The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Who governs the governed?

Posted on January 02, 2018 by

More data from our latest poll:

Almost 30% of No voters still believe the decision on whether Scotland should vote on independence again should be a matter for the Scottish Government (which already, as we know, has a Parliamentary mandate for it), not the UK government in London.

Very nearly half of 2017 Labour voters (excluding DKs), and almost 40% of Lib Dems, also think their own parties should butt out and leave it to the government Scotland chose, not the one England chose.

And among demographic groups, men divided a pretty close but still clear 54/46 in favour of the Scottish Government, with women a much stronger 61/39. Young people were an overwhelming 75/25 for Holyrood, with middle-aged and over-55s cancelling each other out by splitting 56/44 and 44/56 respectively on the issue. The wealthier ABC1 demographic were 50/50 and less well-off C2DEs a thumping 65/35.

The argument has been won, just like the vote in the Scottish Parliament. All that remains to be seen is whether the UK government continues to play by Madrid Rules.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 02 01 18 09:56

    Who governs the governed? | speymouth

  2. 02 01 18 11:14

    Motivate and mobilise | Scotto Voce

216 to “Who governs the governed?”

  1. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    If it is true that the Scottish Office has been growing by transferring, (ie promoting) Cicil Servants from the Scottish Government, are they preparing for s suspension of Holyrood and a NI Direct Rule scenario?

  2. jimnarlene says:

    If they tried to play, the Madrid way.
    It wouldn’t go down well, with the majority of Scots, IMHO.
    And be counterproductive, for the unionist cause.

  3. sassenach says:

    The staggering result, for me, was that 12% of those who voted YES last time believe the UK government should be making the decision???

    What kind of mixed-up idiots are they, and why did they vote YES last time, and why have they not learned anything?

    We have a big battle coming!

  4. Kangaroo says:

    @Sassenach 9:37

    Couldn’t agree more. How can you support Yes and the UK Gov to decide when we have another vote? Does not compute.

    Lots of mixed up people around apparently.

  5. Terry says:

    @ bugger the panda.

    Yes. I read that a wee while ago that the Scottish office was massively expanding. I thought the same – ie end of Holyrood. But maybe it’s brexit related.

    Can the Rev or any wingers shed light on this? Maybe there was a rare post I missed about this?

  6. heedtracker says:

    It’s going to be Madrid rules, BBC fury and lies, UK press gimps insulting and terrorise us all, ballot boxes loaded on to vans to be counted in England, that kind of democracy. Just like 2014 mostly.

    But its only because they love us really,

  7. Yerkitbreeks says:

    It’s the Madrid way or the highway – I should imagine that’s how Fluffy and his mates at the SO think

  8. Clydebuilt says:

    Bugger (the panda) . . . . Could be their intent is to weaken the S.G. by taking their best civil servants. . . Surely Westminster is too wiley to copy Madrid

  9. Yerkitbreeks says:

    @heedtracker – you’re right though, as long as articles such as this:

    are published we’ll be fighting the demagogues. It’s why I’ve contributed to Wikitribune

  10. Auld Rock says:

    The Rev asks should we play by ‘Madrid Rules’? Perhaps it’s time that we told Westminster that either they agree to INDYREF2 or we will play by ‘Rhodesia Rules’!!!

  11. Ken500 says:

    Stop the illegitimate comparisons of the legitimate Scottish Independence movement (which plays to the rules through the electoral box) will be damaged. Playing to the Gallery.

    These polls are based on 1000? people’s attitudes. Plenty room for movement.

    The people in Catalonia who voted did not vote by a majority for Independence from the rest of Spain. 53% voted NO. The resulting carry on is the result of politicians in Catalonia not following the electorates wishes. Unscrupulous Spanish politicans in Catalonia/Spain. Despised by the majority of the people in Spain for good reason. A cabel of crooks the lot of them. Defrauded EU citizens in every way shape and form of £Billions. (Eurozone) The EU leaders are obviously aware that the majority in Catalonia did not vote for Ibdependence. Totally different from Scotland/UK In too many way not to be considered without the difference being qualified.

    Still over £1Billion a month of Scottish revenues/resources are being taken by Westminster. Revenues which could be saved or better spent in Scotland. The incompetent mismanagement of the Scottish (UK) economy to be squandered and wasted by Westminster (Scotland) unionists politicians. Unionist politicians are illegally sanction, starving and killing people throughout the world. Wasting £Billions.

    £9Billion in unexplained expenses on the balance sheet. £4Billion a year in lost Oil & Gas revenues, average £3Billion in loan repayments on money not borrowed or spent in Scotland (wasted on Hickley Point, HS2, Heathrow, Trident. No business case) £1Billion Trident. £1Billion on no minimum pricing (changing in May) Scottish Gov has limiting borrowing power £5Billion? to invest a year. To produce growth and revenues.

    Total average loss to Scotland £20Billion a year.

  12. ScottieDog says:

    Madrid? What happened in Madrid?
    All I’m hearing about is Iran Iran Iran by the uk state media broadcaster

  13. gus1940 says:

    Hon. Lt Col. Roly Poly Ruth raking in shekels from the disgusting Barclays with an article in the Torygraph.

  14. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    I note Ken is off on one again. The election in Catalonia a couple of weeks ago was not about independence. Fact

  15. One_Scot says:

    Lol, if May does refuse to allow a referendum, Nicola will hold one anyway. There will probably be a some knuckle dragging Yoons who will think that boycotting will be a good idea. This will only give an even larger Yes victory.

    No matter what happens after that, Scotland will have won a referendum on Scottish Independence, and that will only bode well for the future.

    I believe it is what they call a ‘Win Win’ scenario.

  16. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    As there were no Nationals published today I bought a Herald (for the first time in over four years). Won’t be making that mistake again.

  17. Capella says:

    It looks very much as if, the more you rely on the MSM for information the more easily fooled you are by Westminster.
    Young people go online and share information. Old people watch the BBC and read the yellow press. Generally.

  18. Clydebuilt says:

    Interestingly women are stronger in their preference (than men) for Scot Gov deciding . . . Does this mean Women have moved towards Independence . . OR are they simply keener to see the democratic process function.

  19. Lenny Hartley says:

    Ken500 if your gonna quote figures re Catalonia from the alternative universe you spend a lot of time in, please keep your mince to that alternative universe.

  20. Ruby says:

    Dave McEwan Hill says:
    2 January, 2018 at 10:35 am
    As there were no Nationals published today I bought a Herald (for the first time in over four years). Won’t be making that mistake again.

    Ruby replies

    Did you read this:

    Anyone know anything about the National Trust board members?
    Do you suppose they could be on the ‘Scotland in Union’ donors list?

  21. Capella says:

    @ ScottieDog – it is obviously Iran’s turn now for the Persian “spring” or multicoloured revolution. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are dead, Syria is mortally wounded. Only Iran is left in control of its oil wealth in the Middle East.

    Pity the state broadcaster doesn’t plough its £8 million into foreign correspondents instead of propping up the yellow press to “hold local authorities and services to account”. I wouldn’t have thought FOI requests to our NHS, schools and police would cost so much.

  22. Ruby says:

    Clydebuilt says:
    2 January, 2018 at 10:36 am
    Interestingly women are stronger in their preference (than men) for Scot Gov deciding . . . Does this mean Women have moved towards Independence . . OR are they simply keener to see the democratic process function.

    Ruby replies

    Perhaps women see Holyrood as being the ‘little woman’ in the Union marriage and feel strongly about the ‘little woman’ having a voice.

    Basically women empathise more with Holyrood.

  23. Ruby says:

    I believe Westminster do use the ‘Madrid Way’ but they are just more sneaky.
    They prefer mind control to physical control using batons.

    It’s the difference between physical abuse & psychological abuse.

  24. call me dave says:

    The Herald!

    Aye made the same mistake on New Year’s day and got the Daily Express as well… for the x-words ye ken.

    It’s that or listening to shortbread’s repeats of the best of Call Kaye? 🙁

    Must do better in 2018.

  25. Peter A Bell says:

    Together with other results from the latest Wings Over Scotland/Panelbase survey, the widespread and significant agreement that the decision on whether and when Scotland will vote on independence again should be a matter for Holyrood and not Westminster for things it tells us besides the obvious.

    It tells us that, in continuing to disrespect the mandate granted by the people of Scotland to the Scottish Government and deny the authority of the Scottish Parliament, the the British parties are ignoring large parts of their own support. Which, in turn, tells us that their position is not informed by any political or electoral calculation. It tends strongly to confirm the conclusion long since reached by many in Scotland that the position taken by the British parties reflects an ideological imperative which outweighs party political priorities and democratic considerations.

    If, as the survey results seem to indicate, there is little or no party advantage – and potentially significant disadvantage – in denying the democratic will of Scotland’s people and treating the Scottish Parliament with open contempt, then the reasons for doing so must be overwhelming. And those reasons cannot have anything to do with serving the interests of Scotland and its people.

    The survey also explains why the British establishment’s propaganda machine is working so hard to destroy public confidence in the Scottish Government and undermine the authority – and even the legitimacy – of the Scottish Parliament. Both have become what they were never meant to be. The Scottish Government has become much more than the glorified parish council that was intended. The Scottish Parliament has become the locus of Scotland’s politics. The Scottish Government now represents a serious challenge to the absolute authority of the Downing Street/Whitehall nexus. The Scottish Parliament now matters more to the people of Scotland than Westminster.

    More importantly, Scotland’s democratic institutions reflect and represent an increasingly distinctive political culture. And this was anathema to the British state even before it came to be dominated by the fervent ‘One Nation’ British Nationalist ideology which grips the entire British political elite.

    Be sure of one thing! However you and I may react to the results of this survey, the British establishment will see in it only cause to redouble its efforts to eradicate a political culture in Scotland which is a daily rebuke to their austerity fetishism, neoliberal orthodoxy and dire administrative incompetence.

    The survey suggests the will exists to resist this onslaught. The task for the Yes movement in 2018 is to motivate and mobilise the people in defence of Scotland’s democratic institutions. In defence of Scotland’s political culture. In defence of Scotland’s right of self-determination. In defence of Scotland’s hope for a future shaped according to the needs, priorities and aspirations of Scotland’s people.

  26. Odet says:

    @ sassenach 9.37

    A Yes-voting unionist of my acquaintance told me “I voted Yes because our government (ie Westminster) needs a shock, then they’ll behave better.”

    They had no expectation of, or desire for, Scotland’s Independence.

  27. The worm has turned.
    The Brexit Factor is beginning to hit home.
    By April I predict an even more dramatic shift.
    It is reprted that 400,000 Norn Irn Brits have applied for Irish passports because of Brit secession from the EU, many hundreds of thousands of mare registered DUP/Unionists.
    If you want to get a body’s attention, empty their wallet.
    Great stats, Stu. No wonder they hate your for not being ‘courteous’ online.
    Rise up, Scotland. Drive the insurgents from our land.

  28. Ken500 says:

    The (Illegal) Referendum that was held in Catalonia did not produce a majority for Independence from Spain. D’Hondt system is a different system from a Yes/No Referendum electoral base on a varying electoral numerical base. It did resulted in a 47% result for YES.

    The majority of the people in Catalonia have never voted for Independence from the rest of Spain, ever. People should stop trying to commute the results in Catalonia/Spain without qualification with the Scottish situation. With false comparison. Or it could damage the Scottish Independence movement. Cutting off the nose to spite the face, It could lose support because of false comparison. It is irrelevant in any case because of fundamental differences. Some people seem to be off on one confusing the issues, which could damage the Scottish Independence movement by their refusal to consider the numerical figures and facts.

  29. Capella says:

    @ Peter A Bell – well said. The questions most people ought to ask themselves:
    Is Scotland a country? Yes/No
    Should countries govern themselves? Yes/No

  30. Bill McDermott says:

    The stat that stands out for me is the 79:21 result for the non-voters who think that the decision on an Indyref 2 should be in the hands of the SG. That says to me that these people automatically look to Holyrood for their governmental decisions. In other words they are persuadable for ‘Yes’ if we can get them to vote.

  31. Vestas says:

    Best to just ignore Ken500 really, the guy is loony tunes at the best of times, utterly delusional at worst.

  32. yesindyref2 says:

    Even 12% of the Conservatives think the Scottish Parliament should make the decision. Compared with 4% who’d currently vote YES. Which if May plays silly boogers means there’s 8% of them might take offence and vote YES, and whatever the proportions are for LibDems and Labour.

  33. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    Capella at 11.21

    That actually is the case for independence. That is the WHOLE case for independence.

    We are an able,educated and clever people with huge resources who identify as a country. We should govern ourselves.
    That is all.
    The unionists should be the ones fielding difficult questions, not us.
    But we continually get tied up in convoluted questions from them about an economy which is trapped in a bust British economy and over which we have little control.

    Change the mindset.

    The “too wee,too poor,too stupid” mantra is an insult and should be treated as such, not entertained by discussion.

  34. Colin Alexander says:

    1. Scotland’s MPs should make a democratic decision by vote on whether there should be another indyref. If they have the electoral mandate. Which the majority of MPs do ( SNP MPs).

    2. If the majority of Scottish MPs vote Aye, they can instruct the Scot Govt to conduct it on their behalf, as their indyref agents.

    3. But the mandate and authority will come from the MPs, not the Mickey Mouse Holyrood Parliament. Thus, no S30 needed, as devolved Holyrood, by itself, has no legal authority to conduct a legally binding referendum without an S30.

  35. Ken500 says:

    Looking at the facts figures. Population statistics. Economy. Mass banking fraud. EU/Eurozone membership. Federal system, Recent election results, evidence of people not coming out in majority numbers to vote for Independence from Spain when given the opportunity. Millions (the majority) did not bother. The vast majority stayed at home . Would not vote. Etc etc. About something they are reportedly to be passionate about. The majority can’t be that passionate about it.

    Already they have vast autonomy over their affairs. Not complete financial autonomy. They have to pay their way. Self governing in most major aspects. To raise and lower taxes. Education. Health care etc. Gov administration etc. Open accounts. Their one accounting methods. Done openly. Their dispute appears to be about £4Billion. They do not want to equally support the poorer in Spain They have been exempted from by the Spanish legal system in any case. 2 month holidays a year. Average a week off every month.

    Scotland a country. In a supposed equal Union does not have that level of autonomy over it’s affairs at all. Scotland and the way it has been treated has much, much major grievance. The majority of Catalonia/ Spanish politician are corrupt.

  36. Albaman says:

    Madrid rules?, sod that, its Edinburgh rules from now on.

  37. Bill McDermott says:

    #Colin Alexander.

    Whether or not the SG can hold a referendum without a Section 30 order is debatable. Prof Black has designed a referendum question which he regards as legal. In this case it is advisory just like the EU referendum, but it is totally within the competence of the SG to hold.

  38. Hamish100 says:

    re NTS
    The link you gave shows on the RHS Sir Moir Lockhead another true blue unionist and involved with Univ of Aberdeen –another unionist enclave. Ask prof pennington, ex bbc hacks and prince charlie’s “bidy in”.

    He is Involved with NTS along with the elite. He is not alone however. The NTS is not political neutral and as such should receive no government support.

    I resigned as did my wife– I wish there were more. Got a snotty email back as previously posted. I haven’t missed it.
    Lots of good work by volunteers and others. Pity they are led by a group of tartan shortbread tins who in their own way put Brit Unionist first.

  39. Clootie says:

    National Trust Membership

    170 members leave in protest at appointment of Neil Oliver – Herald

    A spin to minimise the impact. My wife and I are members but will simply not renew our membership when it comes due.
    I suspect the final figure for the impact on membership will be much higher.

    This is an easy example for driving home a point to the unionists who are “appointed” to so many of our institutions in Scotland.

    It is perfectly valid to chose not to support organisations and businesses who decide to become political.
    We all know who they are and they should suffer the consequences of their actions…in the end it is very simple…people will suffer because they protect and support a corrupt Union.

  40. geeo says:

    @Bill NcDermott.

    Please try not entertain Coco Anderson, he is an ultra yoon moron, with ZERO credibility.

    He is like his alter ego, Rock, boring, repetitive, and just a crushing arsebag.

  41. Clootie says:

    @Jack Collatin

    I am one of those in the process of obtaining Irish citizenship…why would you not if eligible?
    A straight forward process if you have at least a grandparent born in ANY part of Ireland. Although I come from bigots in the North it has an upside as it qualified me for citizenship of Ireland…a few will be spinning in their graves at my “betrayal”… 🙂

    However the 278Euros fee may be a hurdle for some

  42. Capella says:

    @DMH – the state broadcaster propaganda diminishes the status of Scotland as a country and pushes the meme that we are a region, subordinate to Westminster.

    The question of whether a country should govern itself democratically can only have one answer.

    Of course, that doesn’t prevent other states from interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign countries. That’s what the UN is supposed to prevent.

  43. Clootie says:

    @Colin Alexander

    …I hate to break it to you but once identified as a troll the majority of readers just skip past your posts…time to change the account AGAIN!

  44. ronnie anderson says:

    @ geeo And would you not misuse the Anderson name when referring to someone called Alexander alexander alexander , get it .

  45. Sunniva says:

    Sassenach. I don’t put that interpretation on the 12% of Yes voters who think that the U.K. should decide if we can have another referendum. I think they might have reasoned that its legitimacy and the legitimacy of the result would be less open to political challenge at U.K. and international level if a UK government has sanctioned it.

  46. heedtracker says:

    Ken500 says:
    2 January, 2018 at 11:15 am
    The (Illegal) Referendum that was held in Catalonia did not produce a majority for Independence from Spain

    Ken, all that aside, do you think that the Catalonians have a democratic right to campaign for independence?

    Also, and this is what the point up there is maybe, is Spanish gov reaction to the Catalonian indy movement democratically acceptable?

    is the reaction of various other post Catalan like states in the EU acceptable?

    and above all else, what happens if UK gov emulates the Spanish gov, when Scots indyref2 is announced?

    Not saying FM Sturgeon, Alex Salmond, Mhairi Black and so on are heading for the slammer, stripped of the property… but this is what Spanish gov has done.

  47. Fred says:

    No National today, bought a square loaf!

  48. Clootie says:

    @Ronnie Anderson
    …I have to ask…why do you have a Union Flag on your garden hut?

  49. Sunniva says:

    It’s also possible that some of those who think the SG should decide on a referendum wish us ill. Because maybe they surmise that it would go the same way as Catalonia: that nobody will recognise its legitimacy.

    I think this result is potentially a bit tricky.

  50. The Isolator says:

    Colin @11.40 gie it a rest ffs.

  51. geeo says:

    @one_scot earlier.

    You said this…”if May does refuse to allow a referendum…”

    Sorry, but May simply CANNOT refuse a referendum, she can refuse a SECTION 30 order (very inadvisable) but there is ZERO legal means for her to stop a referendum.

    Such assumption, meant or not, of WM ability to refuse a referendum simply CANNOT go unchallenged.

    Theresa May CANNOT ‘refuse’ an indyref.

    A section 30 WILL be granted when OFFICIALLY requested (contrary to unionist belief, Nicola has NEVER requested a Section 30 order, so has NEVER been refused one) by the Scottish Government.

    Why ?

    Simple, there will be a referendum with or without a Section 30, but without one, the Uk government can have ZERO input into that referendum.

    If they (WM) refuse a S30, then actively campaign against independence, then the SG can easily argue that the uk gov HAVE agreed to abide by the result, by default, without the S30, by taking part in the referendum.

    If there is a Yes majority, and the WM gov were actively campaigning, then the result MUST be valid.

    However, if the WM gov refuse to take any part in an indyref without a S30, and the result is a resounding Yes, as it surely would be, then Scottish Gov can take that result to the international bodies and argue for 2 things.

    1. Recognition of an indy Scotland, based on a plebiscite of the Sovereign people of Scotland.

    If they are refused recognition, then the SG goes to the international courts to have the sovereignty of the people clarified and ratified in an international law court.

    Remember, Scottish independence in such a manner, is not UDI it is merely ending the Act and treaty of union with England.

    The fact that the aforementioned Treaty/Act specifically mentions and affirms Scots sovereignty of the people, means a slam dunk for indy in court.

    That is exactly why a S30 will be given, it is the ONLY way that WM can control the narrative.

    2. Ask the international bodies to force the WM gov to sanction another indyref in which they must accept the result.

    This would be seen as a fair compromise by the SG, when they could be stubborn and take the path outlined above, but as part of the compromise, the SG could ask the international bodies/courts, to monitor the behaviour of the WM/NO campaign, and set down red lines on behaviour. Breaching agreed behaviour would result in the referendum being cancelled and recognition of indy Scotland accepted.

    We would run the risk of losing, but it would be a hard sell for WM, especially after being seen to obstruct the original indyref (Yes vote) in a blatant attempt at subjucating Scotland’s government and people.

    That is my opinion/view, if there are parts of it that are wrong/not possible, then i happily stand corrected on the detail.

  52. geeo says:

    @ronnie anderson.

    My most sincere and humble apologies my good man..!!

  53. Colin Alexander says:

    Ronnie Anderson
    et al

    BTL is an open forum. Stu decided that’s the way it is. People are allowed to have different or critical opinions, whether you think they are right or wrong.

    There’s only one person that decides who are trolls and who are not trolls: Stu Campbell.

    Clearly, he’s decided I am not or he would have banned me ages ago.

    So, telling me I talk mince etc is fair comment. Personally abusive comments are just that and not only make the person making those remarks look like a bully.

    Worse: readers will be given the impression Wingers and the YES movement are bullies who intimidate and harass people if they dare to have a different opinion.

    Saying I’m a Unionist is false. You can say you think I’m a Unionist; that’s a wrong opinion, but is fair comment.

    Calling me a Troll is not only untrue, it’s against the blog rules. Stu has repeatedly told youse, if you think ANYONE is a troll you do not engage with them and do not call them troll: you report your concerns to Stu and let him decide what to do. In case you forget: It’s Stu Campbells’ blog, not anyone else’s. He’s the boss.

  54. Dan Huil says:

    @Peter A Bell 11:05am

    Great post. I really believe the only thing holding this decrepit union with England together is the rancid Britnat media. We must keep the pressure on the purveyors of Britnat lies and deceit.

  55. David Caledonia says:


  56. galamcennalath says:

    I don’t think there is a chance in Hell that the Tories will give a Section 30 before the next Holyrood election.

    I believe their plan is to hold out until then in the hope that Scots will elect a pro Union majority. Then WM problems be solved for at least five years.

    So if IndyRef2 happens (as I hope it does) before then, it will be advisory. Does that matter? A majority Yes win will be hard to ignore. Of course WM won’t just go along with it. They will argue no Section 30 means it’s not binding on them.

    IMO opinion we can expect a ‘soft Madrid’ response. Ignore us, and keep playing for time. Again if a pro Union majority take over Holyrood, the result will be ignored.

    The SG and the YES movement need to be prepared to appeal internationally. If we win a referendum, a strong SG should act on it without further WM interference. Get on and push through Indy.

  57. Colin Alexander says:


    People have the right of self-determination. Scottish independence is a Scottish issue, so why go for S30 when that allows the UK Govt to do a repeat of 2014?

    As I said, if Scotland’s MPs democratically decide there’s to be an indyref, as they are mandated to do, they can give the authority. Then any indyref is not a SG opinion poll, it has real authority. Importantly, it’s Scotland exercising sovereignty through her MPs.

    If the UK Govt refuse to recognise it, it’s not only dismissing the SP, MORE IMPORTANTLY, it would be the UK Govt rejecting Scottish MPs as having the authority to be representative of the democratic will of the people of Scotland. It would be an attack on democracy and Scottish sovereignty. It would be a constitutional crisis.

    Whereas, an attempt to rely solely on a devolution administration to attempt to change the UK constitution is a very bad mistake. As it simply does not have the legal basis to tell the UK Govt what to do, it’s devolution, not a real govt.

  58. Robert Peffers says:

    @sassenach says:2 January, 2018 at 9:37 am:

    “What kind of mixed-up idiots are they, and why did they vote YES last time, and why have they not learned anything?
    We have a big battle coming!”

    These are not actually idiots, sassenach. These are the people who instinctively swap channels or stations when any form of political programme begins. If they buy a newspaper they hardly read the headlines but those headlines make a subliminal impression on their subconscious as they turn to the celeb, read their star sign predictions and the betting odds on the football, rugby, horses and dogs.

    Their political views, if any, are thus decades out of date in the first place and probably predicated by who or what their father and their father’s father voted for.

    This doesn’t mean they are daft. What it indicates is that they were long ago sickened, almost like Indy supporters were, but they took a different path to keep themselves sane from the shambles that is Westminster politics.

    Where you and the rest of the YES movement fought back and want change these people just chose to ignore anything, and everything remotely connected with politics.

    They just automatically switch off their brain as they switch of the political programs. Which is why the SMSM print great big, black, misleading, banner headlines. Thus even if the victims do not actually buy a newspaper or tune into political programmes they receive a subliminal signal.

    You will know these people if you canvas them – these are the ones who say, “I hate that Nicola Sturgeon”, but when you respectfully enquire why they hate the First Minister they cannot think up any reason for their hate. The reason being simply subliminal brainwashing.

    BTW: The origins of the modern term, “Shambles”, originates from the old term for, “A butcher’s Slaughterhouse”, a term now only found properly used in old place names.

  59. ronnie anderson says:

    @ Clootie Its a long time since anybody asked that question . It refers to Cameron’s broken britain quote , you need to look at the wording below the fleg , the black line through the fleg is our Oil flowing south & Bob the builder canny fix broken britain .

    The Wee Saltire Shed did its job as a advertising board being photographed & shown in many parts of the World , there are other Vids & Photo’s with the Wings Banners .

  60. yesindyref2 says:

    An interesting statistic from the Herald, and shows perhaps the ratio of activist to general public. I saw quite a few people posting they were going to resign from the NTS because of Neil Oliver, here’s the actual result:

    The Trust confirmed 170 that had quit the Trust citing Mr Oliver as the reason and was set against a membership of around 380,000. “.

    Proportionately it would be around 190,000 resigning, so activist to general voter ratio was about 1 : 1,000

    There may be many more who just don’t renew of course.

  61. frogesque says:

    If MI5 can hatch a plot to assassinate a Country’s leader and attempt to destabilise it, the Establishment are capable of anything.

    Wouldn’t trust the bastards with the snot from my nose!

  62. Colin Alexander says:


    You are the person disrupting this btl thread by throwing your false accusations about. I was 100% on topic, giving what could be an important suggestion to help achieve indy.

    Also, you have no right to tell other people what to do. Bullying behaviour.

  63. Only 170 left the NTS? I’m disappointed.
    I left long ago after several poor staff and manger experiences.
    Anyway, once you’ve seen a few sterilised castles and priceless treasures, you’ve seen them all.

  64. Dan Huil says:

    @Clootie and Ronnie Anderson

    Sorry to interrupt but I’ve often thought about buying a door mat with the butcher’s apron design on it. Part of me worries that people will think I’m a britnat, on the other hand I like the idea of wiping my clarty boots on that disgusting fleg every time I enter the hoose.

    Decisions decisions.

  65. Breeks says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong here, the essential importance of a Section 30 is not the holding of the referendum, but mutually binding agreement to respect its result.

    May refusing a Section 30 is indeed a red rag to a bull, and I don’t think she will refuse. She will stall and prevaricate with her “now is not the time” shite, while time runs out for Scotland ahead of Brexit.

    The argument surrounding ScotRef will not be having a Section 30 agreement signed or rejected, it will be a very British fudge somewhere in between; – Westminster being shocked an appalled that Holyrood is not prepared to respect the arguments and protocols of due Section 30 process. Westminster will then consider itself free to ignore the referendum result, or declare it non-binding under Westminster’s Parliamentary Sovereignty, but they will also cite the absence of a Section 30 to discredit the Holyrood Government for “abandoning” Section 30 protocols, and thus, under UK constitutional law, the referendum result can be disputed and international recognition contested. That is not being hysterical or fanciful, that is almost exactly the Catalonian position.

    I repeat what I said yesterday, if we assume that Westminster will not agree to a Section 30 agreement to recognise the IndyRef result, then we need to be clever, and make absolutely sure that while Westminster might not recognise the result, the wider international community properly will.

    That means, in my opinion, the binding nature of Scotland’s sovereignty as a nation, albeit a Nation in a bipartite Treaty with another equal Nation, the legitimacy and ascendency of Scottish Sovereignty must be recognised before Scotland goes to the polls.

    Now is the time when we should be should be preparing our ScotRef referendum as an exercise of Scottish sovereignty, not U.K. Sovereignty.

  66. galamcennalath says:

    geeo says:

    We don’t quite agree on WM’s response / behaviour. But really, only time will tell how things pan out.

    That is exactly why a S30 will be given, it is the ONLY way that WM can control the narrative.

    They have the brass neck to get deeply involved. Money, their media, statements. A lack of S30 won’t stop them. They will play dirty as always, and won’t play by anyone else’s rules.

    What might influence things, though, is if the SG ask for an S30 and WM point blank refuses it, that will present ammunition to the YES side. But honestly, I doubt that will encourage WM to allow an S30.

    Ask the international bodies to force the WM gov to sanction another indyref in which they must accept the result.

    It is possible the EU will take the view that there should be Irish reunification and Scottish Indy referendums. Democratically both should happen. If Brexit is going to be hard then matters haven’t been settled until these happen.

    Again, if hard, perhaps the UN rules on independence can be invoked. We’d need friends. And again, that might be the EU trying to salvage as much as possible from the Brexit chaos.

    If nothing else, it’s exciting times!

  67. Colin Alexander says:

    @Robert Peffers

    “You will know these people if you canvas them – these are the ones who say, “I hate that Nicola Sturgeon”,”

    Another good reason why Scottish MPs should be the driving force for independence, not the FM.

  68. yesindyref2 says:

    I was going to work this out party by party but fool that I am, suddenly realise the figures are already there.

    So basically speaking while current support for Indy is 49% to 51%, support for the Scottish Government making the decision on Indy Ref 2 is 57% to 43%.

    Which leaves an overall 8% who could get really hacked off in the unlikely event the UK Government refuse an S30, and moved to YES.

    That’s fertile ground for YES.

  69. ronnie anderson says:

    geeo Thank you for your oppoligie , excepted , had he who (should remain nameless ) be a member of my Clan he wouldn’t have grown to be a twig in the oak tree he would have long since have been pruned .

  70. Colin Alexander says:

    @ Breeks

    As I understand it. A S30 is needed if it’s the Scot Govt, because devolution does not have powers to alter the UK constitution via The Scotland Act, as it’s not a real Govt. The only real Govt is the WM one.

    So,constitutional matters are reserved to WM.

    So a S30 temporarily devolves WM constitutional powers to the ScotGovt so that it can hold a valid referendum that relates to a constitutional matter.

    The Edinburgh Agreement was an agreement on HOW it would be conducted and respected by both sides.

  71. schrodingers cat says:

    the scottish government already has a mandate for indyref2.
    anyone can hold a referendum, no S30 required
    WM might refuse a S30, but that is a very slippery slope for them. Most english couldnt care less about scotland, many are happy for scotland to become independent and many would be happy to be shot of scotland, believing we are a drain on their finances. English people wanting to invade scotland, shut down holyrood etc are a very small minority. It would also very likely drive more people over to yes.

    WM taking a madrid type hardline is a path through a mine field for them. If the polls continue to swing towards yes, they may think they have nothing to lose and do this anyway, if the polls continue to hover about 50/50, they may decide to let indyref2 happen in the hope that the unionist media can swing it for them.

    dont look to international bodies like the un or the eu to intervene on our behalf, a forelorn hope at best.

  72. Colin Alexander says:


    MPs are the ones empowered to vote to change the constitution of the UK.
    They are Scotland’s representatives at UK level.

    They are the ones that should vote and decide whether indyref2 ( which they already have a mandate for)


    seek a fresh mandate to dissolve the Union via manifesto mandate at election time.

  73. jfngw says:

    If WM refuse a S30 order and the SG decide to proceed will this allow us to have a referendum free of interference by non Scottish based MP’s. I remember Cameron saying the 2014 referendum was a decision for the Scottish people just before we were invaded by hundreds of MP’s from elsewhere plus celebrities, some who did not even live in the UK.

    A referendum were only those who live in Scotland are allowed to campaign, I believe a yes would be guaranteed, unlikely to happen I suspect.

  74. Bob Mack says:

    The driving force of independence does not sit in Westminster or Holyrood. It sits in houses all over Scotland. It is me and you.

    Much has been said about the right to a Section 30 being granted. In fact it is not entirely necessary. Nothing can prevent the Scottish government holding a referendum at any time, because the people in Scotland are Sovereign.

    How do we know this? Post Brexit the government proposed that the exit from the EU would be done under the Royal prerogative. Now we find the exit is to be done under Henry 8 laws instead. These latter allow parliament to change aspects of current legislation with or without reference to parliament.

    The reason they cannot use Royal prerogative is simply because in legal terms the monarch is not sovereign in Scotland. We are, you and I.

    The question that Westminster has to answer is this. Can Henry 8 laws apply in Scotland given that they predate the Union ? I know they have been used to alter legislation, but often with compliant Unionists representing Scotland interests, who would not query that issue.

    This Brexit stuff still has some way to run.

  75. Robert Peffers says:

    @Auld Rock says: 2 January, 2018 at 10:16 am:

    “Perhaps it’s time that we told Westminster that either they agree to INDYREF2 or we will play by ‘Rhodesia Rules’!!!”

    Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish Government and the SNP Westminster contingent have made it abundantly clear that THEY will call Indy 2 when THEY and not Westminster decide if and or when it will be held.

    Furthermore, it has been made abundantly crystal clear to the Westminster Establishment that no one needs their permission to hold a referendum. A Section 30(2), is desirable but is not essential to holding a referendum. It just means that if there is no Section 30(2), order then the Westminster Establishment can choose to enforce a NO result but just ignore a YES result.

    With a section30(2), order Westminster, (and the SG), will have both agreed to abide by the result, whatever way it goes.

    In fact Indy1 did not ask for or get Westminster’s permission to hold a referendum. That Section 30 Order was NOT permission from Westminster to hold a referendum. It was a bipartite agreement by both parties to abide by the result of the Indyref1 that the particular section 30(2), order applied to.

    Do not let the idiots in the MSM or the Westminster Establishment pull the wool over your eyes yet again.

    Alex Salmond and David Cameron both signed that section 30(2), order and it was NOT a permission granted by the UK Government to hold the referendum but was both sides agreeing to abide by the result.

  76. yesindyref2 says:

    We’re a country that welcomes freedom of expression, so anyone could campaign. If Martians came down in their flying saucers they too could campaign for whichever side they wanted!

  77. ronnie anderson says:

    @ Dan Huil Go for it , people will get the message of coarse there may be ah downside to that , your door hinges might need replacing you’ll be in & out just for the hell of it .

    I offered my shed to the SNP as a advertising board , but they said it would get burned down ha ha I had to knock it down eventually due to rot .

  78. Macart says:

    I’d love to think UK gov would be dumb enough to pursue the Madrid model, but I suspect they’re aware other options will leave them with greatly reduced control or input to the process. They’re also aware of the risk they’d be taking on public perception at home and overseas.

    The smart move on their part would be to stall as long as possible and when left with no other option use the S30 as last time and attempt to pull the same stroke.

    If they were smart…(jury’s out on that currently).

  79. galamcennalath says:

    Another wee thought about S30, Brexit, IndyRef2.

    If IndyRef2 happens in the next year or so, it will be because the Brexit outcome is harder than the SG deem acceptable to the Scottish people and needs to be democratically tested.

    Look at it from WM’s point of view.

    They will have concluded the Brexit negotiations. The general form of ongoing trade arrangements need to be have been agreed. The EU won’t give a transition period unless it has that agreed – transition to what. WM and it’s loyal right wing media will be trying to ‘sell’ the Brexit outcome to the voters. Even if they know it’s shite, they know it was the best they are going to get and will spin it as a glorious accomplishment and the beginning of a bright future.

    Enter the Scottish Government and an invigorated YES movement shouting Brexit is absolutely shite, we want away from it all, and here’s what’s wrong with it!

    This just isn’t about Scottish determination, it’s about WM’s fundamental credibility.

    We need international eyes on us. WM might be a bit of a cornered beast.

  80. Capella says:

    Westminster is usurping our sovereignty by attempting to take us out of the EU in spite of our clear vote to remain. What did Burns say about proud usurpers?

  81. Capella says:

    Meanwhile – Iceland, a small independent country, has just made it illegal to pay men more than women. Our state broadcaster doesn’t seem to know about this. I read it on Al Jazeera, which, if course, our friends the Saudis are trying to shut down.

  82. Colin Alexander says:

    s30 (2) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make any modifications of Schedule 4 or 5 which She considers necessary or expedient

    Legislative competence.

    (1)An Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament.

    (b)it relates to reserved matters,

    Reserved matters

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

    Thus, LEGALLY, if you want to rely on the authority of the devolved Scottish Assembly – falsely entitled The Scottish Government – you are going up a legal dead end.

    Scottish MPs – authorising the Scot Govt to be their poll conductors – is the legal way in my opinion.

  83. Albert Herring says:


    According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Westminster cannot interfere in any way in Indyref2. It must only facilitate it (by means of a Section 30 order).

    That’s why Indyref1 is null and void.

  84. yesindyref2 says:

    yadda yadda yadda

  85. heedtracker says:

    Capella says:
    2 January, 2018 at 1:44 pm
    Meanwhile – Iceland, a small independent country, has just made it illegal to pay men more than women.

    Late last year Iceland elected a lefty woman Prime Minister. This ofcourse went totally un reported across the beeb gimp network.

    Does this matter?

    Well if Iceland’s new PM was a neo fascist like say Marine Le Pen for example, the beeb gimps would be sliming all over her, just like say Jim Naughty does all the time, slimes himself all over Europe’s neo fascists, making them UK household names, Farage’s bestie Le Pen style, or the Dutch Geert Wilders roaster or the Austrian 21st century nazi Sebastian Kurz and so on.

    Welcome to fascist BBC, its what they don’t report that matters as much as how hard they detest Scottish democracy.

  86. yesindyref2 says:

    @mr thms
    Indeed, and also:

    Would the UK Government really want a similar thing to the UKSC appeal it lost? Bring it on!

  87. Bob Mack says:

    Her majesty may make any order she wishes in any council she wishes ,but she does not have sovereignty over the Scottish people. That is what Claim of Right is about. That is clear.

    Nothing to my knowledge overides the Declaration of Arbroath.

  88. Robert Peffers says:

    @Dave McEwan Hill says: 2 January, 2018 at 10:33 am:

    “I note Ken is off on one again. The election in Catalonia a couple of weeks ago was not about independence. Fact.”

    Ken500 decidedly has the wrong end of that particular stick, Dave.

    In any case there is very little in the Catalan situation that has any resemblance to the Scottish situation. Spain is a loosely held together country of already autonomous states.

    The United Kingdom is a bipartite KINGDOM of only two Kingdoms and the fact that there are four countries with Westminster acting as the de facto parliament of the Country of England assuming to be the master race is an anomaly that has never yet been questions as to its questionable legality. Factually the High Court of Scotland has stated that the Sovereignty claimed by Westminster is a concept of law unknown under Scots law.

    In Spain they have a written Constitution that, due to previous Fascist rulers, made it almost watertight that Spain is a unified country and it was under that written constitution that the Government of Spain claimed the right to negate and ignore the wishes of a majority of the people of Catalonia.

    Now these differences will place a great deal of strain upon the EU parliament due to their ignoring the actions of both the Westminster and Spanish governments. There may well be a move by some of the other 26 member states to leave the EU like the Westminster UK Government is preparing to do.

    That means the EU parliament’s inactivity could well begin the break up of the EU. The EU parliament must take a stance instead of either doing nothing or actively coming down on the side of the Spanish Government side.

    If they are seen to give in to the Westminster ambitions for a soft BRUKEXIT then they let Scots UK citizens down – if they do not act against the Spanish Governments brutal treatment of the people of Catalonia then they let these EU citizens down and if the EU cannot give a rock hard guarantee to protect its citizens then the EU has no raison dêtre to exist.

    The EU is nothing if it cannot guarantee to protect and support its citizens – all its citizens and the main tenet of the EU is the mutual protection of the European Union.

    To date the EU Parliament has really stood by doing nothing and their apparent support for the Spanish Government and their tacit support for Westminster against the majority of the people of Scotland comes jointly from the heads of the EC and EU but has not been put before the whole parliament where whatever decision the parliament then comes to can be vetoed by one or more of the member states.

    Such a veto by one or more of the remaining member states could well sign the death warrant of the EU.

  89. yesindyref2 says:

    From that Gavin Anderson link, this is the answer to those that quote the Scotland Act as though it’s the final authority:

    The risk to the authority of the courts – a risk which, it should be noted, would not be avoided by taking refuge in a literal interpretation of the Scotland Act – therefore suggests that the UK and Scottish Governments would indeed be wiser to agree on an express transfer of powers.

    Go for it! A great way to swing those 8% in my previous posting who think the Scottish Government should have the say over Indy Ref 2, from NO to YES.

    Yes please 🙂

  90. Ken500 says:

    More members of the NT will not renew their membership. NT is a charity? (tax exemptions? ). The total offensive appointment will lose revenues/grants and remuneration. Total ignorance. Idiocy.

  91. Highland Wifie says:

    Re. NTS membership.
    Don’t forget there will be a sizeable number of potential members, like myself, who had planned to join but decided not to because of Neil Oliver.

  92. heedtracker says:

    I tell a lie, there is actually one BBC Iceland election thing out there. Gaze in awe, how beeb gimps smear Iceland’s new lefty green PM with peadophialia, and she’s not even got started.

    But the Independence Party and Mr Benediktsson have been hit by a series of scandals that have tarnished their image.

    The row that brought down the previous coalition government erupted after it emerged that Mr Benediktsson’s father had written a letter recommending that a convicted paedophile should have his “honour restored”.

    Icelanders were furious at the secret backing for Hjalti Sigurjón Hauksson – convicted in 2004 of raping his stepdaughter almost every day for 12 years from when she was five.”

    Familiar? neo fascists no likee the left, anywhere.

  93. yesindyref2 says:

    @Bob Mack
    And also the 1689 Claim of Right, introduced but not exploited by the Lord Advocate Wolffe (Scotland’s actual guy as opposed to Keen who is the UK Gov’s man bought and paid for) in the UKSC Appeal:

  94. geeo says:

    Coco still dribbling the same repetitive pish i see…(defined as a troll by his own behaviour).

    Anyhoo…trollboy aside, indyref in 2014 was null and void as soon as vote No for more devolution was offered.

    That was EXPRESSLY NOT allowed on the ballot paper.

    As the U.N. clearly states …(

    3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

    In other words, Now IS the time !!

  95. Robert Peffers says:

    @Capella says: 2 January, 2018 at 10:35 am:

    “Young people go online and share information. Old people watch the BBC and read the yellow press. Generally.”

    Correction: As unionists parties tend to not attract younger people now the unionist parties are mainly composed of a more, and growing older, elderly membership. It is that demographic that has the MSM losing circulation figures and thus having a larger following among older people.

    You are putting the cart before the horse, Capella.

  96. Capella says:

    @ Heedtracker – lovely last paragraph:

    The island nation of 340,000 people was one of the countries hit hardest by the 2008 financial crisis but has turned its economy around by focusing on tourism.

    No mention of jailing the bankers and refusing to bail out the bank that lost British Local Authorities’ money, even though Gordon Brown bawled at them.

  97. Breeks says:

    To tweak what I said a little, it isn’t the UK’s constitutional protocols that I would be seeking to clarify with the International Community, but the competence, legitimacy, and primacy of Scottish sovereignty and Scots Law.

    Assuming that process came to the right conclusion, and Scots Law and sovereignty was duly recognised, then a number of things would need to happen fast.

    Almost exactly as Theresa May sought to use Henry VIII powers with her Great Repeal Bill to replace areas of soon-to-be redundant EU legal competence with UK law, so too, a contemporary affirmation of Scottish Sovereignty would require a similar reclamation of Scottish sovereign competence over what are currently UK constitutional and governmental protocols.

    Naturally, (although you could argue differently), you would assume that a freshly emancipated Scottish Sovereignty would empower the Scottish people by definition, and empower in turn Holyrood, as our elected representatives. But I don’t think that’s necessarily a given.

    Its not impossible that Scotland would require to have a snap election to elect MP’s for a sovereign Scottish legislature wholly distinct and separate from Westminster and Westminster’s devolved legislature, Holyrood.

  98. yesindyref2 says:

    Well worth trying to get into the detail of the 1689 Claim of Right which seems to have currency due to Wolffe introducing it in the UKSC Appeal. I suspect the UKSC were a little scared of it. There’s such as this I found with a quick scan:

    That the opinions of the Lords of Sessione in the two Cases following were Contrary to Law videlicet” [videlicet = viz = that is – detail follows]

    So that’s Scots Law previous to 1689, plus keeping the Sessions itself on the straight and narrow to the Law, which is very interesting.

    and the rest at

    My view is this really is a can of worms the UK Government would not under any circumstances wish to open and I think perhaps that was a primary purpose or even THE purpose of the Scottish Government’s intervention.

  99. Ken500 says:

    A majority in Catalonia have never voted for an IndyRef for Independence, from the rest of Spain. A majority in Catalonia has never voted for Independence from the rest of Spain. That is nothing to do with the EU. The Spanish Gov and the EU are respecting the wishes and supporting the electoral wishes of the majority of those who did not vote to have a (illegal) Ref or vote Yes to Independence from Spain in an IndyRef. (Catalonia)

    If a majority had voted YES the Catalonia administration could have a case. Instead the Catalonian administration should respecting the wishes of the majority of the Catalonian electorate and the people in Catalonia. The Catalonia administration which is alway fighting among themselves. Courtesy of the D’Hondt system causing havoc as usual. (One person numerous votes) The resulting carry on which has nothing to do with the Scottish Independence Movement or anyone in Scotland. Or the EU. Or anywhere else. Except the people in Catalonia/Spain, who are totally capable of sorting out their own problems. The chaos of Spanish politics.

    The constant comparison in two completely different situations, without qualification or clarification could damage the Scottish Independence movement, support for EU membership and the ultimately the Scottish economy. Playing into the Unionist politicans hands. This is supposed to be an Independence supporting site,

  100. yesindyref2 says:

    Just as a random provocative thought, perhaps ultimately the courts would find that there was – no such thing as a UK Constitution – whether written or unwritten.

    Now wouldn’t that be fun!

  101. artyhetty says:

    Not read all comments yet, but I often walk through the west end of Edinburgh where most of the consulates are and where last year a huge new town building with almost neon signs on it saying, ‘The UK Government for Scotland’ or something to that effect, has all gone now, the building being renovated. Looks like the cabal moved on, like a load of dodgy cowboys.

    The UK gov and their red and yellow tory pals, the great cabal, sneaky, scheming, sleekit, conniving b******s.

    Happy New year all, yesterday was a wash out in our house, having had our best friend, our cat, put to sleep, as she was very ill, just before Hogmanay. Animals are angels.

  102. geeo says:

    Re-the uksc article 50 case.

    It was indeed obvious they (judges) were keen to avoid the Scots sovereignty issue in this case.

    Which begs the question, why did the Scots gov get involved ?

    I tend to agree it was a means of getting the issue in the judicial realm, possibly to return to later if required, say, by WM getting arsey over indyref2.

  103. yesindyref2 says:

    Though I don’t agree with your interpretation of the Catalonia figures, I do agree that direct comparisons could be damaging to our own Indy cause, as all “legal” backgrounds are very different. Perhaps you could omit your “controversial” interpretation of the statistics, and stick to that important message in your own unique and I think effective way?

  104. heedtracker says:

    No mention of jailing the bankers and refusing to bail out the bank that lost British Local Authorities’ money, even though Gordon Brown bawled at them.

    I know Capella, its just total BBC smear. And Gordo declared Iceland a terror state too. Wonder if that Gordo declaration still stands.

    Although women PM’s like Iceland’s are the devil on earth to beeb gimpery, left, green, independence for Iceland, oh the beeb gimps UKOK horror at it all.

  105. Capella says:

    @ Robert Peffers – I was trying to say that older people are more susceptible to the brain washing of the MSM. Younger people have other sources of information.

    Look at the Westminster effort to discredit RT and Al Jazeera.
    Look at the demand that Alex Salmond doesn’t broadcast on RT, or that the SNP MSPs stop reading WoS.
    These outlets provide an alternative point of view, something the British Establishment (and the US) finds inconvenient and wants to stop.

  106. yesindyref2 says:

    Yes, and I think Wolffe made it clear by his initial submission where he almost negated his argument about Sewell, that he wasn’t going to push the issue – yet. Keen was also unusually ratty and impolite towards Wolffe, and perhaps that’s why – he knew there were things to come. My guess is Keen’s advice to UK Gov would be – keep clear, give the S30 and don’t take chances.

  107. Dr Jim says:

    SNP MPs answer to and take their instructions from the FM and leader of the party not the other way round

    The resident Arsehole troll once again attempting to diminish the role of the FM and Scottish government by trying to put the argument that Westminster is really the big important parliament and Holyrood doesn’t count

    Nicola Sturgeon is the Boss get over it Troll

    Oh how the Yoons fear Scotlands FM and if you keep up with the FMs Twitter it’s there for all to see, they’re terrified of her popularity and her acumen, around the world people know who Nicola Sturgeon is and she’s respected in every country unlike ANY of the Westminster bunch, that’s why they hate it when she’s invited, yes invited to address other Nations on all sorts of issues and when SHE does it the sineage doesn’t fall off the walls while folk wait in embarressed silences hoping the script won’t prove too difficult for her

    Nicola Sturgeon, Scotlands First Minister and actual politician

  108. Ken500 says:

    Grayling (transport)on a jollie in Qatar (no doubt lying his own associate pockets). While train fares are hiked up 3.4% ( i.e. above inflation) After giving Virgin trains a massive public bail out. For donations? All right for some. A nice wee profitable jolt. Troughing twice. Double dipping. Commuters are furious especially in the South. May’s constituency. How long will she last?

  109. Socrates MacSporran says:

    As one Winger who has long felt the vagaries and inconsistencies in the 1707 Act of Union and how it has since been interpreted by Westminster should be our principal battle ground in the Independence fight – I applaud the efforts of yesindyref2 and Breeks this morning.

    And, a nod to the wonderful Robert Peffers.

    Keep up the good work Auld Boab, this time next year, we will be, if not Indpenedent, well on our way towards this status.

  110. Meg merrilees says:


    So sorry to hear your old cat has left this life. They leave such a gap!

    I had a beautiful old cat, Laird – Norwegian Forest Cat – who was truly a regal spirit. Just before his time came, aged 19, a ‘cat whisperer’ visited him/me.

    Two things she said stick in my mind – that he stayed with me as long as he could because he loved being alive so much and that when his time came, it was because his spirit had grown too big for his cat body and that he had to die, so that his spirit could leave his cat body and move on into a bigger being.

    We are so lucky that these incredible animals choose to live with us but it is hard when they part.

    Big hugs.

  111. Thepnr says:


    “A majority in Catalonia have never voted for an IndyRef for Independence, from the rest of Spain.”

    Skewed logic and be careful what you wish for as I wouldn’t like the UK government to argue that a majority vote for Independence would only be recognised if more than 50% of the entire electorate choose to vote YES.

    The fact is that in the 2014 referendum less than 47% of the electorate voted NO, 55% of those that did vote from a turnout of 84.6%. Another fact is that in the Catalonia referendum less than 3.5% voted NO but just more than 39% of the entire electorate voted YES.

    In Scotland 38% choose YES so Catalonian supporters of Independence would appear to be more numerous that us here in Scotland even when being hit over the head with batons in order just to put an X on a ballot paper they were not deterred.

    Simple really. You can’t count Non voters as either YES or NO they are non voters, they didn’t make a choice. As I said your using skewed logic.

  112. Colin Alexander says:

    The Scottish Govt will just defy WM and hold an indyref hahaha.

    Sure they will. Like they demanded a seat at the Brexit talks after they demanded if Scotland votes for Remaining in the EU it must be respected.

    Get it into your heids once and for all. Your idolatry of the SG and FM just shows your naivety.

    The SG is just an overpaid branch of WM administration. It has no constitutional power to do anything unless WM gives it that power.


    Sorry the truth hurts.

  113. Robert Peffers says:

    @Capella says: 2 January, 2018 at 11:21 am:

    “Is Scotland a country? Yes/No
    Should countries govern themselves? Yes/No”

    Thing is, Capella, the term UK is the initial letters of, “The United KINGDOM and the United Kingdom is composed of only two kingdom partners who were, at time of signing, equally sovereign kingdoms.

    The fact that there are four countries within the two kingdoms is totally irrelevant and thus your questions are never going to cover the situation correctly.

    In point of fact the United Kingdom Government really knows what it legally is but pretends it does not.

    The Westminster Establishment, (and it is much bigger than the Westminster’s two houses), knows precisely what it is but wants to totally confuse the rest of the World as to what it really is.

    The House of Commons is elected by the entire eligible population of only the United Kingdom but claims to be, “The British Government”, and it claims to be a country but is not – as its name correctly describes it as a Kingdom and it does not govern the entire British Isles a there is a Republic of Ireland and three non-Westminster Crown dependencies who are all independent of Westminster rule.

    Yet Westminster has, for governance, divide up the United Kingdom along individual country lines then devolved Westminster’s perceived powers to only three of the four countries of which Scotland is the only other genuine Kingdom partner to the Kingdom of England in the actual United Kingdom but Scotland is being treated by Westminster as if only just another annexed by England country as are Wales and N.Ireland.

    Now factually there is no such, elected as such, Parliament of England but there are elected legislatures for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So just who are the elected members chosen as members of the parliament of the country of England? Or put that another way, who governs the Country of England and who elected them?

    We have First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland but who is the First Minister of the Country of England? Then to complicate things further Westminster claims to be a country and to also be The British Government.

    Then we have EVEL by which Westminster bans all non-united Kingdom MPs that are not elected to country of England constituencies from voting upon what only the Westminster Speaker decides are, “Country of England Matters”, and thus only UNITED KINGDOM members of the UNITED KINGDOM PARLIAMENT elected from country of England constituencies are allowed to vote upon what the Speaker decides are Country of England matters. Yet Members from all Country of England constituencies can vote and debate of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland reserved to Westminster matters. Scottish Question Time is dominated by country of England members of the United Kingdom Government.

    To paraphrase :-

    Ask not what can your United Kingdom Parliament do for your country – instead ask what can the, non-elected as such, Country of England Parliament do against your country.

    The whole set-up is as queer as a square orange and as false as Dolly Parton’s silicone cleavage.

    Westminster is the de facto parliament of the country of England and it funds only itself directly as the United Kingdom – except for London that if finances separately from England/United Kingdom as if London were another Block Grant financed country ruled over by the de facto parliament of the country of England that calls itself variously the United Kingdom Parliament and simultaneously The Parliament of the Country of England and the British Parliament.

  114. sensibledave says:

    The Rev’

    Firstly, a very Happy New Year to all Wingers.

    You wrote: “The argument has been won, just like the vote in the Scottish Parliament. All that remains to be seen is whether the UK government continues to play by Madrid Rules.”

    Rev, you may have lots of complaints about a government, that you didn’t vote for, being in power in Westminster … and that is your right and it is fair and proper that you use your personal freedoms however you choose to campaign against them. We have all been in that situation – such is democracy. BTW, I voted “Remain”.

    Please also understand that those of us with different political views also have the same rights. It is on that basis that I challenge a) your “slam dunk” analysis of the current state of opinion on matters such as Independence and referendums in Scotland and b) any comparison you attempt to draw between the situation in Spain and in Scotland.

    I suggest that Ms Sturgeon would be screaming for indyref2 if she thought she could win it – which is why she isn’t. Those of us not in Scotland, but in the UK, deserve to be allowed to let the Brexit negotiations to be completed without the views of any particular party or area or region or nation in the UK having special “powers” in affecting those negotiations.

    Post Brexit, few outside Scotland will object to indyref2 or any outcome – other than a desire to see that democracy is upheld. But, just now, and only 3 years after indyref1, we really don’t need less than 2 million voters potentailly attempting to blight the outcome of the Brexit negotiations for the other 60 odd million – just because they can.

    Moving on, and as you know, in Scotland there was a free and fair referendum exactly like the one that most democrats feel should be held in Catalonia.

    Here in the UK, the Westminster government (made up of over 550 non Scottish MPs) voted to hold a referendum in Scotland – and is carrying out the wishes expressed by the majority of those Scots that voted in the referendum on Scottish Independence.

    Any comparison between the situation in Catalonia is totally false, and any suggestion that that the UK government operates to “Madrid Rules” is as insulting as it is wrong. The Westminster Parliament is the only government I get to vote for and, like the majority of most folk in the UK, I take exception to the notion that either the government, or those that voted for it, are in some way “for” the sort of “Madrid Rules” you allude to.

    By all means have a pop Rev – but don’t make stuff up.

  115. Capella says:

    @ Artyhetty – sorry to hear you have lost your cat. Mine died earlier this year and the house did seem very empty without his presence. But we have recently been adopted by a stray who seems to have heard there was a vacancy. Can’t trace the owner so we are enjoying his company.

    They are all unique but it is good to have a representative of the cat clan resident again. I hope you will not be sad for long.

  116. Clootie says:


    I had no doubts regarding your allegiance…as a fellow Anderson.
    It is the apron I abhor…even as a doormat Dan (Huil)

  117. Ken500 says:

    It is not ‘controversial’ statistics. It is millions of the electorate did not come out to vote in Catalonia when they had an opportunity on Independence from Spain. They are supposed to be passionate about it. So passionate they did not come out to vote in their millions. On both occasions.

    On both occasions. 30/40% of the electorate. Came out to vote. Instead of listening to the electorate or the figures. The Catalonia administration when ahead with the Ref not having the majority support, to get roughly the same result. Protential voters boycotted the vote. If they boycott the vote for legitimate reasons that does not mean their wishes are ignored in a Democracy.

    2 million out of an population of 7.5Million. An electorate of 5.5million? 1/2Million do not have a vote in GE, Ref? 1.5million under 18 years. That is a relevant split. Of those not in majority favour.

    The recent election figures quoted were qualified to be 47% YES but that was with possibly of added EU citizen resident voting. The added (missing) 1/2Million? possible electorate included. EU citizen resident can usually vote in regional and local ( council) elections.

    It is still not comparable to the situation in Scotland/UK. At all.

  118. Colin Alexander says:

    Dr Jim ( one of the Wings gang of online bullies)

    Why don’t you demand I leave this btl? So, I can laugh in derision, like the UK Govt has done to the FM’s demands for talks on an indyref.

    The point being, you have no authority. You can demand all you want. All your gang of bullies can do the same. Or try threatening Stu again.

    Likewise the FM with the UK Govt. She is head of devolved administration. Devolved admin works within its prescribed powers. An indyref to end the Union is NOT one of those powers. She can huff, puff and pout but has no power.

  119. Wonder if sensibledave has a desk next to or close to colin alexander in the office when they are on duty?

  120. Capella says:

    @ Robert Peffers – Scotland is a country, nobody can legitimately deny that.
    Whether we are a Kingdom is a matter for democratic decision making. But if we did vote to be a Republic that would nullify the United Kingdom, would it not.

    We would still be a country with the right – indeed obligation – to manage our own affairs.
    Keep It Simple Scotland. KISS.

  121. Colin Alexander says:

    “My view is this really is a can of worms the UK Government would not under any circumstances wish to open”

    I disagree. They would if it buys them time to 2021 when it’s likely the pro-independence politicians will become the minority at Holyrood, and the threat of another indyref is over.

  122. Ken500 says:

    The population/ electorate numbers for Scotland – Catalonia are different. In the Scottish IndyRef 16 years old could vote but EU residents not citizens no vote. Same as GE. Scotland 5.2Million pop. 4.2million? Ref electorate. Different proportion pro rata by comparison.

    In Catalonia 7.5 pop 5.5million electorated, EU resident non citizens (1/2million?) IndyRef 18 year old But EU residents (1/2Million) allowed to vote?


  123. Thepnr says:

    “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”


  124. jfngw says:

    I see Rep Scot are straight into action for the new year, one Labour and one Tory press release reported as news. In the BBC newsroom they all agree this is balance as they have reported from what they see as the two winning parties in the 2017 election.

  125. Ken500 says:

    3.5% voted NO because millions of NO voters boycotted the Vote because it was considered illegal under the Spanish Law (which it was). A legitimate reason which does not mean their wishes are ignored in a Democracy. It there is to be a stable administration/Gov,

  126. Robert Peffers says:

    @Colin Alexander says: 2 January, 2018 at 11:40 am:

    More utter pish from colin- oops! sorry, it’s Colin this time. It’s hard to keep track of which sock puppet is which sock-puppet.

    ” 1. Scotland’s MPs should make a democratic decision by vote on whether there should be another indyref. If they have the electoral mandate. Which the majority of MPs do ( SNP MPs).”

    The whole Holyrood parliament, not just the SNP/Greens, obtained the mandate – no ifs, but’s on maybe’s The whole chamber carried the vote.

    “2. If the majority of Scottish MPs vote Aye, they can instruct the Scot Govt to conduct it on their behalf, as their indyref agents.”

    Cobblers awls, Colin. The whole of Holyrood mandated the First Minister but that is of no consequence anyway Because a section 30(2), order is not permission for the SG to hold a referendum. It is a bipartite agreement of not only what the agreed question(s), will be but also how the referendum will be ran and that both sides will respect the results. You seen unaware that normally all referendums, unless agreed beforehand, are only advisory or, (put a different way), can be acted upon or ignored at the referendum runners so decide.

    “3. But the mandate and authority will come from the MPs, not the Mickey Mouse Holyrood Parliament. Thus, no S30 needed, as devolved Holyrood, by itself, has no legal authority to conduct a legally binding referendum without an S30.”

    Utter pish! If the SNP hold a referendum and Westminster attempt to ignore a YES result Westminster would lose any respect it still has throughout the World at a time when Westminster is attempting to negotiate trade deals with countries from outside the Worlds largest by far free trade area. Bear in mind also that the EU has a host of existing trade deals throughout the World that the other countries of the World have negotiater with the EU.

    In the first place to get the trade deal the UK would have to undercut the terms negotiated with the EU and in the second place the other countries would lose their existing deals with the EU.

    Theresa and co have rather strange and overblown imaginations.

    Take the gyte woman’s New Year statement as example. She claims:- “Renewed confidence and pride”, in 2018.

    In the first place she cannot speak on behalf of Britons because Westminster is only the parliament of the United Kingdom – not the entire British Isles. Even if she had said, “The United Kingdom”, the United Kingdom is a bipartite partnership of kingdoms and one of those kingdom partners voted against the UKEXIT.

    The woman is delusional her hopes go against all reality.

  127. Colin Alexander says:


    So how do you think Unionists would treat an indyref held by the Scot Govt about ending the Union, when the SG has no Schedule 5 legal powers to act in matters regarding the Union?

  128. Thepnr says:


    Do you require 100% turnout for any election or referendum? How do you know that all those that stayed at home were NO voters?

    Truth is you don’t, you can only count the votes of those that bother to get off their arses to do so. In Scotland’s referendum 15% didn’t bother their arse to get out and vote. Would you then assume then that they were all NO voters?

    Get real man.

  129. jfngw says:


    Not sure how many countries would be happy with politicians from elsewhere campaigning in their referendums. The UK were pretty clear that other EU countries politicians should keep out of UK business.

    If you believe that allowing another country with ten times the population and financial resources to run the no campaign then we will likely lose the next referendum also. It already an uphill battle with most of the media sitting in the no camp, remember balance at the BBC is 4 no’s to 1 yes on QT.

  130. Colin Alexander says:

    @ Robert Peffers

    Cheers, Mr Peffers, I have no issues with your critique of my proposals in a reasoned argument ( apart from the “sock-puppet” nonsense).

    I can’t prove myself right. I can’t prove you wrong. Time will tell.

    In my heart I honestly hope I am wrong and you are right. But my “legal head” says I’m right; I, as yet, remain unconvinced by your argument.

  131. yesindyref2 says:

    Oh my goodness, they’re breeding!

    In repsonse to some incredibly stupid assertions by the incredibly stupid or devious or both, there’s this:

    11th February 2012
    ‘Holyrood has authority over referendum’
    Robbie Dinwoodie Columnist and Leader Writer

    (the great Robbie Dinwoodie, long ex of the Herald, sadly for it)

    and it should be pointed out that Alex Salmond quoted Christine Bell in a session at Holyrood.

    So, as the saying goes, put that in your pipe and smoke it, along with the other dubious substances …

  132. yesindyref2 says:

    It should also be pointed out by the way that both Christine Bell and Aileen McHarg started off as neutral, undecided on Indy, but moved over to YES later on during the campaign.

  133. Colin Alexander says:

    If I were a Unionist and the SG held an indyref without an S30, I would simply boycott it and urge others to do the same via a very helpful and compliant media.

    It would rob it of any credibility, so ANY UK Govt – even one that wasn’t hostile to an indyref – would have no option but to discount it as not legitimate and the result not binding.

  134. orri says:

    The Law is the Law and in Scotland it’s the Scots’ Law that counts.

    The extent to which Holyrood might enact or alter the law in Scotland is limited by the various Scotland Acts but at one and the same time authorised by referenda and elections amongst the electorate of Scotland.

    Now the Acts of Union, plural, do indeed embody the union. The Constitution of the UK defines the claimed territory of the UK. However the Treaty of Union is, as RP keeps saying, the key and our equivalent of the Gordian Knot.

    A properly authorised withdrawal from that Treaty bypasses any and all arguments regarding “legality” or who can and cannot pass binding legislation within Scotland.

    Devolution is a potential misnaming of what is a simple transfer of authority to wield the sovereignty of the people of Scotland from it’s duly elected representatives in Westminster to Holyrood.

    Holyrood has a power to hold referenda and the proposed wording of the last referendum was that it be given the authority to, in effect, negotiate an end to the Treaty of Union. There is no actual immediate change to the law involved even though the consequence would be that eventually Westminster would be faced with the choice of voluntarily changing it’s own legislation regarding it’s territorial boundaries or be taken to an international court.

    All that an S30 transference of power does is simplify things by authorising Holyrood to implement laws that effect the entirety of the UK in a limited area. In this case rather than Westminster MP’s being forced kicking and screaming to acknowledge a YES result they’d be saved the embarasment.

    Not that it’s ambivalent as to whether May has actually outright refused an S30 or not.

  135. Thepnr says:


    Very informative, if some of the best legal brains in Scotland say so that’s good enough for me. Holyrood does not require Westminster’s permission to hold a second referendum on Independence.

    With Scottish Secretary Michael Moore due to meet Alex Salmond on Monday, the intervention by the academics – four professors and three lecturers – is significant as it challenges the UK view that Holyrood does not have the legal authority to call a referendum.

    The Secretary for Government Strategy, Bruce Crawford, said: “This is welcome backing from some of the most eminent constitutional experts in Scotland for the position the Scottish Parliament is indeed able to hold a consultative referendum on independence under our existing powers.”

  136. yesindyref2 says:

    @Ken500 says: “It is not ‘controversial’ statistic

    In the context of Scottish Independence and Indy Ref 2, who gives a flying hoot? And yes, it’s “controversial”, as is all use of statistics, you can take that from, in a previous life, a jobbing statistician.

  137. Colin Alexander says:

    Mr Peffers

    “Because a section 30(2), order is not permission for the SG to hold a referendum”.

    Agreed that the SG can hold any referendums they want.

    “It is a bipartite agreement of not only what the agreed question(s), will be but also how the referendum will be ran and that both sides will respect the results.”

    Disagree. I believe that was the function of the Edinburgh Agreement.

    It’s true to say the SG can hold any referendums they want.
    However, only a S30 would allow the SG to deal with Union issues, as that’s a RESERVED power. As Ending or amending the Union is RESERVED to WM, THAT’s what a S30 does, temporarily devolves the WM RESERVED power to the SG to allow the SG to lawfully do that.

  138. Robert Peffers says:

    @Colin Alexander says: 2 January, 2018 at 12:53 pm:

    “People have the right of self-determination. Scottish independence is a Scottish issue, so why go for S30 when that allows the UK Govt to do a repeat of 2014?”

    Oh! Give it a rest! You haven’t a clue what you are attempting to debate/comment upon.

    A Section30(2), is NOT permission to hold a referendum.

    It is a two way agreement on the rules of how the referendum will be run and what the question/questions will be. If agreement is reached on the former then the parties agree to uphold the results.

    If no agreement is reached then the SG makes the rules and decides if it will act upon the results. As Referendums are normally advisory only, (unless agreed beforehand), and thus Westminster are not, WITHHOLDING, anything they are just failing to agree upon the way the referendum will be conducted.

    Get it out of your head that anyone needs Westminster’s permission to hold a referendum. It just is not so.

    Matter of fact Stu just held a referendum and this topic is commenting upon it. Rev Stu just referred a whole bunch of questions to a bunch of people and is now publishing the results. They are, though, not subject to prior agreements so cannot be binding.

    Factually it is no one’s business but the Scottish Government, or the SNP as a party, and the Scottish electorate if and when they seek the opinion of their Scottish electorate on any subject of their choice.

    Has not the labour Party in Scotland been famous for telling the electorate that they are listening to the voters?

  139. Capella says:

    Amazingly – the dance scene from Another Time Another Place is on youtube. Italian POWs in NE Scotland 1944 from the Jessie Kesson novel. Giovanni Mauriello and Phyllis Logan. 8 mins:

  140. Ken500 says:

    In Catalonia the situation was different.

    There was no question of illegality in the Scottish Ref. Different.

    The situation in Catalonia was a question of legitimacy which affected the voters reaction. In Catalonia they boycotted the vote. It has absolutely nothing to do with expectation of turnout 100% or otherwise. Or do some people not recognise the definition of legitimacy and democracy. The question which in the exclusive case of Catalonia indyRef where a politician led the administration. Knew the consequences and then ran away. Leaving. Chaos. .

    Do voters who boycot the vote for legitimate reason. The question of legitimately. Under the Constitution. Just ignore the Constitution. Rather than try to change it through legitimate means le Their views are not be considered Millions. Causing violence. Good luck with that. That is not democratic. Speak about bias. Non impartiality. Ridiculous. Politically naive.

  141. Dr Jim says:

    The wee cowardly trolls are fair getting themselves well over excited now, their wee feet are stamping, their wee gubs are frothing as they squeal *listen to me listen to me* while they reply to everybody every 3 minutes !!Panic!!

    The wee regular one’s telling us he’s got a legal head now, that’ll be to go with his several faces and made up scenarios
    They are a laugh when things don’t go their way and their impatience level jumps off the screen showing everybody exactly what they are, primary school Nyaffs

    They really fear our wonderful FM don’t they, must be a Yoon thing, or could it be something else? Hmm?

  142. Bill Hume says:

    Colin Alexander.
    Everyone has the right not to vote. No one has the right not to vote and then complain about the outcome.

  143. msdidi says:

    My New Years resolution…..I will not read any of the posts by CA or sensibledave. I will also try to avoid being drawn into their depressing narrative by ignoring posts relating to/replying to their particular point of view.

  144. Colin Alexander says:


    Good article. But, that article does not give a clear cut answer. They said:

    “is a more open question than has been generally acknowledged.

    “In other words, we believe a plausible case can be made that such a Bill would be lawful, and believe it is important these arguments are clearly set out.”

    That’s not settling the issue, but saying the issue remains unsettled, unresolved.

    But, it is encouraging to hear encouraging views from some of the experts.

  145. jfngw says:

    @Robert Peffers

    It’s hardly surprising that people believe a referendum requires UK approval, that has been basically the BBC narrative regarding this subject. Hence all the hyping up of ‘now is not the time’. They will mention that the SG could go ahead but give it big negative spin, hinting that it may not be legitimate or recognised.

  146. Colin Alexander says:

    @Bill Hume

    I get that but without a S30 , the Unionists would say it’s not a referendum that’s binding, it’s a referendum opinion poll. They won’t waste their time filling in opinion polls to no effect – YES or NO.

    Opinion polls can be opted out of and the findings of them rubbished.

    Even many Yes voters could be persuaded there’s no point in voting if the UK Govt and Unionists aren’t going to respect it. That could undermine the whole YES campaign which concerns me.

    Also it would discredit the SNP ( that’s the only good bit).

  147. yesindyref2 says:

    @Colin Alexander
    Was there something about GFY you didn’t understand, oh twisting one? Should I spell it out for you?

    It’s G-Golf, F-Foxtrot and Y-Yankee.

    Clear now?

  148. gus1940 says:

    It seems to be ages since we last had an update on the circulation figures for The Herald and Scotsman.

    Does anybody know when we are due the next update of ever decreasing numbers.

  149. Dan Huil says:

    How much do we want it?

    So-called united kingdom is obviously not, nor ever has been, an equal union. The union is, and always has been, a sham. Westminster can pass whatever laws it wishes because it can always out-vote Scotland’s MPs. It can even pass a law saying wearing a particular piece of clothing in Scotland is illegal [!]. Westminster’s laws are, as far as Scotland is concerned, and unless Scotland happens to agree with them, unlawful.

    Holyrood passes its own law saying it refuses to obey a foreign country’s [England’s] anti-Scottish laws. Scotland withdraws its pro-indy MPs from Westminster. Holyrood votes to end the union with England. No need for a referendum. No need to declare UDI.

    No need to buy a doormat with the design of the butcher’s apron incorporated [ha ha] in it.

  150. sensibledave says:

    Robert Peffers

    … we didn’t get far into 2018 without a repeat of the wrong headed history lessons of 300 years ago.

    Please explain why you you prefer to refer to treaties and agreements made between non-elected elites carving things up for themselves in order to line their own pockets 300 years ago – to the democratic, one person one vote system employed in more recent decision making about the future of our nations?

    Are you some rampant monarchist hankering after the days where laws were made by the un-elected elite based upon accidents of birth – rather than allowing ordinary folk to cast a vote? Is it that you have claim on some Lairdship and desire to make up laws yourself that you can bestow on us “ordinary” folk without reference?

    Are you one of those people that think that Braveheart was a “documentary” ….. and Wallis really did wear a kilt 300 years before they first came into usage in Scotland?

  151. Thepnr says:


    “The situation in Catalonia was a question of legitimacy which affected the voters reaction. In Catalonia they boycotted the vote.”

    Who boycotted the vote, you say “they” do you mean Unionists so why not just say it? What of the supporters of Independence watching the violence unfold in front of them who may of be too scared to go to the polls in case they got their heads bashed in by riot police? Were they all Unionists too?

    Do you think absolutely no one on the Independence side was imtimidated by what they saw happening.

    Of the 15% in Scotland that didn’t vote in our referendum why wouldn’t you count them all as YES voters rather than NO voters? They might be and how would you know any different? That’s a problem for me with your arguments.

    The plain fact is neither you nor I have a clue as to what a non voter would desire. They haven’t shown their opinion by casting their vote have they!

    If you don’t vote then you’re a nobody, your opinion doesn’t count and it is you, the non voter that made that choice all by yourself. It means fuck all, neither YES or NO.

  152. sensibledave says:

    msdidi 4:38 pm

    You wrote : “My New Years resolution…..I will not read any of the posts by CA or sensibledave. I will also try to avoid being drawn into their depressing narrative by ignoring posts relating to/replying to their particular point of view.”

    …. or, to paraphrase,

    “I must only read “accepted” writings”
    “I must only read approved authors”
    “i must not be made to think”
    “I cannot have my preconceived notions challenged”
    “I am a robot”
    “I am a robot” …..

  153. If the u.k. Parliament can introduce EVEL for only English matters then surely in this equal Union they will give Scots MPs the same rights ??? So only the Scots will have right to have a say in Ref., 2 I mean we all know how the British state is renowned the world over for its fair play o yea of little faith

  154. wull2 says:

    It is possibly the same Person with two computers switched on at the same time, you have to read the posts to compare writing style, which I don’t.

  155. Bobp says:

    re the legitimacy,boycotting etc of a 2nd Indy referendum. It matters Not a jot.As long as it’s a’yes vote.that is what the world and their press will see. Bring it on.

  156. Colin Alexander says:

    I’m sure CameronB Brodie or something like that ( apology if I got the name wrong) could put some psychology link about people only wanting to hear views that reinforce their own thinking, when logic would tell them their own view could be wrong or incomplete.

    The Ego or something like that creates an emotional mental block as it can be disconcerting to the emotional part of the mind to realise a mistake or false belief has taken hold.

    Thus, holding to a false belief can be emotionally more rewarding. Challenges to this false belief can provoke anger and hurt egos.

    A good example of this is many NO voters, who discount any evidence that supporting YES would be the sensible choice and refuse to even consider evidence to the contrary. Some Wingers on here is another good example.

    Brainwashing is the most extreme example.

    Project Fear succeeded in reinforcing those false believes better than YES was able to successfully challenge them.

  157. ronnie anderson says:

    Iain Smart (aka CA0 & I claim £10 but donate it to WoS as the Troll doesn’t contribute to the usage of this site .


  158. Robert Peffers says:

    @Colin Alexander says: 2 January, 2018 at 12:53 pm:

    “Whereas, an attempt to rely solely on a devolution administration to attempt to change the UK constitution is a very bad mistake. As it simply does not have the legal basis to tell the UK Govt what to do, it’s devolution, not a real govt.”

    Bloody hilarious, Colin.

    Let’s just get this straight. To do so we must review history.

    In the beginning the people were forced by the best fighter to do what the best fighter forced them to do. Perhaps not the personally best fighter but the person with the strongest support. Then these people claimed that they were exercising God’s given right to rule and that made them sovereign rulers.

    Sovereignty was thus defined as God choosing who would carry out God’s work for Him/her/it. God did this by choosing who was born in a royal womb and that became the law of, “Divine Right of Kings”. a.k.a. Sovereignty is the God Given right to rule.

    This was the case in the Kingdom of England until the English Kingdom’s so called, “Glorious Revolution”, of 1688, when the parliamentarians of the Kingdom of England rebelled against their rightful Sovereign Monarch and deposed that monarch. Now consider that a moment. They deposed the person who held the Divine Right, (God’s Chosen Person), and they first attempted to have the foreign Mary of Orange appointed as Queen of England. Mary, to her credit, refused on the grounds that she deferred to her husband William of Orange and would only accept the crown of England if Billy was made equal as the crowned head of England and the English Parliamentarians agreed.

    However, they were not agreed that the Royals should have free reign, (if you pardon the pun), but in order to get the crown they must legally devolve their Devine Right to Rule to the Parliament of England. In practice former monarchs were far too lazy to be bothered and parliament had been running things but relied upon the royal person’s seal and signature to make things legal. So, in 1688, the three existing countries of the Kingdom of England became legally a Constitutional Monarchy.

    Therein began the problems we Scots face today for although the two independent kingdom’s crowns had rested upon the same head the two kingdoms remained independent and no matter what the English ;parliament did it could not be applied legally in the Kingdom of Scotland. Legally the deposed monarch was still monarch of Scotland. Thus began what England has always claimed to be the Jacobite Rebellions that did not end until 1745 and almost 40 years after the signing of the Treaty of Union.

    There was one other very significant historic moment – in 1320 the Scots had officially, in the eyes of the then international authority, not only become an internationally recognized kingdom, but had changed the Divine right of Kings to be sovereign and had made the people of Scotland sovereign.

    All this was recorded in the Treaty of Union that Westminster illegally forced upon Scotland in 1706/7. This was engineered by Westminster with the help of the London Scot, William Paterson who had previously served Westminster well by the scheme that saw the beginning of the Bank of England.

    Then he popped up in Scotland to instigate the disastrous Darien Expedition designed to bankrupt the land owning parliamentarians invested in the scheme. Not to mention the other English undercover agent, Daniel Defoe. Both Paterson and Defoe were friends and both were employed by the English spymaster, Sir Robert Harley. There was also the problem for Scotland of the English Navigation acts and the massed English troops on the Scottish border and the English fleet lying off the Firth of Forth.

    Yet the Treaty of Union has only two equally sovereign Kingdoms as partner signatories and there is not a single mention of a country or countries in the entire document.

    Tell me Colin – where is it you get the legal proof that Westminster has any form of sovereignty over Scotland? I really would like to be able to read the legal documents that made Westminster the actual de facto parliament of the country of England that it has become today. I also would really like to see the legal documentation that relegated the Kingdom of Scotland as subservient to the de facto parliament of England.

    Can you oblige me with links so that I may do so?

  159. heedtracker says:

    Are you one of those people that think that Braveheart was a “documentary” ….. and Wallis really did wear a kilt 300 years before they first came into usage in Scotland?

    Happy New Year sensibled, good to see you lads out and about winding up WoS btl.

    One thing sensible, it may not have been called a kilt in the Wallace era but Scotland has had the kilt since the Roman era.

    We know this from archaeology and observation.

    Check the date sensibleD and check what the troops here are wearing. Think its safe to say its kilts.

    Its fun to think what William Wallace would have made of tory UKOK twerps like you sensibledave:D

  160. Bill McDermott says:

    Just to add to the debate with Colin Anderson over the legitimacy of a referendum; if Unionists boycott it, there is one unchallengeable fact and that is if 51% of the entire electorate vote for independence then nobody can gainsay that it wasn’t a legitimate vote for independence.

  161. Bobp says:

    Capella 11.21am.”should countries govern themselves yes/No. Obviously yes, But not if your a forelock tugging a**e licking,self hating PSB.

  162. heedtracker says:

    Project Fear succeeded in reinforcing those false believes better than YES was able to successfully challenge them.

    Primarily because BBC Scotland was the core of Project Fear Colin A. Pacific Quay yoon culture refuses to make public its view figures but its almost certain that BBC Scotland is on the telly in most Scottish households at teatime, with Jacky Bird, Sally Magnusson giving it SNP bad laldy over and over and over.

    That’s why.

  163. geeo says:


    My thoughts exactly.

    The more the usual suspects troll this site, the more desperate they appear.

    They are utterly beside themselves with panic.

  164. Robert Peffers says:

    @Colin Alexander says: 2 January, 2018 at 1:12 pm:

    “@Robert Peffers
    “You will know these people if you canvas them – these are the ones who say, “I hate that Nicola Sturgeon”,”
    Another good reason why Scottish MPs should be the driving force for independence, not the FM.”

    Oh! When did that happen, Colin?

    Since when has Nicola been the driving force behind independence?

    The driving force behind independence has always been the rank and file membership of the party and it always will be. It is, however, now dwarfed by the larger YES movement that most SNP members are also part of.

    The SNP rules are that only the delegates of the branches and constituency associations can make or change party policies. Not only that but there are no card votes in the SNP. No one has more votes than anyone else.

    A change in policy can be proposed by any party member but must first have a seconder. This is normally done at a local branch meeting. It stands as a proposal unless there is one or more opposing motions or one or more amendments to the original or subsequent motions.

    In the event of such being raised the branch must debate and vote upon the motion and the result then kicked up the tree to constituency association level. This is ended at National conference by the delegates sent by the branches and constituency associations.

    So neither Nicola, or any one else, can dictate party policy it is a democratic process from the grass roots up. Not like other parties where the process is top down.

    In fact there have been past instances of actual elected to government, (from local council upwards), that have resigned from the party because they could not accept the democratically chosen policy.

  165. sassenach says:

    The Rev’s articles over the festive season have really would up our resident Yoon trolls, they are becoming more apoplectic by the hour – which implies the Rev has really ‘hit the spot’ over this holiday.

    We are on the way, folks.

  166. Colin Alexander says:

    Bill McDermott said: if Unionists boycott it, there is one unchallengeable fact and that is if 51% of the entire electorate vote for independence then nobody can gainsay that it wasn’t a legitimate vote for independence.

    If only that were true, I would have been delighted. Unfortunately, Aye they can.

    They can say they never campaigned at all. That if they had campaigned the result would have been different. But,the the reason they never campaigned is because it’s a Mickey Mouse referendum, an opinion poll, not a legitimate referendum to decide Scotland’s future participation in the Union.

    @Blair Paterson

    Good point, the English have Evel, where Scots MPs are excluded. A vote for an indyref by Scotland’s MPs should exclude non-Scottish constituency MPs. Scottish MP votes for a Scottish referendum, if you like.

    I see that as the way forward Backed up WITH the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Election mandate from 2016 and WITH the views of constitutional academics as suggested in the artilce by the bully, Yesindyref2 just for good measure. The Belt AND braces approach.

    If the Unionists moan it’s a UK wide issue, tough luck for them.

  167. sassenach says:

    Oops – wound up, not would up!!

    Or maybe I’m catching the apoplectic bug!!!

  168. yesindyref2 says:

    @Socrates MacSporran
    I think it’s important to keep the “triple lock” on the constituional issue, to keep the pressure on. There’s the historical view, the legal one which can if it wants go way back, and then there’s realpolitik, but they’re all linked, and realpolitik can be affected by both history and law. The more people who are aware of the history going way back, the better.

    I think the ScotHGov would want to avoid court, as would the UK Gov. But if it comes to the worst, the ScotGov would have the least to lose.

  169. yesindyref2 says:

    I am a robot“. Really sensibledave? Care to give us the square root of minus 1?

  170. Colin Alexander says:

    yesindyref2 says: “Care to give us the square root of minus 1?”

    It’s an imaginary number i, imaginary like the belief the Tory Govt will cave in and give legal and political backing to a Scot Govt initiated indyref if the UK Govt think YES might win.

    Can you and your WoS gang please stop picking on people and instead debate and discuss without the nasty stuff?

    People don’t have to like to like each other or each others opinions on here, but there’s no need for the all the abuse.

    It’s this stuff that’s dragging the site down in my opinion.

  171. Colin Alexander says:

    yesindyref2 says: “Care to give us the square root of minus 1?”

    It’s an imaginary number i, imaginary like the belief the Tory Govt will cave in and give legal and political backing to a Scot Govt initiated indyref if the UK Govt think YES might win.

    Can you and your WoS gang please stop picking on people and instead debate and discuss without the nasty stuff?

    People don’t have to like each other or each others opinions on here, but there’s no need for the all the abuse.

    It’s this stuff that’s dragging the site down in my opinion.

  172. sassenach says:

    yesindyref2 says:
    2 January, 2018 at 6:01 pm
    “I am a robot“. Really sensibledave? Care to give us the square root of minus 1?

    Well, sensible – i right!

  173. Old Pete says:

    Daft idea, but could the Scottish parliament not just have a referendum asking Scottish voters to give them the authority to hold a binding referendum say around March 2019 ? Power given by the Scottish people would surely stymie May and her “Now is not the time” nonsense.

    As regards the media the BBC are biased and most folk know they are, both in the pro and anti Scottish independence camps.
    We are justly unhappy but the English establishment control the BBC output/slant and that is never going to change.
    STV might be more even handed but SKY are no better than the BBC unless Disney decide to be more neutral, but I doubt that.
    We really need a paper other than the National to swing behind the cause of Independence to at least give it some positive headlines, how you do it I have no idea how is the Scotsman takeover going and is Alex Salmond involved ?
    We have until the year before the next Scottish parliament elections to do something, we need no more mandates we need some action.

  174. yesindyref2 says:

    I must admit that if SD had come up with a one letter reply “i”, I was going to reply “Says it all sensibledave, it’s all about you, isn’t it?”

    Oh well, I just blew that one 🙂

  175. Breeks says:

    orri says:
    2 January, 2018 at 4:25 pm
    The Law is the Law and in Scotland it’s the Scots’ Law that counts.

    The extent to which Holyrood might enact or alter the law in Scotland is limited by the various Scotland Acts but at one and the same time authorised by referenda and elections amongst the electorate of Scotland.

    Excellent, but please, please, let us hear Michel Barnier saying it, and adjusting his Brexit negotiating position accordingly. At the moment he has said categorically that he will only negotiate with Westminster.

    Barnier is not the person who can alter the script here. Only Scotland can do that. What Scotland needs is a champion for Scottish Sovereignty to force it onto the mainstream agenda and oblige both Westminster and the EU to recognise the significance of the issue.

    I see no downside to us doing this at the earliest opportunity.

  176. Thepnr says:

    “i” or Aye as we say in Scotland.

    Just thought I’d leave this here for no reason whatsoever other than I can and some might find it interesting. Who knows.

    While Girolamo Cardano was working on solving cubic and quadratic equations in 1539, he encountered some formulas that involved square roots of negative numbers.

    In 1545 Cardano published Ars Magna, where he presents the first recorded calculations that involve complex numbers. Then in 1572, Rafael Bombelli published the first three parts of his Algebra. He is known as the inventor of complex numbers, because he identifies some rules for working with them. Bombelli also shows how complex numbers are very important and useful.

    From Bombelli’s list of rules for adding, subtracting and multiplying the complex numbers, he was able to analyze the cubic equations that Cardano was trying to solve in his paper Ars Magna. Bombelli was able to use his rules for operations with complex numbers to solve the cubic equations that produced an expression that contained a square root of a negative number.

    You see, nothing is impossible.

  177. yesindyref2 says:

    Indeed, and very useful theya re too. One application is in electricity, inductance or capacitance I think.

  178. Robert Peffers says:

    @Capella says: 2 January, 2018 at 2:48 pm:

    “@ Robert Peffers – I was trying to say that older people are more susceptible to the brain washing of the MSM. Younger people have other sources of information.”

    Oh! I know what you were trying to say, Capella. I just believe, with good reason, that your conclusions are quite wrong.

    It is a case of cause and effect. In the first place it was the older generation that gave the World computers in the first place. I worked all my working life with the MOD, (admiralty).

    I served a five year apprenticeship and unlike most apprenticeships of that time we didn’t spend those five years making the tea and running errands for a tradesman. Not only that but the Yard had its own college that taught to beginning of third year Uni level. At which point the apprentices got a choice of going to Uni and starting at third year level or staying with the yard and specialising.

    In around 1953 or four I went on a six month spell to a then top secret government unit. It was an electronic computer built into a joint pair of aircraft type hangers. This before even transistors had made their way into electronics.

    “In 1956 John Bardeen, Walter Houser Brattain, and William Bradford Shockley were honoured, (sic), with the Nobel Prize in Physics “for their researches on semiconductors.”

    So I and my generation gave the World computers and many of us are still here today. The point being that just by being old does not make a person suddenly become a unionist overnight and neither does it make someone computer illiterate. It is a fallacy that these people do not have access to modern technology and use it. Just observe and you will see lots of older people with a phone seemingly glued to their ears.

    Many TVs these days are Smart TVs that are connected to the internet and most of those old Tory ladies can afford a smart tv.

    My point is that back then the norm was to vote for a unionist party and also most workers, including the professions, had trade union links. Thus the vast majority of the people of Scotland were in some way connected to a unionist party. I was, I confess the exception to that rule having been an SNP supporter while still at school.

    So the truth of the matter is that the gains made by the SNP, and independence, can only have come from former unionists or from those who have never been unionists in the first place.

    That means that what remains as the heart of actual unionist parties who are of necessity going to be of an increasingly older generation. Less of them are thus latter day converts of unionism and then mainly by sheer greed or upbringing.

    Ergo they are not unionists because of their age but by being unionist or by subsequent indoctrination.

    In short they are what remains of the actual unionists and thus will be of an increasingly older age group. However, there would be no independence movement if not from the life long efforts of the older generations.

    Just look at a video clip of any Scottish Tory party conference. It is mainly composed of blue rinsed hair old ladies. The more stuck in the past remnants of a bygone age.

  179. schrodingers cat says:


    the plan always was for the brexit negotiations to finish before we held indyref2, this is the only way the people will know what they are voting for?

    the tories didnt seem to mind the rUK being black mailed by the DUP

  180. sassenach says:

    Sincere apologies if I disrupted your plan!

  181. yesindyref2 says:

    It was a cunning plan, I got it from Baldrick.

  182. sassenach says:

    yesindyref2 says:
    2 January, 2018 at 7:01 pm
    “Indeed, and very useful theya re too. One application is in electricity, inductance or capacitance I think.”

    When it becomes j!

    Who says Wings is not educational?

  183. Robert Peffers says:

    @Colin Alexander says: 2 January, 2018 at 3:18 pm:

    “Sorry the truth hurts.”

    Indeed it does Colin. Seems though, to be hurting you a damned site more than it is hurting me if your strange and badly expressed views are anything to go by.

  184. yesindyref2 says:

    So it does, I remember my son telling me when I said the same thing.

  185. Maria F says:

    I am going to ask a couple of questions that are probably very stupid and I apologise in advance if this is the case, but I cannot stop thinking about them:

    Isn’t the Claim of right from 1689 still active in Scottish constitutional law today?

    Doesn’t this Claim of Right establish the sovereignty of the Scottish people and their right to decide the government they want?

    So if this is the case why on earth should Westminster, the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NI represented by an 85% of English MPs and if I am not mistaken without jurisdiction in Scottish law prior to the Union of 1707, be who decides if the people of Scotland can have another referendum or not?

    Surely that should be a decision made exclusively by the people of Scotland and its democratically elected representatives in the Parliament of Scotland and/or their 59 democratically elected representatives in the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NI.

    So why is there even the slightest doubt that it is Holyrood and not Westminster who must decide this?

    Furthermore, why should ever be the Parliament of the UK who ‘grants consent’ or not for an independence referendum and not the Queen? Isn’t the Monarch and not the Parliament of the Great Britain who Scotland passed on the crown? If it was the monarch who opened the First parliament of Great Britain shouldn’t be the Monarch who dissolves it?

    And if by virtue of our Claim of Right the Scottish people can chuck the monarch out if they try to take the power away from the people, is there any point whatsoever for the monarch to actually even entertain the thought of denying Scotland a referendum?

    Thank you in advance for your answers.

  186. Colin Alexander says:

    @Robert Peffers

    I think my poor phrasing has failed to explain my view. I think my view is similar to yours: that WM does not have sovereignty over Scotland.

    I hold the view that Scotland’s sovereignty is loaned to the UK Union akin to the UK lending sovereignty to the EU.

    However, sovereignty is always retained.

    Hence the UK can hold an EU-ref to help establish the decision to withdraw and decide to withdraw from the EU without other EU members’ permission.

    Likewise, Scotland can hold an Indyref to help establish the democratic mandate to withdraw and/or decide to withdraw from the UK Union without the UK Union’s other members’permission.

    My only argument is the best means of doing that. I believe Scots MPs should be the foundation stone of any indyref or Scottish exit from the bipartite UK Union.

    I would argue, it’s the MPs that carry the democratic mandate from the sovereign people of Scotland to vote on and decide constitutional matters. It’s not RESERVED from MPs. It is reserved from Holyrood.

    MPs can speak to and instruct the Scot Govt to organise and conduct the indyref. The Scot Govt would be the MPs’ instrument for the indyref. The MPs mandate primarily, backed up by the ScotGovt and ScotParl mandate and legal / historical constitutional case law, such as you could put forward, would give the indyref the LEGAL credibility.

    So, even if Unionists still boycotted it, it would still have full legal authority. If YES won the Indyref, those Scots MPs could then say, they have taken the indyref into consideration, the Scot Parl and GE Election results and use all of them as proof that the will of the sovereign people is to end the Union.

    It would then be Scotland’s MPs that would then vote to end Scotland’s participation in the Union with rUK and announce this to WM and HM Queen.

  187. Robert Peffers says:

    @Capella says: 2 January, 2018 at 3:42 pm:

    ” Scotland is a country, nobody can legitimately deny that.”

    Oh! Yes they can! (It is after all Panto Season.)

    And here is the proof that somebody, or somebodies actually have denied that fact:-

    “Whether we are a Kingdom is a matter for democratic decision making. But if we did vote to be a Republic that would nullify the United Kingdom, would it not.”

    However, there is no way for the Government of a United Kingdom formed by a bipartite Treaty of Union can legally deny that the Kingdoms of Scotland and England are the ONLY actual component parts of the United Kingdom and it is all there, black upon white in the Treaty of Union 1706/7/

    Yes if the Westminster Parliament, that formally claims to be the Parliament of the United Kingdom, were to admit that Scotland was not a Kingdom then there are two alternatives outcomes. The first being what Westminster has indeed already claimed as the full claim made by Mundell goes. That the Treaty of Union Extinguished the Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England as the United Kingdom.

    Trouble with that claim is the neither the Treaty or either Act of Union does anything of the sort. So as long as there is a United Kingdom there must be the two kingdoms that are united to form the Union.

    As to countries, The Treaty of Union does not make a single mention of countries. In any case the Kingdom of England of 1706/7 already contained Wales and Ireland.

    The facts are beyond doubt – Westminster is the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the last parliament of the Kingdom of England ended properly and is reported as doing so in Hansard.

    No parliament of the Kingdom of England has been elect since that parliament ended on the last day of April 1707. On the other hand the parliament of Scotland was never formally ended and was thus prorogued. It was actually formally reconvened by Winnie Ewing on 12 May 1999:-

    So, ATM, the legal situation actually is that legally Westminster is operating as the de facto parliament of the country of England but not only has there never been an election to elect any members to a Parliament of the country of England but Westminster makes claim to be the Parliament of the bipartite United Kingdom and also often claims that the United Kingdom is a unified country and more often it claims to be the parliament of Britain.

    Yet the fact is that Westminster has operated as the parliament of the country of England since the day devolution began because Westminster has split up the actual united Kingdom along the lines of four countries but retained for itself the governing of the country of England even although there isn’t a single member elected to be a member of the parliament of the country of England. It also legislates for England using the English Rule of Law and prevents elected members of the parliament of the United Kingdom from voting or debating anything Westminster classes as being Country of England only and debars elected members from other countries of the United Kingdom by use of EVEL/

    Not to mention that Westminster funds only the country of England directly as The United Kingdom while Westminster alone decides the levels of Block Grants to pay to not only the only Kingdom of England partner Kingdom, (Scotland), as a country but it also pays a block grant to London as if London were a country or a city state.

    In effect Westminster now operates as the, unelected as such, Parliament of the country of England that is thus devolving bits of England’s sovereignty to the countries of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland not to mention the city state of London.

    Legally Westminster cannot be both the Parliament of England and the Parliament of the United Kingdom at the same time.

    Especially while treating the only partner kingdom in the united Kingdom as an English dominion.

    We would still be a country with the right – indeed obligation – to manage our own affairs.
    Keep It Simple Scotland. KISS.

  188. orri says:

    Let’s not get dragged into the whole 51%+ of the eligible electorate being needed to counter a boycott quagmire.

    The tactic allows an unscrupulous government to manipulate an electoral roll to stuff the ballot box without the tedious effort involved in risking being caught doing so. Simply make as many registrations, false or otherwise, and count the non-registration of votes as being against. Do it right and those registered won’t even know they didn’t vote.

    I’ll have no truck with a return to ’79 where we were robbed of devolution on the promise of something better from Thatcher and the intervention of a Scottish born MP desperate to keep his English seat.

  189. Colin Alexander says:


    Good point.

  190. CameronB Brodie says:

    OT from the Rev.’s twitter.

    @Jeremy Chillcott
    Did you not get as far as the conclusion when researching your SNP Baaad claims? I personally think it a positive thing that Scotland’s current government chose a different path to the neo-liberal New Right. In any case, Scotland and England are different countries, with differently shaped needs and opportunities. Are you a Tory, btw, and do you reckon GERS robust and reliable? Happy with how this study handles non-identifiable expenditure, which is apportioned equally across the UK, regardless of the geographical location of direct benefit? Happy that Scots lack effective political agency within the UK?


    • Overall public expenditure in Scotland remains markedly higher than in England, and shows little or no sign of converging towards English levels;

    • virtually all this additional expenditure is on devolved services, and as a consequence spending within the Scottish Government’s budget is around 25% per head higher than the equivalent in England;

    • this is not converging towards English levels, as might have been expected from the operation of the Barnett formula; the principal reason for this appears to be the decline in Scotland’s population relative to England’s;

    • many of the spending differences are of long standing, but others reflect choices made by the SNP administration of the last decade;

    • some explicit policy commitments made by SNP ministers over that period can be seen in the spending figures – notably the relative increase in spending on tertiary education, connected with free tuition, and on law and order, including police numbers;

    • other priorities of the administration can be deduced from spending allocations over the last decade, notably:

    o spending on schools has been no higher than spending on schools in England (which has if anything caught up with Scotland) despite the substantial lead in overall devolved spending;

    o increasing spending on health has been a lower priority than in England, and in consequence English health spending has caught up closer to Scottish levels;

    o if Scottish health spending had kept pace with overall devolved spending, it would by now be around £1bn a year higher;

    o alternatively, if health has been “given its consequentials”, Scottish health spending would now be around £750 million a year higher;

    o some, but not all, of that money has been redirected to social services spending.

  191. Iain mhor says:

    It’s all very interesting (really) talk of Section 30’s and this n that. However they can only be opinions.
    If anyone can come up with anything which states categorically, the constitutional laws pertaining tothe UK Parliament/ Government/ Crown (or even Holyrood) – I’ll sit up and take notice. So will a legion of lawyers.
    I’ve said it before, No-one knows for it cannot be known before the fact. The very UK constitutional legislation most are discussing, is quite clearly qualified by a-priori statements.
    I’ve mentioned it previously, but the UK Parliament’s position is that “it believes” (a-priori) its position on many constitutional matters, but cannot know until it is tried.

    I’ll have one final attempt to get this point across quoting the damned Edinburgh agreement – an enigma wrapped in a riddle of devolved legislation. The UK Parliament “Believes” natters pertaining to the Union like holding a referendum, is a matter reserved for the UK Parliament. Holyrood “Believes otherwise. Neither “Tried” their case. Instead a fudged solution was put in place. One of 3 options considered by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution. Interestingly just simply amending the Scotland Act was not chosen.

    “The governments have agreed to promote an Order in Council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 in the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments to allow a single-question referendum on Scottish independence to be held before the end of 2014. The Order will put it beyond doubt that the Scottish Parliament can legislate for that referendum”

    If the UK Parliament was in no doubt whatsoever, then there was no need for the Section 30 Modification [The Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013] – Certainly not that wording in the Edinburgh Agreement.
    Collectively the “Order” and “Agreement” can be interpreted as “We do not know and have no wish to ‘try’ it and find out. So let’s agree this time you can get involved in what we believe (but don’t know) is a reserved matter and not get all fankled in the legalities.

    From the cheap seats up goes the cry:
    “But is such a Parliamentary Order and Agreement not in itself presuming upon a law; the legality of which is unknown and in doubt and therefore is itself of doubtful legality?

    UK & Scot Gov’s : “Oh look…a squirrel”

    If you really want to tinfoil hat everything; then consider that “The Order’ and “Agreement may be perceived as lending legitimacy to a doubtful piece of legislation. By signing the “Agreement and accepting “The Order” devolving responsibility, was Holyrood stitched up like a kipper?

    I personally wouldn’t have put my name to such a thing, but I’d have held one anyway without it for that precise reason.
    Political expediencies are another animal though;
    For even under the auspices of the “Agreement” and “Order” the 2014 held no status other than advisory. Pushing through the result, had it been “Yes” would still have required negotiation.
    As stated by the Scottish Parliament prior to the referendum:
    “Any changes to Scotland’s position within the United Kingdom will require negotiation with the UK Government and legislation in the UK and Scottish Parliaments”

    The Select Committee of 11 Lords-a-leaping (yes really) a-priori agreed with the UK Governments position but as ever still concluded it could only be resolved through the Courts.
    That though is itself another kettle of fish, as the question of which Courts has not been resolved… back to another Constitutional dilemma ad-infinitum.

    To paraphrase Monty Python’s Life of Brian : “Ooh they’re making it up as they go along!”

  192. yesindyref2 says:

    @Iain mhor
    It’s weight in a way, weight of opinions. It’s why for instance the very first white paper from the UK Gov was the one with Annex A where they tried to obliterate the Treaty of Union, replace it with the Acts of Union, but also replace them in a way with the UK itself, so that in that scenario the UK is boss, Scotland secedes and the UK continues, with all its assets and treaties intact and under its control.

    It’s an assertion and there are counter-assertions. Ultimately it could all get tested in court, but what the result would be is almost anyone’s guess. There is no definitiveness, only in the ultimate case judgement and determination – and even then perhaps, acceptance – and by whom? There’s a reasonable argument that even if both sides agreed on dissolution, little of the world would accept that because of the problems of stability of dealing with two new, unknown and untreatied states.

    ScotGov didn’t respond to that Annex A, and kept its counsel on a lot of matters where us Indy supporters really wanted it to have a go. But as I think it was Aileen McHarg said, ultimately the UK Gov was foolish with endorsing its Annex A as it revelaed its hand, and also determined its own direction. Which in that way could have given – and still might – ScotGov the upper hand in negotiations. You can bet every word of Annex A has been analysed 100 times over, and counters postulated.

    But yeah, it’s the reason for the fudge that was S30 and the Edinburgh Agreement, a way of bypassing the “legal” route which both sides were happy to take. Realpolitik if accepted by all parties is always the best bet.

    And both sides should be happy to take the same route for Indy Ref 2, because not to do so, we’re in the undiscovered country, whatever or however many of those there are! Not forgettng even that the Scottish Parliament was “reconvened” in the presence and acquiescence even, of HRH Queen Elizabeth the First.

    If politics doesn’t have the sense to bypass the legal system, whatever legal system, wherever that legal system, the UK is in a spiral loop down the plughole, bathwater and baby alike.

  193. Cactus says:

    “The argument has been won, just like the vote in the Scottish Parliament. All that remains to be seen is whether the UK government continues to play by Madrid Rules.”

    ps, thank you @TheNational ~

    For today’s leading front cover, it’s excellent!
    “Unionists In Crisis”

    The National ~ The Newspaper That Supports an iScotland.

    Heads up, looks like Clubtropicana77 is ramping up their comments early for the New Year, stay peeled, ahm gonnae start a new list and it’s not even Christmas.

  194. Breeks says:

    ”Iain mhor says:
    3 January, 2018 at 1:53 am
    It’s all very interesting (really) talk of Section 30’s and this n that. However they can only be opinions…..

    ….I’ve mentioned it previously, but the UK Parliament’s position is that “it believes” (a-priori) its position on many constitutional matters, but cannot know until it is tried.”

    Thanks Iain. I wasn’t familiar with the term a-priori, but it perfectly encapsulates the frustration I have had for years about blowing away the froth surrounding Scottish Sovereignty and getting to the essential and definitive arguments and levers of change.

    It has seemed from my own perspective that there surely must be a critical path towards achieving fundamental constitutional reform and a formal end of the Union, but that our YES and SNP campaign for Indy might have had its heart in the right place, but it was NOT following the critical path of actually getting there.

    I have this gnawing frustration that people place so much store on securing a democratic handle on sovereignty, (winning a referendum), but fail to grasp the issue that democracy is an inferior principle to sovereignty.

    You cannot engage with democracy in any meaningful way unless your democratic process is underwritten by a command of sovereignty, to put actual power into the decision you make. Without sovereignty, there is no power or command in your democratic process.

    People seem to see Sovereignty vs Democracy as a chicken and egg scenario, where the one begets the other, ad infinitum. – You cannot be sovereign without democracy, but you cannot be democratic with sovereign empowerment. But I believe that concept is misguided and incorrect, and “a-priori”. There isn’t a chicken and egg conundrum to resolve at all. Cut through the sophistry and constitutional rhetoric and you will find the starting point is ALWAYS sovereignty, and democracy is always its inferior. To approach Scottish Independence putting democracy first and sovereignty second is putting the cart before the horse.

    Let us put an end to this “a-priori” confusion surrounding our sovereignty. The doubt, confusion and uncertainty, and the perpetuation of that confusion, is not accidental. It is a wilful and deliberate state of confusion, maintained by the UK government and British Establishment,

    Enough of the Hall of Mirrors “a-priori” type delusion. Let us get back to the primary Constitutional building blocks which first defined the sovereign Nation of Scotland, and make certain we are on the critical path that guarantees constitutional Independence and sovereign statehood, and puts democracy in the right place in the greater scheme of things.

  195. sensibledave says:

    James Caithness 3.38

    … it is a feature of the “bunker mentality” of the tin foil hat brigade that makes you need to draw the conclusion that if two people disagree with the Wings cabal … then they must be a gang, a conspiracy or working together to bring you down!

    Haha. For the record I have no idea who Colin Alexander is and have absolutely no relationship with him/her.

    I know that many here on Wings can only ever reply “me too” to whatever proposition is being floated – and they find it hard to understand the notion of independent thought. Hey ho.

  196. sensibledave says:

    Breeks 9.09

    Happy New year Breeks.

    You wrote: “Let us put an end to this “a-priori” confusion surrounding our sovereignty. The doubt, confusion and uncertainty, and the perpetuation of that confusion, is not accidental. It is a wilful and deliberate state of confusion, maintained by the UK government and British Establishment,

    Enough of the Hall of Mirrors “a-priori” type delusion. Let us get back to the primary Constitutional building blocks which first defined the sovereign Nation of Scotland, and make certain we are on the critical path that guarantees constitutional Independence and sovereign statehood, and puts democracy in the right place in the greater scheme of things.”

    …. or to summarise for you, ….. “we are not making progress democratically – so lets enforce an outcome on the people of SCotland based upon what you believe some unelected kings, queens and Lairds carved up a few centuries ago (because that is obviously the right thing to do) and worry about democracy later”.

    Listen to yourself man!

  197. Colin Alexander says:

    To summarise:

    The legal right of the ScotGovt to hold an indyref without an S30 is legally unclear.

    That it can, it is argued, is backed by the sovereign people and triple democratic mandate.

    The UK Govt could say the argument is not about Scottish sovereignty or the right of self determination or democratic mandate, but simply that the ScotGovt is not the proper body to conduct constitutional matters – as it was not created to do this.

    WM’s argument is that Holyrood is a devolved arm of Westminster Govt. So WM decides it’s powers. And when those powers could be exercised – S30.

    That’s why I say sidestep that issue altogether, the MPs should use the triple mandate. That it’s not by the Scot Govt’s legal authority or Scot Parl’s legal authority that an indyref – or decision to end the Union without an indyref is held – It’s by the Scots MP’s authority using the elections as proof that their actions are representing the will of the sovereign people of Scotland.

    The Scot Govt would merely be polling agents conducting a referendum. The binding decision would be the decision of the Scots MPs.

    Which brings me round to what I’ve long said, indyref is a bad idea.

    Scots politicians should simply seek a mandate for independence. If a majority with that mandate are elected, that’s it. No indyref required.

  198. yesindyref2 says:

    To summarise on behalf of someone else, not me:

    I talk about impressive stuff like triple mandates as though they’re actually relevant to what I’m saying, I come up with a half-decent alternative suggestion like “The Scot Govt would merely be polling agents conducting a referendum” which could be a possibility via a petition or a private referendum to empower the ScotGov to do officially just that and then ignore it as “indyref is a bad idea”.

    Well yes it is, for NO voters, because it’s getting increasingly likely YES will win with support rising from 45% to 47% and now it’s 49% I’m really in a panic as are other NO activists as it looks like it’s going to a YES vote for Indy Ref 2.

    Instead of that I really really really don’t want Indy Ref 2 with an S30 Order as that would actually give us Independence agreed by all parties and the whole world, and at a date which could keep Scotland in a transitional state in the EU while we apply and then confirm via an EU referendum of our very own.

    What I really want is to encourage people to go for UDI which won’t be recognised by anyone in the whole world as the only referendum showed a majority against Independence, could cause violence, delays things till after 2021 at the earliest by which time the UK including Scotland is completely out of the EU, and would show up Scotland to be an undemocratic country with a load of tinfoil loony Indy supporters being an actual minority, and that’s even if the SNP with Greens managed to achieve a majority in Holyrood at all.

    Great plan, I recommend it to Scotland in Union – if they manage to survive their internal leaks and total disarray.

  199. Maria F says:

    @Colin Alexander

    “The UK Govt could say the argument is not about Scottish sovereignty or the right of self determination or democratic mandate, but simply that the ScotGovt is not the proper body to conduct constitutional matters – as it was not created to do this”

    The argument is about nothing else but Scottish sovereignty, that stands to the obvious. The UK gov by saying that is in my view blatantly attempting to take from the people of Scotland the right to self determination and hoard it as ‘a power’ to be granted ‘by the uK parliament’. I do not see how that can be interpreted as nothing else that an attempt to subjugation.

    The current Scottish government was not created ‘de novo’ but it simply reconvened from when it dissolved in 1707, and it did so with the monarch present. If you take it from that perspective, it is perfectly logical for the Scottish Parliament, 100% elected by the people of Scotland, to decide on that matter and not for the UK parliament where Scotland’s representation is a mere 10% if that.

    A magnificent example on this is the recent Brexit referendum. Did the EU at any point claimed that it should be the European Parliament who decided if that referendum could go ahead or not?
    Or if Brexit could go ahead or not?

    As far as I remember, it was the PM of the UK (without the mandate of Scotland) who simply triggered A50 and submitted a declaration of intention of leaving the EU. Could the EU ever reject that? So, on what legal/constitutional grounds could the UK gov reject an official declaration of independence from Scotland or request for a referendum?

    There is not a written constitution that defines Scotland as an integral part of England. If I am not mistaken the Kingdoms of Scotland and England remain united by an international treaty, not by invasion of one kingdom over the other as it happened with Wales.

    Something even more interesting for me is who actually holds ‘the property’ of Scotland. The Claim of right of 1689 passed the Scottish crown to Queen Anne, not to the English/Great Britain parliament. So in my view it should be the monarch and not the Parliament of the UK who has to give assent to that: it is after all a dissolution of the union between 2 Kingdoms.

    If the UK gov insists that it has to be the uK parliament, then surely this decision cannot possibly include the MPs from any other nation that is not Scotland, because that would denote ‘property’ by the Parliament rather than the acknowledgement that it was in fact an international treaty who determined the union of both kingdoms agreed by the individual parliaments of both kingdoms. If the UK gov considers that sovereignty resides in the UK parliament, Scotland’s sovereignty surely resides on the 59 MPs that represent Scotland and not on the rest and the GE of 2017 gave a triple lock mandate to the 35 SNP MPs to call that referendum.

    Acts of Union were passed in both parliaments of England and Scotland in 1707 to give validity to that treaty. So it has to be Acts in the parliaments of Scotland and England (or the MPs representing England in absence of such a parliament, as it did not reconvene from 1707) who I would understand have to pass acts to dissolve that treaty.

    In 1707 if one of the two Parliaments did not agree to the terms of the treaty, then the treaty would have not gone ahead. Surely this means that if today any of the 2 parliaments decides to dissolve that treaty, the treaty ends no matter what the other Parliament wants.

    England may not want to break that treaty but quite frankly if Scotland wants to do so I do not see how on earth England can legally stop it unless it decides to act as an invader rather than as a partner, which is what the treaty portrays it to be.

    What the Uk appears to purposely ignore here is that treaty was a voluntary agreement to unite 2 Kingdoms, not a declaration of surrender from Scotland.

    I strongly disagree with your view about indiref, by the way. The Parliament of Scotland already has a mandate to run that referendum. The election of a majority of SNP Mps at Westminster in June 2017 set up the triple lock to call in that referendum. I am sorry but your view of ‘parking’ or even ditching altogether that hard earned mandate and wait for another election comes across as a tactic to shoot ourselves on the foot and lose that mandate, quite frankly. The SNP already has the mandate, so now let’s get on with it.

  200. colin alexander says:

    Maria F, or anyone?

    If you believe the ScotParl is empowered by the sovereignty of Scotland’s people:

    Tell me if I’m wrong: SNP / Greens could back a no-confidence motion in the ScotGovt (if they are unable to secure enough votes to allow an early election due to the fixed term issue). Thus, forcing a fresh election.

    That election becomes the indyref. It’s PR voting, so election of a majority of pro-indy MSPs on an indy manifesto mandate would enable them declare notice that the Union is being ended.

    (Of course, that begs the question, why couldn’t the SNP have done that in the first place? But that’s another issue.)

    That avoids the whole issue of a referendum question – and just as important, the alternative option to YES – failing to stipulate what EXACTLY people are voting for.

    Whereas a manifesto does lay out in detail what you are voting for.

    Referendums are not more democratic. They are blank cheques, for politicians to – and courts – to then argue over what that blank cheque said. It’s crazy to decide the future of a country on one question.

    EU-Ref is a prime example. People are still arguing what a vote to Leave really means. Leave the EU, but then what? EEA or what? That can’t be put in a single sentence referendum question.

    Just because I’m not in favour of referendums to decide issues, (because they don’t), doesn’t mean I’m opposed to going for Indy.

    I want the opportunity to vote for candidates that will declare the Union ended or vote Yes to indy in an indyref( if that’s the only way the SNP allow it to be done).

    Also, there is no guarantee the SNP would win a majority in an election in 2021. They needed the help of the Greens this time. So, they should use their triple mandate while they can.

  201. yesindyref2 says:

    @Maria F at 3 January, 2018 at 1:46 pm

    Good posting. Seems to me you know plenty. From a previous posting you asked:

    Isn’t the Claim of right from 1689 still active in Scottish constitutional law today?

    Doesn’t this Claim of Right establish the sovereignty of the Scottish people and their right to decide the government they want?

    Both good questions, I think, and ones ultimately a court would need to give a ruling on.

  202. Maria F says:

    @Colin Alexander

    You, like the people from Labour, appear to be completely obsessed with another election and little else.

    As I said in my post above, we do not need yet a 3rd mandate for a referendum, which is what, by all means, you appear to propose that GE to be. We already have a double mandate for an Independence referendum.

    The first mandate was comfortably won in the Scottish elections of June 2016. Furthermore, a majority of our democratically elected representatives in the Parliament of Scotland voted in favor to send a formal request to the UK gov for a democratic independence referendum.

    A formal, official and in written request for this was sent by the First Minister of Scotland on behalf of the Parliament of Scotland and the Scottish people to the UK Gov. If I am not mistaken, we are still waiting for an official, formal and written response from the UK gov, because so far the only thing we have got is pathetic soundbites and waffle from both Theresa May and Mundell. That and a snap GE, of course, as a desperate attempt to keep up the pretence of a stable pro-unionism majority in Scotland and throw that independence referendum out of the table.

    Never mind the tricks unionism used in that GE, that last strategy failed spectacularly the moment an absolute majority of SNP MPs won a mandate to lock that referendum. Another GE will do nothing else than offering the British Nationalist parties another opportunity to join forces, throw buckets of money to constituencies, and bend the rules to breaking point in order to steal more seats from the SNP (and from the Scottish people, actually) and overrule the mandate that the Scottish Government got in 2016. Is that what you are really after, Colin? Because it looks that way.

    So let it go. We do not need another election. We do not need the obsessive British Nationalism of Labour controlling our future. We do not need Corbyn’s pathetic tory-light brexit and the betrayal of supporting the overruling of Scotland’s democratic vote. We do not need British Nationalism’s exclusive support of England’s interests while Scotland’s ones get parked under the carpet as an inconvenience. And of course we need Ruth’s tories like Fraser and Tompkins like a shot in the head. Sadly LibDems appear to be there just as the filler of an ever decreasing void space.

    We just need to get on with the independence referendum, Colin, at the chosen time by of our democratically elected Government, the Government of Scotland, for Scotland and by Scotland.

    If we want to be treated like a country, then we have to start behaving like a country and demand, yes demand, rather than sheepishly ask in whispers. England doesn’t own Scotland therefore Scotland does not need permission from a bunch of arrogant MPs representing English seats bloated with British Nationalism and self-importance.

    The SNP already has a mandate for a democratic independence referendum from those who actually matter: the people of Scotland. They don’t need another one, so, please, give it a rest. You are wasting your time.

  203. Colin Alexander says:

    Maria F

    I totally agree the mandate is already there.

    I suggest independence via democratic election as a replacement for an indyref.

    The election would be the way of deciding the independence question. If the majority gain a mandate via their manifesto to end the Union then they would democratically be entitled to end the Union, thus no need for an indyref with a YES / NO

    The pro-indy manifesto replaces an indyref question. The Unionists’ manifestos replace No. So, a person is voting for things, clearly stipulated in more detail, not just YES or No to a simple question.

    Elections have spending limits too. They are democratic.

  204. Maria F says:

    @Colin Alexander

    First things first:

    There is already a double mandate for an independence referendum, approved by the Parliament of Scotland and an official request for this has already been sent to the UK government. We are still awaiting for a formal, official, written answer. Ignoring this or placing this in a drawer is not only silly but also an insult to those of us that actually voted for the SNP to give them that mandate.

    So let’s hold that referendum first. If that fails for whatever reason, for instance if the MPs elected to represent English seats defy democracy by denying a referendum they don’t have democratic control over, then by all means, use the election, actually every single election as an attempt to get a democratic mandate to dissolve the international Treaty of Union of 1707.

  205. yesindyref2 says:

    Regardless of if there were even 59 SNP MPs at Westminster, and 129 SNP MSPs at Holyrood, the only Referendum Scotland has had showed 55% AGAINST Independence, and UDI would not be recognised internationally.

    With a properly constituted second Referendum showing a majority in FAVOUR of Independence, then even if the UK resisted, Scotland would have a very strong case for Independence, and that would almost certainly be recognised internationally.

  206. Dubai_Scot says:

    In light of these results, maybe it’s time for a change of tactics by the SNP? I think that going into the next WM election with the line in the manifesto to update a 300 year old treaty and bring it into the 21st Century? A simple majority of SNP members would nullify the WM dominance and force them to the table. If they didn’t then it could be reasonably argued that WM has ended the Treaty and not the Scots? Lots of mischief can be enjoyed by the Scots at WM expense… lol!
    This incremental step towards the restoration of political power to Scotland probably wouldn’t frighten the horses either!

  207. yesindyref2 says:

    Why would the SNP want a new Treaty of Union, that’s Labour came up with that idea to prevent Independence and tie Scotland into the Union even tighter.

  208. Maria F says:

    @ Dubai_Scot

    “I think that going into the next WM election with the line in the manifesto to update a 300 year old treaty and bring it into the 21st Century?”

    Oh come on Dubai_Scot, surely you cannot be that naive. If you want to update a 300 year old treaty you need a little bit more than 59 MPs in a forum of 650, don’t you think?

    “A simple majority of SNP members would nullify the WM dominance and force them to the table”

    No, it will not. How much did our 56 MPs ‘nullified WM dominance’ in the issue of trident? And how much did 58 out of our 59 Scottish MPs voting against the triggering of A50 ‘nullified WM dominance’ and stopped it dragging Scotland out of the EU without its democratic consent?

    “If they didn’t then it could be reasonably argued that WM has ended the Treaty and not the Scots?”

    You are bringing up yet again the issue of UDI. What is it, are you are taking over from Colin?

    “Lots of mischief can be enjoyed by the Scots at WM expense… lol!”

    Yeah, like the mischief we are enjoying now seeing how MPs elected by English constituents overrule our democracy in front of our nose and drag us without consent out of the EU and meanwhile Scottish Labour, Scottish Tories and Scottish LibDems stab their constituents in the back by cheering the overruling of Scotland’s democracy from the sidelines.

    “This incremental step towards the restoration of political power to Scotland probably wouldn’t frighten the horses either!”

    Frighten the horses or not, the biggest incremental step you can take towards restoration of full political power and full control over Scotland’s assets is a victory in the Independence referendum that the FM of Scotland officially requested on behalf of the Parliament of Scotland and that the UK gov has not yet dignified with an official, formal, written answer.

    Why are the British Nationalists so frightened of an independence referendum?

    Why hasn’t the UK government issued the Parliament of Scotland with a formal, official, written answer to the formal request of an independence referendum yet?

  209. yesindyref2 says:

    @Maria F “You are bringing up yet again the issue of UDI. What is it, are you are taking over from Colin?

    There’s an increase of this at the moment, and the same for supposed Indy supporters posting anti-English comments under the guise of something pro-Indy or anti-Westminster.

    They’re wanting to tar the Indy movement as anti-English potentially violent extremists nutters, while undermining Indy Ref 2 in various ways. Not the first time it’s happened, won’t be the last.

    Problem is they drag some excitable Indy supporters along with them.

  210. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi yesindyref2.

    Yeah, we (pro-indy Wingers) are gonna have to keep an eye on ‘previous pages’ for anti-indy comments being posted a day or two after the page has reached its ‘natural’ end.

    Rock, as you are aware, has been doing it; looks like man @ C&A is using the same tactic.

    I’ve found, in the past, that a page usually ‘dies’ within 24 hours, unless someone deliberately keeps it going – like this one!

    The next newer page (a-request-for-clarification) hasn’t had a comment posted since the 3rd…

  211. yesindyref2 says:

    We might have to post a standard warning something like:

    GENERAL WARNING: there are flag trolls about, these are posters who pass themselves off as Independence supporters, but attempt to discredit genuine supporters by misrepresenting their views, or making extreme e.g. anti-English, racist or homophobic posts – or by pretending they are the majority view. They can be very sneaky. This warning does not relate to any specific posters or postings, make your own mind up!

  212. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    All I can type is AYE!

  213. yesindyref2 says:

    Indy Ref 2 – YES!

    Coming our way soon

    (estimated Peter A Bell = Sep this year. Me, 14 March 2019).

  214. Dubai_Scot says:

    Hi Maria F,

    One of my concerns is the apparent static support for Independence, as a result i floated my opinion that the SNP needs to seek alternatives. Death to the Union through a thousand cuts could be achievable. The “update to the Treaty” is just one that i feel might be doable. We will need to accommodate those voters who reside in the “maybe” camp and this might just be the strategy to get the numbers we need. Going all out for Independence would be my preference of course. But currently there appears to be no momentum to take us across that particular threshold, so alternatives need to be aired.
    Whether i like it or not Scotland will need some sort of economic trade based treaty with England once we control our politics. Updating the current Treaty is just one strategy to achieve this end. Not as flashy as straight forward Independence maybe, but worth thinking through.

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