The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

You Are The Boris Johnson

Posted on August 21, 2020 by

Much as we might wish otherwise, we haven’t been able to help noticing other pro-indy websites doubling down on the “BOTH VOTES SNP, TRUST IN QUEEN NICOLA, THE 10TH MANDATE IS THE ONE THAT’LL WORK!” routine lately.

And however much we’ve tried to get people to grasp the seemingly-obvious fact that Boris Johnson is not looking at this debate from the same viewpoint we all are, reality doesn’t seem to be getting through to everyone yet.

So we thought we’d try a new tack.

DISCLAIMER: We’re not very good at impressions.


(a) Yes, I do. I’m sick of listening to their silly MPs complaining and I can’t wait to spend all that money we currently subsidise the ungrateful whinging Jockos with on something else. It’s nearly £200m a week, maybe we’ll give it all to the NHS! Dominic, do you know where we can hire another bus?

(b) No, of course I bally well don’t. The subsidy is a total myth, we wouldn’t have anywhere to park our nuclear subs, the Irish would probably reunite and I’d look a proper chump as the only Prime Minister of the Conservative And Unionist Party who failed to conserve the Union.


(a) Of course! Sure, the polls look bad but we could just trot out all that old stuff about the price of stamps going up and losing Doctor Who and they’d soon come trotting meekly back. Is that McDougall cove still available?

(b) Oh no, we’d get a proper spanking, old boy. They’re at 55% already and Brexit hasn’t even really happened yet. If we let them anywhere near a ballot box in the forseeable we’re well and truly scuppered.


(a) It’s going to be super! We took back control! What could go wrong?

(b) It’s a damn tricky pickle, to be honest – we still haven’t got a deadly pandemic under control, the economy is plummetting faster than a working-class oik’s exam grades as a result, unemployment’s going absolutely through the roof when we cut off the furlough scheme in a few weeks and we’re about to dump a no-deal Brexit on top of the whole terrible mess for good measure.

You and I and our old Bullingdon chums will be fine, of course – there’s nothing quite like a good bit of disaster capitalism for energising one’s pension pot – but I’ll be honest with you, I don’t think the common-or-garden Jockos are about to suddenly fall back in love with dear old Blighty any time soon.


(a) No. We could end up being unpopular in Scotland, and we in the Conservative Party have no experience of unpopularity in Scotland – I simply don’t know how we’d cope. I mean, we won an election there barely 65 years ago! The very idea is simply intolerable and perish it all to heck.

(b) Well, yes – as opposed to what, my dear fellow? Is the idea that we should grant a referendum now, when we’d lose, because in future their support might get higher and we might lose? Are you telling me we should concede defeat now in order to avoid defeat in future? To chuck in the towel at the Oval before the second innings even starts? I won’t have it, chaps!

Or are you telling me that it’d be smart to do it now because we might actually win? I must admit, I don’t quite get why the tartan-trousered separatists would be arguing for that. They’ve spent these last six years crying patience, and now that they’re a fragile handful of points ahead they want to rush headlong at it rather than waiting a little longer for what they’d consider an absolutely certain victory?

But I don’t buy it. I mean, even if we were accepting it was only a matter of time, surely we’d want to hold off until the last possible moment so that we could bleed the place dry, cripple that blasted toytown Parliament of theirs and create as many barriers between them and the EU as we can so that going it alone is as difficult and unattractive a prospect as possible, if only to discourage the Paddies and the Taffs from following suit?

And the longer we delay, the better the chance of a change in fortune – no matter how far behind you are there’s always a chance of rain stopping play, after all, and there looks to be at least a fair fighting chance that the ghastly Nats might tear themselves to pieces soon over one thing or another.

But damn it all, isn’t “holding out heroically to the last man” the Blitz Spirit that made this country great? We didn’t get ourselves out of Dunkirk by saying “it’s all hopeless” and waving the white flag to old Johnny Hitler on the spot, did we? We shall fight them on the benches! No surrender, I say!


Mostly (a)s: You are not Boris Johnson. You’re a Yes supporter who thinks the Prime Minister sees things from the same “what’s best for Scotland” perspective you do. And he really, really, really, really doesn’t. Good grief, haven’t you noticed that by now?

Mostly (b)s: You are Boris Johnson and you should probably be at work. Although speaking on behalf of the nation, no rush.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 21 08 20 14:58

    You Are The Boris Johnson | speymouth

173 to “You Are The Boris Johnson”

  1. John Digsby says:

    Spot on. No idea why people in one breath call Boris an absolute chance, out of touch with normal people, let alone Scotland – and then in the next breath support an approach that requires repudiation of all those characteristics

  2. Stuart Hood says:

    On a slightly more positive note, every single thing that de Spaffel decides on or touches leads to a u-turn and/or disaster sooner or later…

  3. Republicofscotland says:

    I believe that Johnson will be thinking in terms of mostly (B’s). Westminster in general isn’t going to give up 313 years of power over Scotland and all the benefits that come with it lightly.

    The polls are beginning to move in over favour and the likes of Johnson and Gove don’t like it. Will they be thinking of a dastardly plan to somehow nobble the possibility of a second indyref, you bet they will, but as you have clearly stated on several occasions, Johnson just needs to dig his heels into his 80 majority and do nothing. I mean its not as if the British nationalist media is going to put him under any pressure to do the right and democratic thing is it now.

    On the upside the utterly incompetent handling of this pandemic, the ineptness over the economy and the disastrous handling of Brexit and the post Brexit deal by Johnson, as there’s far more economic and financial pain to come, will probably see the polls for independence rise even more.

    Surely the oncoming power grab from Westminster that will leave Holyrood impotent, has been detected by Sturgeon and all the other non Tory MSP’s at Holyrood, and they realise that Scottish independence is the only real way forward if only for self preservation of their political careers.

    Afterall vanity and self preservation along with remuneration, must surely be at the top of the tree for any aspiring or successful politician.

  4. kapelmeister says:

    Scotland chose independence on 7th May 2015 by returning 56 SNP people to the Commons. Sturgeon should have pushed that line for all it was worth. Instead she preferred to devote her energies to plotting against her party and get worthless people onto the NEC (Nicola’s Eerie Cabal).

  5. Big Jock says:

    Correct – Boris will wait until Rome crumbles before he concedes Scottish Independence via a section 30.

    Thoughts on why the SG are trying to disrupt, delay or cancel Martin Keatings court case.

    They have no plans in place for Indy Ref-2 . No funding, no teams and no strategy. So they can hide behind Boris’s refusal. It’s useful to them. If the case goes in our favour. They can’t hide behind the waiting for Boris excuse.

    However even if it is successful. Nicola has another excuse pre- prepared. She revealed it a few months ago. Now is not the time for a referendum as they are dealing with the economic fallout from Covid- 19. 5-10 years!

    One thing I will say for Nicola. She can create more diversions than Transport Scotland and more delays than Scotrail. She is almost masterful at it.

    Makes me wonder what the excuse would have been if Covid hadn’t come along and Martin then won the peoples case.

  6. Zen Broon says:

    It’s like all those U-turns never happened.
    Johnson is not Ming the Merciless, he is a lazy, incompetent, value-free toff.
    His hapless regime is an international joke, now heading for uncontrolled Brexit chaos.
    Sure, don’t underestimate your enemy, but for pity’s sake don’t overestimate him either.

  7. Frost says:

    I think we’re reaching the stage whereby we need to stop relying on the SNP to secure independence. For sure, next year we vote for the combination that will secure the biggest pro-indy majority possible whether that’s SNP/SNP, SNP/Green, SNP/ISP or SNP/Salmond Party. The section 30 request is then handed in (should the courts determine that it is indeed required!) and when the inevitable refusal comes along that’s when the mass non-violent protests begin.

  8. Big Jock says:

    Kapel – They also won 50.8% of the popular vote in 2015 as well. So it was legitimate.

  9. Astonished says:

    The whirlwind is coming. I think everyone feels it.

    I don’t think asking the amoral liar johnston is an option.

    Telling your msp you wont vote for him if the hate crime bill isn’t dropped pronto is.

    And remember don’t vote woke. I think Nicola better start listening.

  10. kapelmeister says:

    Sturgeon won’t backtrack and be persuaded to adopt a plan B for the simple reason that it would be an admission she got it badly wrong. And to an utter narcissist like her that would be anathema.

  11. kapelmeister says:

    Big Jock @2:03


  12. Effijy says:

    Can you imagine going to a holiday destination where you
    Wouldn’t be welcome in any street in the country?

    Can you imagine going for a stroll with your partner as soon as the
    Security team are ready and have you surrounded?

    How about you couldn’t go for a drink or meal anywhere a local might be?

    I’m hoping the idiot who had just done taken this holiday is here to
    Have a last look at Scotland before we send him packing for good.

  13. JGedd says:

    In other words, those who cling to the idea that just one more push will cause Johnson to relent, realising the justice of their cause, are just creating an image of Johnson which aligns with their wishful thinking.

    Is this not the position often taken by the neglected & spurned spouse/lover who refuses to believe that they have invested so much belief & trust in an uncaring partner – simply because the truth is too hard to bear?

  14. Big Jock says:

    It is going to end in tears , and it is entirely the SNP leaders fault. The movement is diverging from the SNP. The movement is the SNP , without us they go back to being a provincial party.

    Some in the SNP need to act to remove Sturgeon. She will not walk away.

  15. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Sure, don’t underestimate your enemy, but for pity’s sake don’t overestimate him either.”

    The article at no point suggests he’s a genius, only that he’s motivated by self-interest. He made all those U-turns for reasons. What, from his perspective, could he ever hope to gain from U-turning on a Section 30? Explain it to me.

  16. Terry says:


    Know your opposition. The worrying thing is that the SNP does. So what does that tell you? We are being gaslighted.

    Great post.

  17. stonefree says:

    @ Kenny at 1:48 pm

    Who’s in charge of this crew? ..Smith

    Another woky has surfaced and standing in Dr.Whitford’s constituency for the Scottish Parliament. a Gavin Lundy
    He is incredibly dense
    I would suggest if this appointment is confirmed as it will be ,a question over the influence held over locals , should be asked

  18. AYRSHIRE ROB says:

    Or we could spend their doe on these gid things.

    Am fur thon motar masel

  19. Big Jock says:

    “Quite amazingly NEC is told what NEC will do before NEC actually meets. I d encourage branches and SNP members also to write to NEC as some MPs have. We can’t be Labour of 90’s repeating Dennis Canavan style targeting mistakes.”

    Angus McNeil Twitter

  20. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “They also won 50.8% of the popular vote in 2015 as well. So it was legitimate.”

    No they didn’t. They got 49.97%. (1,454,436 votes out of 2,910,465.)

  21. leither says:

    kapelmeister says:
    21 August, 2020 at 2:01 pm
    Scotland chose independence on 7th May 2015 by returning 56 SNP people to the Commons.


    except the snp manifesto in 2015 didnt call for independence or indyref2

    see tommy sheppard’s maiden speech at 7.20

    Big Jock says:
    21 August, 2020 at 2:03 pm
    Kapel – They also won 50.8% of the popular vote in 2015 as well. So it was legitimate.


    except they didnt. the snp won 49.5%

    kapelmeister says:
    21 August, 2020 at 2:07 pm
    Big Jock @2:03



    exactly not. need to wait longer before re writing history

  22. leither says:

    thank you stuart

  23. Albert Herring says:

    However SNP+Greens had over 50%.

  24. kapelmeister says:

    Regarding the 2015 election, the Scottish Greens got 1.3% of the vote. So there was a majority of the popular vote for independence.

  25. David R says:

    Imagine there are a few in the SNP’s inner circle that are hoping that when we leave the UK that it’ll be such a disaster that they’ll be power for the foreseeable future and may even take a stab at an indy ref. Although it could equally lead to voters worried at even more turmoil in leaving the UK and support plummeting.

  26. Bob Mack says:

    Sadly the SNP camp is divided at this time into those who have absolute faith in Nicola and those like myself who believe she is supervising a series of disastrous decisions as far as Independence and the welfare of the party is concerned. I need not repeat them all.

    Many are soothed by the poll numbers into the mistaken idea they will come to mean something tangible. They are of course right if we have a referendum.

    Boris has stated over and over and over his intention to keep the UK intact and the latest news of the Brexit talks makes that a political necessity for future trading in the world.

    I don’t know how else to make people open their eyes before it’s too late. It may be already. The personality of Nicola is strong and compelling, but so is independence which sadly like Smallaxe many may not live to see.

    For myself, I am losing hope. It is a common theme in history where charismatic leaders are followed to the abyss and beyond because people refuse to believe what is obvious to others.

    They find other sources of comfort and conformity on other blogs who write comforting words of hope without the slightest evidence to back it up. That is what happened to former Wingers.

    The clock is ticking on our hopes of freedom.

  27. leither says:

    except a vote for the scottish green party in the 2015 general election was also not a vote for independence.

    keep digging

  28. kapelmeister says:

    Sturgeon has allowed Johnson to do what he wants with Scotland’s money and Scotland’s parliament.

    Johnson can now spend that Scottish pound in Croydon.

    For that Sturgeon ought to spend time in a pound in Croy.

  29. Big Jock says:

    A lot of semantics going on here. The SNP and the Greens both support independence!They won over 50% of the popular vote, regardless of what was or wasn’t in their manifesto.

    As we all know manifestos aren’t worth a grain of salt once you gain power

  30. Sweep says:

    “Crikey, chaps! Looks like that bolshie Bath-based blogger’s rumbled us! I thought the old Hush-Hush Brigade had nobbled him like a nag in a knacker’s yard. Govey, you’ll have to have another word with your mate Wishy-Washy or whatever he’s called. Tell him to ramp up the rhetoric or he won’t see ermine this side of the millenium!”

  31. Rm says:

    If the SNP really wanted Independence why did they not demand to stay in Europe after 66 percent of Scotland’s people wanted to stay in, we can still demand it, we are an equal partner in a union that’s never worked for Scotland, get out now before December, every party seems to go on about democracy so why are the Scottish government not pushing for it right now, something’s nae right.

  32. Rodric Selbie says:

    Another view….There are a lot of people unhappy and frustrated with the SNP leadership’s recent handling of the drive to independence, and I totally get that. There are a lot of indies who don’t see enough happening to keep them happy. But there’s an important consideration at play here:
    You didn’t put them into Holyrood to make you ‘happy’. You put them in power to get you independence.
    There’s a vital difference between thinking tactically, which will win you the battle, and thinking strategically, which will win you the war. Tactically, it doesn’t look like much is happening just now. Strategically, though …
    A wee story. Germany had the resources to win WW2, even fighting on two fronts, and their ‘blitzkreig’ tactics hammered both Western Europe, and Russia in the early days of Operation Barbarossa.
    But an allied strategic decision was made to deprive them of just one resource: oil. One of the biggest tank battles in history, at Kursk, was based on a desperate and failed German drive to win the Baku oil fields. That summer of 1943 was as far as Hitler’s expansionism took him. By 1945, Germans were synthesising fuel – even food oil – from coal, and aircaft and tanks were abandoned because they’d run out of gas.
    Limiting your thinking to the tactical will lose you the war.
    Let’s have a look at the map for the independence campaign.
    Where do we have to win? The answer is not ‘Scotland’.
    We have to win on the world stage. We need global recognition that we are an independent country. Kosovo and Serbia received prompt global recognition; Taiwan and Kurdistan did not (Kurdistan voted 93% for independence in 2017). You see now how we need to win, but in far more than Scotland?
    We need to be seen to have won by the UN, honourably, democratically, and fairly. If we win out in the face of democratic oppression, then that helps our chances for global recognition.
    There are some who promote UDI – and again, I get what they want, and have to admit to temptation. But history is not kind to them. Think US Declaration of Independence, Ireland’s UDI, Rhodesia’s declaration – even when ultimately successful, rivers of blood had to be waded before Westminster recognised their independence. My furious pacifism cannot bear the thought of my countrymen and my English cousins unnecessarily dying, when a peaceful political solution remains possible.
    There are those who push for another independence party. I don’t have a view one way or the other here, save to say that D’Hondt system has always been, historically, notoriously difficult to ‘game’. It’s in use in many countries, and attempts have rarely had significant benefits.
    Interestingly, it was Wings over Scotland’s own Stuart Campbell – he of the Wings Party idea of 2019 – who four years previously had analytically dissected the idea of a tactical push for indy list votes. Stuart himself concluded that it was somewhere between difficult to impossible. He summarised by saying that “tactical voting – of any sort and for anyone’s benefit – in [a Holyrood election] is a mug’s game.” (AMS for Lazy People, 23 August 2015).
    There are many (most?) who have said that we’ll never get a Section 30 from Westminster, they’ll keep saying “no”, so what’s the point? But I’m not convinced they’re correct, and here’s where I see the strategic thinking coming from the upper floors at the Holyrood Parliamentary building.
    Westminster has spent decades, literal decades, telling anyone who’d listen that Scotland – with more than twice as much oil as Bahrain and Brunei combined* – is the only thing in the whole, wide world that Tories will subsidise out of the goodness of their altruistic hearts. Tory and Labour both have publicly professed for generations that Scotland is an economic millstone around England’s neck. The Daily Mail and the Express have (to my glee) been pushing this for years. To paraphrase Napoleon: Never interrupt your enemy while they’re making a mistake.
    Westminster’s problem is not that many people in Scotland believe it. Westminster’s problem is that many people in England are starting to believe it. It’s rapidly getting to the point that many right-wing English voters (who, don’t forget, elect governments down there) want rid of the ‘spongers to the North’. A recent YesCymru poll had Tory voters in England evenly split on the question of ‘English Independence’.
    It is becoming increasingly unpalatable for Tories in Westminster to refuse a Section 30 order for IndyRef2. Not because the Scots want it; they don’t care about us, and will probably never listen to our requests. That won’t change – and on that point, the impatient folks and I are in complete agreement.
    No, if we do go the Section 30 route, it’ll be because the Tories own supporters in England want it to happen. If it works that way, there’s an added bonus: you won’t see Jackson Carlaw on Twitter for weeks. Can you imagine him having to publicly support BoJo’s pronouncement that IndyRef2 is a good idea? He’ll turn a shade of purple they’ll have to invent a new name for.
    Nicola Sturgeon is quite rightly avoiding constitutional sparring matches in the middle of this pandemic. She is focussing on people’s lives, and is seen to be focussing on people’s lives. Her efforts are winning more votes to the Yes cause than arguing with BoJo ever would, as I’ve heard in many conversations with (formerly?) unionist friends.
    Meanwhile, pressure for a Section 30 Order is growing in Westminster. Just not from Scotland, where it would never have mattered anyway – but from England. And a political player of Nicola Sturgeon’s calibre knows this.
    Whether it will end up playing out this way, or events take us in a completely different path, I don’t know. But I see a long game, being very, very well played.
    Some would be wise to consider the words of Sun Tzu:
    “Victorious warriors will win first, then go to war; defeated warriors will go to war first, then seek to win.”

    *It’s true. Look it up. The CIA’s world factbook has some fascinating pages on national proven oil reserves.

  33. schrodingers cat says:

    you’re wrong bob

    by all means, have a difference of opinion, but if you are factually wrong then stu and others are correct to point out your mistakes, simply to ensure you dont repeat them elsewhere

    accept it and move on

  34. kapelmeister says:

    leither @2:27

    A Green vote in 2015 sure as he’ll wasn’t a vote to keep the union.

    In 2015 Sturgeon (I refuse to refer to her as Nicola anymore) should have said that No only won the referendum by means of The Vow. The Vow which wasn’t kept. She should have said that therefore the 2014 result was null and void. That Scotland had just given its verdict on the 2014 result and had overturned it. And then pushed on from there.

    Instead Sturgeon was in May 2015, still in the early days of being FM and was absolutely loving it. She was never going to do anything that might jeopardise her chance of being at Bute House for years. Plus, she had work to do getting loads of woke people into positions of power in the SNP. To hell with indy has been her private mantra for years.

  35. Vivian O'Blivion says:

    Except, perhaps an amicable divorce settlement now is better than an acrimonious one later. Johnson defers strategic decisions to Cummings. Cummings believes he has a “super forecaster brain” like a Mentat in the Dune, si-fi novels.
    Cooperation now might get them a 30 year lease on Faslane. Holding us against our manifest will, indefinitely will result in them having to quit Faslane with immediate effect at the end of the transition period.
    They really don’t have any good options for housing their fleet of nuclear subs with Faslane denied them.

  36. kapelmeister says:

    Anyone noticed that Rodric Selbie is an anagram of Pete Wishart?

  37. Rob says:

    Oh deary deary me, I’m becoming a conspiracy theorist.

    How long is Boris going to be there?

    Is he the sort of chap who’d “Do the decent thing,” but leave the paying for the next chap in the hot seat?

    How bad is Brexit going to be and how bad do things have to get for minds behind him to consider it a win? Would they consider breaking the Union a bonus?

    I think maybe there’s something hallucinogenic down this rabbit hole. Certainly, it’s not wise to build hopes on how badly sold-out your opponent may be.

  38. Big Jock says:

    Rodric – I agree with this.

    However the real issue is that we no longer believe anything the SNP tell us. Our leaders expect us to operate on “Blind Faith”.

    The problem with that kind of leadership. Is that eventually people lose faith, when that faith is proven to be misguided. Nicola cannot keep marching us to the top of the hill , only to admire the view.

    To be honest it’s mentally exhausting. It’s like perpetually studying for a Maths exam that never comes. Eventually you see the pointlessness of the process.

    The Yes movement can no longer operate on the “Jam Tomorrow” principle. We need to know where the Jam is and when we are getting it.

  39. Big Jock says:

    Written within the constitution of the SNP is that they exist to get independence from the UK.

    So this idea that because they didn’t set out a road map to independence in their 2015 manifesto.Makes it no longer a vote for an independence party is wrong.

    The SNP don’t need to put it in their manifesto. It’s in every bit of their constitution. Everyone and their dug knows that.

  40. TheItalianJob says:

    Unfortunately the Scottish electorate in the Indy2014 bottled it. Polls for Indy currently showing support for Indy at 54-55% without the DN’s. This is still too close for comfort when last time we had the likes of this Labour MP in the commons.

    Jim Hood Labour MP

    In February 2014, Hood outlined his opposition to Scottish independence in a commons debate, stating “Even if the SNP was right and there was a grand, great thing at the end of the rainbow for the SNP and its debate for independence, I would still be against it. If the Scottish people are going to be better off economically and so on, I would still be against breaking away from the Union”

    We wonder why we don’t vote Labour!

    As long as we have people in Scotland with this mindset what hope have we got for Independence. Norway succeeded with a vote of 90%+++ for Independence way back in the 1900s.

  41. J Galt says:

    Rev. Stuart Campbell@2.10pm

    Also does anyone seriously think that the strategic policy of the UK depends on the competence or otherwise of one man?

    There will be a team of the finest working on this, indeed you can see their handiwork already by examining the leadership and the direction they taking the SNP, if Johnson as frontman falters then he will be replaced.

  42. Big Jock says:

    Rob – I think you are right.

    Boris will resign after Brexit in December. He is already toxic. The next incumbent will say they are sorting out the mess of Brexit. Boris is being used by the party to do the dirty work of Brexit.

    Who takes over is anyone’s guess. Hot favourite is Rishi Sunac the great economic Houdini.

  43. Big Jock says:

    Italian Job – Norway is a good example and similar to Scotland.

    They triggered independence from Sweden , by setting up foreign embassy which was against the articles of union. They then set up a constitutional monarchy by electing a King down in Denmark.

    He came to Norway and led the country to independence.

    If anyone gets a chance. Watch the Kings Choice on BBC I player. It’s all about Norway trying to fight off the German assault in World War 2.

  44. Republicofscotland says:

    Rodric Selbie, a fairly reasonable summary, however what is the strategy for the power grab that will virtually negate our parliaments ability to govern properly. I’m under the impression that the power grab will happen long before any S30 is forthcoming.

    What is your opinion on this, and what, if any, plan is being formulated at Holyrood to stave off this attack.

  45. Dave Beveridge says:

    The thing that utterly infuriates me is the THREE wasted years trying to overturn a democratic vote down south, time that would’ve been better spent putting the sh*tters up the folk here reminding them what a total catastrophe it’s going to be.

    Still, we had Ian Blackford telling the HoC that we wouldn’t be dragged out of Europe against our will. That fairly showed them.

    My fear now is the line of attack will be, “Look at all the upheaval with Brexit… it’ll be a hundred times worse with independence and there’s no guarantee they’ll let you back in anyway and we won’t trade with you so…”

    The majority attitude will then be, “Och well, better the devil you know.”

  46. Robert Louis says:

    The Scotgov have every kind of democratic mandate needed for indy. They have been in power as the Scottish government for over a decade, with a declared first aim of independence for Scotland. They have won Westminster elections, absolutely trouncing all the unionist parties combined, and Scottisdh parliament elections, with twice as many MSP’s than their nearest rival. They have more councillors in Scotland than any other party.

    So, you see, they already have many, many, democratic mandates for independence. The ONLY reason a political party would choose NOT to advance their single most important stated aim in such a situation, is because they really would rather not do so. Do you seriously think at this stage, we would still be twiddling our thumbs, if Alex Salmond was still in charge? Of course not. The difference is, that Alex Salmond wanted independence, Nicola Sturgeon does not.

    Indeed, it is now blindingly clear that the very last thing NS wants is independence. She has to occasionally mention it to get the votes in – so expect a bit more of it in the run up to May next year. But after elections, it will be the same old lying two-faced sh*te of ‘oh, Boris won’t let us, well never mind re-elect us in five years time and then he definitely cannot say no’. Yeah, that kind of bullsh*t.

    Anybody who still cannot see that Nicola sturgeon has no desire whatsoever to achieve independence, needs to see a doctor.

    Independence is now the majority Scottish viewpoint, and ANY political leader, anywhere in the world in such circumstances who wanted independence would be calling press conferences, asserting the right to choose, demanding the referendum. So, when the polls came out this week, what did Nicola do?? Sweet f*** all, that’s what.

    Nicola Sturgeon is now the biggest obstacle to independence. It is there for the taking, but no, she wants to dither and dither and dither, just one f***ing excuse after another.

    She is a fraud, and the entire independence movement needs to wake the f*** up. Yes it’s depressing when you realise this, but you need to face reality. She could be well on the way to independence and getting Scotland to STAY in the EU if she wanted, but her getting re-elected next year is much, much, much more important to her. Being first minister is much more important to her than indy.

    Nicola Sturgeon needs booted out of her job, and out of the SNP, and her husband too. Then we can get a leader who actually wants independence.

    Next May will be far, far, too late. The minute we are out of the EU, the Scots Parliament will be closed – what on earth else do you think that shiny new building for the UK government in Edinburgh is for???. It is utterly unforgivable that it is an SNP Scottish government, that is sitting idly by, while Scots are forcibly dragged out of the EU, wholly against their wishes.

  47. TheItalianJob says:

    Jim Hood speech in the HoC in 2014.

  48. Robert Louis says:

    Big Jock at 310pm,

    Exactly. That is just one of many, many pathetic excuses. To even suggest that some people might not know the SNP want independence when they vote for them, is just ridiculous. I mean just grade A nonsense.

  49. Robert Louis says:

    oh, and Joanna Cherry is still being vlocked by Nicola Sturgeon from standing for the Edinburgh MSP seat. And make no mistake, Nicola is right behind this. Why? Joanna cherry actually wants Scottish independence, NS does not.

  50. leither says:

    Anyone noticed that kapelmeister is an anagram of arse like temp?

  51. Big Jock says:

    Robert – It pains me to say it , but you are correct.

    Nicola Sturgeon is a “Fraud”. Look at her record and everything she has done since 2014. I think she was genuine when she asked T May for the Section 30 in 2017. Everything after that has been about avoiding independence.

    After all she even said before asking Boris that she knew the answer would be no. Why in God’s name would you set yourself up for an outcome that was already a failure. Because it was actually a ruse. She wanted him to say no. It meant she could hide for another year at least.

    Then came Covid -19. Within a week of the lockdown she cancelled indy ref 2 for the rest of 2020. Job done. How very bloody convenient. Boris didn’t cancel Brexit , but she cancelled indy ref 2!

    Then she through in the double get out whammy! Until the economic impact of Covid is over. An immeasurable , subjective and long lasting process that nobody knows the end of!

    Then there is the Salmond disloyalty and skulduggery!

    Then the shunning of Jo Cherry. My theory on that one is that she sees her as a threat and she eliminates all threats to the Cabal. Jo Cherry took on Boris when he prorogued parliament , and beat the crap out of him. Sturgeon didn’t even put her gloves on, she just let Boris trash the whole of Scotland. (Deliberately though).

    So in essence what a complete and utter shambles. How did we get into this and ho do we get out of it?

  52. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “To even suggest that some people might not know the SNP want independence when they vote for them, is just ridiculous.”

    Unfortunately, when you literally put the exact words “The SNP will always support independence – but that is not what this election is about” in your manifesto, it’s very hard to then say that the votes you got were for independence.

  53. Breeks says:

    Big Jock says:
    21 August, 2020 at 3:03 pm
    Rodric – I agree with this.

    However the real issue is that we no longer believe anything the SNP tell us. Our leaders expect us to operate on “Blind Faith”.

    I do not agree with it. Not one word.

    We are not standing still in Scotland, we are in reverse. We have lost our European Citizenship. Our Sovereign Constitution has been left undefended. Our economy faces imminent deregulation and wilful divergence from EU convergence criteria, plus fragmentation before ad hoc Trade Agreements we have no control over. Many of our European friends have had to leave us and go home after they were promised protection and safety. Our democracy has been overruled and our Nation subjugated. Out NHS is imperilled by privatisation and asset stripping to sweeten US Trade Deals. Our Parliament is on it’s knees with head bowed and begging bowl extended for a Section 30 Agreement.

    How much provocation does it take for “our” Government to stop dicking about with disgusting conspiracies to smear Alex Salmond, spiking the Holyrood careers of big hitters like Joanna Cherry so the NEC can pick and choose candidacies for themselves, and promote Self ID and Gender Recognition and Mickey Mouse Hate Crime Bills which have been roundly condemned as incompetent, and actually start contributing ”something” to the defence of Scotland’s Sovereign Constitution?

    Boris Johnson, and before him Theresa May were a global laughing stock for their craven incompetence and delusional beliefs. Europe got what it wanted from them. Ireland got what it wanted from them. Northern Ireland got what it wanted from them. The United States of America under Trump will get what it wants from them. Even the bloody Chagos Islanders got the better of Westminster.

    Yet here in Scotland, with our illustrious leader who cannot find the time to attend our marches or rallies, nor hardly bring herself to utter the word Independence, Scotland must endure being completely outplayed, fked off the park, by these Westminster’s dunces, as we are sold down the river and told that our disaster is an essential component of the SNP great master plan. A master plan which everybody and his dog knows doesn’t even exist.

    But never mind. Vote SNP x 2 next year and they’ll promise us a choice on having a referendum…. Will they aye?

  54. Big Jock says:

    Rev – Noted and semi agree.

    However the SNP are still the party of independence. Leaders come and go. The constitution is not written by the likes of Sturgeon. She technically had no right to put that caveat in there.

  55. Big Jock says:

    Breeks – Do you think it’s deliberate failure, or do you think Sturgeon is inept when it comes to negotiations?

  56. kapelmeister says:

    leither @3:41

    First class. 10 out of 10.

  57. Derick fae Yell says:

    Norway achieved independence by a parliamentary route, in the first instance

    On 7 June 1905 the Storting passed a motion dissolving the Union with Sweden.

    The Independence referendum on 13 August 1905 was a confirmatory one, AFTER the parliamentary vote.

  58. leither says:

    a guy alone can sometimes be very dim

    but for outstanding stupidity you can’t beat teamwork

  59. robertknight says:

    People seem to think that if Boris agrees to a S30 then it’s game on.

    Ahem, a minor point of order –

    Any Bill enabling such must get through both Houses of Parliament at Westminster.

    Any member of either House can table amendments, they can filibuster, and a simple majority can reject the Bill at any stage prior to it receiving Royal Assent.

    Furthermore, when similar legislation goes through the Scottish Parliament, with a minority adminstration in place, it too can be victim of similar wrecking tactics from the opposition.

    Sturgeon will do whatever her handlers instruct her to do, so don’t expect a request for a S30 from Edinburgh until London decides the time is right – for London!

    And as we all know, now is not the time.


  60. jfngw says:

    The 2015 election was not promoted as supporting independence, the SNP even said this. It would also be a bit ludicrous as they had just lost a referendum. The prediction was that losing the vote could cause a collapse in their vote, it was purely a survival campaign and possible contained lot of protest votes by those angry about the aftermath response from Westminster and EVEL.

    It’s irrelevant how many seats are taken, apart from ejecting some unionists. If there is less than 50% vote for independence parties then there is not going to be any referendum. Even then Westminster will claim it needed to be over 50% for the SNP alone.

    You can disagree with this but as they have already used this argument to claim there currently isn’t a mandate at Holyrood, how much more proof do you need.

  61. leither says:

    possible contained lot of protest votes by those angry about the aftermath response from Westminster and EVEL

    45% voted yes, they then switched to the snp, the nos went back to voting lab/lib/tory etc. thats why they got wiped out

  62. leither says:

    the tory mps will do whatever bojos whips instruct them to do.

  63. AndSpouse says:

    I think the whole bumbling buffoonery is a smoke screen. In the back ground the power grabbers and the money people are slowly asset stripping (and it’s been going on for years). They are moving Chess pieces in to place. The damage is being done now., not only to Scotland but across the UK. And they still vote for them.
    I just want on the bus and head for destination Independence and I’d like to get there soon, before Brexit, before shutting down SG and opening up Colonial Towers (Queen Elizabeth House – why is there no II in that title] under Truthless Davidson.

  64. Grey gull says:

    Breeks. Well said.

  65. Beaker says:

    @TheItalianJob says:
    21 August, 2020 at 3:13 pm
    “Unfortunately the Scottish electorate in the Indy2014 bottled it.”

    Stupid comments like that really piss me off.

    People who voted “No” did for a variety of reasons, and not because of the “Vow” or because they “bottled it”.

    Stop looking for fucking excuses and look at why the campaign failed, and how that can be dealt with next time. Get away from comparisons to England. No one gives a shit, as that has no impact on their lives up here. Sturgeon likes comparisons as it makes her look good even when she is doing shite.

    Do not blame the voters, even if some SNP politician like to.

    The latest poll is 55% and some people are creaming themselves. I’m not.

  66. AndSpouse says:

    To quote Grey Gull

    Well said Breeks

  67. Breeks says:

    Big Jock says:
    21 August, 2020 at 4:07 pm
    Breeks – Do you think it’s deliberate failure, or do you think Sturgeon is inept when it comes to negotiations?


    When Nicola Sturgeon tried to stall Theresa May and make it look as if she had a powerful veto, she actually committed Scotland to doing nothing, saying she couldn’t decide anything until she knew the final details of Brexit. In so doing she handed over all the initiative, 100% of it, to Theresa May, effectively giving her a free hand to negotiate the UK’s Brexit safe in the knowledge that Scotland would do nothing to disrupt Brexit until it was too late and the deal was done. She froze herself out of the game. In fact, it’s arguable she even gave Theresa May every incentive to keep Nicola politically immobilised simply be keeping the details of Brexit confidential so she never did “know the details“.

    When Sturgeon was presented with an emphatic, democratic, and sovereign mandate from the people of Scotland to reject Brexit wholesale and plunge the UK into a Constitutional crisis the Union could not survive, unforced by anyone, she arbitrarily squandered that mandate and decided to bargain instead for a mini Brexit that kept Scotland in the single market. She didn’t even get it as the booby prize, but Norther Ireland did.

    I could catalogue a whole load of other decisions she has taken which her supporters will excuse as strategy, but which to my mind betray a lack of strategic foresight and a failure to grasp opportunities which are presented until it’s too late.

    The big one of course is abandoning Scotland’s sovereignty. At the very minimum, that was good for a Scottish Constitutional Backstop to obstruct Brexit to match Northern Ireland’s, and I cannot see any way of the UK Union surviving with Scotland in the EU while England was out. She wasn’t forced into that course of action. Indeed Ian Blackford was to spend the next 5 years referring to it, even though the rug was already pulled from under his feet with Sturgeons declared fealty to Section 30.

    If you ever find yourself in a hostage situation, pray someone calls Alex Salmond, not Nicola Sturgeon.

  68. Paul Muir says:

    I would be interested in hearing the Rev comment on the ramifications of Alec Salmond running against Sturgeon in her constituency riding in May.

  69. holymacmoses says:

    To those who quote my favourite warrior I will say:
    “Opportunities multiply as they are seized.”

    The current political system can’t be ‘gamed’ with the current number of parties and it was designed to be thus. 3 Unionist parties + 1 Independence Party and a few hangers one.
    It’s not a question of ‘gaming the system’ by adding another one or two Independence parties to the pot – it’s a question of evening up the possibility for the independence side and reducing the inevitable hold that the Unionists have. While the current Westminster system is being applied in Scottish politics we will never gain a real working overall majority. If we don’t want to be at Westminster why on earth does Ms Sturgeon insists on playing by the WM party rules? She’s far from stupid , she knows what another Independence party might well achieve for Scotland. So I’m HOPING that she is playing the Devil’s Advocate in this game, in an attempt to blindside the Unionists.

    As for what’s going on in WM. At one time I thought that perhaps they were playing at being fools in order to fool anyone who came up against them but I am now convinced that their narrow-minded, greedy, selfish, narcissistic view of the world is in line with gender-bender intellectualism and that, to put it bluntly, they’re are thick as mince and we’re crediting them with far too many synapses capable of signalling anything to go anywhere. If we can’t get Independence from this lot – frankly – we don’t deserve it.

  70. TheItalianJob says:

    @fngw at 21 August, 2020 at 4:32 pm says

    “It’s irrelevant how many seats are taken, apart from ejecting some unionists. If there is less than 50% vote for independence parties then there is not going to be any referendum. Even then Westminster will claim it needed to be over 50% for the SNP alone.”

    Agreed. We need overwhelming support for Independence like Norway in 1908. 50%+- a few % more is not enough.

  71. susan says:

    That would be WM moving the posts. I don’t know if I CAN bring myself to vote SNP anymore, I’m against so much of what they currently stand for. I I vote for them will it be taken as support for their genderwoowoo shite and totalitarian hate crime bill? I can’t risk that. Well done SNP, courting woke points instead of getting on with the day job – Independence.

  72. Clydebuilt says:

    It’s not the case that Sturgeon doesn’t have a plan “B”.
    Why should she publicly reveal her intentions to the UK Establishment well in advance.

  73. Breeks says:

    OT… The ‘madness’ of the Darien scheme…

  74. Wee Chid says:

    Clydebuilt says:
    21 August, 2020 at 5:06 pm
    “It’s not the case that Sturgeon doesn’t have a plan “B”.
    Why should she publicly reveal her intentions to the UK Establishment well in advance.”


  75. Breeks says:

    Clydebuilt says:
    21 August, 2020 at 5:06 pm
    It’s not the case that Sturgeon doesn’t have a plan “B”.
    Why should she publicly reveal her intentions to the UK Establishment well in advance.

    Because we’ve played 30 minutes of extra time, we’re three goals down, heading out of Europe, and the ref could blow the final whistle any minute.

    If there’s a plan for victory, use it now, before our industry and NHS is wrecked by UK deregulation.

  76. kapelmeister says:

    The Italian Job @4:55

    “We need overwhelming support for independence…”

    No we do not. If a majority of 000.1% in a referendum can keep Scotland in the union then a majority of 000.1% will secure independence.

  77. Richard says:

    As an Irishman my country did not achieve independence over night, 1949 the link with the royal family was finally broken and we remained tied Sterling until I think the late seventies.

    So my question is

    If we had voted yes in 2014 We would have had independence 2 years after, to me this time frame seems too short.
    So in the event of a Yes vote would it be wise to say 5+ years giving us time to transition, it may win some over to the yes side if they knew it would be a gradual transition to Indy, after all fear of rapid change is what makes many want to stay with the union,

    Of course with a 5 year transition it runs the risk of it been over turned.

  78. Oneliner says:

    Johnson apparently holidaying in Strathcarron. I’m thinking of going round with a carryout.

    I’ll be on my best behaviour, the establishment heavies have been known to go apeshit in that part of the country.

  79. red sunset says:

    “Clydebuilt says:
    21 August, 2020 at 5:06 pm
    It’s not the case that Sturgeon doesn’t have a plan “B”.
    Why should she publicly reveal her intentions to the UK Establishment well in advance.”

    No secrets –
    London knows when Nicola’s getting a cup of tea, even before it’s put on her desk.
    “Walls have ears” as they used to say.

  80. Big Jock says:

    So stragecally Sturgeon is naive and inept.

    She is also a poor judge if charachter. Some of the people she has given cabinet positions are utterly useless or worse sex pests. Mackay springs to mind!

  81. Liz says:

    Problem with that though is that she campaigned on ‘a vote for us is a vote for a strong voice for Scotland’. She actually said ‘it is not a vote for independence’. She muddied the waters then and she is muddying the waters now.

  82. kapelmeister says:

    So Johnson is in Strathcarron.

    As no doubt many Wingers know, one of the worst incidents in the Clearances took place at Strathcarron in 1854, when police attacked those locals opposed. By coincidence the local police chief was called Cummings.

  83. Clydebuilt says:

    Weechild @ 5.10

    Of course I don’t have evidence. It’ wouldn’t be a secret then, would it?

  84. Lothianlad says:

    We could also imagine for a few moments just how damaging to the union a strategy of actively pushing for independence at every turn would be.

    Imagine our FM mentioning Independence ar every turn, in interviews, press briefings etc particularly to foreign media. Lambasting the woeful record of the westminster government and how damaging it is.

    Imaging the FM kick starting the Yes campaign now and putting all dept on a campaign war footing. Imagine her rallying all politicians workers and SNP members for the independence fight.

    Cocking 2 fingers to a section 30 refusal and going to the UN and E U stating were getting out of britain, just to let you know?

    Imagine a FM doing that. …….
    Yep, Imagine!!!!!!

  85. twathater says:

    As Stu’s post points out and many commenters affirm the biggest problem the YES movement has is that there are too many BELIEVERS that NS is INDEPENDENCE

    TOO many people REFUSE to see the evidence in front of their own eyes which is pointed out DAILY by Breeks and others

    I have been going on and on about publishing a DECLARATION by individuals to FORCE NS to ditch her policies and DECLARE the route to independence or WE WILL NOT VOTE SNP, it is controversial but it has to be done en masse otherwise as is evidenced she will just continue to BLACKMAIL independence supporters and carry on with her reviled policies SECURE in the knowledge that her govt has another 4 or 5 years before she needs to promote indy to the sheeple again

    I am like Susan and others I cannot allow our womenfolk to be disgarded to accommodate a shower of sexual deviants because sure as shite the next thing to be promoted by these deviants will be paedophilia

  86. deerhill says:

    AndSpouse says:
    21 August, 2020 at 4:38 pm

    “I just want on the bus and head for destination Independence and I’d like to get there soon, before Brexit, before shutting down SG and opening up Colonial Towers (Queen Elizabeth House – why is there no II in that title] under Truthless Davidson.”

    I too want to get on the bus. The sooner the better. I’m 73, I want it Now!

    It’s called Lizzie House without the 2 because ” Ye canny have a second Liz where the first wan’s never been” as the song says.

  87. twathater says:

    Stu my comment at 5.57pm is in moderation and I have not included any banned words AFAIK hiv I boobed

  88. Sweep says:


    Wee Ginger Dug, Talking Up Scotland, Peter A Bell and RPJ have apparently been removed from Facebook.

  89. Lothianlad says:

    Breeks and big Jock,

    Regarding an earlier post, my view , for what it’s worth, is, that NS is not inept, she is simply controlled by her brit secret service handlers.

    She is not a spook, but she is controlled.

  90. defo says:

    The Tories seem to have managed to, as if we didn’t see it coming, abolish accountability for themselves.

    Just say a couple of Covid’s, chuck in an ‘exceptional circumstances ‘, blame anyone else, and Bob’s yer uncle. Squeaky clean.

    “Following the science ”

    Sad to see Small axe gone, he seemed like a good man.

  91. Hughsie says:


    Watching the Scottish News and seeing that creep Larry Flanagan of the EIS having his usual rant about anything Scottish.

    Every time I see that Unionist bastard I get a surge of hatred towards him, similar to any of that Better Together mob from the 2014 Campaign.

    He never comes up with any plan for the Schools, he just moans about what could happen.

    The only way to fully protect his teachers from catching Corona Virus is to close All schools completely.

    Other than that, the Virus is going to spread within schools, because there us NO social distancing and NO mask wearing.

    It’s an easy equation to solve Larry. No social distancing plus no mask wearing equals Virus.


  92. Sweep says:

    O/T again

    PS re my previous post about the other pro-indy blogs being removed from Facebook (according to Paul Kavanagh), on the same Twitter thread there’s a report that there’s a problem with the Wings account as well.

  93. ElGordo says:

    @kapelmeister says: so Johnson is in Strathcarron.

    Possibly was briefly for a daily mail photo op, (after returning from celebrating his fathers 80th in Greece on Tuesday), the old school house is a handy enough location with the MOD base, helipad & dock just 2 miles down the road.

    But much more likely he is on board the Fair Lady cruising round Skye at the moment. Only 56k a week to charter (donated by a chum) Much more in keeping..

  94. Haagsehighlander says:

    Someone on a previous thread said,”All governments are corrupt to a degree, its the way it is” or something like that.Thanks to the Rev and other bloggers and the SNP and their ridiculous bills, we know, all is not as it should be.
    Well if we get to start out as a “new” nation, i dont want it to start with corruption at the heart of it. Which reminded me of a meme that was going about.
    Not voting for independence because you dont like the SNP,
    is like,not buying your dream house, because you dont like the wallpaper.
    Lets get the keys first.

    Aye,Well you dont walk into yer dream house, when you know you got shyte on yer shoes, do ya?

  95. Hughsie says:

    Boris Johnson, our leader at Westminster.

    Nicola Sturgeon, our leader at Holyrood.

    What the fuck has Scotland done to deserve these two Anti-Independence, self serving fantasists?

  96. george wood says:


    We don’t need to know the details, we just need to know that there is a plan B when the inevitable happens and Bojo says no. Knowing that a rejection of S30 is not the absolute end would help unite the Independence movement.

    I refer you to the currency debate in Indyref1.

    In the early stages, the currency was going to be a problem, but then the Yes campaign pulled a masterstroke by deciding to share the pound. That killed stone dead stories about runs on the Scottish pound and negative stories about a Scottish central bank. It was game set and match to the Yes campaign or it should have been.

    The uhionists did the only thing they could to counter this and said it was my ball and I’m no playing. Unfortunately the Yes campaign had no answer other than to repeat ad nauseam that Westminster would agree to it.

    They had no plan B. Does this not sound worringly familar?

  97. cirsium says:

    surely we’d want to hold off until the last possible moment so that we could bleed the place dry, cripple that blasted toytown Parliament of theirs and create as many barriers between them and the EU as we can so that going it alone is as difficult and unattractive a prospect as possible

    Bull’s eye Rev. “bleed the place dry” standard operating procedure for Westminster.

    @Breeks, 3.54, 4.50
    Well said, sir.

  98. Vestas says:

    No English-elected PM (of whatever party) would survive the aftermath of Scottish indy. Nor would their govt.

    The danger isn’t the resources or the tax money from oil.

    The danger is that (like many Scots in 2014) the English work out that they’ve been systematically lied to since birth – via schools, the BBC, the MSM….. Remember that the English are a lot more conditioned than the Scots/Irish/Welsh because it was “their Empire”.

    Scots independence will ultimately destroy the English establishment as the English slowly become aware they have nothing to sell to the world that it wants. After a few more years of that they might work out that their country has only been viable through murder & theft since the late 18th century.

    There won’t be an indyref2. Not now – unionist councils simply won’t cooperate.

    I think whatever Plan B was envisaged probably needs a Plan C. Plan C can’t be passive.

    We’ll see…

  99. Beaker says:

    @Vestas says:
    21 August, 2020 at 6:52 pm
    “I think whatever Plan B was envisaged probably needs a Plan C. Plan C can’t be passive.”

    Define a “non-passive” plan.

  100. Ian Brotherhood says:

    I wonder if someone would mind popping over to Craig Murray’s pad to check out the following post:

    He’s moved on since but I just checked it there and it now includes an excerpt from the Harassment Inquiry featuring Evans and Jackie The Baillie. I’m as sure as I can be that the clip wasn’t there when the post was originally published but that’s by the by…

    Seriously dunno if I’m starting to have senior moments but I’ve listened to the clip thrice and it makes less sense with every hearing – ‘garbaflabber staromblenderbo paparentellyness of the beldygrab’ and so on…I honestly don’t know what Baillie is digging for and what Evans is hiding.

    Why did Craig select that clip? What is it’s significance?

  101. Effijy says:

    The Lord Advocate is accountable to the Scottish Parliament in his role as Scotland’s chief law officer, however he also serves as the chief prosecutor for all crime committed in Scotland. In his capacity as Scotland’s chief prosecutor, the Lord Advocate, and his Advocate Deputes and procurators fiscal, act independently of any other person. It is right that prosecutorial decisions are taken in this manner, to ensure that the judiciary remains free from political interference.

    This is the reply I had to my enquiry regarding Craig’s Persecution by the Courts.

    We have a person or persons within the above who can criminalise those he dislikes,
    Or indeed is rewarded for persecuting, while ignoring everyone else who has committed exactly
    The same act, if not in a greater and more widespread manner.

    They are answerable to no one therefore our judicial system supports inequality and personal attack
    along with impunity for the perpetrator.

    What chance have we for independence through the courts when it is devoutly corrupt?

  102. robertknight says:

    Clydebuilt @5:06

    “Why should she publicly reveal her intentions to the UK Establishment well in advance.”

    Her intentions are revealed to her by the UK Established, and they tell her when to make them public.

    As barking as that sounds, when you ignore the polls and look at the Salmond fallout, the WOKE-wing, Edinburgh (de)selection debacle, S30, #peoplesAS30 shenanigans, the NEC behaviour, you have to look around and ask yourself how did it come to this?

    To quote Conan Doyle’s famous sleuth, “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

  103. cynicalHighlander says:

    He’s getting charged no not by the boys in blue.

  104. MorvenM says:


    We know Nicola doesn’t have a Plan B because she has stated that there is no need for one, because Plan A is the right one.

    My fear is that her cowardice in the face of the enemy will embolden them to dismantle our rights even faster than they would have done otherwise, once we’re thrown out of the EU.

    On the bright side, I’ve just been blocked by Gorgeous George’s mob for re-tweeting this wee gem:

  105. Muscleguy says:

    Have the Greens been ‘gaming the system’ all this time without being accused of it? If they haven’t been then the ISP won’t be either.

    Attacks on the ISP have largely been from the Unionist parties since they realised the ISP’s modelling showing they will largely be stopping unionists from getting the seats they have assumed are theirs by default.

    After winning all of the constituencies as the polls strongly suggest the SNP will have little hope of any List seats. See all the Woke NEC delegates are not goinf for list seats but constituencies since they know it too.

    SNP 2 will be a witless waste since it will ellect nobody. So why not give it to a Yes Party with no huge divisors from constituencies won, who are keener on Indy than Sturgeon’s SNP, pro Women’s rights, Left of Centre (SNP has clearly moved Right) so what’s not to like about them?

  106. Big Jock says:

    We are all speculating about what is going on , to a degree.

    One thing is for sure. Something is definitely wrong, and it’s being kept from us. Whether it’s corruption, double dealing or just sheer arrogance and stupidity. We have to get answers , and pronto.

    The future of our country is being tossed over the Titanic without a life boat.

    These last few months we have could define Scotland’s destiny forever.

  107. Tinto Chiel says:

    @Ian B, 7.46: was it not just that Jackie B asked if WM had “signed off” on the retrospective legislation which caught AS in its nets? Leslie Evans then answered that WM consent was not necessary and it was the FM who had enabled the proposed legislation.

    I think it’s called the “Nothing to do with me, guv!” defence.

  108. dakk says:

    Ian b

    Had a listen.

    Only thing I took from clip was that Evans was stating that the First Minister was in charge of the employment policy.

    Think Craig may have been fingering Nicola so to speak.

  109. twathater says:

    @ Haagsehighlander 6.36pm a very apt aphorism so Nicola clean the shite aff yer shoes or better still throw yer shoes away

  110. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @dakk –

    I don’t get it.

    The man’s trying to tell us something…


  111. dakk says:

    Ian b

    Maybe I put it the wrong way.

    He was highlighting Lesley Evans fingering Nicola.

    Just video evidence of what he and some others have been saying on here.

    Nicola was the one who made the new sexual harassment policy, and made it retrospective to include former FMs.

    Could be miles off it though.

    I’m no Kojak, apart from the hairstyle.

  112. bipod says:

    Nicola is demanding that furlough be extended for up to TWO years today because Germany has done something similiar because that is what will damage the Scottish economy, not her ridiculous lockdown plans, she is already trying to shift the blame onto westminister. What she failed to mention is that Germany is almost completely reopen and has been for sometime, i.e pubs and restaurants were reopen at the start of June there, and offices have been fully reopen for months now. Far fewer people need furlough there because they have not followed nicolas dithering indefinite lockdown strategy which still sees a third of the Scottish workforce furloughed.

    Furlough wasn’t meant to last for years it was only meant to last a few months because the lockdown was originally only meant to last a few months at most. But we have seen this mission creep, it was about “saving the NHS” and flattening the curve, then the R number and then the mythical second wave. Now its about a futile attempt to eradicate a highly infectous respiratory virus that peaked and burnt out months ago.

    We have been told by nicola and boris for weeks now that we are in the grips of a dangerous second wave and cases are higher than ever, but admissions to hospital are now at there lowest point ever since this “crisis” started.

    Something doesn’t add up here. Maybe nicolas doom mongering isn’t actually true.

  113. cynicalHighlander says:

    That Nicola and Evans colluded in the retrospective inclusion of past ministers between them as cabinet weren’t involved in the decision.

  114. iain mhor says:

    hehehe – very droll.
    No idea about the Ref quiz – disallowed and allowed maybe?

    Anyway, the points are all valid only if Boris has all the cards – if there are no ‘consequences which would be worse’ – as Stu says. So I suppose the ‘there are worse consequences’ devils advocate argument has to be floated; in which case Boris’ positions fall down.

    What could it be? Hmm dunno, only a nuclear option of sorts, begging the question (as Breeks noted) why wasn’t it used anent Brexit? That’s trickier to unravel than the referee quiz.

    Let’s assume as devils advocate, there was a nuclear option; but A/ It could adversely affect Scotland (major crisis for England’s Parliamentary Sovereignty, upheaval in England etc) B/ May, Boris et-al, have actually pleaded not to use it on the promise of a referendum.

    Do you A/ Pull the pin regardless, or B/ Wait for the referendum until Scotland really is pushed into lobbing the tactical nuclear grenade.
    Of course the question is; how long do you wait and when is the time to retire to a safe distance, after reciting from the book of Armaments.

    Pfff, well apologists would say that’s exactly the situation; hence the ‘Boris has no choice, he must/will capitulate’ dogma and also the endless prevarication.
    It’s a helluva leap of faith though. The only refuge for that, is that deep state politicking is never what we plebs will ever be privy to – so there’s a chance.
    People will grasp at hope over despair and who can really condemn anyone for that.

    Of course that may be utter bollox and there is no ‘nuclear option’ and/or the SNP haven’t thought of it, or are prepared to use it. How the hell can we know?

    We can’t and therefore we can only play the ball at our feet. If that happens to have England’s ‘Mitre’ stamped all over it and not Scotland’s – then we can only hoof it into row Z, demand a new ball, bag the gaffer, bin half the backroom staff and get some new players in.

    If anyone is bubbling about that approach in the SNP dressing room – then its not our fault. Not so much as an orange thrown our way and every outward sign of capitulation, does not a happy ‘Yes’ team make.
    *tortuous fitba metaphors end

    Me, I don’t have that faith in them any longer – for adequate government, meh, kinda – Indy, No.
    Of course the final caveat is; ‘Should a nuclear option exist, then it exist in-potentia for anyone in Scotland – so who’s making signs of reaching for the old potato masher?

    Answers on a postcard, as ever.

  115. Haagsehighlander says:

    twathater@ 8.52pm

    I agree, unfortunately after checking out the link Ian B sent,Im under the impression theres a hell of a lot more to come out.
    But i really dont think we have the time,wm will be punting it off to the muricans before the HR elections in 2021.
    Oh and Scotlands water is the new oil, we cant let them do that again.

  116. Meg merrilees says:

    El Gordo

    re the holiday of Boris Johnston

    There is no way that bell tent/teppee could survive being so close to the coast with the winds we have been experiencing recently. Anyone putting a young baby in that flimsy tent – with it’s opening facing out to sea needs their head examined.

    Mind you, they might do that and find nothing much in there anywise. Can;t be much of a boating holiday with the weather expected tonight.

    Dakk; Ian B

    Why would Nicola restrict the new Harassment policy only to Ministers, would she not want it to apply to all staff??? Is that the nub of the question. If Ms. Evans is categorically denying that the policy was targeted especially to catch AS then why specify to include previous FM’s surely the all encompassing ‘all ministers’ or ‘all employees’ would suffice.

  117. Rm says:

    Looks like the SNP has been managed from Westminster for decades, but the people themselves are making the move and the powers that control don’t like it, what to do next both sides are thinking that.

  118. Cmonindy says:

    Gove, McConnell, Galloway are setting up to try to fight against Indy2. Now why would they, and others feel the need to do something like that if Boris can just keep saying no to S30?
    I think Rev Stu should tell us.

  119. kapelmeister says:


    Belt and braces.

  120. dakk says:


    It is perhaps the retrospective nature of the legislation which is being suggested as being targeted at Alex.

    Maybe retrospective legislation in employment law is unusual. No idea.

    That it then developed into a criminal case was not what Nicola had envisaged.

  121. dakk says:

    Wasn’t even employment law.

    Just Civil Service office protocols Nicola was tightening up.

  122. Contrary says:

    Ian Brotherhood, Craig says in his article that it’s the first piece of the jigsaw – Leslie Evans clearly states that it is the first minister that signs off on policy, so bringing up the email from (uk) cabinet office and their objection demonstrates a timeline, when it was signed off and by who – the current FM, in December of 2017 – specifically on the rationale of adding previous ministers (no one else was keen on the idea,,,).

    I watched the whole meeting, and I have to say that Baillie was a very good interrogator – her second round of questions near the end were incisive and quick-fire, and Evans really lost her cool, a bit of the real personality coming through there – a sneering personality.

    I don’t know the relevance of all the bits of information, but there is something murky there, and the committee (apart from Murdo, obviously, even Cole-Hamilton seemed to be fairly serious at points) does appear to be trying to do a thorough job. Evans praised herself throughout, but she was pulled up for claiming to have provided it with all the information, and was asked to hand it over and get rid of redactions (pursed lips non-reply from Evans). Anyway, Evans clearly stated it was the FM in charge of signing it off – and went some way to saying it was the FMs decision to include former ministers (not explicitly, yet), under the guise of including some of the ministerial code into the harassment policy (only the first minister or deputy can change the ministerial code,,,).

  123. crazycat says:

    @ Meg merrilees at 9.23

    I may be mis-remembering this, but I think it did apply to all current staff and elected representatives, but that former ministers etc were exempt.

    The changes removed that exemption, but since any “offences” would have to have been committed during office, such an change is by definition retrospective.

  124. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @dakk, TC, Contrary et al (whoever he is) –

    Okay, thanks aplenty…

    Considering how rattled Evans was at the start of proceedings (the ‘oath’) does that clip show Baillie inviting Evans to throw NS under the bus and Evans obliging? She didn’t look at all rattled answering that one.

    Curiouser and curiouser…

  125. wull says:

    Ian B @ 7.46

    Listening to the clip, Craig M’s point seemed clear to me (though I might be getting it wrong).

    Lesley Evans makes it clear

    i) that the Scottish government does not need clearance or approval of the Cabinet Office in London for any changes it might make or new procedures it might introduce into matters of employment (relating to the civil service etc.);

    ii) that the responsibility of that is with Scotland’s First Minister;

    iii) that, in regard to these matters, she (Evans) acts on whatever instructions the First Minister gives her. In other words, NS tells LE what to do, and she does it.

    Point (i) answers Jackie Baillie’s question about whether LE waited for the Cabinet Office to ‘sign off’ on the new policy. Straightforward (and fair) answer from L Evans: neither she nor the First Minister (= the Scottish Government) are obliged to wait for such a signing off / permission from that source (the Cabinet Office), so no problem there.

    So, the decision about it is entirely down to ‘the Scottish Government’, a term which – to my astonishment – seems to apply to the civil servants like LE and to the First Minister and other members of her Cabinet. (If that is correct, I personally do not ‘get’ that bit or, at least, I find it disgraceful and confusing; but anyway, that is not the point at issue here. I would have thought unelected civil servants [appointed by procedures which 99% + of the population are presumably completely unaware of], would be simply at the service of ‘the Scottish Government’, which would comprise the First Minister and her Ministers. Anyway …)

    Points (ii) and (iii) confirm Craig Murray’s point that NS and LE ‘cooked up’ the policy between them, and that the decision to make it retrospective and thus include previous First Ministers was theirs.

    Moreover, the way Evans put it made it very clear that the responsibility for the policy, and for the inclusion of the ‘retrospective’ clause, lay squarely and indeed uniquely with NS. If we take LE at her word, she said that NS instructs her (LE) what to do, and then LE does it.

    To me, even if in fact (as Craig M suggested) the policy was formulated in a joint effort between the two ladies mentioned, Evans very clearly washed her hands of any responsibility for it. She clearly laid the whole responsibility for it on NS. In her reply, she (LE) was NO LONGER in any sense ‘the Scottish Government’ in regard to this thing: she was simply the humble and obedient civil servant doing the bidding of the First Minister.

    You could say LE was looking after herself in her answer, covering her back and making sure that she could not be held responsible or accountable for anything that happened as a consequence of that policy. That is one way of looking at it, and undoubtedly correct.

    On the other hand, you could also say that she was hanging NS out to dry. If the two of them did in fact concoct the policy together, LE was walking away from it, making sure her own hands were clean. And, as clean-hands LE disappeared into the mist, she was letting all the responsibility and, therefore, all subsequent blame fall on Nicola Sturgeon.

    If NS thought LE was her friend, she might be a bit less sure about that now. Has LE played a double game on NS, and played it pretty perfectly? If the top priority was to destroy AS (which LE naturally and necessarily denied), was there a secondary objective to discredit NS too, by making sure that she has to take all the responsibility for this new policy being used (and oh so quickly) against AS?

    Could it be that the objective was to kill two (or even three) birds with one stone: finish off AS for good, take out NS in the process, and leave a leaderless SNP divided into two factions bitterly opposed and hostile to each other? Maybe even in the hope that the SNP would split altogether, stand candidates against each other, and never again be the dominant Party in Scotland that it had become.

    Or, at least, that without any recognisable figure able to re-unite and lead it out of the mess it had got itself into, the SNP would lose all credibility with the electorate, and become basically unelectable.

    To return to Jackie Baillie’s question, I don’t suppose ‘the Scottish Government’ (whatever that phrase means – and could it actually mean LE?) would need to have something ‘signed off’ by the Cabinet Office in London, in order to bring about such a ‘super-duper’ outcome.

    Having said that, Craig M was not actually saying what I have just added. His point was NOT that London or Westminster or the Cabinet Office had anything to do with this but, rather, that the new policy, including its retroactive aspects, was made in Edinburgh. His main point was that LE’s testimony confirmed that. The Cabinet Office really did not want the Scottish Government to go down that ‘retrospective’ road (I suppose because of pressure that might arise, on account of the potential of such Scottish procedures to have a knock-on effect, resulting in calls for the behaviour of former Ministers and PMs at Westminster to be held to account in the same fashion).

    Even though Craig M includes LE with NS in the drafting of the policy that was used against AS, I suppose (but Craig can correct me if I am wrong) that his main point is the ultimate responsibility of NS in the whole matter.

    As I said at the beginning, maybe I am misreading this. I am sure others will correct me if I am getting it wrong.

  126. Contrary says:

    The way I understood it, the civil service has their own employment procedures – nothing to do do with MSPs – just like any organisation – and they have a complaints procedure and a harassment procedure, and those needed updating and improving. They have an HR department to deal with it all, but Leslie Evans in that year 2017 started introducing other roles outwith HR. Then trotted out very fast (for the civil service) changes to the policies.

    There is a separate policy for ministers, an ‘opaque’ procedure, in the form of the ministerial code – and anything that inpinges on that needs signed off by the FM or the deputy FM.

  127. Contrary says:

    Ian Brotherhood – you need to watch near he end of proceding to see Evans rattled. I thought she was fine at he start, yes stumbling over words but smiling and (fairly) relaxed. There were times throughout the questioning you could see her clenching her fist, and various other unhappy faces, but she was pretty much professional throughout – except that bit near the end – you want to see the face on her. Sorry I don’t know how to link tho a clip of it!

  128. dakk says:

    So that’s Craig been got at too.

  129. wull says:

    Meg M @ 9.23 says:

    If Ms. Evans is categorically denying that the policy was targeted especially to catch AS then why specify to include previous FM’s surely the all encompassing ‘all ministers’ or ‘all employees’ would suffice(?)

    Very good point, Meg. And they did not waste any time in making sure it was applied to AS.

    (Perhaps irrelevant, but the speed with which they acted – almost as if they just could not wait to get their hands on the prize they thought they had just been gifted – reminded me of the way Edward I acted immediately after the installation of John Balliol as the Scots’ king. Likewise within less than a month, he had already enticed a couple of disgruntled Scots who had lost a case in the highest Scottish court to appeal to an English one, thereby allowing the English crown to act as if it was overlord of Scotland. All concocted.)

    I also sent in a post to answer Ian B’s question about Craig M’s point, but it is in moderation. I don’t know why, but it doesn’t really matter, since others have already said everything necessary (and Ian seems satisfied). Maybe it’ll appear later – but others have already said most or all of it, and more briefly and to the point.

  130. Hughsie says:

    Sturgeon’s big give away when she talks about Scottish Independence is when she talks in the future tense,,,it is always as if Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom.

    It is never about what Scotland will be doing as an independent nation.

    Sturgeon has no intention of leading Scotland to Independence.

    Sturgeon is a Fraud.

    As said on Family Guy, she is a “great big phony”.

  131. wull says:

    The earlier post I sent has now arrived.

  132. Craig Murray says:

    Ian, Wull and others

    It is even more than Wull said. When Evans and Liz Lloyd drew up the policy to include retrospective complaints against ex-Ministers, they sent the draft down to the Cabinet Office in the UK and the Cabinet Office advised them not to do it. Because it is obviously nuts – remember this is employment policy, what organisation has a policy for allowing staff to make complaints against people who left the organisation years ago?

    So all those who think this was devised in No 10 and enacted by Evans are completely barking up the wrong tree. London told Evans not to do it.

    That is the Cabinet Office advice Baillie is referring to. The email from the Cabinet Office advising against the policy is before the committee. I had known about it for nearly a year. I appreciate if you don’t have that background it’s not easy to follow.

    It wasn’t Whitehall, it was Nicola.

    Dakk, you could not be more wrong about Nicola not wanting it to turn into a police complaint. That was masterminded and day to day controlled by Murrell, Sue Ruddick and Lloyd.

  133. Contrary says:

    I think I’ve managed to create a clip – this is near the end of the committee meeting – I’ve included a bit before Baillie started her question because of a strange slip – ‘use'(ful?),,,’good for a man to instigate the parliamentary question’ (so men are useful for something??) – and Jackie Baillie questioning, Evans shows agitation at the mention of chief of staff conversations:

  134. wull says:

    Many thanks, Craig. Much appreciated. As is everything you do for Scotland’s independence. Wishing you all the very best in the midst of current travails. Take care.

  135. Shug says:

    Nicolas way is the only way in town till it crashes. This will be if the wording in the manafesto does not say there will be a ref ASAP or the election is the referandu.

    Full credit to stu. He has opened many eyes and is a significant player in the movement

    Wings party if the boss says so

    When you dont hear the the I side I fo, which very few do it is difficult to maks a call

    Stay with nicola just now. If she does not deliver she is out

  136. mike cassidy says:

    Craig Murray

    I’d always presumed the leak to the press which led to police involvement was a bit of a cockup which forced the hands of those in control

    Are you suggesting it was a deliberate act by those in control designed to get the police involved without them officially having to ask the police to investigate at that stage?

  137. Beaker says:

    What worries me is that the Cabinet Office advised against the legislation.

  138. Kangaroo says:

    Iain Mhor @9:17p

    Football answer a) award a goal, Hawkeye is only there to assist, much like a linesman, its the referees decision
    b) if the penalty kick taker was the ‘diver’, then book him and award a free kick to the opposition

    Here is a Nuclear Option that is in play and relevant evidence to boot.
    European Union Withdrawal Act 2019/20
    S 38(i) the parliament of the United Kingdom is Sovereign,

    There is a further clause meant to reinforce this statement.

    Carwyn Jones in Committee described this as “Constitutional Graffitti” ie of no consequence as it went directly against everything that had stood before. The Crown in Parliament was Sovereign, not Parliament itself.
    We in Scotland only consider the people to be Sovereign so it does not fit within our paradigm either. So how does it fit in England, Mags gave me this reference but sadly no-one else commented.

    So Westminster is apparently grabbing Sovereignty from the Monarch, but why?

    Because she is NOT the legitimate Monarch, indeed her family is fraudulently occupying the position.
    Reference here

    This explains why Buck House is boarded up and the Royal Arms was removed from the gate.
    So we are in an “interregnum” and no-one is being informed.

    I thought offshore events would happen before the indyref and said so on this blog many moons ago, but was shouted down by the locals. Well here we are just as predicted.

  139. Guybrush Threepwood says:

    I used to be a huge fan of WGD’s blog but even he endorses voting SNP/SNP. I really don’t understand his thinking these days. I used to have a lot of admiration for him but he’s starting to go woke.

  140. Dislogical says:

    Wee Ginger Dug is a diplomat. He very deliberately avoids stirring up rancour with other supporters of independence, while trying to keep morale high. If you read all of his articles the constant optimism can get wearing, but it’s an important part of the mix keeping independence supporters enthused.

  141. Ian Brotherhood says:

    No apologies for copying this comment (my bold):

    Craig Murray says:
    21 August, 2020 at 11:25 pm
    Ian, Wull and others

    It is even more than Wull said. When Evans and Liz Lloyd drew up the policy to include retrospective complaints against ex-Ministers, they sent the draft down to the Cabinet Office in the UK and the Cabinet Office advised them not to do it. Because it is obviously nuts – remember this is employment policy, what organisation has a policy for allowing staff to make complaints against people who left the organisation years ago?

    So all those who think this was devised in No 10 and enacted by Evans are completely barking up the wrong tree. London told Evans not to do it.

    That is the Cabinet Office advice Baillie is referring to. The email from the Cabinet Office advising against the policy is before the committee. I had known about it for nearly a year. I appreciate if you don’t have that background it’s not easy to follow.

    It wasn’t Whitehall, it was Nicola.

    Dakk, you could not be more wrong about Nicola not wanting it to turn into a police complaint. That was masterminded and day to day controlled by Murrell, Sue Ruddick and Lloyd.


  142. CameronB Brodie says:

    I’ve suggested Scotland is getting pumped from both ends, and here’s why. Human rights are indivisible and can’t be separated from the individual. Unfortunately, Scotland has to rely on a party that espouses Scotland’s democratic self-determination, but which gives greater value to British constitutional convention and tradition. This is most probably a result of a profound legal parochialism.

    If the current leadership did not think their legal positioning and judgement to be superior the jurisprudence of international law, Scots would not be getting legally subordinated to a class of sub-humans, so as to meet the cultural demands of right-wing, populist, English nationalism.

    Legal Studies, Volume 38, Issue 1, March 2018 , pp. 42-58
    Democracy as the legitimating condition in the UK Constitution


    The UK Constitution is either theorised as a political constitution that is premised on the Westminster model of government or as a legal constitution that rests on moral principles, which the common law is said to protect. Both models conceive of democracy in procedural terms, and not in normative terms.

    However, the democratic legitimacy of laws stems from a complex constellation of conditions that no longer involves popular or parliamentary sovereignty alone. In this paper, I break with the traditional account that bases law-making authority on the condition of procedural democracy. Instead, I argue for a normative conception of democracy that conditions parliamentary authority. I show that failure to do so amounts to a glaring omission in certain cases.

  143. CameronB Brodie says:

    Here’s what British constitutionalism and the SNP are apparently determined to separate Scots from.

    Georgetown Law Journal. 2008; 96(2): 423–443
    Normative Foundations of Global Health Law

  144. twathater says:

    TBH although I don’t like jackie Baillie and I think she has her own axe to grind I must admit from what I have viewed she appeared to be the one digging the most and the one trying to get to the bottom of things which was riling LE
    So at this point the other members will have to up their game if the TRUTH is to come out

    Also in the clip posted by Contrary 11.47pm ( thanks contrary ) LE was doing her utmost to explain that as soon as she colluded with NS to concoct the rules and regs she had no further input to the various discussions .
    In other words ME AND NS cooked it up but the other big guys got it OVEN READY

    My how it ALL stinks

  145. twathater says:

    BTW thanks Kangaroo and Iain Mhor for exposing the intricacies of the legal FU as Breeks has been posting it seems forever the straw that broke the camel’s back should have been played in 2016 and the union would either have been OVER or england wouldn’t be leaving the EU

    So Nicola how’s about getting it done NOW

  146. twathater says:

    Again BTW I went on to WGD the other night and noticed Guy Three and ROS getting it large from Paul’s regulars

  147. Kangaroo says:

    twathater @3:25am

    It’s a pleasure, thanks for the acknowledgement.
    That is just the tip of the iceberg, Trump is moving fast loads of arrests happening behind the curtain. Some here referenced below.

    Gaol time for the bad guys.
    Schiff, Pelosi, Zuckerberg, Bezos

    It has already spilled across the pond as per my post @12:37am. Thats just the beginning, the US MSM has been outed as has Paedowood. Big fish to follow in the next few weeks.

  148. CameronB Brodie says:

    My legal theory is very, very, rusty, but I think I’ve already suggested Brexit can’t be considered constitutional, and in fact constitutes a right-wing coupe which HMG civil service have, at the very least, facilitated.

    Britain lacks a written constitution, so the production of our laws is vulnerable to political opportunism and fiddling with. A bit like women’s rights in Scotland, apparently, where we also lack codified economic, social, and cultural rights, in Scots law. Also British constitutional jurisprudence, apparently.

    Perhaps the real nature of Scotland’s legal vulnerability has not yet been widely acknowledged, as this is standard practice we’ve all grown up expecting from Westminster, with respect to its relationship to Scotland’s constitutional identity. So here’s a peek at the theory of constitutional interpretation. I know it relates to the USA, but Anglo-American constitutional jurisprudence in grounded in the Common Law.

    The University of Chicago Law Review,
    Volume 63 Summer 1996 Number 3
    Common Law Constitutional Interpretation

    The Constitution of the United States is a document drafted
    in 1787, together with the amendments that have been adopted
    from time to time since then. But in practice the Constitution of the United States is much more than that, and often much different from that.

    There are settled principles of constitutional law that are difficult to square with the language of the document, and many other settled principles that are plainly inconsistent with the original understandings. More important, when
    people interpret the Constitution, they rely not just on the text but also on the elaborate body of law that has developed, mostly through judicial decisions, over the years.

    In fact, in the day-today practice of constitutional interpretation, in the courts and in general public discourse, the specific words of the text play at most a small role, compared to evolving understandings of what
    the Constitution requires. Despite this, the terms of debate in American constitutional law continue to be set by the view that principles of constitutional law must ultimately be traced to the text of the Constitution, and by the allied view that when the text is unclear the original understandings must control. An air of illegitimacy surrounds any alleged departure from the text or the original understandings.

    In the great constitutional controversies of this century, for example, the contestants have repeatedly charged their opponents with usurpation on the ground that they were insufficiently attentive to the text or the original understandings. That was the claim made by the Justices of the so-called Lochner era; it was the claim made by Justice Black, first against the Lochner judges and then against other opponents; it was the claim made, during the last twenty years, by opponents of the Warren Court innovations.’ And today, textualism and originalism continue to be extraordinarily prominent on both sides of the principal debates in constitutional law.2

  149. CameronB Brodie says:

    Here’s a bit more constitutional legal theory from the USA, who’s written constitution means identifying and analyzing the quality of its constitutional jurisprudence, is less like trying to nail-down jelly (see locating the source of Westminster’s assumed constitutional authority re. Brexit and stuff).

    Texas Law Review [Vol. 91:1969-2013]
    We the People, They the People, and the Puzzle of
    Democratic Constitutionalism

    I. The Illusion of “We the People”
    The Constitution, of course, announces that it has been “ordain[ed] and establish[ed]” by “We the People.” 1 The idea that the Constitution is somehow the work of “the people” – that it has a meaningful democratic pedigree – is very appealing. But in what sense is the Constitution we live under today the product of “we the people”?

    There are several issues. One is that the individuals responsible for the original Constitution may not have been so representative of the people even of their time.2 Then there is the familiar problem that, even assuming the text was the work of the people at some point, those people (leaving aside the most recent amendments) have not been around for a while. But we are still bound by their handiwork in some ways – which means we are talking about they the people, not we the people, and that does not sound very democratic.3

    A third question concerns the ways in which we have departed from what the ratifying and amending generations wanted to do. That means we are arguably acting inconsistently with what we the people ordained and established. But maybe those departures make the Constitution more democratic; I will suggest that, potentially at least, they do. Finally, there is the question why it matters whether the Constitution is democratic. Or – maybe this is another way of asking the same question – what sense of “democratic” would make it a good thing for the Constitution to be democratic.

    I will try to answer these questions for a system of common law constitutionalism. I believe that is our system; but even if it is not, or to the extent it is not, I think we can make headway with these questions by considering them in connection with such a system. The idea of common law constitutionalism is that we resolve controversial questions of constitutional law not by examining the text of the Constitution but on the basis of precedents, both judicial and non-judicial, combined with judgments of fairness and good policy – just as common law judges decide questions on those bases.4 For controversial constitutional issues, the text plays a limited role….

  150. CameronB Brodie says:

    I think I’ve also suggested the British constitution should not be viewed as a legal document, but as a description of the ‘voluntary’ political agreement between Scotland and England. Yet this is not is how it is being viewed by our law makers, who appear to lack an understanding of constitutional law. Though they are happy to stand under Westminster’s tyranny.

    National Constitutions in European and Global Governance: Democracy, Rights, the Rule of Law pp 83-139, 30 May 2019
    Europe’s Gift to the United Kingdom’s Unwritten Constitution – Juridification


    The United Kingdom constitution is the only uncodified constitution in Europe, and is described in the report as evolutionary, historical and predominantly political, responding piecemeal to developments through pragmatic solutions. A central concept is parliamentary sovereignty.

    The Supreme Court, replacing the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, started its work in 2009; it can make a declaration of incompatibility with the ECHR, but has no power to annul legislation (although prior to Brexit, the courts were willing to disapply legislation which contravened directly effective provisions of EU law).

    Fundamental rights are predominantly protected by the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the ECHR into UK law and the common law. A proactive role in raising fundamental rights issues, also in relation to EU law, is played by parliamentary scrutiny committees, NGOs and other institutions. These have contributed e.g. to the subsequent introduction of rights-based safeguards to European Arrest Warrant legislation and of a forum bar with regard to international extradition treaties.

    In terms of the main comparative influences, UK law is more likely to refer to the principles found in the common law of the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Although European influences are present and have increased, it is unclear how far these influences will remain post Brexit.

    The report observes that membership of the EU and of the ECHR has helped to subject the UK constitution to juridification. In general, EU law has in many areas enhanced rights protection, e.g. as regards the right to privacy and the general principles of law; indeed, the latter were introduced into the UK through EU and ECHR law. The report does not address the Brexit process, although a brief post scriptum note has been added.

  151. CameronB Brodie says:

    Sorry….Yet this is not how it is being viewed by our law makers….

    Rights and Responsibilities:
    developing our constitutional

    Presented to Parliament
    by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
    by Command of Her Majesty
    March 2009

  152. Big Jock says:

    WGD – Is a really good guy.

    However he seems to have a lot of faith in NS, despite the evidence that she is at it. I can’t be bothered reading blogs where the writer asks us to stick together and put our faith in Nicola.

    The problem here is that it’s not us causing the split. It’s all the SNP’s making , and faith is for God and church not for politics. Politics is about evidence and concrete plans. We elect our leaders to do what they said they would, or we get shot of them.

    If you listen P Diddy Wishart. He blames the movement for not going along with the SNP’s secret strategy that no-one knows , not even him. Because in truth there is no secret plan. That’s all bullshit. The plan is what you see! That is delay and sit back and watch. Waiting is now Nicola’s plan.

    Well sorry that just isn’t good enough. We leave the EU in December. We are fed up with the do nothing strategy.

    Nicola is not God , and we are not a religion. We are a political movement to liberate our country.

  153. Tinto Chiel says:

    @Kangaroo 4.30: thanks for that, it was interesting but confusing for me (as was the George V stuff).

    So what do you think is happening and why? Are these “legitimate” arrests or a Trump manoueuvre?

    Please consult your lawyer before replying 🙂 .

  154. Breeks says:

    CameronB Brodie says:
    22 August, 2020 at 7:08 am

    I think I’ve also suggested the British constitution should not be viewed as a legal document, but as a description of the ‘voluntary’ political agreement between Scotland and England….

    That’s an absolute belter CameronB. If I had a Twitter Account, that text, or at least a hyperlink to it, would be my pinned Tweet.

  155. Tinto Chiel says:

    “Manoeuvre”: sausage fingers!

  156. Kangaroo says:

    Tinto Chiel @ 8:59am

    No lawyer required but thank you for your concern.
    You are talking about the USA here, it is not a dictatorship and I am sure the people would erupt if there was a chance of that. Oh! thats right they have done when the Democrats tried to shut down and destroy the cities they controlled using BLM as an excuse and ANTIFA as domestic terrorists.

    If you recall in the early days of Trumps Presidency he signed Executive Orders on Human Trafficking and Paedophilia, this is what we are up against and fortunately we are winning. Think Jimmy Saville x infinity. The arrests are part of that issue and there will be many more in the next few weeks including some former Presidents. It is no coincidence that coronavirus is an anagram of carnivorous.

  157. Contrary says:

    Big Jock,

    Swathes of people, for reasons totally beyond my ken, have build a huge protective brick wall around NS and she need not explain herself to us mere mortals, for they are on hand to make up any wheedling excuse they can for her behaviour. If only that creativity was put to better use, the effort that must go into try and wrench reality round to fit in with their fluffy bunnies and sunshine world view, shows a great capacity for blue-sky thinking and coming up with ideas to get us Indy in reality.

    To your outrageous claim that Nicola is NOT God, I can already hear the cries of ‘where’s your evidence?!’.
    Shit on a stick, how did the denialism get that bad without me realising? It’s kind of embarrassing, you could even say, cringeworthy.

    The SNP have become an obstacle, not a vehicle, for independence, and anyone supporting them is complicit in making them an obstacle – those that think there is nothing there that needs fixing.

    Both votes SNP?? They would be lucky to get one vote out of me, and even that one vote seems very unlikely at the moment. I have seen some folk talking about tactics so they don’t vote in a ‘woke’ candidate – what’s the point in that when any vote for the SNP is a vote to support the institution that supports those kinds of people. I’m a long term tactical voter though, I just balance out the pros and cons, and I’m not going to tie myself in knots about who to vote for based on how it will ‘look’ to BritNat press or Westminster, if they want to make assumptions they can: that’s all they do anyway in their own little world of denialism. I just want them to fuck off out of my real world, and the SNP ain’t going to be helping with that.

  158. CameronB Brodie says:

    Thanks, but I’m just getting back to grips with the basics of constitutional legal theory and human rights law.

    Northwestern Journal of Human Rights, Volume 16 | Issue 1 Article 2, 2018
    The Complexities of Human Rights and
    Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom;
    Brexit and a Delayed Bill of Rights: Informing (on)
    the Process

    The United Kingdom’s politicised and contested human rights framework has come under increasing pressure during recent periods of constitutional and political instability. The UK 2016 referendum on membership of the European Union, the delayed repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the proposals to enact a British Bill of Rights have all shaped the discourse at the national level around decisions to retain rights (or not) rather than progressively improve the human rights structure.

    The European Union and Council of Europe human rights frameworks act as important pillars of human rights and democracy under the UK constitution and each of the devolved constitutions. Constitutional processes such as Brexit risk further confusing an already incoherent and complex human rights framework. This lack of clarity in terms of the future of the human rights regime in the UK and devolved regions has meant that there has been a lack of constitutional safeguards in place to protect human rights and thus far insufficient parliamentary scrutiny.

    The impact at the supra-national level undermines the UK as a global actor and the impact at the devolved sub-national level is further fragmenting state unity where devolved jurisdictions are on different, and often more progressive, human rights trajectories. The UK is in the process of sleepwalking into a legal human rights deficit. We argue here that this lacunae in legal protections offers, if not necessitates, the opportunity to re-imagine human rights structures in a progressive way embedded in processes that must be genuinely deliberative, informed, participative and inclusive.

  159. iain mhor says:

    @kangaroo 12:37am

    Derailing things with fitba, apologies.
    Is that not logically inconsistant though? Sure, everyrhing is the refs decision and logic seldom comes into it (ha!) However, if Hawkeye is an assist, then so is information from the ‘diver’. Rugby goes to an assist and confab for a decision and where there is doubt, I’d be going with the Hawkeye decision.

    The diver is a tricky one. Unlike the Hawkeye incident (where a decision hadn’t been made yet) the penalty had already been awarded. So the ref either has to reverse a critical decision (and admit to being fooled) or let it stand.
    In hindsight, Refs do have a tendency to double down on their decisions – I reckon the penalty probably stands (I’d reverse it!) but I’ll concede booking the player. Couldn’t be for a dive though – maybe some verbal or something.

    Well, there’s the SNP for you – giving us so much to talk about with their current independence campaign, I’m reduced to talking refereeing decisions instead – much like their independence campaign – a purely hypothetical situation

  160. CameronB Brodie says:

    iain mhor
    Is taking the dive not taking the piss out of the spirit and rules of the game? That would suggest a booking is required, and a free-kick to the defending team. Then a red card, for taking the piss out of the ref. That’s how I see it anyway, but I value playing by the rules.

  161. gus1940 says:

    Is it not very convenient that there is an e-mail from the Cabinet office advising against retrospective action?

    That such an e-mail exists does not necessarily mean that is what happened – all it does is point the finger at Nicola which, after all, is part of the grand plan to divide and rule while destroying the SNP.

  162. Tinto Chiel says:

    @Kangaroo: I had heard the usual rumours about at least one former POTUS involved with the fragrant Ghislaine and her alleged activities but was unaware of wider accusations.

    Always amazed (naive soul that I am) that the BBC can produce blatant crapola like Wark’s smearing of AS and yet cover up the many sex-crimes of its employees, like Savile. Mind you, his connections went all the way to the royal fambly, so no surprise he was protected until his death, on reflection.

    Listen to The Media Show on Radio 4 for non-stop hubris, hypocrisy and lies from the BBC and its crowing about its “balanced and impartial” coverage, with sprinklings of “serious journaists” from the likes of The Guardian telling us of their ceaseless holding of the powerful to account.

    I’d call it delusional bullshit but I can’t be bothered.

  163. stuart mctavish says:

    1) ball rattled the bar rendering tech advice incompetent – normally a goal but since one pound spent on Spurs would be worth considerably more if the regulating authorities could help shore up their defence, play on.
    2) tricky one since its a blue team penalty and foul might have been so blatant for once that joke is actually quite funny so, although the decision can be overturned whilst play is suspended, safest option might be to confer with Dougie Ross, show Carlaw the red card and recall Davidson for the rest of the free shots.

  164. kapelmeister says:


    Divide and rule, as a strategy, is not a grand plan Gus. It’s a very simple plan, that sometimes backfires on the ruler. Nor is it convincing to say that London is actively stoking the current divisions. Given Sturgeon’s glacial approach, an indy movement united behind her would suit the Britnats just fine.

  165. James Barr Gardner says:

    By next year the 400K N majority will be matched by 400K+ deaths, mainly elderly, in Scotland since 2014 !

    However there are now 400K young non-buying, non-watching BBC Young folk now eligible to VOTE ! EU citizens vote, will Bawlis disenfranchise them come 1st of Jan’21 ?

    No and undecideds views on London Eton Incompetent Elite especially on Coronavirus High Death Count, a further 10 to 20 years of austerity ! The Obsenity of Trident !

    Crashing Newspaper circulations (eg. Daily Record 950K+ in 2010 next year 100K-!!!!!!!!). Steady rate of cancelled TV licenses in Scotland since 2014 due to BBC blatant bias !

    Exit from EU due to Brexit, next year food prices to rise and jobs lost !

    The worst Old Age Pension in Europe, in fact the Western World !

    1 in four Scottish children live in poverty !

    So that and loads more how does the Naw majority stack up ?

    The only thing in way of Scottish Independence is COMPLACENCY !!!!!!!!!!! Get registered and vote !

    USE the Ballot Box NOT the post box !

    Demographics IS the major factor and it’s not going the way of the Unionists in Scotland or Northern Ireland ! Polls at 55% with FULL YES CAMPAIGN YET to hit the Streets !


    The unionist camp know full well what the demographics are and what they mean surprisingly little is mentioned in Yes circles ? Strange ?

  166. Dogbiscuit says:

    Nicola Sturgeon charismatic? Ha!

  167. Craig Murray says:


    Yes. It was Liz Lloyd, Nicola Sturgeon’s Chief of Staff. Who, interestingly enough, once went on a US State Department (ie CIA) funded programme in Washington DC alongside a certain David Clegg of the Daily Record – who published the leak.

  168. Kangaroo says:

    Iain Mohr @9:43

    I am a qualified Football Referee so my comment was made with that knowledge. Tge Referees decision is always final. He/she can ask for input but the decision rests with the ref.

    On the penalty matter it’s a bit like a marriage contract which is signed off by the parties but does not become final until after consumation. The referee can change his/her decision until the ball is next played, in this case by the kicker actually taking the kick.

  169. Andrew Orr says:

    Nicola has the polls at 55%. No doubt she has a plan of her own.

    You might direct some attention to the 6,000 square miles of Scottish North Sea transferred to England. This has been forgotten.

  170. Michael Laing says:

    @Andrew Orr at 11.56pm: Believing Nicola Sturgeon has a plan to bring about our independence is a lot like believing an imaginary omnipotent being created this planet and everything on it in the space of seven days. There is no evidence for any such belief. Besides, I doubt if she’ll be around for much longer.

  171. Richard Hunter says:

    er.. Does anyone know the answer to the You Are the Ref question 2?

  172. Richard Hunter says:

    If I recall those old Keith Hackett strips correctly, the answer is usually: Do f*ck all, but make a mention of it in the Referees report.

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