Wider Than A Mile
In this scene, John Swinney is portrayed by Stewie Griffin (the baby), and the faithful membership of the SNP is portrayed by Brian Griffin (the dog).
We’re not sure any words are needed after that, but what the heck, we’re here now.
Because it’s really, really difficult to overstate the blind idiot gullibility of the 40% of the SNP’s one-time members who still HAVEN’T quit the party since the revelations about the stolen fundraiser money.
(Let’s stop calling it “missing”, because there’s no mystery about where it is – the SNP have now openly told us that they stole it and spent it on the exact thing they swore blind they WOULDN’T spend it on.)
But it’s all fine, Swinney insists, because there’s been a “governance review” and new rules that will stop it from happening again. And indeed there was, in 2024, and indeed it did promise to make some vague unspecified changes.
But of course, the immediate problem with that is that we know the SNP doesn’t give a damn about following its own rules.
It was, for example, in the rules in 2021 that the party’s National Executive Committee, under the auspices of its National Treasurer and its Finance & Audit Committee, had to be allowed to see the books in order to prevent Peter Murrell embezzling hundreds of thousands of pounds.
But when the Treasurer and the Committee tried to exercise their rights in order to do their legal duties they were refused by Murrell, and when members of the NEC tried to alert Nicola Sturgeon to this most serious breach of the rules she angrily insisted her husband wasn’t up to anything and that the treasurer and the committee members should simply shut up, leaving those with any conscience or integrity forced to resign.
The 2024 Governance Review actually made the leader’s power far MORE absolute over the party, chiefly by effectively removing any way that they can be challenged, so absolutely nothing would prevent the same thing happening again. If an SNP CEO is on the fiddle and if the leader is determined to cover up for them, the NEC – even assuming there’s anyone on it with a spine, which is unlikely – is toothless.
So THAT’S been going well since 2023. Swinney tells members “Don’t worry, there’s loads of scrutiny on the finances now!”, which would doubtless be very reassuring if that wasn’t also exactly what he’d said in 2021 when Murrell was still helping himself to enormous truckfuls of party cash.
But we don’t even need to make any such deductions or assumptions to know that the 2024 Governance & Transparency Review (its full irony-laden title) is cobblers.
On the GTR screenshot above we deliberately left in the next item, which categorically states that “membership numbers will be reported twice a year”. That rule, however, has been simply ignored under Swinney’s rule. The most recent published figures date from 1 June 2025, more than a year ago, and are only the second set to be released in Swinney’s 25-month reign.
(They weren’t actually released until last August, in the party’s annual accounts.)
The rule hasn’t been changed since 2024 – and Swinney had already been leader for months when the report was issued, he could have altered it if he’d wanted to – just ignored. Yet still the remaining diehards cling to the leadership’s every lie as gospel.
Everything’s fine, you see, because you’ll probably get a receipt for a raffle ticket. And the complicity of the previous leadership in Peter Murrell’s crimes, and the current leadership’s admission that it stole donors’ money, are apparently less important and pressing issues than controls on vape shops.
And they’re keen as mustard for it to happen again.
Now, it’s fair to say that anyone dumb enough to still be in the SNP probably deserves to be robbed at every step. “If we do everything the same, all the outcomes will be different” is the line that the leadership has taken on independence strategy, and – as Swinney points out in the video above – the loyal rump of the membership swallowed that, so why would they question anything else?
But everyone else who donated to the “ringfenced” fundraisers, only to see their money used to prop up a zombie party that is now the main obstacle to independence, would still like to see justice, and however much John Swinney (and Nicola Sturgeon) might wish otherwise, that story still has a long way left to run.
Because at the end of the day, there’s just too big a river of effluent on the floor for even the hungry gullets of the eternally stupid to choke down.
“Who are we? We’re the SNP”!
Depending on your view, you would either laugh or cry at the thought of the 2015 – ? SNP being in charge of an independent Scotland. The gap between support for independence and for the SNP highlights exactly where the problem lies (pun intended).
Do you have any information or a view on the possible/likelihood of : Murrell fiddling the leadership election for Humza and/or the allegations of a “pay for play” system in operation, particularly relating to candidates being parachuted into safe seats??
Nikki being in the southside is significant here.
It was strange that Kate Forbes did not win the leadership election when Sturgeon had to quit. Forbes was the clear bookies favourite. Forbes would have worked a lot harder on independence and would have worked with Salmond and ALBA. I also recall that an arm of GCHQ were invited in by the SNP to help with the count. I somehow doubt Sinn Feinn would have done that.
I can remember being told that it was the 2nd votes from the Ash Reagan voters that swung it for Yousaf. Aye Right !!
when someone is on the fiddle, gets caught at one thing, the sensible thing to say is not “you were dishonest about that one thing only, obviously all your other dealings must be above board” … no, only a fool would think that; it puts everything he ever did up for question.
The thing about the “southside” is there are a lot of well-off asian businessmen who see paying off politicians as “how you do business”.
What Murrell was actually done for might only be the tip of the iceberg; we already know he has foreign property dealings. What about a bitcoin wallet? Salmond’s wife Moira called Murrell “secret squirrel” and I think she is right – he has plenty “nuts” stashed. He has already been moved to a softer jail, and if he gets a light sentence, we see what a stitchup it was.
It’s a small point, no one has really noticed, but it was the Greens who really shit themselves at the idea of party finances being examined by outsiders; one, in a wheelchair, even explicitly used the phrase “washing our dirty linen in public”. What have they got to hide?
– maybe George Soros – he bankrolls bad causes all over the world, attempting to subvert anywhere there is too much “nationalism”; the trans lobby also has a lot of money behind it, e.g. the Pritzker family. The greens are rank with the “professional activist” class – who pays for these muppets to bang the drum all day about unpopular causes? Sure the SNP shovelled a lot of quango money at them, but before they got in? Who can afford to be on twitter all day? Turning up to a protest with the placard, you need transport, food, the spare time – they aren’t working a real job. And if you are on benefits, you are meant to be looking for work, fulltime. Or else you get sanctioned.
I think it was extremely likely that the election was fiddled. We know that numerous rules were broken, all in Yousaf’s favour, and we know that the voting system used by the SNP is ludicrously insecure and open to abuse in the easiest ways imaginable, and we know that the entire party leadership wanted Yousaf to win. Do the sums.
I don’t think the SNP is the top layer of the onion.
Yep, i know plenty if SNP diehards who wouod go to war fir the SNP against indeoendence! Though in truth they ate cowards!
It’s a shut and shut case.
A story:
“Can you take this file over to B Wing immediately”, barked the officer. B Wing, he thought, that’s the other side of the bloody building! But orders are orders and he dutifully saluted and turned on his heels.
The man hoped to hook onto one of the little buses which would sometimes come along the passageways but to no avail. He trudged and trudged. Up stairs, then down stairs again. Past where the Arabs had fired the missile through the building – he still hadn’t worked out how they done it, but questions aren’t asked here, so best left alone. If the public are happy that it was a plane then that’s fine by him.
As he walked, he would smartly salute anyone in uniform that passed him, all the time wondering how they would get the cutest interns to accompany them. Maybe if he stuck in he might get one too in the next intake. But he wasn’t overworked, and could be in a lot worse a job. At least working in the Pentagon would be a job for life, as there is always some pesky foreigner to be reigned in.
Ah, B Wing at last, he thought to himself. He double checked the file location. Floor C. Only two more stairs to climb. He wondered what would be on the menu for lunch in the canteen. Roast chicken he hoped. If he took his time on the way back it would almost be time for lunch by then.
Floor C, Section 12. Ok, found that. Now room 9D. Ok, found that. Remember to always knock firmly as if you mean business, he thought to himself. “Come in”, came the reply. He duly handed over the file and turned towards the door, his thoughts on gravy and poultry.
The woman in charge of the office checked the reference number, found the appropriate filing cabinet on ‘Scotland – United Kingdom’, and went through the entries. There were all sorts of files on nuclear sites, nuclear dumps, military sites, multinationals, politicians, celebrities, political parties. The one marked ‘Scottish National Party’ was where the file belonged. Strangely enough it was one of the red files which she hadn’t seen often. Written on it were the words; Issue Resolved Until 2051. File to be revisited after 2051.
The End.
I’m with J B Drummond. Until Grenfell is sorted, Indy can wait.
Not forgetting the boy who got killed by the police in Minnesota during Covid. We Scots took to the streets in the tens of thousands over that. So when are we going to get justice for him?
Heard on the radio Val McDermid (sounding like a wee boy) advertising her latest novel.
What she failed to explain was that her books normally sell ok but that she needs extra money fast as she has a high maintenance house guest that just won’t leave and to whom the concept of contributing to her upkeep is completely alien.
“I feel like I’ve just stepped into sneaky Pete’s role as sugar daddy” she said (allegedly)..
That’s a brilliant and darkly funny take on the current political landscape. It perfectly captures the sense of bewildered acceptance.
Ah! But how can we be sure what the SNP spent the money on?
Bearing in mind that Swinney was one of the many liars who insisted that there was no ‘missing money’ are we not now being expected to swallow too much to meekly accept that it was spent, many years ago, on party finances?
I think it more likely that what we’ve seen so far is simply the tip of the iceberg and if we look beneath the water-line that there will be a lot more to see.
Scottish politics is weighed down by the reek of incompetence and corruption. We’ve been made an international laughing stock, and things cannot continue as they have been.
There needs to be an inquiry, and Scotland should demonstrate that it has not become some backward, banana republic.
Recommendations from such an inquiry will hopefully include that there should be a clear separation of the Lord Advocate and Chief Constable roles from ScotGov.
Swinney rivals Trump for BS but it will not stop the truth train that is coming down the line.
….the financial impropiety is bad enough, but what about the attempt to put Alex Salmond in gaol?
“ Swinney rivals Trump for BS ”
=========
So, the rumours are true! He really is Sturgeon’s ventriloquist’s dummy.
The bit I do not believe is when Swinney (aka Stewie) is sick.
He would be high fives at that bit.
Alllll the way.
Apart from that.
Per
fect.
Credit where credit is due. With the SNP rejecting a call for a full public inquiry into this affair, they are effectively saying ‘NO lessons will be learned”, which makes a wee change from the usual response.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”.
A bit like voting for, or donating to, Swinney’s rancid SNP.
Indy for Scotland!
SNP Out!
The money is now not missing due to you being persistent in tracing the source of the deceit Stu with excellent journalism,
I hope one day that your journalism and persistence will lead you to the discovery of the missing Scottish parliament for the past three hundred years, that has been replaced by a pseudo parliament from the Anglo Irish parliament for England, Wales and Ireland,
However I recognise how extremely busy you have been occupied, with the many topics these last years with the antics of the pseudo SNP for pretend Scottish independence,
But day over 50% of of the Scottish independence supporters will be intrigued with conversational topic when it is held with great journalism to the fore,
Scotland and its people require good journalism on their three hundred year Dissolved missing parliament Scottish parliament from the parliament of England and Wales.
Meanwhile we all recognise how busy you have been kept occupied with alternative topics set before you by the pretendy Scottish parliament sent to Scotland by Westminster parliament.
Was that labour’s or tories idea along with the Barnett formula for Scotland ?
“the pretendy Scottish parliament”
Yes James, the “Manichaeism of colonial rule” (Fanon), where we see:
– a people in ‘colonial slumber’
– a fake national party (‘co-opted by colonialism’)
– a fake parliament (indirect rule, oppressive laws)
– a fake ‘justice’ system, views the native ‘absent of values’
– colonial show trials, rupture the independence movement
– all enabling the plunder of corporate colonialism to continue
Colonialism is far more than a dodgy national party elite – colonialism creates such an elite just as it creates all else in colonial society.
I think I’m starting to understand.
We weren’t colonised until Blair etc set up the Scottish Parliament at HR and devolved all sorts of stuff to our elected Scottish representatives for them to fuck over, screw up, and steal.
Plus, of course, raise extra taxes on us so that there will always be enough money sloshing around to fund their illegal and bonkers activities.
Perhaps we should go back to those halcyon, happy days when we weren’t colonised. How does 1996 sound?
“Perhaps we should go back to those halcyon, happy days when we weren’t colonised. How does 1996 sound?”
Prior to ‘devolution’ (i.e. indirect rule), Scots were subject to direct rule.
Direct or indirect rule – its all still colonialism, Hatey.
@Alf – using post-colonial theory and the colonial markers you’ve described, is Yorkshire a colony?
Fuck off AI Dan… this place is for Scots who want England’s ‘raggedy arse kicked out of Scotland’ and yet here you are, an Anglo, arrogantly swaggering about here talking absolute pish.
And when you’re done talking absolute pish you start talking absolute shite.
And when you’re done talking absolute shite you start talking utter pish followed by, of course, utter shite.
It seems that… Absolute utter pish and shite is top-level debate for you colonialists.
You colonialists are *abso-fucking-lutely utterly full of pish and shite.
*This is called ‘expletive infixation’, although I prefer the broader term, ‘tmesis’ – mostly just because I like the shape of the word.
It means sticking a word or phrase into the middle of another word.
Do people really do that?
Abso-fuckin’-lutely!”
Look… I just did it.
We students of the ancient Greek language pronounce tmesis as “tmee?sis” – the t is not silent, but small and swallowed… like ‘tIM eesis’
Do you normally get like this when you lose an argument Northcode? No wonder you spend your whole time posting lengthy meaningless waffle on WoS BTL rather than say, spending time with friends.
What a sad man.
“No wonder you spend your whole time posting…”
This comment thread:
Northcode – comments: 4 (inc this one)
AI Dan – comments: 13 </p
@Northy
You appear to have missed off the “… lengthy meaningless waffle on WoS BTL rather than say, spending time with friends.
What a sad man.“ part.
Happy to oblige and correct. 🙂
Great post, Northy.
But, assuming you’re not just making up words again, you haven’t explained how to pronounce the ‘?’ In the middle of your latest discovery.
There is a high % of people in Scotland that would appreciate this topic being aired from its origins to the present day scenario of the SNP ruling Scotland from a pretendy Scottish parliament.
For it was not up to the Anglo Irish parliament for England/Wales/ Ireland to pose the question to Scotland.
Do the people of Scotland want a pretend parliament in Scotland under the control of Westminster reservations after their parliament was dissolved from the parliament of Great Britain over three hundred years ago in 1707?
I know, the unionist supporters will bleat en masse, try close the topic down, attack the person not the topic, nevertheless the topic still requires some discussion, which has never been done or approached in a thorough journalist manner, or open transparent way with the people of Scotland.
And union supporters have never been able to disprove the set up so far,…that alone makes it a worthwhile topic for over 50 % of people in Scotland having to contend with the SNP in the controlled Scottish parliament….
These issues have already been dealt with, at length, and in very great detail. Everyone understands Article 1 of the Treaty of Union and the effect of the Scotland Act 1998. There is nothing more to “investigate”.
Everyone except you, Aidan!
This is your usual English establishment tripe. Nothing in the Treaty of Union as written, signed and ratified, subordinates Scotland or her MPs to English MP majorities, and nothing in it transfers, bequeaths or incorporates the ‘sovereignty of the English Crown in the brand new British parliament in 1707.
You have never explained how the British/UK parliament actually and formally acquired that sovereignty in 1707.
You’ve simply assumed it, asserted it, and walked away thinking ‘job done’.
Nothing to “investigate”? Bollocks to that!
You mean apart from Article 1 which does exactly that. Ultimately here you remain in a minority of one, nobody else with authority anywhere supports your view.
I said above,
“nothing in it transfers, bequeaths or incorporates the ‘sovereignty of the English Crown in the brand new British parliament in 1707.”
But even if it did, England’s sovereignty cannot outrank Scotland’s sovereignty, and nothing in the Treaty or Acts of Union says that Scotland in particular agreed to subordinate its sovereignty to England’s MPs. The same goes for Scotland’s constitution.
The bald fact is that absolutely no-one involved in negotiating, agreeing, writing, signing and ratifying the 1707 Treaty of Union actually held sufficient legitimate authority to abolish or subordinate the sovereignty of the Scots in the first place.
Aidan said;
“You mean apart from Article 1 which does exactly that. Ultimately here you remain in a minority of one, nobody else with authority anywhere supports your view.”
Article I says no such thing, Aidan! You and your ‘authorities’ are grossly overegging your arguments by implying agreements that are never actually stated.
The Treaty of Union creates a single parliament for Great Britain, and within that single parliament the arithmetic was such that legislation could be passed even if opposed by a majority of Scottish MP’s, as has happened many times. Your idea that the ToU intended to create two parallel sets of MP’s who would both need to vote by majority for any legislation is not supported anywhere, by any part of the ToU. Were it to be accurate, there are countless very significant pieces of legislation that would not be legally effective in Scotland or in the rest of the U.K.
If you are right, then how did Scotland leave the EU, and how were tuition fees introduced in England and Wales? Both were opposed by a majourity of MP’s in Scotland, yet in both cases the enabling legislation was passed and is enforced.
Your “arithmetic” presumes a single majority vote, Aidan, for which there is no agreement in the Treaty, or elsewhere. That necessarily presumes a single sovereignty polity, but again, there is no agreement to that effect either, in the Treaty or elsewhere.
And whether or not the “ToU intended to create two parallel sets of MP’s who would both need to vote by majority for any legislation”, it is the required default given the status quo ante of two extant sovereignties, if neither of them agreed to abolish or subordinate itself to the other in the Treaty.
Since neither actually did, especially Scotland, as I already made clear with my earlier comment about the lack of authority above that of the sovereign Scots, then the SQA must hold; Two separate flat votes, one Scottish, one English.
Poor Adrian.
More to be pitied than scorned.
But of course it wouldn’t be required by default, it would be a highly unusual and novel arrangement that would go against the principles of the Treaty of Union. Ergo – if that were the intention of the commissioners who drafted it, they would have gone to great lengths to ensure that it was set out explicitly in the document.
Where also, can we find evidence of the protestations of MP’s from both E&W and from Scotland at the new flat voting system, if they were expecting sovereign-based blocs. Surely such a significant change to the governance structure would have been the first order of business. So you must have records you can point to?
But it absolutely would be required by default, Aidan!
It matters not at all how unusual or novel that arrangement might be, it would be obliged precisely because of the two unceded extant sovereignties.
If you can’t point to a formal statement in the Treaty or Acts of Union where one of the two sovereignties agreed to abolish or subordinate its own sovereignty to the other, then your entire argument falls to dust.
Equality of sovereignty obliges either equality of representation with Single Majority Voting, or unequal representation with equality of voting power using Dual Majority Voting.
Where is the agreement in the Treaty or Acts of Union for the existing hugely unequal representation with Single Majority Voting?
I will remind you that in the status quo ante of 1706, there were two separate representative bodies and two separate Single Majority Votes; one in Edinburgh, and one in London. All that the 1707 Treaty essentially did in that respect was to move Scotland’s formal representation down to London to directly face England’s formal representation.
The term “sovereignty” doesn’t mean anything in the way you are using it. As a matter of constitutional law, the statement about “subordinating sovereignty” makes no sense at all. What you really mean is “statehood”, so you’re asking when did Scotland and England agree to merge as states, as I said above, in Article 1 of the Treaty of Union.
Again then we move to this highly eccentric idea of two sovereign voting blocs, which apparently everyone expected to create and yet nobody, anywhere, at any point decided even to mention it, and instead codified and implemented an entirely different system. With respect, you cannot possible expect anyone to believe that?
I have a dream, xaracen.
It is that one day, quite soon, you will devote your energies to something useful and productive.
Such as the precise number of angels that can dance on the point of a pin.
And, if you can solve that centuries-old puzzle, perhaps you could move on to investigating how their numbers might vary, depending on what dance they were performing.
A stately gavotte, for example, requiring less room than some of our uninhibited Scottish country dances.
Your attempt to replace sovereignty with statehood fails because Scotland’s people were and are sovereign under Scotland’s still extant constitution, while Scotland’s pre-union statehood was managed by its monarch and parliament on their behalf without either owning any sovereignty. The Scottish monarch’s sovereignty was irrelevant simply by dint of being only that of one individual among an entire nation of sovereigns.
Both institutions were required to respect the rights of the sovereign Scots, and that meant they were subject to their sovereignty, without the Scots being directly involved in the day-to-day issues of statehood.
As for the idea of two sovereign voting blocs being highly eccentric, there is nothing remotely eccentric about two or even dozens of sovereign voting blocs. They are common!
EU, UN, and other such multi-nation entities manage voting blocs of many more than two sovereign nations every bloody day!
And you carefully left out the fact that nobody codified the system currently implemented at Westminster, as I keep pointing out, and you keep pretending was fully codified by the Treaty, when it patently isn’t by direct inspection of that Treaty!
You can wriggle, lie, obfuscate and misdirect as much as you like, but you can’t evade the fundamental truth that Scotland never agreed to cede its sovereignty to England on any basis whatsoever.
And if sovereignty is as meaningless as you claim, then why does Westminster constantly insist on its ownership of and assert its so-called ‘unlimited sovereignty’ every chance it gets?
When exactly did that ‘unlimited sovereignty’ become its ‘unlimited statehood’?
It’s not that sovereignty doesn’t exist Xaracen, or that’s it’s not an important concept. It’s that the way you are using it is completely legally meaningless and doesn’t make any sense. Sovereignty describes the right to govern a state, in some cases like the U.K. unlimited sovereignty sits with Parliament, in other countries parliamentary sovereignty is much more limited by the two other branches of government.
So when you describe the “status of each sovereignty”, you seem to imply that this is a distinct concept from the governance arrangements of the state, whereas in fact sovereignty describes within that governance structure, who has decision-making authority. So as the Treaty of Union fundamentally altered the governance structure of post-1707 Scotland, it also altered the nature of sovereignty in post 1707 Scotland.
Finally, again you keep telling us at length about this extant constitution, the sovereign voting blocs etc etc. and in a parallel universe if you were right, that frankly would be an enormous change to Scotland’s governance. Yet you can’t, anywhere point to anyone, not a historian, nor lawyer, nor politician, nor any other academic who even acknowledges these apparently groundbreaking revelations. Does it not strike you as odd that the sum total of knowledge and understanding on this subject sits in direct contradiction to your idea?
We are also supposed to believe that space was found in the treaty of Union to set out the number of MP’s to be elected from Scotland. It also goes into detail about comparatively trivial economic matters, such as the volume of beer that should be subject to the same excise duty. Yet space apparently couldn’t be found to make any reference to this sovereign bloc voting structure which is absolutely key to the whole process for passing legislation in GB.
Aidan, most of your response is irrelevant to my primary complaint, that Scotland’s MPs are not obliged by anything in the Treaty or Acts of Union to accept being overruled by England’s MPs on any matter of UK governance. Despite everything you said, that complaint is still fully justified on the basis of the deliberate but unwarranted suppression of Scottish sovereignty in WM’s ‘governance structure’.
But you redeemed yourself with;
“It’s not that sovereignty doesn’t exist Xaracen, or that’s it’s not an important concept.”, and;
“in fact sovereignty describes within that governance structure, who has decision-making authority”.
The pinnacle of that structure is the House of Commons, with the two bodies of MPs who are the actual formal representatives of the TWO SOVEREIGN partners that founded the Union and its parliament in 1707.
Scotland’s MPs are the sole formal representatives of the entire Scottish SOVEREIGN half of the Union. That cannot seriously be disputed. That means that they have ‘decision-making authority’ in the Union’s parliament, on behalf of their SOVEREIGN parent.
All other MPs in Westminster are the sole formal representatives of the entire English SOVEREIGN half of the Union, and they also have ‘decision-making authority’ in the Union’s parliament, on behalf of their SOVEREIGN parent.
But neither of those MP bodies are entitled to ‘decision-making authority’ over the other MP body nor over the other MP body’s SOVEREIGN parent. And that restriction tells me and any sensible person who understands the historic and constitutional basis of the Union and its parliament, that ‘sovereignty’ is precisely the right word to describe the source of that restriction. That is why it exists and is why it is important, and why I am entirely correct to use it the way I have been.
These statements and that structure align precisely with the basis of my argument, that Scotland’s decision-making authority has been almost completely excluded in those structures, with only England’s decision-making authority being expressed, without any formal agreement for this arrangement from the Treaty.
The two key elements of that Scottish exclusion are the use of Single Majority Voting (SMV) in the parliament’s chambers, and the hugely asymmetric numbers of the two bodies of the MPs of the two sovereign kingdoms. The numbers were agreed but the SMV was not, and it is the SMV alone that leverages England’s MPs huge numerical advantage.
That advantage is purely numeric; it is not constitutional, and not even democratic, for reasons I have spelled out many times. Only two kingdoms founded the Union and its parliament, and neither of them agreed to be governed by the other. That is a constitutional fact, and whether or not that is based on ‘sovereignty’ or some other term is irrelevant to the absence of that agreement.
Westminster’s right to govern the territories and peoples of the United Kingdom stems from the two sovereignties’ own ‘governance structures’ and associated ‘extant constitutions’ that founded the Union and its parliament, and Scotland’s constitution in particular was guaranteed its permanence so it is still relevant today, and Westminster is obliged to respect it, and if it doesn’t, which is frequent, it is breaching the Treaty.
Westminster’s alleged ‘unlimited sovereignty of its ‘Crown in Parliament’ is limited at best to south of the Scottish border, and at worst, it was lost entirely in 1707 when the English parliament which owned it ceased to exist along with Scotland’s, and no-one had thought in advance to make provision, even in the Treaty, to transfer its sovereignty or ‘governance structures’ to the brand new British parliament. They just assumed these would transfer over automatically, and also that they would then cover Scotland as well. But at the same time they assumed that neither Scotland’s sovereignty or ‘governance structures’ would NOT transfer automatically, and NOT cover England.
It’s a funny old world, Aidan, isn’t it.
Correction to my last post;
They just assumed these would transfer over automatically, and also that they would then cover Scotland as well. But at the same time they assumed that Scotland’s sovereignty or ‘governance structures’ would NOT transfer automatically, and NOT cover England.
The thing is there Xaracen – is all you’ve done is to restate your idea. We know what your idea is, you’ve told us many times at length.
The problem is, your idea is something either you have made up, or someone else has made up and you have copied/adopted. It isn’t something that has any support in UK or Scottish law, or any academic or historical texts. In fact, it conflicts with many known and understood principles of constitutional law. It is therefore no different in that sense to the range of other alternative legal ideologies such as the Freeman on Land or the Sovereign Citizen movement.
Of course if you really wanted to put this to bed either way, you could launch a judicial review against for example, the lawfulness of the student loans system in England? Were you to succeed you would be hero of the independence movement, however, when such an action was struck out at the first hearing (which is what will happen) it would be embarrassing and costly for you. Maybe you had better leave this stone uncovered.
Xaracen could start living his life as if he believes what he interminably posts on here is true.
Every day, he could go out into the world and flatly refuse to be bound by those strictures he believes to be illegal in terms of the 1707 act.
Every single law not supported by a majority of Scottish MPs since 1707 – he could ignore its existence. He could post on here every night with an update on his day’s progress.
But he doesn’t. Surely there can’t be a single reader who wonders why not.
If union supports claim we are held together by a treaty, they need to evidence to prove their theoretical position.
So far they attack the messenger, not the message with provided evidence that is contrary.
Stu,
My full apologies for hijacking the money that was missing until your persistence journalism investigation was villified.
But the problem of the SNP and and pretendy parliament is that Scotland has itself been hijacked under false premises, and not run from a true parliament,
The SNP know they can act with impunity and protected due to being a sub division of and under Westminster parliament Scotland Act.
Actually the opposite is true. Westminster devolved power to Scotland and the Scot’s went, “Weyhey!” with it. Now Westminster can’t intervene without being seen as interfering in Scottish matters and so there can be no check on corruption.
Sean Duffy says:
10 June, 2026 at 4:38 pm
“Scotland should demonstrate that it has not become some backward, banana republic.”
============
Do my eyes deceive me or is Swinney cashing in on that perception?
See two pics above-unmissable yellow background. Is Honest John double-jobbing as a banana wholesaler?
Cynicus @ 1.54 am “Is Honest John double-jobbing as a banana wholesaler?”
——
Double-crossing, certainly…
Consulted a thesaurus:
double-dealer?
double-speak?
double-faced?
double-bind?
double-agent?
Double adapter….
double trouble?
How many people know that Scotland had a two-tier system to approve legislation?
England had, and has, the Commons and Lords – approval from both is needed.
Scotland had the Parliament and the Convention.
UNTIL Spring 1707 – the Scotland Parliament passed the Act of Union BUT Queen Anne then abolished the Convention so it couldn’t oppose the Act – which it would have done as the 90 petitions that came in from the Burghs etc were ALL opposed to the Union.
So there are definite grounds to say the Union is illegal.
And what a lovely spring it was Sarah. I remember it like it was yesterday. The class of 1707′ Where are they now? We were young and the days were long. Stealing Turnips. Dreaming about the New World. We thought it would last for ever.
you’re right, the convention wasn’t called
this guy has the details
link to angrypict.substack.com
NB the convention’s entire purpose was to stop “things like this” from happening.
Thanks, Confused. I’m sure that the Convention wouldn’t truck GRR or men in women’s prisons, either.
I’ve just heard back from my LibDem constituency MEP, David Green, in response to my second email about the illegal behaviour of First Minister Swinney. I said we should have a recall mechanism and Mr Green said they tried to introduce one in the last session and guess who opposed it? A: the Scottish government. Q: Why wouldn’t the SNP Scottish government want to be answerable to the public?
After the end of every session of the Scottish parliament it would host an additional mandatory session, held under the Act of Salvo of 1663.
Its purpose was to allow any sovereign Scots who felt that their constitutional rights had been infringed or reduced by any act of that parliament, to challenge it. But 1707’s that mandatory Salvo session was unlawfully denied.
As Angry Pict spells out, had that session sat as it should have, it was a racing certainty that a Convention of the Estates would have been called and that it would have voted to strike the Act of Union down, such was the intensity of feeling against the Union by the sovereign Scots people.
The 1707 Act of Union had received the formal assent by majority of the Scottish parliament, and the formal royal assent of the Scottish monarch, but it did not receive its final assent from the sovereign Scots.
Lacking that assent from the highest authority in Scotland, the Act of Union was not legitimately passed by Scotland, and thus the Treaty has no legal or constitutional standing in Scotland.
Just 5 more years, xaracen, and the millions of Sovereign Scottish voters will see the sense of your arguments.
I have a jar of farthings somewhere. It’s illegal that nobody will any longer accept them in payment for goods and services.
Once restitution for the injustice of 1707 is made, I want my farthings re-instated as legal tender.
Scientific analysis indicates two main characteristics of SNP members. Old codgers and young chancers.
And where pray tell has Mr Swinney gone today.
left the country it seems and off to America with three parliamentary chums. Is he on holiday?
And who will be picking up the tab for the flights, transport and hotels. Not difficult to guess that one.
It’s hard at the top eh John troughing for Scotland. No shame whatsoever. Nose in the trough. A freeloader no different from his chum Peter Murrell. Rotten to the core.
They could have saved on the hotels if they had hired (or borrowed) a campervan. Probably borrowed. There’s bound to be one sitting unused, somewhere in Scotland. Probably as near new as makes no difference. May already be stocked with Venus razors, condiment sets, and super glue.
Fingers crossed he’s not granted an audience with the greatest living half-Scot. If he is, he might pick up all sorts of tips and tricks to bring the SNP’s grifting into a whole, new, bigly, beautiful league.
People in the independence movement need to start getting realistic with the facts that the SNP inner clique as utterly controlled by MI5. Murrell is a character who appeared quite obscurely to lead the biggest independence political party in Europe.
This should not be a surprise!They are enabled by their handlers in the SNP to ensure easy paths to prominance. Any actual independence supporters are a threat, so, folk like Murrell come in to sabotage (over a period of time) the cause.
Others who are ambitious, are lured into some sory of murkey dealings opening them up to blackmail and control. They can have an easy life by conforming, or imprisoned/discredited if the refuse to adhere to their colonial masters.
Some comply willingly believing that actually, by turning toward the brit state, they are doing the right thing. They do this by believing the lies and the feeling of great self importance.
Other enablars simply comply and will betray their closest friends, their principles and their nation for a handful of sweets and the promise of ‘state’ protection from any kind of prosecution.
As they rely on state protection it is made clear that only if they fully comply with the state will they be safe from prosecution. This adds more strings which are pulled by their colonial masters.
Then it dawns, they have forfitted all their principles, integrity and freedom for a little temporary power.
Does this sound like it could have happened to any prominant, or not sdo prominant SNP movers and shakers??
Make NO mistake… The enemies of Scotlands independence are hard at work in the SNP!
You actuall know them very well!!
You forgot to mention Trump. It can’t be a proper self delusion if you don’t manage to connect Trump to the failure of Leftover politics.
Or could it be, hold on to your flags!, the Scottish electorate are stupid. Just plain run if the mill downright Stupid.
As I’ve said before MI5 did have a plan but when they looked at the mass stupidity they thought,why bother these idiots would eat their own shit. Or as it turned out they like to eat the Special Needs Party’s excrement.
Ouch!
A smidge harsh, Mark.
Unless … one week until the by-elections. If the SNP candidates win, feel free to come back on here to crow “I told you so!”
I remember many years ago of the rumblings that many would not believe who had been corrupted That as way back at the end of last century, it has since been shown exactly who was poison to the movement
Val McDermid bears a strong resemblance to the mandrake plant.
*Sigh*
There will be no independence with the current version of the SNP and its really visually impaired membership.
Aide,
Which issue has been dealt with at length and with great discussion, please name when and where and what date with references specifically to this topic, Scotland and England treaty of union,
Sure – I would look at:
– Reference by the Lord Advocate of devolution issues under para 34, sch.6 of the Scotland Act 1998
– REFERENCE by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland – United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill
– OPINION OF LORD CARLOWAY, THE LORD PRESIDENT in the reclaiming motion by JOANNA CHERRY QC MP and OTHERS against THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
– R (Jackson) v Attorney General (2005)
I see whitevanman is justifying his first months HR ££salary££ by going of on one on trainspotter toilets at Holyrood.
It’ll be Coco the clown on his wee bike in the chamber next.
What a disappointment that place has plummeted to..
Alf Baird,
The discussion on wether Scotland or its old parliament has been connected to England through a treaty a 1707 or thereafter has actually never been investigated or an in depth study by the people of Scotland to ascertain its position,
So far it has alway been a debate on someone else,s conclusion and theory, but sadly lacking in facts,
It is certainly not one of those topics that the Snp or the pretendy parliament is about to hold,
And Mr Black overlooked many points during his observations after , ( the treaty ) it was pointed out to him,
And failed miserably to cause his thoughts of his own volition to enlarge or define on all aspects.
Leaving much undocumented.
Sturgeon is appearing shortly at the Dundee Book Festival. Wee Nicola has now been pimping her worthless autobio for TEN FULL MONTHS. A normal book promo tour goes from a few weeks to a few months, tops, dependent on how much money the author and their publisher have, and how needy they are for public approbation and affection.
This incredibly needy wee psycho clearly cannot handle being out of the (s)limelight for ten seconds, and needs her attention fix as often as she can get it, now she’s not a politician anymore.
But I think I have figured out what the Illiterate Pathology Kid is doing. She’s going to continue promoting her worthless shite scraps until the paperback comes out. Then she will do another publicity tour for that. Then she will tour her shitey ‘political revenge’ novel she’s promising/threatening to bring out just when the autobio paperback tour finishes. Seamless.
She will shit out a worthless work of pulp fiction every year like clockwork, a la Chuck Palahniuk. That way she will be on a neverending book tour, never be alone, she will always be in the public eye, and the vacuous, loveless, frigid void at her centre will never wake her up guilty and screaming apologies to Alex Salmond in the middle of the night.
She better fucking hope.
I see Swinney is flying out to the US today for Scotland’s game on Sunday.
Pretending that he is also promoting Scotland to the World so his trip is at Scottish Government expense!
I wouldn’t want to see any animal suffer but the RSPCA has a huge number of folk who can donate – Scotland is wee and it has the SPCA , please remember that when you are caught out by the expensive , heart wrenching ads by the RSPCA.
I searched online for “Animal Welfare Charities”.
This came up immediately:
« RSPCA – The Largest Animal Welfare Charity in the UK: We specialise in animal rescue & furthering the welfare cause for all animals. Click to learn more about & support the UK’s leading animal welfare charity. »
Only when I clicked for “MORE RESULTS”, then scrolled down the new second page did I eventually come across this:
« SCOTTISH SPCA
scottishspca.org
https://www.scottishspca.org
Scotland’s Leading Animal Welfare Charity – We work to improve the lives of all pets, wildlife and farmed animals in Scotland. Click to learn more about the leading Scottish animal welfare charity. »
————
To clarify, I then asked the following online question:
“Does RSPCA support animals in Scotland?”
SEARCH ASSIST yielded the following definitive answer:
« No, the RSPCA does not operate in Scotland; it only serves England and Wales. In Scotland, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Scottish SPCA) is the charity responsible for animal welfare.
It further reinforced this as follows:
« RSPCA’s Operations: The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) does not operate in Scotland. Its services are limited to England and Wales.
Scottish Animal Welfare: In Scotland, the charity responsible for animal welfare is the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Scottish SPCA). This organization is entirely separate from the RSPCA and focuses on the needs of animals within Scotland. »
And then again in this final summary:
« Key Differences Between RSPCA and Scottish SPCA –
RSPCA: Region Served: England and Wales
SCOTTISH SPCA: Region Served: Scotland »
—————
Scots should clearly bear this stark reality in mind in regards to legacies…
Not forgetting, what could the RSPCA possibly know about the care and welfare of haggis?
Thanks Fearghas, it’s why I come on here every time the RSPCA give us a new , expensive and horrific ad.
SPCA everyone! They need the funds and the animals need your help because it ain’t coming from the RSPCA!
An action for count, reckoning, and payment is a legal procedure that compels a party to account for their management of funds and make payment to the entitled party.
link to x.com
Ok, so the Alba Party didn’t work out.
Does that mean we’re just going to slink away and let our country die? Bitterly complaining while everything gets worse?
Or, why don’t we try again? If Nigel Farage can pick up enough votes to be the second biggest party in the Scottish Parliament, there’s nothing stopping us. It’s all there to be won. A patriotic, sensible, populist centre-left party that puts Scots – not woke – first can romp the polls. We know this, because Alex Salmond showed us how to win. The SNP and Labour are burst, they should be replaced. They can be replaced. Let’s replace them.
Why not start a Save Our Scotland party?
I’m sending out an SOS, my friends.
What do we have to lose?
Liberation of a people does not necessarily follow a political process within the colonial framework that is dominated by the colonial power and its ability to interfere and manipulate at all stages.
Which is why the people create a non-political liberation movement, based on the realisation that decolonization occurs under international law, not colonial or domestic law:
link to liberation.scot
Thanks, Alf.
Handy summary info sheet with video links, not least including this historic intervention:
« Prof Robert Black KC demonstrated that the events of 1707 did not create a new state, but rather extended the English state over Scotland. England’s executive, legislature and judiciary remained intact, while Scotland’s own were dissolved or subordinated. »
PROFESSOR ROBERT BLACK KC speech (The Union: “For Scotland everything changed. For England nothing changed.”)
[And I myself would add that the most catastrophic consequence of 1707 was that Scottish manhood fell (sic) under English military control in perpetuity. Sir Tom Devine (T.M.Devine) gives us a glimpse in his book ‘The Scottish Nation 1700-2000’. Devine writes: “Of the 157 battalions which comprised the British Expeditionary Force, 22 were Scottish regiments […] The human losses were enormous and unprecedented. Of the 557,000 Scots who enlisted in all services, 26.4 percent lost their lives. This compares with an average death rate of 11.8 percent for the rest of the British army between 1914 and 1918. Of all the combatant nations, only the Serbs and the Turks had higher per capita mortality rates, but this was primarily because of disease in the trenches rather than a direct result of losses in battle. The main reason for the higher-than-average casualties among the Scottish soldiers was that they were regarded as excellent, aggressive shock troops who could be depended upon to lead the line in the first hours of battle.”
link to youtube.com
Alf,
You really are determined that the next 5 years will be an exact repeat of the previous 5 years, aren’t you.
The question “How’s that working out for you?” just isn’t up for discussion.
Neither, I guess, is the question “How’s international law doing these days?”
That’s a good name – SOS is catchy. If you can get the Rev on board, that would help. Perhaps also have a chat with Peter A Bell who is thinking of a New Scotland Party.
Save Our Scotland policy ideas, or: how to stop worrying and rescue our nation:
In no particular order,
* Humza’s Hate Act (we all know who he hates) is an abomination. The Scottish Parliament has no reason to exist if it strips Scots of their rights. Replace it with a Free Speech Act, decriminalising *words*, and get the police out of the speech control business, forever. This won’t cost a penny, in fact it’ll save us money with the cops no longer chasing after gender critical feminists.
* Women’s rights are not up for debate. Fully implement the Supreme Court’s decision without fear or favour, and remove LGBTQ from our schools. No more transgender on the NHS.
* Non-citizens have no business making our laws. Q Trannyvan should be deported, but until we get to that, repeal the evil Scottish Parliament legislation that handed out votes to foreigners. Democracy only works for the demos, the Scottish Parliament is for Scots.
* Scrape all the barnacles off the ship of state. Sturgeon used public money to employ hundreds (thousands?) of her pals in dodgy “charities” and other Third Column organisations like Rape Crisis Scotland. Defund them all, immediately.
* Scots need affordable energy and jobs, not fuel poverty and decline. SoS supports using all of Scotland’s natural resources for the benefit of all of our people.
* The Scottish Parliament is meant to be our representative body – not our parents. Scrap all nanny state nonsense, such as minimum alcohol pricing, vape bans, sugar taxes. A free people doesn’t need the government supervising their diet.
* Universities are taking the piss out of us by facilitating mass immigration at the cost of opportunities for Scottish kids. Fix their funding so they can’t do that anymore. We have too many useless unis, some should close down, and others need to be slimmed down. Reallocate funds to FE colleges that teach useful skills we actually need instead
* The events surrounding the prosecution of Alex Salmond and the police investigation of Nicola Sturgeon are very strange. SoS will appoint an independent judge (not from Scotland, English, Welsh or Irish maybe) to head an official inquiry into the blatant corruption of the current SNP regime. Followed by criminal prosecutions.
These are all things the Scottish Parliament has the power to do, and they’d be very popular.
Am I wrong?
Nope, Not wrong at all.
@Red
You are abso fucking lutely right. There’s not one of your policies I wouldn’t vote for.
But here’s the thing. You wrote in your 9:44 PM post you would be “centre-left”.
Most, if not all, of your policies aren’t centre-left as those who claim to be centre-left these day understand them.
Centre left these days is open borders, trans woo woo, two-tier outcomes, and the ever changing hierarchy of identity related grievances. These kind of people would probably categorise your list of policies as “far right”.
You need to bear that in mind.
Finally, one you missed. An end to DEI and all the barmy excuses that give incompetent, sharp-elbowed grifters a boost into positions they don’t merit or a get out of jail free card, funded by the tax payer. We need meritocracy, blind to colour and the deployers of sob stories of historic injustice. In short, an end to two-tier.
Yup. “Centre Left” as in “True Blue Neo Tory” – and all the better for it, too.
In a word, no; it’s all just common sense, the kind of stuff which yer ordinary mannie/wifie in the street wants to see implemented. I daresay such things are considered “far right” these days but oh well, that’s (rather depressingly) where we are in 2026 🙄
Universities are not taking the piss. Scots can apply and do a degree if qualified. There is no shortage of places, quite the contrary, universities are desperate for students.
You do identify the basic problem though – funding, and the only real reason universities focus so much attention on foreign students is not just that they actually pay some fees (rather than the inadequate government funding), but those fees are substantial. English students pay fees too. It is these fees that actually keep the universities afloat these days but the lack of any fees from residents of Scotland actively encourages recruiting anywhere outside Scotland.
You say sort the funding out but if you are serious about your political ambitions, sort it out how exactly? This has been debated for decades, so what is your solution? Funding FE more is a good idea, but where is all this money coming from to fund FE and get rid of all the foreign fee-paying students, the taxpayer? The number of universities in Scotland is not exactly huge but there is a debate worth having about apprenticeships versus higher education. These used to be paid by employers, not the state but they abdicated that responsibility years ago and now complain about inadequate recruits.
Aiden,
You have misconstrued the conversation,
We are not talking of recent events although if you wish to bring that up, lets deal with that first,
The Scotland act was passed by the parliament for England and Wales under the Anglo – Irish agreement of 1801/ 1802.
In 1800 the parliament of Great Britain was dissolved to falcilitate the Anglo Irish agreement.
Once dissolved the parliament for England and Wales proceeded with the English / Ireland agreement,
It did not make or create a renewed treaty agreement with Scotland, which had been dissolved in 1800.
So the ” Scotland act” which now derived from the Anglo / Irish parliament for England , Wales and now Ireland had no legal position to offer Scotland a devolved parliament.
In 1707 the parliament for England and Wales along with the monarch of England dissolved the Scottish parliament from the union parliament with England.
In 1707 Scotland also withdrew its old parliament from the union with Englands parliament under the Scottish terminology law of Sine Die.
Both the Parliament of England and the parliament of Scotland ended the union of parliaments between the two Countries in 1707.
This left the old transferred parliament of England and Wales as the only Country in the parliament of Great Britain.
The 1707 treaty had agreed onterms and conditions for the new monarch of Great Britain, but when this failed as a union agreement so did the agreement of the monarch of great Britian.
So not a shared monarch of Great Britain since 1707.
The “Scotland act” from the government and parliament for England, Wales and Ireland is the continuation of the original hoax that Scotland and England are in some presumed union or treaty when this is not correct.
England released Scotland by dissolving it from the Parliament of England and Wale’s Great Britain parliament.
While the transferred old parliament of England and its old members were left in the great Britain parliament, which was not dissolved, still acts as the parliament for England and Wales in present day time.
The falsehood and hoax still remain from Westminster, it pretends it did not dissolve the old Scottish parliament from the union on multiple occassions.
And pretends that Scotland did not withdraw its parliament from the parliament of Great Britain under Sine Die in1707.
There is no union between Scotland and England, parliamentary or monarchy. Everything that has been applied since 1707 and 1800 is pure speil.
(crap, a story, and hoax ) for those do not know the meaning of the word.
Promoted and told by Westminster governance in which the wee pretendy parliament in Scotland derives its source from, inclusive in that is the present SNP.
The first and third article of the Union of Ireland Act 1800 is explicit in merging the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland:
“That Great Britain and Ireland shall upon Jan. 1, 1801, be united into one kingdom; and that the titles appertaining to the crown, &c. shall be such as his Majesty shall be pleased to appoint.”
“That the United Kingdom be represented in one Parliament”
Given that Great Britain includes Scotland, that couldn’t be more clear. It’s also worth reading the aforementioned cases (particularly Jackson) which set out the history of parliaments powers, and also confirm that legislation passed by the United Kingdom parliament post-1800 is effective in Scotland.
You insist on spelling your name wrong, Aiden.
So why should we believe anything else you write?
That’s a very fair point Hatey
Please don’t use the racist term “fair” again.
It rook international intervention at the highest level to bring about the Good Friday Agreement which agreement made provision for tbe people in the colony to decide on their future.
Albeit that the British would like to rat on the agreement which they suggest has passed its sell by date, Northern Ireland is now set to leave the UK and the Brits know it.
The Landscape has changed and like Chris Paton ex Hong Kong governor, the current UK governor or Secretary if State for NI knows the time is up.
And independence for Ireland will be the mid wife for Scottish independence, Tick tock, tick tock and they know it, fear it.
You forgot to add you’ve put £50 on it at the bookies, so you stand to make a killing.
Except, of course, you haven’t and you don’t.
You’re daft, obvs, but not that daft!
Absolutely wrong!
A united Ireland will fundamentally change politics in Scotland.
There is a distinct probability that much of the unionist community will…
a) Not take such a move lying down.
b) Upsticks to what many consider their cultural and religious homeland… Scotland; bringing all their bigotry, bile and devout Britishness with them.
The social and political upheaval would be milked by the British State as an example of what happens when the all powerful United Kingdom experiences disruption even in its farthest flung corner on a neighbouring island, and wouldn’t it be ten times worse if little chilly jocko-land tried it on here.
In 2014 the knuckle draggers with their pantomime costumes, penny whistles and drums only marched along Princess Street. If they’ve all fled across the North Channel in order to remain British they’ll be doing more than just marching against Scottish Independence!
Ireland is to busy getting butt fucked by Europa.
That’s how they pay rent to Brussels.
I think you’ll find the Irish have done very well out of EU membership. As technically did Scotland, in particular Objective 1 Status for the Highlands & Islands, hard won by a certain Winnie Ewing MEP.
But then that money was supposed to be in addition to normal UK Government funding, except that Westminster withdrew it’s funding and used EU funds on their own. Funny thing that…
A snapshot of what’s really going on:
link to unherd.com
Is this the article that allows you to read so far then wants money to read further? If Ireland sunk into the sea would anyone really notice?
There are various extreme psychological pathologies at work in Scotland, but there’s one type the SNP often exploits more than any other:
It’s called “Emotional Legitimacy”
And one of its symptoms goes like this: “People forgive incompetence, and more, if they feel represented”
This is the psychological heart of the malady afflicting those Scots who insist on voting for the SNP at elections and, in particular, those remaining members of Scotland’s discredited Scottish National Party.
It’s easy to ridicule those folk.
It’s easy to point and laugh at them and feel superior when one doesn’t suffer from the same ‘illness’ they do.
It’s easy to accuse those SNP members of being shit-eating, soiled-arse-licking, vomit-guzzling, simple-minded morons as implied by the video at the top of this article.
But it’s even easier to accuse those Scots who can’t understand that Scotland is a colony.
It’s even easier to accuse those Scots blind to their nations colonised predicament of the same kinds of behaviours exhibited by SNP’s ‘arse-licking’ membership – they, too, are suffering from a severe and debilitating psychological condition.
A party, or a government, can be incompetent, corrupt and chaotic, but if a significant portion of it the population feels:
… then competence and order becomes secondary.
This is how the SNP can maintain the loyalty of its current membership, and of those Scots who continue to support it at elections, even as conditions worsen.
Aidan,
By 1801/1802 Scotland was not in the parliament of Great Britain at all,
Due to the monarch of England and Westminster parliament dissolving the Scottish parliament from The Great Britain parliament,
So that Great Britain parliament in at the beginning of 1800 was only a parliament of England and Wales,
The deceit from Westminster is pretending it still held Scotland when it had dissolved Scotlands partin the union in 1707.
Likewise in 1707 Scotland withdrew its union parliament to the treaty the same as England, but under Scots law of Sine Die,
In other words as early as the year 1707 both parliaments and Countries officially cancelled Scotland from becoming part of Great Britain parliament,
That is factually incorrect though James, during the period 1707 – 1800 Scottish MP’s and peers sat in the GB parliament and legislation was passed to which was implemented in Scotland and recognised by the Scottish courts.
I think you need a woman James.
Aiden,
By dissolving the Scottish parliament so early on from what was supposed to create the united parliament of Great Britain it released Scotland from all obligations, the Great Britain parliament was no longer the parliament that included Scotland.
it released Scotland from all its obligations from the 1707 treaty.., that political move by Westminster did not consume the parliament or Country or Kingdom of Scotland.
It set it free.
Long before the England and wales parliament decided on the Anglo/ Irish agreement that began in 1800 Scotland was not part of the Great Britain Parliament,
I’m sorry I don’t follow this, what released Scotland from its oligations, what process was followed and what were the consequences? What historical evidence do we have to confirm that the ToU became ineffective in 1800 (I assume that’s what you mean).
The deceit and hoax come about when Westminster pretends that it had…not dissolved the parliament of Scotland from a union with Englands parliament in 1801/ 1802.
For England and Wales parliament of Great Britain ( which were the only two Countries left in that particular parliament ) consisted of England and Wales
Scotlands kingdom and realm had vanished from the parliament of Great Britain by agreement of Sine Die withdrawal and England dissolving the Scottish parliament.
Not in union, not in a continued treaty, not sharing a monarchy agreement, not any longer part of the Great Britain parliament.
The rest of Scotland history is the lie perpertrated that Scotland was captured, when in fact and history records distinctly show that Scotland was released from the union with England and Wales,
The rest is Colonialism.
And, Alf Baird this is where your evidence for proving that Scotland is a Colony and not a union stays , unspoken about.
Englands Westminster parliament cannot and could not consume a parliament of Scotland that does not exist as it was dissolved in England and Sine Die in Scotland,
No longer in a treaty to be magically regurgitated by Englands Westminster parliament for England and Wales in 1800s.
You say that it couldn’t happen, but unequivocally it did. The post-1800 UK Parliament passed legislation covering Scotland which the Scottish courts upheld.
Have you also any evidence that Scotland withdrew from the ToU through Sine Die (which isn’t actually a law, it’s a Latin phrase meaning “without a day”)?
If you can’t beat them join them.
Let’s talk about the past, let’s talk about Ireland!
The Crumlin Road break in.
The IRA walked straight in the front gates stole all the files with every Touts name on it. Not one person was shot or hurt. Why?
Because as said at the time
“They’d have to kill everyone of their own.”
Chucky Allah!!
The evidence that the Westminster parliament was indeed the parliament of England was the Anglo/ Irish Agreement in 1800s and acted as such in dissolving the parliament of Great Britains England and Wales parliament.
England and Ireland held discussion over Scotland during those first meetings.
And England convenetly forgot it had dissolved the Scottish parliament Officially from the 1707 treaty years previously.
And tacked Scotland on in the inclusion final heading. Making the deceit of their hoax extended.
Keeping in ones memory that the Scottish parliament and union ended in the 1700s by both the Countries of Scotland and England.
The government is to introduce internet ban for under sixteens. May as well say goodbye to a few people on here then.
It’s under 16 stones, Mark. Healthy, active people with lives are the ones that will be banned.
Lard asses with special needs posting from their bedrooms will be able to continue as before.
Aiden,
The parliament of Westminster the then acting monarch of England official dissolved the Scottish parliament in the 1700s
Its in the records of Hansard and Westminster parliament.
Scotland did a similar thing with ther parliament in Scotland under ” Sine die “. In the same year.
I assume that was to facilitate the ToU and the creation of the ‘new’ GB parliament?
There’s a lot of, frankly quite boring, talk of treaties and constitutional law and suchlike in this place.
Of course, in the end, such talk is pointless.
Ultimately, something given has no basis in value.
Scotland’s modern democracy, for example, – a democracy ‘given’ to the stupidly grateful Scots by England – is an illusion, and so the Scottish Government, along with all its instruments of democracy, is also an illusion.
This truth becomes obvious when we take a closer look at that most worthless of English ‘gifts’ to colonised Scotland, a devolved government.
Scotland’s devolved government is no government at all.
Scotland’s democracy is not real.
The votes given by Scots in Scotland’s elections have no value. They have no value because they have no inherent force – they can change nothing in Scotland.
In a real democracy:
“When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force.
And force, my friends, is violence… the supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.” – Jean Rasczak.
We need only consider what it is that backs up all the laws ever made on this Earth to see that Robert A. Heinlein was right.
MICHAEL FORAN – Lecture 2: SINGLE-SEX SPACES
link to youtube.com
« Michael Foran is Associate Professor of Law and a Fellow of Keble College where he teaches public law and jurisprudence. He is an expert in equality and anti-discrimination law whose work has been cited by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. He does regular media appearances to explain the law for a public audience and has provided consultation to charities, civil servants, public bodies, and the United Nations. »
Aiden,
That may have been their intention, however after dissolving the Scottish parliament in the 1700s and then dissolving the Great Britain parliament in the early 1800s no new or renewed treaty was created with Scotland in either historical case. or its now dissolved parliament.
It is a presumption by The parliament of Westminster for England and Wales, and later by the parliament of England, Wales and Ireland.
That is why many Scots consider the null and dissolved Scottish parliament devoid of the reality of what atually took place.
And yes Aiden, with NO Scotland in a parliamentary union with a union with Englands parliament since the early 1700s the peers from Scotland sit and sat in parliament for England and Wales at the chronological time period and still sit in the parliament that acts for England, Wales and now Ireland today.
Without a genuine Scottish parliament residing in the Parliament of Englands great Britain for over three hundred years or a renewed treaty with Scotland occurring when both dissolvings took place by Westminster parliament the only reality is that England holds Scotland onno legal basis other than by the deceits of the tongue and Colonialism.
If only one of the two parliaments to the 1707 treaty is dissolved that were to create the united kingdom of Great Britain,
But Then only one remains,
The Great Britain parliament of the united kingdom of Scotland and England ceased.
The peers from Scotland no longer represent Scotland parliament or sit in a union parliament,when entering the parliament for England and Wales,
All that has taken place since is codswallop, deceit and a hoax of non existent treaty between Scotland with Englands parliaments.
Just colonialism extended to cover Scotland with no legal basis after the Scottish parliament was removed and dissolved from the union to create the great britain parliament.
Which without Scotland, does not exist.