Scottish democracy can never be illegal

The SNP and the wider independence movement as a whole are in need of a New Year’s resolution. And that should be to expunge the phrase “illegal referendum” from the vocabulary of independence supporters and from that of SNP politicians in particular. Not only that, but every independence supporter needs to challenge anyone who uses the phrase in the context of a Scottish independence referendum without a Section 30 order. We need to get on top of this particular myth that’s being propagated by our opponents, and to squash it before it gains any more traction. Above all else, what supporters of independence must do is to avoid doing the work of British nationalists for them.

There is only one legal fact about a referendum without a Section 30 order, and that fact is as of now that no one can definitively state whether such a referendum would be lawful or not. The reality is that there are good legal arguments both for and against the lawfulness of a referendum without a Section 30 order. The argument against is that constitutional issues are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act. The argument in favour is that a consultative referendum in Scotland on the question of independence does not infringe upon reserved matters as it would remain up to Westminster to act, or not to act, after the people of Scotland have advised them of their view.

The matter has never been legally tested in the only forum which is capable of giving a legal judgement on the matter, and that forum is a court of law. Until such time a referendum without a Section 30 order is a constitutional Schroedinger’s Cat. That means that when anyone tells you that such a referendum would be illegal, they are not giving you a legal fact, they are giving you a political opinion. We must not concede the legal argument before it has been tested.

When as independence supporters we surrender to the language used by our opponents, we are conceding the framing of the argument to them. By using terminology like “unionists versus nationalists” we implicitly concede that the Scottish constitutional debate is a debate between nationalism and non-nationalism. All that does is to justify the opinion of those who try to persuade people who dislike nationalism to oppose independence. It validates the delusion that by opposing independence and therefore implicitly backing the British state, you are somehow making a non-nationalist choice. In fact you’re not.

There are nationalists and non-nationalists on both sides of Scotland’s constitutional divide, and it is one of the strongest arguments of independence supporters that it’s the current and dominant incarnation of British nationalism which is the dangerous, reactionary, and parochial nationalism. So for that reason, as independence supporters we need to avoid using language which continues and bolsters that false narrative. That’s why I prefer to talk about Scottish independence supporters, and British nationalists. As an independence supporter I should not be in the business of fostering the delusions of British nationalism that it’s better than other nationalisms by virtue of not being nationalist at all.

To call opponents of independence “unionists” furthers the equally false narrative that Scotland is a partner in a union, an equal and much loved member of a family of nations. That’s a sick and cruel myth when those who support that so-called union claim that a Prime Minister whose party was rejected at the polls in Scotland in favour of a party asserting the right of Scotland to decide its own future has the absolute right to prevent Scotland from even having the democratic conversation. So let’s not call them unionists. Call them British nationalists. Call them that because it annoys them, because it is more accurate, and because it means we do not participate in perpetuating their false narrative.

A similar argument applies to the phrase “illegal referedum”, or “wildcat referendum”, or “unlawful referendum” when applied to a vote on Scottish independence that does not have the consent of Boris Johnson. Use of these phrases implicitly concedes that the Prime Minister has a democratic, moral, and legal right to prevent a Scottish referendum. Yet his legal right to block an independence referendum remains an unknown quantity because it has never been tested in the courts.

He has no democratic right to block a referendum because his own party stood in Scotland on a manifesto of preventing another independence referendum and lost over half of its seats while the main party standing and asking the people of Scotland to provide it with such a mandate won handsomely. By any democratic standard, there is a political right for Scotland to hold another independence referendum.

Finally there’s the moral right. Scotland is constantly being told by the very people most opposed to independence that within the UK Scotland is a valued and much loved partner, an equal participant in the British family of nations. That was the prospectus upon which a no vote was sold to Scotland in the referendum of 2014. The Westminster parliament itself agreed to the Scottish Claim of Right, which asserts that the people of Scotland have the right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. There is no rider after it in invisible ink which says “as long as it’s politically convenient for Boris Johnson.”

So whenever a journalist or anti-independence politician uses the phrase “unlawful referendum” or something similar, we must call them out for it. They are using a British nationalist buzz word in an attempt to prejudge the issue and restrict Scotland’s democratic choice. Scotland has an absolute right to decide for itself whether it wishes to revisit the question of independence. We are not as a nation beholden to anyone in pursuit of that right. Using phrases like “unlawful referendum” implies that Scotland is dependent upon the permission of a Conservative Prime Minister, that we are trapped in this UK until such time as the political priorities of forces outwith Scotland concede that it’s in their own interests to allow Scotland a voice. It frames the narrative of a referendum in a way that is beneficial to our opponents.

Our New Year’s resolution needs to be to avoid allowing our opponents to frame the argument. They’re the ones who have just suffered a massive electoral defeat, they’re the ones who are politically and democratically on the back foot. Let’s not do their job for them. There’s no such thing as an illegal referendum in Scotland, because that’s tantamount to claiming that democracy is illegal.

You can help to support this blog with a Paypal donation. Please log into and send a payment to the email address Or alternatively click the donate button. If you don’t have a Paypal account, just select “donate with card” after clicking the button.
Donate Button

If you have trouble using the button, or you prefer not to use Paypal, you can donate or purchase a t-shirt or map by making a payment directly into my bank account, or by sending a cheque or postal order. If you’d like to donate by one of these methods, please email me at and I will send the necessary information.

Please also use this email address if you would like the dug and me to come along to your local group for a talk.

GINGER2croppedGaelic maps of Scotland are available for £15 each, plus £7 P&P within the UK for up to three maps. T-shirts are £12 each, and are available in small, medium, large, XL and XXL sizes. P&P is £5 for up to three t-shirts. My books, the Collected Yaps Vols 1 to 4 are available for £11 each. P&P is £4 for up to two books. Payment can be made via Paypal.

newbook My new book has just been published by Vagabond Voices. Containing the best articles from The National from 2016 to date. Weighing in at over 350 pages, this is the biggest and best anthology of Wee Gingerisms yet. This collection of pieces covers the increasingly demented Brexit years, and the continuing presence and strength of Scotland’s independence movement.

You can order the book directly from the publisher. Ordering directly means that postage is free. You can order here –

You can also order a book directly from me. The book costs £11.95 and P&P is an additional £3.50, making a total of £15.45. To order just make a Paypal payment to, or alternatively use the DONATE button below. Please make sure to give me your postal address when ordering. Orders to be sent outwith the UK will incur extra postage costs, please email me for details. If you can’t use Paypal, or prefer an alternative payment method, please email

81 comments on “Scottish democracy can never be illegal

  1. Oliver Drake says:

    Bravo – an echo of what James Kelly said earlier, but with more oooomph!!

  2. Douglas says:



    This is SO important:
    ‘Referendum without the blessing of the British State’?
    Open to suggestions

    Factual without conceding Scottish rights (UN Charter, Claim of Right, Scots Popular Sovereignty) or granting them Overlordship.

    • Luigi says:

      Indeed. This is all about the British establishment setting the narrative. They know another Scottish referendum is coming S30 or not. So they try to plant the seed in people’s minds that it will be illegal. All the easier for British bats to boycott it – catch the drift? This is why all indy speakers but SNP and green politicians in particular must challenge this assertion at every opportunity.

  3. Pogmothon says:

    A Section 30 Order has never been refused.
    “Now is not the time” is an observation, or a point of view.
    It is most definitely not an answer to
    “We would like a referendum, where we will both abide by the result”,
    But it was continually conflated by the MSM and Biased Broadcasting Company(sic) as being a refusal. Thereby allowing Tare Eas in May to avoid answering the request. And the media to purport this LIE as fact. To date to my knowledge that request has not been answered. Therefor no law, act, covenant, or treaty was even dented far less broken.
    Almost the same thing is happening now.
    LBJ on many occasions prior to the election result stated that he would rightly or wrongly refuse a section 30 order request.
    After the election a letter was sent from the First Minister/Scottish Government to LBJ and the West Minster Executive. The exact contents of which we are still unaware.
    However the MSM and BBC(sic) have played it out again as a S30 request and refusal. This was intensely presented as actual news/fact. Before the letter had even been delivered. Between the election and the Christmas break up of Westminster.
    What needs to happen now, is that if in fact a S30 was requested we and the rest of the world are made clearly aware of the request. And we insist on a clear and definitive answer. That would be either “YES” or “NO”. For clarities sake no other answer is acceptable.
    From the resumption of Westminster. Every time BLJ is in the commons, he needs to be asked repeatedly, until a definitive answer is given. Not some fob off like “Now is not the Time”. (Cos aye it is). Perhaps repeatedly asking is a troupe that would be taken up by the international media on doorsteps. Then the MSM can no longer perpetuate the lie of a supposed answer that is not “YES” or “NO”. At that point we can examine which, law, act, covenant, or treaty has been broken, and proceed accordingly with the rest of the world hanging on every twist and turn of Westminster’s squirming. In every one of their news broadcasts.

  4. […] Wee Ginger Dug Scottish democracy can never be illegal The SNP and the wider independence movement as a whole are in need of a New Year’s […]

  5. proudcybernat says:

    Johnson would be bloody stupid to deny S30 in the present circumstances and Cummings, I’m sure, won’t be slow in telling him so.

    Think about it. What would the reaction be in Scotland if Johnson does not agree to the FM’s request? It will only drive indy support upwards beyond it present minimum of 50%. That will only make it harder for WM to win when the vote eventually does come around–and it WILL.

    And probably sooner than many think because the next move of our FM (should Johnson fail to agree S30) is to move ahead with a consultative IndyRef without S30 agreement in place. This Bill will easily pass in the Scottish Parliament and be sent directly to HMQ for Royal Assent.

    It’s at this point that Johnson would have to decide to challenge the Bill and it can only be challenged (initially in the Scottish Courts). If he does challenge then he will lose because there is not a court in the land that will agree that the sovereign Scottish people are not permitted to ask themselves a question regarding their own future in an advisory referendum.

    Johnson (or rather Cummings) will be aware of this. They will be looking at the polls Better they bite the bullet NOW with the polls showing 50-50 than delaying and antagonising the Scots with a refusal that will only increase indy support and won’t actually stop the referendum from happening anyway.

    NOW is the best time for Johnson to go for broke over the Scottish indy question with the polls at 50-50. I think he will agree to the S30 request as he’d be totally mental not to.

    • MacMina MacAllan says:

      Thanks for the fairly positive scenario and explanation. But if Johnson digs his heels in this long drawn out procedure would only be getting us to an advisory referendum. Consider the expense and timescale of taking this through the courts and if the Unionists in some way sabotage the referendum process then who is going to accept the result as valid?
      It could be the same as accepting “Now is not the time.”

      At some point soon we have to get a result that is undeniably accepted by Europe and beyond. I worry that delay will be to the Unionists’ advantage and as time goes by without progress the SNP will haemorrhage support. Realistically the SNP is the only path to Independence.

      I follow your logic until the last paragraph where you allow for the possibility that Johnson is not totally mental!

    • Rob_1 says:

      But Nicola has stated , the referendum will be at a time chosen by the Scottish people /parliament, not when Johnsyone wants it. Thus giving us section 30 now, will not mean we are going ahead immediately with indyref2.

  6. Hamish100 says:

    Seems to me we can have an indicative referendum at any time if voted by the Scots Parliament. Wasn’t Brexit indicative after all? As for majorities 62% of Scotland was ignored so 50% + 1 is enough for me. The britnats don’t like it? Tough.

  7. Golfnut says:

    Perhaps our side should frame our response to mirror the British nationalist assertions e.g., it is illegal/unlawful to deny our Constitutional right to determine our own future.

    • Craig P says:

      I like it – an ‘illegal denial of democracy’

      though having won once, British nationalists would rather we never got another opportunity to ask the question until after they are all dead.

  8. Great Writing Paul..Shared at Inverclyde for Independence..Have a great New Year.

  9. Cubby says:

    Illegal referendum – I ask what law is being broken. No reply is the norm.

    Funny how none of the British Nationalist journalists think to ask the above question to British Nationalist politicians. Are they too stupid. Nope they are British Nationalists and their job is to facilitate the spread of British Nationalist propaganda.

    UDI is another term that is often used by independence supporters that only facilitates British Nationalist propaganda.

  10. Robert Llewellyn Tyler says:

    Bang on the nail!

  11. bringiton says:

    In my view,we should be talking about the benefits of statehood over subsidiarity and independence over dependence.
    Those who support Scotland being subsumed into Greater England need to make their case for this continuation and will no doubt use pejorative language to so do,having nothing else to offer.
    We want our own Magic Money Tree.

  12. Graham says:

    Scotland is a country.
    The people of Scotland are sovereign.
    Independence is determined by whether or not other countries recognise it.
    It appears only England opposes independence for Scotland.
    England is too wee, too poor and too stupid to withstand the international shitstorm which would surely follow Westminster’s denial of democracy by refusing the people of Scotland a S30 order.

  13. yesindyref2 says:

    Yes, there is no such thing as an “illegal referendum”, even if 125,000 SNP members set up 4,000 pretendy polling stations and issued pretendy ballot sheets, and appointed pretendy counteres and pretendy Returning Officers.

    As for “unlawful” it doesn’t need a court to prove a referendum is “lawful”, it’s the other way around. A referendum called is lawful UNLESS a court of law rules that it is unlawful. Same as BoJo proroguing the UK parliament – that was not illegal, and was not even unlawful until challenged successfully in court, and even then the challenge wasn’t completed as he folded his pair of knaves during the hearing and before priling on the bluster and his problems.

    For “framing the debate”, if the Unionists want to take about “illegal referendum” – let them. Because when then a referendum takes place with the full co-operation of the EMB, 32 Returning Officers, counters approved by the EMB, 4,000 officially sanctioned polling stations, and the sanctity of polling stations assured by the Police, then it clearly is a “legal referendum”, and the unionists cooked their own greasy goose.

    We’re going to need more lemon slices for the Unionists.

  14. Maria says:

    “The argument against is that constitutional issues are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act”

    I hear a lot this from colonialists: the matters of the union are reserved to Westminster because the act says so.

    In regards to this I would like to ask:

    1. Who exactly decided that the matters of the union are reserved to Westminster?
    Did the people of Scotland decided so or, again, was a decision made by England’s representatives who do not hold the mandate of a single vote from Scotland?
    If the latter, what right do those people actually had to make such a decision on behalf of Scotland, or worse, to impose that decision on Scotland?

    2. What Scotland entered in 1707 was a voluntary, international political union. There are plenty of quotes, including those of Major in 1993 and more recently in Hansard by some tory politicians themselves, indicating something to the effects that a country cannot be trapped indefinitely in a political union against its will, and that this is part of international law. Well, how can this international law be respected if Scotland, according to those who claim that dissolution of the union is reserved to a Parliament controlled by England, cannot on its own accord dissolve the union and that can only happen if a majority of England MPs decide so?

    3. Besides the signature of the treaty of Union, only an act in the Parliament of Scotland was needed to enter this union. Well, I would like somebody to tell me why exactly an act passed in the reconvened parliament of Scotland is not sufficient for the treaty to be dissolved?

    4. If I understood correctly, the people of Scotland voted to reconvene Holyrood in 1997. It was only AFTER this vote took place and it was established that the people of Scotland wanted that parliament back, that the Scotland Act was passed. In other words, the conditions of the parliament of Scotland according to that Act were established AFTER the vote had taken place. Again, I would like to ask how moving the goalposts AFTER the vote took place, regarding what the meaning of that vote was or what is reserved or not, can in any way or form be considered democratic? And who exactly wrote and dictated that Scotland Act? Did those who redacted the Act and passed the act had any right to take the fundamental, international right of Scotland to unilaterally terminate a international treaty?

    I read no long ago a document “justifying” the need for a section 30 order. This was a document that simply collected the opinions, because that is what it was, opinions, of a bunch of unionist lawyers, including Tomkins. There were no opinions from non unionist lawyers to compensate. I am not lawyer myself but I must admit that I found the document most unconvincing. Unconvincing because while it waffled and waffled about the need of the order on the basis of that act, what the document never actually addressed was the legitimacy of that act in the first place, the legitimacy of any England political representative to deny Scotland its fundamental right to self determination and its right, in line with international law to unilaterally dissolve a treaty that does no longer suit it.

    Case in point is brexit: did the UK ever needed a section 30 order from Brussels to conduct the EU ref? Did Westminster ever need a transfer of power from Brussels for it to pass law to conduct the EU referendum? Did we ever see Cameron begging consent from the other 27 equal partners to conduct the referendum and ensure they would respect the result?

    No. So how exactly can it be explained from a legal point of view that Scotland does need all these things when it is to dissolve a voluntary political union of equals as the EU is?

    The answer is always the same: “The Act”.

    Ahhh!, but what if the Act itself is in fact ultravires because no England politician, elected or unelected had ever the right to curtail Scotland’s rights to self-determination?

    Let’s see where I am coming from:

    1. In line with International law Scotland can unilaterally dissolve that treaty should the circumstances under which that treaty was signed have changed – This right of Scotland is being removed by the concept that only England MPs can decide if the union can be dissolved or not. Can this right be removed?

    2. In line with the Claim of Right, the original one from 1689, it is unlawful to impose absolute ruling over Scotland. Denying Scotland its right to dissolve the treaty or to conduct a referendum that may end up in the end of that treaty is at all effects absolute ruling from our equal partner and therefore a violation of the Claim of Right and the Treaty of Union that upholds that piece of Scots law.

    3. It is no secret that the Kingdom of England controls over 90% of the seats in Westminster and an even bigger percentage of the seats in the unelected HoLs. Well then, how it can possibly be acceptable in the context of a voluntary political union of equals that only a parliament that is controlled by our partner can decide if the union can end or not?

    4. In the context of a voluntary political union, any UK structure, being that the UK gov, the UK parliament, the UK courts etc is not above Scotland because it needs continuous consent from Scotland to maintain its legitimacy to act on behalf of Scotland. Well then, in such a context and a democratic one at that, how can it possibly be lawful for any entity whose legitimacy to exist depends on the consent of Scotland, to actually deny Scotland the opportunity for that consent to be removed? It is absurd.

    So, from where I am standing, there are an awful lot of questions unanswered about the real legitimacy of that Act that apparently transfers, somewhat, Scotland’s legitimate right to self determination and to dissolve a voluntary international treaty to England MPs. Yet, interestingly, the same right to self-determination has never been transferred from the people of England to Scotland’s MSPs or EU MPs.


    • Petra says:

      Excellent post Maria. Too many points to respond to but this stands out for me:-

      ..”Besides the signature of the treaty of Union, only an act in the Parliament of Scotland was needed to enter this union. Well, I would like somebody to tell me why exactly an act passed in the reconvened parliament of Scotland is not sufficient for the treaty to be dissolved?”..

      Add to that proof that a majority of sovereign Scots want to dissolve the treaty.

    • Fable says:

      Fantastic post Maria.. wish it could be published in paper or on billboards actually for ALL to see

  15. Ken2 says:

    Every unionist party politician in Westminster who does not support Independence for Scotland and does not support another Ref does not last very long. They are quite dense but some of them will catch on. If Scotland gets better off so does the rest of the UK.

    In fact they should follow suit of SNP policies of good governance. There would be equality and prosperity. More cohesive government and happier people.

    The EU/UN support the principles of self governance and self determination when people vote for it. EU/UN membership depends on it under International Law. Any member State or politician that oppose it are breaking International Law.

    People in Scotland just have to appeal to the UN to have another Independence Ref. Politicians are not above the Law. They cannot make the Law and break the Law or they will be gone.

    The Scottish Gov has the right and the mandate from the people to have another Indy Ref. Any politician from elsewhere who opposes it and the majority will be gone, There will not be any politician to oppose it in Scotland, No one will vote for them. There will be no opposition in Scotland or elsewhere under International Law.

    The best time to have another IndyRef is when it can be won. The demographics are changing. Anytime soon. Everyone knows it is coming. Massive outright support and victory.

    Scotland is going it’s own way in any case. People are voting for it. More people are joining the SNP. The numbers are increasing once again. To join, donate and campaign. People are contributing to make Scotland and the world a better place.

    • “The EU/UN support the principles of self governance and self determination when people vote for it.”

      Except in Catalunya, when the EU/UNs fake ‘progressives’ and ‘liberals’ have been either complicitly silent in the face of Castilla’s violence or wurble on about ‘the rule of law’.

      “EU/UN membership depends on it under International Law.”

      Unless you’re the Castillian state, in which case you are given a free pass.

      “Any member State or politician that oppose it are breaking International Law.”

      With impunity – see above.

  16. Ken2 says:

    The Barnet Formula and Tory/Westminster policies are illegal. The Westminster Gov acts illegally under International Law and is held to account. Has to change it’s ways.

    Politicians who act illegally are voted out as they should be. They are dense but some of them might catch on to feather their nests. Demographics changing once again. Even among them for self interest,

  17. John McLeod says:

    For me, while comments on this article make valuable points about the legality of referendums, etc, I think they are not really addressing the key point of Paul’s piece, which was about “not allowing our opponents to frame the argument”. Using the language of “legality” (of a referendum) or “uinionist-nationalst” to refer to the opposing sides on such a referendum, implicitly introduces a whole lot of assumptions that – at least in some respects – favour the opponents of an independent Scotland. (Actually, “independent” is another problematic term). Other examples of loaded language are “separatist” and “divorce” (between two countries) and using the First Minister’s personal name rather than her title.

    There is a lot of work to be done to create an alternative language. While Paul has made some suggestions in his article, I am not sure that he really nails it. For example, “British nationalists” retains the concept of nationalism, but just flips it.

    It would be good to use this discussion thread to generate ideas about other words and images that could be used. Paul is a master-wordsmith – maybe he could return to this task in a future piece.

    • John McLeod says:

      The recent Scottish Government document – “Scotland’s Right to Choose” – uses the language of human “rights”, which invokes a level of moral argument that transcends the law. The right to “choose” also invokes the concept of democracy. These seem to me to be useful possibilities for language that frames the debate from a more pro-independence perspective.

      • John McLeod says:

        As well as framing the debate in a way that foregrounds our own values, the language we use also needs to be capable of sustaining a rebuttal to the argument of the opposing side. The language of “legality” represents a powerful tool for the Tory and Labour opponents of independence for Scotland – not only politicians but also mainstream media. It onvokes the possibility of the breakdown of public order. It justifies the dismantling of the devolution settlement, on the grounds that Scotland has proved incapable of governing itself. And it provides citizens of Scotland with a rationale for not participating in a consultative referendum. For these reasons, we need to construct not just a positive language (e.g., invoking rights and democracy) but also a rebuttal argument.

    • Maria says:

      I beg to differ.

      I think my comment above addresses that fake “legality” colonialists allude to by the fact that, the legality of removing Scotland’s right to self-determination and to transfer that right by means of that Act to England MPs is questionable. From where I am standing, what looks like is that England MPs by means of that Act have walked all over international law and Scots law to “steal” Scotland’s legitimate right to dissolve that treaty.

      In other words, the fundamental principle that according to british colonialists underpins the claim of referendum “illegality” is fake, hot air, deception, a red herring or whatever you want to call it and that was given to us in the form of an Act that violates International law, Scots law, the Treaty of union itself and betrays completely those who claim the UK is a union.

      I must admit that rather than deflecting the attacks of colonialists, I much prefer the tactic of fighting their pusillanimous, unconvincing poking with a crushing attack:

      Every time somebody brings that Act as an excuse to suggest our referendum is illegal, I have challenged them to demonstrate first under international law, scots law and the treaty of union itself that it was legitimate in the first place for England MPs to steal Scotland’s fundamental right to self determination and to unilaterally terminate the union to remove those rights from Scotland. Very much like when I ask for positive reasons to remain in the union, so far I have failed to get a single convincing answer from colonialists in support of the legitimacy of that Act.

      In the same way a parent can chance their arm by “forbidding” their 18 year old daughter to stay out until later than 22:00 when the law says that she is a grown up woman and can stay out for as long as she pleases, the colonialists can chance their arm demanding that we ask consent to hold a referendum when international law, our Claim of Right and a the fact this is a union of equals tell us otherwise. The parent can say: my house, my rules. The daughter says, fine, I move out and create my own rules. Colonialists can say: our union, OUR (their) rules. Scotland can say, fine, we don’t agree with your rules so we dissolve OUR union.

      And well, let’s not get started in the concept of “breach of contract”. In any business environment the legitimacy and validity of a signed agreement between two parties, remains extant for as long as BOTH parties are willing to respect the rules. The minute one party reneges on the rules, not just that party but the other one too is released of the burden of rules because the contract has been broken.

      The “contract” that this Act of Scotland 1998 is, clearly states that ALL matters not reserved to Westminster are devolved. This means that from the minute that Act was released on, Westminster had no longer any legitimacy to take away from Holyrood any devolved power, unless this was done with the consent of Holyrood itself. Well, we have seen recently how England MPs, without the consent of Scotland have proceeded to steal 24 powers from us. That is a breach of the Act the size of Jupiter. And it was not the only one. The “contract” also states quite clearly that Holyrood has the right to pass bills. The other “party”, Westminster, bulldozed that part of the contract too the minute they stalled our continuity bill AFTER it was passed, rewrote law to make it illegitimate retrospectively and use that to steal our powers.

      Frankly, that “contract” has been completely smashed to bits by our “partner” who has simply grabbed what it wanted when it wanted. Well, isn’t rather rich from that partner who could not be arsed to respect its own effing rules to now demand from us that we respect them?
      I think it is. I personally think that Act has been completely trashed.

      “It would be good to use this discussion thread to generate ideas about other words and images that could be used”
      While I like to use the expression “british nationalists” to wind up individuals who are clearly desperate to associate the word “nationalist” to exclusively mean Yes supporters, I must admit that I think the word ” British colonialist” defines them much better. I mean, the embarrassing ridiculousness of Alistair Jack recently or Mundell in the no so distant past claiming with a straight face that this is not a union of equals proves my point. And guess what? They really don’t like it!!
      The advantage of the word colonialist is that brings to the fore also the Decolonisation Charter of the UN which they don’t like either.

      Possible idea/images to be used:

      A table to compare the UK with the EU

      Heading: The EU is a voluntary, democratic political union in the same way the UK claims it is.

      Side A:
      the UK never required consent from its 27 equal partners to hold the EU ref
      the UK never required the transfer of power from the EU parliament to Westminster to hold the referendum because the 27 equal partners never falsely claimed they held it.
      the UK EU referendum was never called “illegal” by any of the 27 EU partners
      We never had any of the 27 EU partners’ politicians insulting UK citizens by calling them bigots, separatists, nationalists, by saying they had to be killed off, or by calling the akin to racists for seeking the separation from the EU.
      We never had any of the 27 EU partners’ politicians telling us that the EU is not a union of equals We never had any of our 27 equal partners in the EU telling us that the UK lost its sovereignty the day it entered the EU.
      Every member of the EU has the right to veto
      The European Commission has equal representation from EACH member state


      Side B
      Westminster claims that Scotland needs consent from its partner to hold a referendum for which it already has a mandate
      Westminster claims that Scotland requires the transfer of its own power from England MPs before it can hold a referendum for which it holds a democratic mandate
      Westminster MPs have called “illegal” a referendum for which the people of Scotland has given a democratic mandate not once, not twice, not three but four times
      The kIngdom of England’s political party representatives have called us separatists, bigots, racists, nationalists and said that we should be killed off simply for seeking a better future for our country
      We are told that the UK is not a union of equals and that somewhat England MPs have a bigger say over Scotland than our own legitimate representatives themselves.
      We are being told constantly by our “equal partner” in the UK that Scotland lost its sovereignty the day it joined the union.
      England MPs denied Scotland its right to veto as equal partner in the UK union.
      The UK government today only has representation and mandate from England

      which one is the democratic union?

      So where would you rather be

      • Liz G says:

        Sadly, Maria in 2014 the majority of the people of Scotland voted to continue with the Westminster system of government.
        In effect we, the people of Scotland, for the first time in 300 odd years Ratified the Treaty of Union and how Westminster choose to interpret that Treaty….. We said,all that,and their Parliamentary Sovereignty was just fine by us they should just carry on.
        It wasn’t framed that way of course and I’ve always thought “Independence” was the wrong word to be using,but there it is!
        Farther into the Act you cite is the Phrase ,
        ” nothing about this Act affects the UK Parliaments ability to make or unmake any law for Scotland” so Westminster can take any and all power from Holyrood it chooses to.
        Holyrood is an Instrument of Westminster and that’s why it gets to set the terms within which Holyrood must act.
        We voted for that in 2014 too!

        The fly in the ointment is that Holyrood is also elected by the people of Scotland and should have the authority that we say it does, ironically we can give Holyrood any power we want it to have.
        We just need to find a route to a vote for it
        We just voted in a Westminster election for a manifesto to instruct Westminster to facilitate Holyrood to run a Referendum.
        It’s a clearly expressed demand from the Scottish People and the how and the why with which Westminster views Holyrood is their problem.
        Like we’ve been hearing for the last 3 years..
        The people have spoken
        Westminster needs to get this done…. We’ve told them clearly enough…And I suspect that no judge can set aside the 2019 election result especially not only for Scotland. So I think that’s the road we would need to go down if this came to a Court…
        This is not Holyrood V Westminster this is the
        Scottish Electorate V Westminster.
        Holyrood is doing what we told it to do at it’s last election and putting together our next vote.
        It’s Westminster that is pretending it can ignore our 2019 vote.
        And up with this we should not put even the British Nationalists shouldn’t stand for such behaviour and we should be telling them that every chance we get.

        • Maria says:

          “Sadly, Maria in 2014 the majority of the people of Scotland voted to continue with the Westminster system of government”

          And our votes in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2019 have refused to give a mandate to the political party leading the Westminster system of government to act on behalf of Scotland.

          What makes our old vote in 2014, 5 years ago and under a status quo that does no longer exist any more valid than every single one of our votes since then?


          What is good for the geese is good for the gander. If our vote from 2014 must be respected even when our equal partner purposely destroyed the status quo that gave democratic meaning and legitimacy to that vote, then surely there is even more reason to respect every single vote afterwards for the simply reason that they are far more recent and in any democracy the electorate has a right to change its mind.

  18. Ken2 says:

    The Tories illegally delayed Devolution for 20 years. Labour illegally restricted the vote. It is only Devolution and EU membership that has improved the Scottish/UK/world economy.

    The Westminster Gov has held the world back with illegal policies. Illegal wars and illegal internal policies. They have had to change or be thrown out of the EU, the UN and the International community. People will vote against them.

    The lies illegality and bad governance exposed. The world laughing stock still not resolved. They will have to change their stance on Independence for Scotland or be voted out. Scotland has friends in many places. Worldwide. Major support. Westminster is despised.

    • Maria says:

      “The Tories illegally delayed Devolution for 20 years”

      Actually Ken2, if I may say, the jury is still out there regarding if Devolution itself was legal or not in the context of a voluntary, democratic political union of equals.

      In my opinion, for Devolution to have been legal in that context, identical powers should have been devolved equally and simultaneously to Scotland and to the Kingdom of England. That would have been the only way you could respect the concept of “union of equals”. But they weren’t. Scotland got a few devolved powers while England preserved control over all its powers plus the UK purse, plus the UK government and parliament plus the rest of the powers from Scotland and the ones that every now and then it helps itself back to.

      What the UK has been transformed into at all practical effects with this asymmetric devolution is in England plus 3 colonies.

      Devolution was in my personal view another british colonialist red herring designed to keep the illusion that Holyrood was inferior to Westminster and England MPs own Scotland’s sovereignty and power and more than anything to slow down if not stopping Scotland’s self determination altogether.

      They failed.

      • Iain McCord says:

        My quibble with devolution is that it presumes that all sovereignty lies with Westminster. Under English law that is based on the idea of a puppet monarch who only occasionally rebels but from whom sovereignty derives. Under Scots Law that’s untrue and this year is the ideal one for reminding people of that fact. Our monarch is only sovereign as long as we say so. There has always been a body able to replace one with another. Fundamentally the sovereignty Westminster has from Scotland comes from it’s people rather than the Crown. There’s a reason Scotland’s Unicorn is depicted with the gold crown round it’s neck and a gold chain tying it to the land.

        Ramble over. Devolution is not the word I’d use when the situation is one of a transfer of the authority delegated by the people of Scotland from one elected body to another.

        • Maria says:

          “My quibble with devolution is that it presumes that all sovereignty lies with Westminster”

          Which goes against the principle of Sovereignty of Scotland.
          Still, even if we were to accept the assumption that the sovereignty of Scotland lies with Westminster, it can only lie with the actual legitimate representatives of Scotland, which are the 59 MPs Scotland has in Westminster. The problem is that somewhat, in the process of 300 years, over 90% of Scotland’s sovereignty has been miraculously self-transferred to England MPs, yet there has not been an equal transfer of 90% of the Kingdom of England’s sovereignty to Scotland.

          “Fundamentally the sovereignty Westminster has from Scotland comes from it’s people rather than the Crown”

          And because of this, the unionist problem with this idea of Westminster holding sovereignty is that since devolution you cannot longer credibly claim in any possible way or form that Westminster holds all Scotland’s sovereignty, not even under English law. Because, from the point of view of Scotland, what exactly makes any England MP elected exclusively by England constituents any more important or hold more of Scotland’s sovereignty than an MSP who has been elected directly by the people of Scotland? Nothing. Besides, the question in the ballot in 1997 said nothing about “devolution”, it talked about a parliament with taxing powers.

          “Devolution is not the word I’d use when the situation is one of a transfer of the authority delegated by the people of Scotland from one elected body to another.”

          The problem Iain is that the actual transfer of authority has never taken place, has it? The proof of this is how England MPs proceeded to steal 24 devolved powers from Holyrood back to Westminster without the consent of Scotland and against their own laws, aka the devolution settlement. And that, in my view, is one of the reasons that makes devolution illegitimate: the transfer of power demanded by the people of Scotland in 1979 and 1997 in the form of legitimate democratic referendums has never actually happened. The powers have only been “lent”, not transferred in full as they should have done. In addition, asymmetric lending of power to Scotland while England retains full control of all the power and has its hand permanently in the UK treasury purse to help itself on demand, flies in the face of the uK being a union of equals.

  19. Ken2 says:

    Any opposition to Scottish Independence are losing the argument big time, worldwide. Totally out of line.

  20. Macart says:

    Spookily, I don’t recall UK gov asking anyone’s permission to hold a referendum either. Not the EU and most certainly not us. Which, y’know…, might be an idea if you let a best luuurved partner, in the bestest yoonion in the yooniverse, know when you’re going to make major changes in relationships. Last we’d heard from representatives of UK politics, our place as members of the EU could only be guaranteed by voting no in earlier referendum.

    Mmmmm, probably slipped their minds. That, or they simply didn’t give a shit what their populations thought of their crass idiocy.

    And as for the results of any referendum not being legally/democratically or politically binding? They might want to examine their own recent history.

  21. Ken2 says:

    Duncan Smith getting a knighthood for illegally killing people. What an insult. He will not last long. What a hypocrite along with Hague. Lying hypocrites. A figure of derision. Building up support Independence.

    Cameron, Clegg Brown gone, The rest will go the same way. Out. The Emperor has no clothes, now being found out. On the way out of office already. Brexit will never happen. A catastrophe. Deluded Westminster politicians and deluded people. Pathetic. Fooled once. Not twice and three times.

    International Law will put an end to them. The Courts and International Law already calling them out. People will not stand for them. Their duplicity will lead to their own demise. Despised.

    Just like Thatcher they had to get rid of Thatcher. Social unrest and non cohesion. Scotland now has Devolution to stand up to them. A different outlook and situation. The SNP Gov standing up for Scotland and it’s place in the world with many friends around. Westminster increasing isolated and out of touch. A long way, lagging behind.

  22. Ken2 says:

    Psychopathic bastards might be a good term to use. The Tories called themselves, Their own description. They had to get rid the Thatcher for closer ties with Europe and more prosperity. Do a u-turn because of social unrest and rioting. They could not make a bigger mess. Deja Vu.

    The Westminster psychopathic bastards, Their own description. They called each other out. A complete and utter shambles destroying the world economy. The banking and migration crisis. The illegal wars, tax evasion and monetary fraud still having to be sorted out. They will not get away with it, within their union. They will have to change. Exposure,

  23. BLMac says:

    There is one simple fact:
    The oppressing country always makes it ‘illegal’ for the colony to pursue independence.

    It’s time the SNP grew a set and started confronting the lies of the union.

  24. Julia Gibb says:

    One phrase in the article sums it up for me!
    “..they are not giving you a legal fact, they are giving you a political opinion”

  25. Mark Russell says:

    Great post, Paul. Here’s a suggestion, if I may.

    To move independence to the centre stage will require positive action from the people of Scotland – in circumstances where a democratic vote is denied. The easiest way to achieve the necessary focus, is for tax-payers in Scotland to return their HMRC demands due next month with a notice refusing payment to the UK Treasury and transferring any monies due to a deposit account. Copy this notice and send it to the Scottish Government and pledge the funds to them instead, to be transferred on the day independence is declared.

    It would take only a few thousand to freak the City. One million and we’d have independence by Easter…

    • mogabee4 says:

      How many actually receive a demand? Tax taken at source in most cases!

      • Mark Russell says:

        Those who are self employed. I don’t know how many in Scotland currently are on self assessment. Is a million a fair guess? For the record, I haven’t paid any income tax to HMRC since 2003 when Blair lied to Parliament to justify the illegal war with Iraq. I haven’t owned a house or had any assets worth more than a few hundred pounds, so I’m in the happy position of being relatively untouchable. But I notified HMRC of my reasons – the UK has acted as a terrorist organisation and to support it financially is a criminal offence. I’ve had several meetings with HMRC officials but not since I stopped working. The tax payable to HMRC was donated each year to various hospices in the UK. That was simply my choice – I haven’t tried to influence others, but it seems to me that is everyone took a similar stance, it might make a difference.

        It’s always about the money. Got to be better than bullets…

  26. Albis says:

    It seems to me that, going by their behaviour, an even more fitting term than ‘British nationalist’ is ‘British supremacist’.

  27. Luigi says:

    SNP politicians must challenge the assertion of unlawfulness at every opportunity. The establishment are trying to set this in stone just in case they need to organise s Union boycott at short notice. You heard it here first. 🙂

  28. David Agnew says:

    I remember this nonsense kicking off in the run up to 2014. With Clegg insisting that we be referred to as extremists and separatists. Torrance coined the term Cybernat. Various fools would try to play the superiority card by exclaiming that British identity was better than mere Scottish identity because it wasn’t a national identity?

    We’re back to defending ourselves from the label game.

    Problem for the British in Scotland, is that Boris will be waging a culture war, during and after Brexit. Going to be a wee bit harder for them to pull that shite.

  29. Welsh Sion says:

    Here’s another thing to think about when we are presented with this ‘once in a generation’ guff.

    But first, some history. Many of you will know that during the 19th century, my country’s quasi-State religion was Welsh language led Calvinistic Methodism (which saw itself, amongst other things, as a counterpoint to English-speaking Anglicanism). I’ve always tended to see them as similar to the ‘Wee Frees’ – but I can stand corrected on this point.

    Certainly, their zeal for religiosity involved condemning those not following the ‘true path to salvation’ as surely damned and a suffocating (and often illogical) oppressive attitude to the commemoration of the Lord’s Day, the Sabbath. My grandfather’s family attended Chapel thrice on a Sunday (changing their clothes each time) and were forbade from any form of work on that day – including using a scissors.

    Of course, one of the Nonconformists main bete noires as ‘the Demon Drink’. To this end they achieved what the thought was the ultimate victory in 1881, when the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act was passed at Westminster. (The first Act incidentally specific to Wales since the ‘Act of Union’ of 1542 …) This Act shut the pubs in Wales on Sundays, and was extended to Monmouthshire in 1921. (Many are the subsequent tales of thirsty Welshies crossing the border into England on Sundays and drinking hostelries dry …)

    However, nothing lasts forever (be they temperance values of the ‘bestest’ Union in the universe) and in 1961, Westminster again intervened and repealed the 1881 Act and passed the Licensing Act. This provided for Welsh local authorities (the counties and subsequently the districts) to hold mini-referendums EVERY SEVEN YEARS of their inhabitants if they wished their area to remain ‘dry’ (i.e, with pubs closed on Sundays) or to go ‘wet’ (i.e. enabling the pubs to open on Sundays). These mini-referendums were held throughout the country, with the ‘wet’ areas increasing septuannually until their final abolishment in 2003.

    In all cases, the results were recognised by Westminster.

    Now, this was not an issue with regards the independence of a nation. But the referendums (and the issues of dry = traditional Welshness; wet = Anglicising forces) were very much played out against a backdrop of self-identifying issues of nationality. True, the centralising, homogenising forces of EnglandandWales eventually won this particular issue, but Welshness still persists. How could it not? But that’s another matter …)

    Let’s then try to bring together a few strands.

    a) The referendums were held in Wales, under the auspices of local authorities in Wales with those resident in Wales allowed the vote. No one outwith the country was allowed such a vote (Welsh: ‘pleidlais’ literally: ‘a voice in favour (of something)’ with the results being accepted by Westminster.

    b) The referendums were held every SEVEN YEARS – not by any imagination ‘a generation’. Welsh people were encouraged to have their say, and minds were allowed to change in the intervening period.

    c) Following on from the above, what is to prevent Scottish local authorities from holding their own mini-referendums on independence with regard to ‘the national question’? (Yes, we’re not there yet either, but have you noticed a growing number of local authorities in Wales who declared themselves in favour of independence during this last year of 2019 – and not just the usual suspects?)

    Wishing you all a Happy Hogmanay and the very best for 2020, I will, to the best of my ability, remain a good friend of Scotland’s (outside a certain 80 minute period later next year!) and worker for the independence of our two great nations.

    Tros Gymru / For Scotland.

    • Bob Lamont says:

      And best wishes reciprocated WS…
      Excellent though your point is on precedence, a referendum has been accepted as advisory for decades, it is up to the advised authority what to then do with it… But what if Cameron’s undertaking to accept and enact on the Brexit Referendum result set a precedent (albeit to assuage the internal Tory conflict over the EU he portrayed he could expunge) crossed the boundary between plebiscite and binding referendum?
      The new Referendums Bill for Scotland only now requires Royal Assent, and it is this which is the real game changer as it permits such a referendum to be wholly within the remit of Holyrood on a national rather than a regional/county basis. Generic though it’s form is, nobody is any doubt “independence” is part of it’s core thinking, hence Westminster’s best agents attempting to throw spanners in the works, but it will now assuredly become Law as HRH has previous experience of the response:
      ‘Oh no, not them,’ said the Queen, throwing up her hands.
      It wasn’t just the Nac Mac Feegles, but also Wentworth, a strong smell of seaweed, a lot of water and a dead shark. They appeared in mid-air and landed in a heap between Tiffany and the Queen. But a pictsie was always ready for a fight, and they bounced, rolled and came up drawing their swords and shaking sea water out of their hair.
      ‘Oh, ‘tis you, izzut?’ said Rob Anybody, glaring up at the Queen. ‘Face to face wi’ ye at last, ye bloustie ol’ callyack that ye are! Ye canna’ come here, unnerstand? Be off wi’ ye! Are ye goin’ to go quietly?’
      The Queen stamped heavily on him. When she took her foot away, only the top of his head was visible above the turf.
      ‘Well, are ye?’ he said, pulling himself out as if nothing had happened. ‘I don’t wantae havtae lose my temper wi’ ye! An’ it’s no good sendin’ your pets against us, ‘cos you ken we can take ‘em tae the cleaners!’ He turned to Tiffany, who hadn’t moved. ‘You just leave this tae us, Kelda. Us an’ the Quin, we go way back!”
      ― Terry Pratchett, The Wee Free Men

    • Legerwood says:

      Scotland also had a ban on Sunday opening of pubs but you could get a drink in hotels if you were a bone fides traveller. To prove this was the case you had to travel a minimum distance and the proof was a bus ticket. This system lasted from the 19th century into the 1960s if I have remembered correctly.

      Scotland also had polls on whether an area should be ‘dry’ or not. The polls were set up unter the Temperance (Scotland) Act 1913. To hold a poll required a petition with a certain percentage of signatures from the local population and the vote was usually held at the same time as the local elections. Kirkintilloch was one of the ‘dry’ areas. Of course all you had to do to get a drink was get a bus to the next town.

      Not sure that it would be in anyway useful when it comes to holding an independence referendum.

  30. Hamish100 says:

    Looking back on the year is the SNP in a better position than last year. The answer is Yes. With Johnson as PM help convince independence waverers to become permanent Independence supporter. The answer is Yes. Will it happen next year? Who knows? There are many hurdles to get over next year with potential court cases, the nigglers/ underminers wishing a new Independence Party (they ignore the Greens are already there) wanting to introduce a 3rd party to split votes even more. Slowly, too slowly people are moving to independence but it is happening. 16yr olds + (10yrs old in 2014) will vote positively for the existing independence parties. Don’t let our hand be forced by others.

    OT- AMAZON in the US intending to pay their workers a minimum pay of $15. SNP should exploit this for our workers.

  31. romiveda says:

    Is this or should some of this be part if the organised Repudiation that many of us look for?

  32. romiveda says:

    Should these unionist assertions be subject to the organised Repudiation that many of us look for?

  33. JSM says:

    Reblogged this on Ramblings of a 50+ Female and commented:
    I sincerely hope that SNP MSP’s/MP’s read your blogs, Paul.

  34. givinggoose says:

    I would add some more narrative when engaging.
    British Nationalists should not have a go-to middle ground of “Scottish” as an ID.
    They are British and should be encouraged to drop any grey areas.
    We are engaged in a very real sruggle for Scotland and that includes her identity as a nation.
    If someone rejects that by adopting British Nationalist symbols as part of their ID, e.g. the union jack even if alongside a Saltire, then they should be called out.
    Reject their claim to being Scottish.
    The are British and should be reminded of this purity of self ID.

    • Jackson Carlaw is a Democratic Unionist, and as such has bee ‘acting’ Leader since August 2019, of the Scottish Branch of the DUP, since Ruth Davidson folded her tent and headed homewards to look after her bairn, and erm other things.

      Willie Rennie is the ‘leader’ of five, of the Party formerly know as the Jo Swinson for PM Party, the Blue Tory Collaborators, and Richard Leonard is the Marxist Communist who mounted a hostile takeover of the Labour Branch Office on the backs of CLP Corbyn activists, and his fellow Shop Stewards, in the likes of Unite and GMB.
      The Commies ousted Labour. Job done. Now the burial in 2020.

      They are three quite awful Nobodies, who speak of their ‘country’ as the political construct that is the ‘UK’.
      They are ‘British’.

      They deny that Scotland is a ‘country’, and are backed in this lie by the MSM, from Toodle Oo The Noo to the Dead Tree Scrollers whose circulations disappear down their own Brit Nat Propaganda Rags waste disposal, with alarming finality and mass redundancies staring them in the face by the close of the financial year in March 2020.

      Call them out in public. Challenge them every time they declare that ‘the country’ voted to leave the EU.

      They mean ‘England’,the country which they really represent, as bulldogs dressed in tartan trews.

      They are Scots citizens who do not have Scotland’s welfare, freedom, or society, as their first and foremost priority.
      They have sold out to their Southern Masters, for indecently bloated wages.

      Every time they declare that ‘the country’ has decided, then challenge them.

      Jackson Carlaw is as bitter a Brit as Arlene and the deposed Nigel, Rennie has contributed absolutely nothing to Scottish politics, and Leonard is one of those old Commie Shop Stewards who is being extremely successful in destroying the Labour Party in Scotland, the ultimate end game of any card carrying Marxist.

      It is time for Labour in Scotland to boot him and his Corbyn Yoof out on their ear, declare independence from England, and form as genuine Scottish Labour Party, campaigning fiercely for Scottish Self Determination, in a nuclear free Scotland, now, not in 2021, or 2024…

      I repeat, when they declare; ‘the country’, demand to know to which ‘country’ they refer; The Never Never Land of ‘Britain’ or ‘Scotland’ the land of their birth or choice.

      That Richard Leonard refuses to resign is an absolute disgrace, but every cloud has a silver lining.

      He is easily the most abject leader of the Scottish Branch Office, worth 10’s of thousands of No to Yes converts at the Referendum in the Autumn of 2020.

      Carlaw the depurty leader of the DUP in Scotland, will trundle along unchallenged.
      The Also Ran seven times failure Murdo Fraser is the only option if Carlaw steps down.
      Now, that would be manna from heaven for the Yes movement.

      Rennie’s tenure a leader of the Party Formerly Known as The Jo Swinson For PM Party, is open ended. He is the ‘leader’ of nought. Nobody would take the job.
      Paul is on the money.
      There is nothing illegal about democracy.
      If these three men begin as party leaders in Edinburgh in January, game set and match.

    • John says:

      I am British and Scottish. By chance.
      A forces brat that had carried the Union flag proudly through a Norfolk town ( swaffham) as a Cub Scout on Remembrance Sunday when it was about all victims of war.
      By chance I was born to parents born and raised in Scotland and born there myself. Off before a year old to half way round the world to one of the post ww2 vanishing colonies. My parents were British too.
      Growing up in England explained the differences of the British nationalities. Try going through the yearly games of football that used to happen . Though through the 70’s Scotland would qualify for World Cup on their own but big losses hurt. Also most teams in England were very British.

      That rambled. I recognised the class ridden nature that was anchored in the military to support the uk empire private schooled system. So by the age of 11 in September 1977 when The Stranglers released Something Better Change , I was a committed Scottish Independence supporting Republican. All else makes no sense.

      I want to reclaim being British. It’s a term first applied to folk from these isles by the romans I believe. Long before any folk from Denmark or Germany known as angles or Saxons washed up .

      Back on thread . Great post. Thanks .
      We have to disregard the false narrative and framing of shite. Remember how frustrating this must be for the natives of the US and Australia!

  35. Robert Moffat says:

    Don’t miss the difference between illegal and unlawful. A referendum called by the Scottish parliament might or might not be beyond its powers, and if so would be unlawful, and therefore have no standing at all. To be illegal there would have to be an actual offence, and a criminal penalty, and that is not even in question. As Paul says, be very wary of the terms chosen by the Unionists – they are chosen to suit their agenda!

  36. JGedd says:

    Craig Murray has already indicated that the insistence on using the internal legal system of the predecessor state – in this case the UK legal system – has already been addressed in the International Court of Justice. In a submission to the Court, regarding Kosovo, the UK government clearly set out the legal case for setting aside the internal laws of the predecessor state in regard to secession by the seceding entity and its recognition internationally. This argument was endorsed by the International Court.

    It seems obvious – and was so to the UK government – to be an impossible situation to argue for secession from a state that only has to point to its own system of law in order to frustrate the ambitions of a people within its boundaries to achieve independence from that state. To try to argue against any UK decision using the UK legal system would appear to be an exercise in impotence. Instead we have the UK’s own concise refutation of that situation in international law.

    “The conditions” for the seceding state ” do not include compliance with the internal legal requirements of the predecessor State. Otherwise the international legality of a secession would be predetermined by the very system of internal law called in question by the circumstances in
    which the secession is occurring.”

    Further – “For the same reason, the constitutional authority of the seceding entity to proclaim
    independence within the predecessor State is not determinative as a matter of international
    law. In most if not all cases, provincial or regional authorities will lack the constitutional
    authority to secede. The act of secession is not thereby excluded.”

    These quotations are from Craig Murray’s extract of the UK’s submission to the International Court. It is significant that the Spanish government does not recognise Kosovo and from their point of view, it was perhaps sensible of them not to ignore the endorsement of the Court for the UK’s argument, being only too well aware of their own situation re Catalonia.

    The UK, however, did not appear to think of their own position re Scotland in international terms. It would be fair to use their own argument against them surely?

  37. Petra says:

    Professor John Robertson exposing the propaganda.

    • Petra, John Robertson calls it as it is; The Ministry of Truth on the Clyde.
      How do these people face their children at night when they constantly produce this relentless evil Scotland is Shite torrent of lies?
      Are they brainwashed from childhood to be Loyal Little Brits, second class citizens to their Southern neighbours by dint of having the misfortune to be born in England’s last remaining Cash Cow colony?
      They were bumming up the valiant work that the EIS shop stewards have done in getting cash compen pay outs for teachers injured in slips falls and assaults as the main headline this morning on BBC News Where You Are but not ‘national’ BBC England headlines at breakfast time.
      I hope to live to see this evil Tower of Babel close down and its equipment shipped back to London, the real centre of their pathetic little universe.

      We are on the verge of greatness, mes braves.

    • Bob Lamont says:

      Indeed Jack, if only Robertson’s forensic debunking of the nonsense peddled by BBC Scotland had a fraction of their reach, any shred of credibility would be on the first available train south…
      Coincidentally on their website had spotted “Your most-read Scottish stories of 2019″…
      Not in the Scotland section mark you but Scotland Politics, leading with of course the Alex Salmond story they are so eager to promote in 2020….
      As the establishment’s sole northern outlet for direct feed propaganda, it’s closure will only be forced following independence, until then the debunking needs wider consumption….
      Roll on Indy2020, it can’t come quick enough…

      • When the Salmond Witch Trials by media begin I fully intend to flood the Blogisphere with the Sex Expenses and drink scandals of the Brit Nat politicians of the ‘Teenies, the first decade of the Twenty First Century during which the English Empire finally collapsed in on itself.
        Tit for tat with Hutcheon’s Taylor’s and Gordon’s schlock horror mad rapist torrent of lurid prose which is nailed on from day one and the judge’s opening remarks.
        Be prepared , ye Blue Red and Yellow Brit Natters, especially those who have been very naughty boys and girls indeed..
        No stone will be left unturned.
        Sex pests, expenses fiddlers, racists, drunks, be warned; I am about to re-release your Greatest Hits.
        We fight fire with incendiary bombs, Bob.
        No more looking helplessly on.

        NS will be dragged into this, of course.

        It will have no impact on the unstoppable movement towards our ultimate and inevitable journey’s end, Independence.

        • Bob Lamont says:

          OOfff, first Bilge & Swoon, then BBC Scotland (Down), what next? “Peppered Wings over Scotland”, “Parliamo Shite?”, “Rolf Haggis 2”, can hardly wait 🤣… Hae a guid ‘in…

        • Robert Graham says:

          Jack & Bob a wee observation on both your comments Re BBC in Scotland ,
          Tonight will probably be one of the only times in the year we hear our native tongue spoken , probably from about 8.00 pm we will start to hear Scottish voices bedecked in Tartan no doubt just for effect ,a wee titbit to make the Jocks feel at home and welcome by the greater England .
          A caged country and most of them dont bloody notice the bars ,
          as for the salem witch trial we about to witness , i ask everyone is it really plausible the most investigated watched and followed person in Scotland could possibly get away with scratching his arse without some news hack making it front page news, the sheer volume of charges is akin to a scattergun approach hopping for one hit . So far Alex has weathered the storm but just wait for the surprise late new charges to suddenly appear ,aye MI5 are masters at the black arts .

          • True, Robert, there is more to this than meets the eye. But it is a hornets’ nest to poke nearer the time.
            There is something rotten at the Top of the Office of the Scottish Civil Service, and some of the more sinister hacks in the Dead Tree Scrolls are clearly aiding and abetting the Brit Security Services ,who consider the SNP and Scottish Yes Movement as enemies of the ‘British State’.
            They know who they are, as someone once observed.
            And so do we.

          • Bob Lamont says:


  38. Ken2 says:

    The SNHS Healthcare Bill in Scotland is £12.5Billion. One of the biggest spend of government. (Block grant approx £30Billion) The SNP Gov has increased it £1.5Billion a year since gaining (limited power).

    The Westminster ConDems in 2010 cut NHS funding in UK £4Billion a year from 2015 to 2020 (£20Billion) instead of increasing it. They have had to put in increased injection because of the affects of the cuts.

    The SNP Gov has had to mitigate these cuts although the Westminster Gov has decreased the Scottish budget 10% a year, Now over £3Billion short (along with the rest excess going to Westminster. Despite increased Scottish tax revenues every year. £63Billion. Increased £3Billion a year. UK tax revenues receipts not increasing by comparison. Tax cuts for the wealthiest and austerity, elsewhere.

    The Healthcare bill is higher historically in Scotland because of Westminster Gov policies (Thatcher) taking monies secretly and illegally out of Scotland. Ruining the Scottish economy and lying about it. Flat earth policies. Scottish revenues funding London S/E, disproportionately.

    120,000 more people have died in the rest of the UK because of austerity. The life expectancy rate is falling for the first time. Austerity is killing Tory supporters, the elderly. Vote Tory die younger. Killing off their own supporters. No a great policy with few members. Dying off, especially in Scotland. Average age 70 and male.

    Scotland loses average of £20Billion a year to Westminster policies. Illegal wars, tax evasion and financial fraud. The Barnett Formula (Thatcher) is illegal.Takes £Billions out of Scotland because of Westminster policies.

    Scotland raises more pro rata than the rest of the UK. £63Billion. Over £10Billion more. Then has to pay for Westminster failures, Failure policies. A complete and utter shambles. Brexit will cost Scotland dear. £Billions although people in Scotland did not vote for it.

    If Scotland was Independent it would be more like Norway (other prosperous) countries and raise £80Billion. Not paying for illegal wars, Westminster debt not borrowed or spent in Scotland. Trident, HS2, Hickley Point etc all a total waste of monies.

    Scotland cannot borrow to invest in the economy. Growth that would pay for itself in returns. Stagnating the Scottish economy. Ie invest to accumulate like other countries.

    The SNP Scottish Gov standing up for Scotland with better policies. Scotland is going it’s own way in any case. Independence will make Scotland better off than Westminster failed policies. Making the same mistakes over and over again. Westminster failure they learn nothing.

    Westminster Brexit shambles, Going from one crisis to the other with failed government. If Scotland gets better off so does the rest of Britain, instead of Westminster taking out of Scotland since1928 and before.

    The healthcare service in Scotland is better in every way than the rest of the UK. Reaches higher targets. Funded better with better service and social care. MUP pricing will have a benefit on Healthcare funding. Labour did not support it. They would rather see more people die in Scotland.

    Healthcare would be even better with Independence instead of Westminster failure and the Barnett Formula taking revenues secretly and illegally from Scotland. Scotland paying over the odds for Westminster failure and non democracy. Scotland outvoted 10 to 1 at Westminster. A democratic deficit.

    Scotland has an excellent healthcare system by comparison that would be even better with more funding. If people who use it most, the elderly, stopped voting unionist. ie voting to die younger. Voting for illegal wars, tax evasion, financial fraud and Brexit.

    Healthcare workers are leaving Britain because of Brexit. Leaving a deficit. More doctors, nurses medical staff in Scotland are now being trained because of Scottish Gov increased funding. To reduce the deficit caused by Westminster Gov chronic interference in the Scottish economy for years and years.

    Vote Tory die younger, especially in Scotland. The SNP Scottish Gov policies are increasing life expectancy in Scotland. Making people better off and more prosperous by comparison. Reducing poverty. In 2020 poorer children will receive a £10 payment, eradicating (child) poverty in Scotland. A major feat. There is a great reduction in the numbers of children in care because of kinship payments. A vast reduction. They stay within the families, where they should be.

    MUP, increased social care, more SNHS funding. Mitigating poverty, increased nursery care. Reducing poverty and inequality. Lower unemployment. Low than the rest of the UK the first time in history. SNP Gov policies in Scotland. Independence will be even better. Better policies in Scotland to add to the improvement. No Brexit shambles.

    The SNHS and the economy are in better hands in Scotland by comparison. The SNP Scottish Gov working miracles by comparison to other countries and government. Instead of rubbish Brexit, elsewhere. Not attainable.

    Higher education attainment in Scotland as well. One of the best in the world. Mitigating Westminster austerity and welfare cuts. People have to vote for better policies and Independence. EU membership. The EU costs Scotland nothing and brings benefit. Grants, investment, CAP payment and shared, lower Defence costs. The EU established to stop war and poverty in Europe/world has been a successful partnership.

    Happy Independent New Year when it comes.Everything to look forward. Health, equality, prosperity and happiness, Scotland in better hands the people of Scotland. Democracy as it should be.

  39. Ken2 says:

    There few assaults on teachers in Scotland. An extremely rare occurrence %. Additional needs provision not recognised by unionist councils? Training provision not provided. Teachers get compensated as they should do.

    The education budget £Billions. £1.5Billion+. Increased (nursery) provision. More training and investment. Compensation a few £thousand in reflection. Teacher do a great job and most are happy at their job. Job satisfaction.

    Population of 5,2million. Attacks are minimal. Scotland has one of the best education system in the world. It could be even better without Westminster failure of policies and gross interference in the Scottish economy,

    Distorted ‘news’. Lazy, incompetent reporting. Lack of unionist education, training and investment. MSM controlled by Westminster government. Illegally owned by non Dom tax evaders. Westminster controlled failure.

    Without a free and fair Press there is no democracy. Another Westminster unionist failure. Westminster Gov is supposed to ensure a free and balance Press. Another failure. Leveson recommendation not implemented.

    Murdoch criminal got away with £30Billion. Acted illegally. He is not even a UK resident citizen. A US citizen for business interest. Illegal bribery and corruption of public servants. Illegal surveillance. Illegal bribery and corruption.

    Illegal surveillance and criminal activities by the Press. Supporting illegal wars, killing and maiming people. Tax evasion and financial fraud indebted and dying out. The internet a better source of shared information. Than any tainted Press coverage. Beating them at their own game. Leading to MSM demise. Trying to take people as fools,

  40. Ken2 says:

    There is far more better, higher choice in Scottish education system. Far more opportunity for learning. 5 ‘Higher’ subject choice, as opposed to 3 ‘A’ level limited choice elsewhere. Scottish pupils have access to a wider range of subjects and attainment, including additional needs provision and awareness. Skills and training,

    Scotland has the highest access to education and skills in the world. Uni, college skills and apprenticeship. In the world. More uni colleges and skills than anywhere else in the world.

    More uni colleges pro rata than anywhere else in the world. 15 uni + colleges pro rata of population. The highest in the world. 50% of population go to uni. 30% from school. 20/25% mature students. Life long learning. 2nd chances and change of careers. Colleges, apprenticeships. Educational loans, grants, apprenticeships and access for all. Scottish education system the envy of the world. World acclaimed. Students from all over the world. World class. Prized prestigious degree. Recognised worldwide. A 40million disaporia.

    Scotland has always had a great commitment to education. One of the first countries to have tertiary education for all. Scottish educational achievement has influenced the world. Scotland ‘the country of discovery and invention’. Medical, science achievement. Telecommunications. Led on to the internet. Vast achievement. Educational excellence and achievement influence the world. The ‘Enlightenment’ Scottish beliefs of democracy and equality influence the world achievement. ‘The Declaration of Arbroath’.

    A world class education system. Look at the statistics. University research. Still room for improvement.

    Criticised by the ignorant and arrogant. Dunces.

  41. Ken2 says:

    Even elite educationalists get the facts wrong and are arrogant and ignorant. Intransigent. High achievers who pull up the ladder. Thatcher? Often for political purposes and self remuneration. Look at the statistics gained in University research. Often benefitting from EU/world funding in Scotland. The excellent research done in Scotland.

    Oxbridge funded £2000 to £1 of other uni educational institutions. Unequal and unfair. Many do not learn very much about life. Some elitist psycho bastards who destroy people’s world. The UK/union the most unequal place in the world.

  42. Ken2 says:

    The Tory ConDem cut the UK educational funding £6Billion a year from 2015-2020. (£30Billion) Austerity. After Clegg made false promises to support it. Lied for some power. Now working for Facebook tax dodgers. Tax evader.

    The SNP Scottish Gov has had to mitigate the cuts,

  43. Robert says:

    An advisory referendum is no more illegal than a YouGov poll

Comments are closed.