few who only want to hear their own voices and congratulatory applause from a select few who agree with them.

      If you want an echo chamber, more fool you.

    463. Lenny Hartley says:

      galamcennalath , your analysis of what Russel said on Gms does not square with what he said on Sunday! I am deeply troubled by the SNP leadership apparently trying to tie a section 30 order to any Indy ref 2. Unless off course they are gaslighting!

    464. frogesque says:

      Here’s a thought; suppose the big wains parly at Westminster breaks up for a GE, who would be there to say we couldn’t have an IRef during the hiatus?

    465. Iain mhor says:

      The only reason I started posting semi regularly, after much lurking, was because I wasn’t seeing issues debated from vaguely my understanding. As it’s not a high bar to clear I reckoned I may as well add my tuppenceworth. I wish more would.
      I tended to avoid Wings BTL around the weekend, for obvious reasons, although it increasingly is randomly the discourse of a pub at 1am any day of the week. I have been known to hurl invective myself ashamedly; but I’ve been on boards since the dawn of time and Wings is still civilised in comparison. That does not excuse though.

      In saying that, I was waiting recently on some insight from yourself on constitutional issues you intriguingly hinted at, but they never transpired.
      I know you don’t like the ‘cod history’ (though I’ve never read any here which wasn’t rapidly corrected) As for erroneous views around ‘constitutional law’ (or more correctly ‘laws related to constitutional issues) It would be refreshing to hear your rebuttals and views. As there are so many grey areas in this field it is no wonder it is contentious. Though it is risible to see the use of phrases such as “Unarguable fact” or “Incontestable truth” used when debating such matters. I do get a good old chuckle at that –
      The very basis of “Law” and it’s raison d’etre is to contest and argue facts.
      I noticed the posts you don’t like, but I was hoping to find out why. Honestly.

    466. galamcennalath says:

      @Lenny Hartley

      I was extrapolating on what MR said this morning. He seems to say IndyRef2 is unavoidable, one way or another.

      “If we got to the situation where Scotland continued to vote to stay in the EU and was being taken out against its will, nothing would have changed, that’s quite clear. I would not accept a situation where Scotland was taken out against her will, that would be impossible to do.”

      … and to me that implies IndyRef2 must follow.

      What he said on Sunday is here. I agree he is wrong in insisting WM be involved.

      Implying we need an IndyRef2 and discussing how we achieve it are two different things.

    467. jfngw says:

      @Brian Doonthetoon

      They are only International Rescue if they have the five craft and remote island location. Otherwise they are mere imposter and would have had all the recent fires out within their 60 minute time slot (including ad breaks).

    468. Ken500 says:

      Tories finally going down.

      SNP up

      Thanks for the links Nana

    469. gus1940 says:

      While the Notre Dame fire is undoubtedly a tragedy I don’t think we should be too downhearted re the resurrection of the building.

      Many historic buildings were destroyed or severely damaged in WW1 and WW2 but have been restored to their former magnificence all over the Continent.

      One only has to stand back and admire the beauty of the reconstructed Cloth Hall in Ypres and look at photos of the state it was in at the end of WW1 to appreciate what can be done.

    470. Robert Louis says:

      galamcennalath at 0903am,

      I agree, regarding SKY news. Their is a near constant sneering tone from several of their so-called ‘journalists’, to the point it is near endemic.

      Mind you, I have no idea why anybody in Scotland would even contemplate subscribing to SKY, given the utterly sneering attitude of that Kay Burley towards Scotland and Scots MP’s, or the fact that their sports coverage in relation to Scotland is an utter joke, focussing on England, England, England, all of the time.

      In addition, people like Kay Burley make it really obvious at every turn, when they do not agree with somebody’s politics (i.e not right wing).

      Sky news is indeed getting pretty close to FOX in their bias. For example, they will have ‘heated debates’ between two people, and invariably, the one that doesn’t subscribe to the fox right wing agenda, is poorly spoken or less coherent, or just a bit of a nutter or is in a noisy environment and cannot hear correctly, whereas the right wing debater, will be coherent, well spoken, in a quiet environment and adept at complex debating. Fox news does it all the time in the USA.

      Things like that are the reason people no longer trust mainstream so-called ‘journalists’. People do notice.

    471. Cactus says:

      The excellent Wings readership continues to grow DAILY

      Not long 2 go to hit 60K on twitter followers

      Obviously the website audience is bigger

      60K will be a key moment

    472. manandboy says:

      The Grand Master of the Orange Order was yesterday appointed by the BBC as its Chief political correspondent at the Vatican.

      No one in their right mind would believe that statement to be true. Just as no one in their right mind should believe anything the BBC says about Scotland.

      In this piece below, a further illustration of the hijacking of the BBC by the extreme right fascist propaganda machine, also known as the Tory-Labour Unionist Alliance.

      “The 14 April edition of the Andrew Marr Show was the final straw. A BBC journalist until 2015, Patrick Howse is “now ashamed” of his 25 years of service. In a letter to BBC director general Tony Hall, he focused on the organisation’s coverage of a recent speech from Nigel Farage. Howse points out the former UKIP leader targeted MPs against the background context of a far-right terrorist murdering Labour MP Jo Cox on 26 June 2016. He accused the BBC of ‘transmitting fascist propaganda’ through uncritically broadcasting the speech.

      “I am ashamed to be associated in any way” with the BBC
      In his letter, Howse said he used to be “proud” to work at the BBC, despite conditions he faced in places such as Baghdad:

      In the course of my career, I was shot at, kicked, tear-gassed, spat at and pelted with stones, bottles and petrol bombs… But I believed passionately in what the BBC was doing.

      Howse criticised what he called the BBC‘s “dismal coverage” of Brexit. But the turning point came when Howse saw the BBC‘s reporting of Farage’s Brexit party launch. And he went public with his concerns after comparing that coverage to Andrew Marr’s critical interviewing of Labour MP David Lammy.

      That finally changed with the coverage of the launch of Nigel Farage’s new party, and in particular his speech where he said he wanted to put the “fear of God” into MPs.

      If these words had come from the lips of an IS [Daesh (ISIS / ISIL)] spokesman they would have (rightly) been condemned. But Mr Farage was not only allowed a platform to make these remarks, he was not confronted with their implications, and the audience was not reminded of their context. That context is, of course, that Jo Cox was murdered by a Nazi less than three years ago, and just a few days ago a threat against the life of another MP, Rosie Cooper, was dealt with by the courts.

      The BBC declined to comment in an email to The Canary. In his letter, Howse continued:

      At best Mr Farage’s comments were criminally irresponsible; at worst they were an incitement to political violence and democracies don’t work if elected representatives live in fear. I’m astonished that it seems you need to be reminded of this. The coverage of this speech has actually made me see things in a different light. I am no longer proud to have worked at the BBC – I am ashamed to be associated in any way with an organisation that facilitates fascism and transmits its propaganda uncritically and without challenge.”

    473. Ken500 says:

      Get rid of Sky. There are plenty of other alternatives. Even the internet. Murdoch is away with £30Billion. A criminal warmonger. Thatcher’s henchman. He should not have even been allowed to buy up the Press and create a monopoply. A right wing Press. Without a free and fair Press there is no democracy.

      Murdoch bribed public officials, hacked and surveilled people. It is a crime under US Business Law to bribe public officials anywhere in the world. Murdoch is a criminal. Murdoch is a US citizen because of his US based business.

    474. cassandra says:

      @Ian Mhor 10.15

      Thank you for that.

      I was a poster at the beginning about 5+ years ago but saw BTL becoming as I described.

      Any rebuttals of false information or requests for source information were met by ‘Do you know who I am’ type responses. A cheerleading group became established where any criticism of the SNP and the FM’s strategy or lack of it became the target for suspicion, paranoia and pile ons. Posters were targeted and anything they said was regarded with suspicion or immediately rubbished because of who they were or who they were suspected of being.

      In the meantime a narrative has become established that Holyrood could just dissolve the Union with a slim majority of MSPs and and no majority of the people. Any attempts to question that were met by ‘the Scottish people are sovereign’ and again pile-ons and abuse for even questioning it. I have sought advice from SNP members, some in quite high up positions, who are extremely concerned that it is being taken seriously. They know they need the people with them first.

      Similarly I have sought advice from aquaintances I have in the GLSS who at present are run off their feet preparing for Brexit. They know this stuff is simplistic but it is also dangerous. If people are so misinformed en masse where does that leave us?

      Any useful information in those initial posts have long been negated by the tone and stranglehold the posters had on defining the what was real and true.

      I have only sought to turn some of that back on them. I get some posters are lonely and look on this as a chat room, but there is nothing stopping them from setting it up for themselves.

    475. Iain mhor says:

      @galamcennalath 10:16am

      I wasn’t quite sure how to take Mike Russell’s piece in the National either, it was a bit clumsy to be honest. It can read as an emphatic ‘there is no other option, legally, but to go cap in hand to Westminster for an S30’ but I don’t think that is his actual position and he really needed a few more column inches to expand on it to clarify the reasoning.

      The link I posted yesterday from Prof. Stephen Tierney, gives clarification on the SNP position and the reasoning behind it very clearly. If you read that, then re-read Mr Russell’s piece, you will see what he was trying to say in brief, but sadly omitting some extremely, salient points.

    476. manandboy says:

      Donald Tusk addressing the European Parliament & the EU. As always, his words are worth listening to.

    477. Cubby says:

      Cassandra @10.50pm

      Still have no idea why you referred to me in your initial post. But feel free to think away as much as you like as far as I am concerned. It’s still a free country – isn’t it – with free speech and free thinking.

      Thanks for the thanks – I think.

    478. Cubby says:


      Glad to see you are thinking and putting your thoughts down in writing. I disagree with some of what you say but I won’t bother spelling out what and why because you seem to have a problem with critical comment.

      Keep on thinking.

    479. Cubby says:


      Your apology is accepted.

    480. manandboy says:


      In his address to the EU Parliament, from around 3:40, Donald Tusk says “since the very beginning of the Brexit process, the UK has been a constructive and responsible EU member state. And so we have no reason to believe that this should change.”

      To say that Donald Tusk is being diplomatic here, would be a huge understatement. IMO.

    481. Petra says:

      @ cassandra says at 11:07 am …. ”In the meantime a narrative has become established that Holyrood could just dissolve the Union with a slim majority of MSPs and and no majority of the people. Any attempts to question that were met by ‘the Scottish people are sovereign’ and again pile-ons and abuse for even questioning it. I have sought advice from SNP members, some in quite high up positions, who are extremely concerned that it is being taken seriously. They know they need the people with them first.”..

      I totally agree with the essence of that statement, that part of your post Cassandra, but I would say that as many people, if not more, have rebutted this ”argument” on here as have made it in the first place. To attempt to dissolve the Union without having a majority of Sovereign Scots supporting it would be a real recipe for disaster.

      In turn however, to reach that point in time, having that majority, we should be making a real effort to support Nicola Sturgeon / the SNP as they are the ONLY ”tool” that we have at our disposal to achieve our objective. Constant, with the emphasis on the word constant, undermining of her and her party surely leads to more and more people not only having less faith in her but less faith in the concept of Independence overall. Biting the hand that feeds you makes no sense, imo.

    482. Colin Alexander says:

      We can argue till we are blue in the face about constitutional issues such as:

      1. Can Scotland continue membership of the EU if Scotland is no longer part of the UK – or continue membership of the EU as part of the UK, even if England votes to leave?

      2. Does the UK minus Scotland become the continuing state in all manner of memberships such as UN, EU, NATO etc or does the UK end when Scotland chooses independence?

      3. Can Scotland hold an indyref without an S30?

      4. Can Scotland obtain a mandate for indy via an election such as the EuroRefs?

      5. What happens to the UK’s assets and debts if Scotland decides on independence?

      6. etc etc etc

      Why has the SNP NEVER NEVER NEVER tried to establish the answers to ANY of these questions in a Scottish court, so leaving the door wide open for Project Fear2 to spin all these unanswered question by asserting the most negative bullshit as fact?

      Even if the Supreme Court ruled Scotland does not exist, we were absorbed by Greater England, we would know where we stand. Instead we are left in limbo arguing amongst ourselves.

      It’s not that the SNP are shy of going to court either, as the Continuity Bill and Gina Miller EU case has shown. Even going to the ECJ about whether Art.50 can be unilaterally cancelled.

      FIVE YEARS AGO, the SNP and YES campaign saw how all those unanswered questions were used to undermine Scotland’s independence and absolutely nothing has been done to address them.

      Even a basic question about whether Indyref2 will even be held has remained unanswered.

      The best the SNP have come up with in five years is British People’s Vote2.

      Don’t waste time telling me the SNP are all we have. I know that! (Sighs in dismay).

    483. @yesindyref2 15 April, 2019 at 5:38 pm

      I suspect you are quite right to be worried,we already see Westminster’s intention to retain the devolved powers from the EU.

      Whether it be Labour or the Tories at Westminster and with the likes of Michael Forsyth in the Lords, I have always believed it to be on the cards that they would do what they can to chip away at the powers of Holyrood and make it impotent.

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

    ↑ Top