Normalising gerrymandering on the BBC

On Friday evening on BBC Reporting Scotland there was a sly wee piece which attempted to normalise the idea that people born in Scotland who live elsewhere in the UK should be eligible for a vote in the next independence referendum. It was a classic example of a British nationalist talking point being presented as neutral and unbiased news. The only people talking about allowing people born in Scotland who live elsewhere in the UK to vote in a future independence referendum are of course those who most fear that they’re going to lose the vote.

However if those who were happy with the franchise existing for the last Scottish independence election are now seeking a radical change to the franchise, they are going to need considerably better justification for it than “Ah well we think we’re going to lose now”. That’s why they are now arguing that Scottish born people resident elsewhere in the UK should be allowed to vote, because there are reasons to believe that this is a demographic which is less sympathetic to independence than those of us who actually live here. They overwhelmingly live in England, where for the most part their only information about the Scottish debate comes from a British press which is universally opposed to Scottish independence and which uncritically pumps out British nationalist talking points.

It is telling that the people who are loudest in their demands that Scottish born people resident elsewhere in the UK should be allowed to vote in a future referendum are strangely silent when it comes to the topic of allowing Scottish born people resident in the EU or elsewhere in the world to vote too. Because surely, if you are indeed so concered to ensure that all Scottish born people have a say, you’d want Scottish people resident elsewhere in the world to have a say too. But there are reasons to believe that Scottish born people resident in other EU countries might now be rather more in favour of independence, so allowing them a vote is the last thing that British nationalists want. The failure of British nationalists to include Scottish born people resident elsewhere in the world in their demands for an extension of the franchise is a clear illustration of their hypocritical and cynical attempt to gerrymander the vote in their own interests. This piece from the BBC appeared suspiciously like an attempt to provide them with some justification.

The BBC piece informed us that US resident elsewhere in the world will be eligible to vote in the upcoming presidential election. It also told us that the citizens of certain other countries are allowed to vote in their elections even though they live abroad. All this is true, however it’s a false equivalence. All those people are citizens of independent states which have already decided for themselves who gets to qualify as a citizen and who doesn’t. It is not for the British state to prejudge the issue and decide who will get to be a citizen of an independent Scotland. That’s a matter for an independent Scotland.

It is of course highly likely that Scotland will offer citizenship to everyone who was born in this country as well as to those of us who live here, but it will also offer that citizenship to people born in Scotland who live elsewhere in the world – not just to those who now live in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland.

Being eligible for citizenship doesn’t mean you’re automatically a citizen. People who were born in Scotland but who now live elsewhere in the UK may very well decide not to take up the option of Scottish citizenship once Scotland becomes independent. These people are likely to be most strongly represented amongst those whose opposition to independence is the fiercest.  People born in Scotland who reside elsewhere may not even identify as Scottish.  Yet the people with the least interest in becoming citizens of an independent Scotland are precisely the people that the British nationalists are most keen on having a vote.

It’s important to note that unless the British Government decides to change its citizenship laws after Scottish independence, such people will remain British citizens. Removing British citizenship from people is a matter for the British Government not the government of an independent Scotland. It’s very hard to see Michael Gove, Liam Fox, Malcolm Rifkind, or the other Anglo-Scots in the Conservative party supporting a measure from their own party that would strip them of their political careers.

As things stand, under existing UK citizenship laws, everyone in Scotland who is already a British citizen will retain that citizenship following Scottish independence. Their children yet to be born will also retain the right to British citizenship on the grounds of having a parent who was a British citizen. Ireland was in a similar situation following Irish independence, which is why the UK Govt passed the Ireland Act which deemed that all Irish citizens will not be regarded as “foreign” for the purposes of UK legislation.

In an attempt to reassure us, the BBC report told us that even if Scottish born people resident elsewhere in the UK are allowed to vote in a future referendum, there is still likely to be a yes majority. Based on current opinion polling, a 53% majority for yes would fall to 50.4%. Still a majority for yes, but a narrow squeak. What this tells us is that those of us who live here are becoming resolved to seek independence and that a future as an independent state is well on the way to becoming the settled will of the Scottish people.  No wonder there are those who are desperate to change the franchise.

We should continue to resist any attempt from the British nationalists to pauchle the franchise. Their calls for an extension of the ballot to Scots born people elsewhere in the UK has nothing to do with fairness or democracy and everything to do with a blatant attempt to dilute the pro-independence majority now existing within Scotland. If it really was about fairness, they’d want Scots living in EU countries and elsewhere in the world to vote too. Strangely, they’re very silent about that, and their silence speaks volumes about their hypocrisy.

It should be up to the Scottish Parliament to decide the franchise for the next independence vote. The referendum must be made in Scotland, owned in Scotland, and decided in Scotland. We must reject the self-serving attempts of the British nationalists to change the franchise to give themselves an advantage, no matter how much the BBC tries to normalise them.

The purpose of this blog is to  make a positive case for independence, to attack the pretensions of British nationalism, and to formulate arguments which will help to persuade no voters, undecideds, and soft yes voters to support independence.  It’s also to boost the morale of those of us who are already involved in this campaign.  I do not provide this platform to allow people to attack others in the movement with whom they disagree.  Other people might choose to use their platforms to do so, I don’t.

So if you want to share your favourite conspiracy theories about Nicola Sturgeon or anyone else in this movement – you can go elsewhere.  I am past caring whether you think that this means you are being censored.  You have no absolute right to use this blog and you most certainly don’t have the right to abuse my hospitality by insulting me personally. 

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

341 comments on “Normalising gerrymandering on the BBC

  1. […] Wee Ginger Dug Normalising gerrymandering on the BBC On Friday evening on BBC Reporting Scotland there was a sly wee piece which attempted […]

    • Dickie Tea says:

      Not that I agree but quid pro quo people living in a Scotland but born outside would have to be excluded.

      Anyway this is just Gorgeous George trying to make himself relevant and milk donations to his wee Alliance of snivelling unionists

  2. proudcybernat says:

    It’s simple. If you’re not on any council electoral register in Scotland then you do not qualify to vote in Scotland. In ANY election.

    • Julia Gibb says:

      An S in your tax code would be nice too

      • But that only covers employees and occupational pensions

        • Richard James Robertson says:

          But it also identifies those who pay tax to Scotland , more importantly it identifies by omission those who pay tax directly to the Treasury to avoid Scottish tax rates but still take the benefits such as free prescriptions etc.

          • Aye, but not all of those who pay tax to Scotland. There’s a significant number that don’t receive wages or occupational pensions and thus don’t have a tax code at all. You can’t just use PAYE. Besides I’ve seen far too many cases where HMRC get the residence wrong, apply E&NI rates, and pay the money to HMT rather than the devolved nations, not that I’m an old cynic…

    • Wee Chid says:

      Unfortunately – even if you are it might mean that you don’t live in Scotland but have a 2nd or holiday home here. Those are the ones I worry about managing to get a vote in the referendum. where I live is full of such places.

  3. P Harvey says:

    Very well said Paul.Another excellent blog. The lengths that WM will go to impose their will on Indy 2 is astounding
    But they will not succeed
    Independence is now an unstoppable force!

  4. Hamish100 says:

    Good points.

    I like to understand how bbc reporting Scotland decided this was the story.

    Which member of the security services working as a journalist popped that in for discussion?

  5. Julia Gibb says:

    Sleekit is a far better word!

    The BBC and the “cuddly neutrals” like PROF Curtice ( A Professor ON the BBC) it must be true will drip, drip, drip the propaganda constantly.

    The real sleekit part was “and the Sepratists would still win” (What do you have to fear ?)

    Oor ain folk reading it “Smiling Assassins”

    “Beware most those within your walls who look like you, dress like you, speak in your tongue. They will weaken your resolve more than any Army outside your gate.”

  6. Bob Lamont says:

    Spot on… The second independence referendum will be on the same basis as the first including the question, the only differences this time around should be independent observers and strict adherence to purdah.

  7. Kriskinch says:

    Another sleekit example of getting in on the act, but this time by ITV: Libby Weiner, the ITV news reporter, joined the First Minister’s daily broadcast for the first time (in 6? months). When it came to her turn, she asked a question that had been asked and answered a dozen times already. Nicola began her reply with “I don’t know if you have been listening for the last half hour…” before going on to answer yet again.
    Of course, on tonight’s news, it looks like Weiner is asking a perfectly pertinent question, and the first bit of the FM’S answer was cut out.
    Is ITV learning from the BBC? Surely not?! I watched ITV evening news just to see if this would happen.

  8. yesindyref2 says:

    Who can forget Corby during Indy Ref 1?

    “A mock independence vote held in a part of England dubbed “Little Scotland” has rejected breaking up the union.

    The ballot, which was held during Corby’s annual Highland Gathering, saw 576 votes cast with 162 backing Scots independence and 414 rejecting it.”

    Yup, let’s give them the vote too! They also voted Leave (EU) by the way.

  9. Julia Gibb says:

    The full quote from Cicero which sums up Misreporting Scotland

    “A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city.

    But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

    For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.

    He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague.

    — Marcus Tullius Cicero, from a speech given to the Roman Senate, recorded in approximately 42 B.C. by Sallust.

  10. Capella says:

    British people living abroad for more than 15 years didn’t have a vote in the BREXIT referendum. In fact, Europeans living in the UK didn’t have a vote in BREXIT either. 16 – 18 year olds didn’t have a vote in BREXIT.

    I wonder what young people, ex-pats on the Costa del Sol and EU citizens have in common which excluded them from the franchise?

    Arron Banks said: “Brexit was a war. We won. There’s no turning back now.” When you go to war, you consider all aspects of the battlefield. Allowing British citizens to vote who had lived for more than 15 years abroad would have been bad news for the Brexit military campaign. Not surprisingly, the majority of the 700,000 would probably have voted Remain, as it is their lives which risk to be affected by the result.

  11. yesindyref2 says:

    Anyways. the BBC and the unioinist politicians seem to be displaying the same disrespect for the Rule of Law as the Infernal Market Tories are. Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 became Law after it received Royal Assent on 29 January 2020. From that Act about franchise:

    “4 Those who are entitled to vote

    A person is entitled to vote in the referendum if, on the date on which the poll at the referendum is held, the person is—

    (a) aged 16 or over,

    (b) registered in the register of local government electors maintained under section 9(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 for any area in Scotland,

    (c) not subject to any legal incapacity to vote (age apart) (see section 5), and

    (d) a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the European Union.”

  12. duncanio says:

    ” The referendum must be made in Scotland, owned in Scotland, and decided in Scotland.”

    Yup. It’s right to call this out.

    Then we should leave it there – discussing it only legitimises (or ‘normalises’) it.


      I’d like international representation overseeing the vote (remember the Yes votes being put in the No pile on camera , also the lost ballot boxes and Tank Commander knowing the result before it was officially declared. Make no mistake England will use EVERY dirty, underhand trick in the book to hold on to their cash cow

  13. yesindyref2 says:

    Sorry, I should probably actually quote this URI, as it contains any revisions (none):

  14. Petra says:

    I’m just trying to figure out how you can prove that you were born in Scotland, whilst living in England, other than providing a copy of your birth certificate (open to fraud too). Taking it that around 40 million people in England are of voting age will we find that Scotland with a population of around 5.4 million is inundated with around 40 million plus votes? Slight exaggeration 😀

    Is there an easier route (birth certificate) for those Scots now living south of the border to actually get a vote in Indyref2? Anyone?

    • weegingerdug says:

      Passport, birth cert, or driving licence. My driving licence says my place of birth was Scotland.

      It would be a nightmare to implement though.

      • Petra says:

        Thanks Paul. I know that they won’t get away with this, can’t as per our franchise, but was wondering how feasible it would be for them to attempt to do so. Nightmarish? Good 😀.

        • Julia Gibb says:

          I think they already know how they are going to rig it. They just need to figure out how to con us into opening the door for them…therefore the BBC trailer/sell

          • Valkyrie says:

            Pretty much a safe bet they’ll try some way of rigging it.
            They know full well if they leave it up to the people, they’ll lose. And I really can’t imagine anyone in Westminster being willing to let us derail their gravy train. Even less can I imagine them coming meekly with cap in hand to ask their former colony for a trade deal.

            This attempt just seems way too obvious though…

      • Bob Agassi says:

        Paul, has your driving licence got a ‘fleg’ on it ?

        • weegingerdug says:

          No, I got it when I moved back from Spain and exchanged my Spanish licence for a UK one. That was when they were still issuing UK driving licences with the EU flag on them.

      • John miller says:

        Whilst we’re on this theme, I wonder if the 400,000 English people now resident in Scotland should be allowed to participate…….?

  15. Look Scotland has a population of about five and a half million
    Scotland’s population was just over five million in 1940 , eighty years ago !

    Ten percent , probably more of Scotland’s population are English people , it was ten percent in the last census which was ten years ago it has undoubtedly gone up in the last ten years.
    It’s unsurprising because England is next door , our neighbour , their government rule over us and it’s impact is that many many jobs in Scotland are awarded by England’s Westminster and companies headquartered in England .

    English people mostly come and go on the whole they don’t stay in Scotland the rest of their life it’s the job that brings them here and the job that takes them away again.
    This means that their children born in Scotland don’t consider themselves Scottish

    Sure there are English people who retire here buying a property three times the size for half the price of the one they sell in England but they are people who’s children have left home and no longer live with them so there are no children born in Scotland in this scenario and the people retiring here often fly the Union Jack above their house and can be heard to say that they will leave Scotland if Scotland becomes independent .
    Many leave anyway and go back to England .

    Scottish people moving to England go for work there’s more of it there.

    You will often hear the britnats say there are as many Scottish people in England as there are English people in Scotland so it evens itself out

    Half a million English in Scotland’s population of five and a half million
    Half a million Scottish in England’s population of fifty five million

    Tell you what that means
    about ten percent of Scotland is English people
    less than one percent of England is Scottish people

    After the Scottish independence referendum 2014 we read it in the papers that the English vote had tipped the balance in favour of NO

    You can rest assured that the less than one percent of Scottish people in England would never tip any balance in any referendum or vote in England

  16. Petra says:

    Spot on Julia (Cicero 😀). That’s exactly what we’re dealing with but we can take heart that this type of sleekit subversion has been going on for thousands of years now, as per Cicero, and isn’t novel to Scotland. Take heart that our Nation, like others over time, will outwit the traitors and regain our freedom.

  17. Brian Powell says:

    Would that mean the people who are not born in Scotland but living here wouldn’t be able to vote? All the English voters etc.

    • weegingerdug says:

      No, that’s not what is being proposed.

    • Petra says:

      Haha good one Brian. Let’s hope that the next time they decide to discuss this on, say, the BBC that concept is presented to them. After all it could be construed as discrimination for English people living in Scotland to get the vote but not for those living in England. Put it to them that to resolve the whole issue no one born in England will get to vote in Indyref2, regardless of where they live now, and set the cat amongst the pigeons 😀.


      Meanwhile they all know fine and well who is eligible to vote in Indyref2.

      ‘Institute for Government.’

      ..”Who would be eligible to vote in a Scottish independence referendum?

      The Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 provides that the franchise for any future referendum held by the Scottish government will be the same as the franchise for Scottish Parliament elections. Any UK, Irish, Commonwealth or relevant EU citizen aged 16 and over and on the Scottish local government electoral register would therefore be entitled to vote.

      Following changes introduced in the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act, which became law in April 2020, the franchise of those elections has been extended to also include all people legally resident in Scotland regardless of nationality, and would allow prisoners serving sentences of less than 12 months the right to vote.”..


      They all know it’s coming 😉.

      ‘Legislating by consent: how to revive the Sewel convention.’

      ..”The controversial UK Internal Market Bill is causing further tension over Westminster’s approach to legislating in devolved areas, and other Brexit-related bills mean further disputes are likely ahead of the 2021 Scottish and Welsh elections – at which Scottish independence will be one battleground.”..

      • Good suggestion Petra

        “” After all it could be construed as discrimination for English people living in Scotland to get the vote but not for those living in England. Put it to them that to resolve the whole issue no one born in England will get to vote in Indyref2, regardless of where they live now, and set the cat amongst the pigeons 😀.””

        The thing is a great many English people do really think that because it affects everyone living in U.K.
        everyone living in U.K. should get a vote on Scottish independence and they mean people living in England Wales Northern Ireland maybe elsewhere too definitely brits abroad as well

        You didn’t hear them saying that for the brexit vote though

        Legislation already had determined who can vote in a Scottish independence referendum
        But do remind yourself that in the internal market bill England had given itself the authority to override what Scotland’s parliament decides and they will do it

        Make no mistake England’s Westminster will override legislation issued by the Scottish Parliament they will at this time be searching through proposed Scottish Government legislation
        to see where they can assert their authority first time under the internal market bill

        They will do it just to show that they can
        To convince the public in Scotland that England’s Westminster decides what is best for Scotland and England’s Westminster runs the show

      • yesindyref2 says:

        It could be funny to accuse BBC Reporting Scotland of being anti-English.

      • arayner1936 says:

        Perhaps we need to define the term ‘legally resident’ more carefully.
        For example, should it include students who are here for 3 or 4 years but only during the university terms, those who own holiday accommodation that they do not live in for more than short periods or rent out for much of the time and anyone on a short term work contract who has their main residence elsewhere.

  18. bringiton says:

    The problem we are up against is that for the British,Westminster is sovereign and that makes them believe that they can decide everything that happens in Britain/UK.
    We must assert the agreement that,in Scotland,the people are sovereign and we can decide what happens here
    Holyrood is the focus for and expression of our sovereignty and not Fort Queen Elizabeth House and the colonial governor.
    That principle must be made clear before any referendum takes place.

  19. Annie Scot says:

    To suggest that the next Indyref 2 should include a vote for Scottish -born folks living outwith Scotland is to completely miss the point of the referendum in the first place! Logically, taking that view, it should then exclude anyone living in Scotland who wasn’t born in Scotland. However, it is NOT a nationalistic referendum, it is an inclusive and outward-looking referendum for people who LIVE in Scotland, irrespective of nationality. Or, is it me who’s missing the point?……..

    • grizebard says:

      In a way, yes. (Even though your intention is sound.) The whole point of this latest dastardly manoevre is to thwart looming independence. That’s the only logic in it.

  20. yesindyref2 says:

    It really is worth reading that Referednums (Scotland) Act 2020 by the way, there’s nothing difficult or legalise about it (same actually as most modern acts).

    For instance, apart for a provision that if a UK election falls on the expected day of a referendum it must be rescheduled not more than 6 weeks later, which seems to me to indicate logically that Indy Ref 2 could be held at the end of June after the Holyrood election, if previous actions had been started. But here’s a couple of snippets:

    “7 Chief Counting Officer
    (1)The Scottish Ministers must, in writing, appoint a Chief Counting Officer for the referendum.”

    “8 Other counting officers
    (1)The Chief Counting Officer must, in writing, appoint a counting officer for each local government area.”

    “9 Functions of the Chief Counting Officer and other counting officers

    (10)The council for the local government area for which a counting officer is appointed must provide, or ensure the provision of, such property, staff and services as may be required by the counting officer for the carrying out of the counting officer’s functions.”

    which completely blows out of the water any talk of “wildcat”, or even “boycott by councils”, as if they refused, council officers would be breaking the law. There’s something similar somewhere about provision of polling stations, either in this Act or some other – maybe someone can find it?

    The Unionists rely on ignorance to make their bluffs. As well as Truth, Knowledge of the Law is our biggest weapon. Hint: it’s on our side.

    • Have you read the internal market bill too
      If England’s Westminster want to change the referendums Scotland act 2020 they will do so by overriding it with their own legislation they’ve done that before

      • yesindyref2 says:

        Yes I have, and the Referendum Act is an Act, not a Bill as the Continuity Bill was.

        • Legerwood says:

          Is it not the case that all Acts are Bills as they move through Parliament – Holyrood, Westminster etc – and only become Acts when the Queen gives the Bills Royal Assent?

          The Continuity Bill did not receive Royal Assent because it was delayed while Westminster worked a flanker by enacting retroactive legislation to remove the power from Holyrood to pass such a Bill and take it forward for Royal Assent.

    • grizebard says:

      It’s legality wasn’t challenged at the time either, because it was legally and constitutionally watertight, n’est-ce pas?

  21. Tam the Bam says:

    A wee quote from my brother-in-law just before the vote in 2014:
    ” If that Alex Salmond wins then we’re moving to England!”…. and that from a born and bred Glaswegian (well…Bearsden to be accurate).
    It was all bluff and bluster of course…had Yes won..he and my sister would still be resident in Bonnie Scotland.

    I think .

    • grizebard says:

      Shortly before the referendum, I had a brief exchange in the BTL of Paul Mason’s blog, of all places, with someone who had already moved their money down south and declared he was prepared to follow it in the event of an indy win. I believe he was sincere and genuinely afraid of the financial consequences. My unwritten reaction was “well, we’ll actually be fine and better off without people like you anyway”.

      With Brexit and such economic disasters looming, I wonder how he feels about that now, or will do in a few months’ time. Most of the big promoters of Brexit have naturally moved their pounds into the shelter of other currencies already.

      • Tam the Bam says:

        Do you remember Paul Mason’s quote from that time?….cant recall it verbatim but it was something like….’Not since the Iraq war have I seen the newsroom in such a flap.’
        Overall..I thought his coverage of the Yes campaign was pretty decent.
        Couldnt say that for the rest of his BBC fellow journos.
        Maybe explains why he doesnt work for them any longer.

        • Petra says:

          This Tam?

          ”BBC a unionist institution, says Channel 4 News economics editor Paul Mason.’

          …”On that day Mr Mason, who had left the BBC a year earlier, told Facebook followers: “Not since Iraq have I seen BBC News working at propaganda strength like this. So glad I’m out of there.”..

          • Tam the Bam says:

            Thats the one Petra!…you’re ‘on the ball’ tonight!
            Incidentally….totally off-topic I know but I’m keeping one eye on a fascinating programme on Ch4 just now called ‘Victoria and the crippled Kaiser.’

            • Petra says:

              I don’t know if I’ve seen that one before Tam, but I remember watching something that highlighted that Vicky’s offspring’s infighting and dirty, bullying tactics basically led to the first World War.

              • Tam the Bam says:

                Well the treatment he had to endure in an attempt to cure his disability defies description.
                All on his Mum’s (Vicky) insistence!

        • grizebard says:

          Yes, his coverage was very decent. One of the rare ones. That’s why I was visiting his site at the time.

          As to his uniquely-honest and very-revealing quote, Petra already has that pat, thanks!

          • Tam the Bam says:

            Any idea where he’s working now Grizebard?

            • grizebard says:

              As far as I know, he’s now an author. You can still find him online at:


              (One of his last efforts for the BBC, by the way, was a great exploration, by way of his own youthful experiences, of Northern Soul.)

              • Tam the Bam says:

                I wonder if he’s being an author out of choice or because……..not MSM enough?….who knows.

                So you’re a Northern Soul brother…I’m an old school soul man!

                Just fallen in love with a Dutch alto sax player called Candy Dulfin…..(suspect I might be a tad ‘too much her senior’ for her…..oh well.

  22. grizebard says:

    This is wonderful – another sure sign that the enemies of independence are getting very worried indeed. Inconveniently for them, we have a precedent, and we should defend it to the hilt.

    I don’t know the context of this report, but it shouldn’t be up to the “neutral” {cough} BBC to be promoting Tory BritNat talking points. Another crack in its crumbling reputation.

    Come the referendum, since it clearly can’t be trusted to be truly impartial, the BBC should be forbidden from all commentary on the issue, and simply be required to provide a predetermined equal amount of airtime to each side. If they want to have Nick “The Liar” Robinson offer his opinion, they can do so in opposition time where it belongs.

    Oh, and a trustworthy genuinely-neutral ombudsman should be appointed who can correct any lies and half-truths in a timely manner, to prevent another outbreak of outrageous “bus-sidery”. And formally issue “cease and desist” orders to anyone in the civil service who violates their duty of impartiality or anyone else who attempts to sneak in any last-minute breach of purdah.

    We can insist upon conditions for a referendum too, and ours should be to ensure even-handedness across the board, no dark money slithering in, so that it is the sovereign people alone who freely decide.

  23. Petra says:

    O/T but significant, imo. Getting all our ducks in a row.

    ”Scotland’s first Citizens’ Assembly will meet digitally today to agree “a shared vision of our country’s future”.

    ”The group of 100 broadly representative Scots have been meeting throughout the year to discuss some of the country’s major constitutional issues.’..


    Wee DRossy laying the groundwork for blaming his mates when he loses next year 😀.

    ‘Douglas Ross’s speech shows Tories have no real interest in saving UK.’

    ..”What’s causing this particular episode of long distance mince frying is that Douglas decided to use his speech to the online Conservative Conference to blame his own party for the rise in support for independence. Not because they’re undermining the devolution settlement. Not because they’re hell bent on pursuing a hard Brexit that Scotland has roundly rejected. Not because they’re treating the Scottish Parliament with contempt. Oh no. It’s because his colleagues in England aren’t really interested in saving the Union and have already given up on listening to Scotland.”..

    • grizebard says:

      Funnily enough, both things are true!

      (It’s a cold heartless unforgiving Tory world down there, Dougie. Didn’t you know? They will dump you in an instant when it suits. Brace yourself…)

  24. Indepedant says:

    Is it not true that people born in the USA (unless they seek another nationality) still have to pay the IRS tax on their income wherever they domicile, hence A B Depiffle Johnson’s change of status? If you are taxed in a country, I would have thought you should have the ability to vote in the country you are taxed by.

  25. Bibbit says:

    If the Britnats want only people born here to vote here then that means they are disenfranchising voters living here now but born furth of Scotland.

    THis will never happen because UK electoral law is based, like income tax, on which UK nation one is domiciled within. One can’t be domiciled in two electoral regions at the same time, just as one can’t pay income tax under English income tax rules plus pay income tax under Scots income tax rules.

  26. Skip_NC says:

    I did not see the piece on Reporting Scotland. However, the comment about US non-resident citizens being able to vote is simplistic. To be able to vote, you have to be on the voter roll of one of the fifty states or the District of Columbia. If you are on the voter roll, the state can use that to argue that you are domiciled in that state and are, therefore, subject to state income tax on your worldwide income. They often succeed. I’ve had to defend clients against that in the past.

    So, if the BBC’s comment on US non-residents voting is as simple as it sounds in the fourth paragraph of this piece, the BBC has misled its viewers. Is there a nuance that, inadvertently, did not make it into this piece?

    • Skip_NC says:

      i should say “To be able to vote in a presidential election….” There are different rules for state and local elections and for primaries.

    • weegingerdug says:

      Nope. They just said that US citizens living abroad are able to vote in the presidential election. You don’t get nuance on Reporting Scotland.

      • Skip_NC says:

        Well, that is true. They do have the ability to vote. However, doing so in a presidential election , requires the non-resident to be registered within a state. Being registered to vote is one consideration (although not the sole one) in determining whether one must pay state income taxes. Things such as whether you maintain a home, driver’s license, club memberships etc, as well as future intentions, are all taken into account.

        It sounds as if they worded it very carefully (“able to…”) so as to not tell a lie but to still be grossly misleading. The idea that non-residents of a state or DC have an unfettered right to vote in a presidential election is false.

        • grizebard says:

          I see you’ve discovered that the BBC is very good with “wording things carefully”. They routinely tell a half-truth that isn’t of itself factually incorrect, but by omission effectively tells a lie.

        • Liz g says:

          Not to mention ( my one claim to USA fame by helping Obama win 🙂 ) I as a Scottish resident and home owner had to sign a passport type declaration of a US student studying in Aberdeen identity as a postal vote ( South Carolina)
          I can’t imagine the reverse check or how it would be practical.
          This is all as much nonsense as Trump throwing a wobbly as the US postal vote.

  27. Arthur Thomson says:

    Why are the Brits spending time discussing something they claim is never going to happen? They are such strange sorts.

    Of course, they really are blood and soil nationalists – as they showed with their Brexit referendum franchise – so it is no surprise that they think blood and soil should be the basis of indyref.

    We need to take a lead from Nicola, calmly explain why they should GTF but encourage them to keep coming up with ideas – preferably brighter ones.

  28. Petra says:

    And just to repeat for the hard of hearing (elsewhere).

    Nicola Sturgeon:-..”And it seems that people increasingly agree that Scotland needs those powers. Opinion polls show that, not only do a majority now believe Scotland should be independent, but that Scotland needs independence for our economic prospects to improve.

    The Scottish Government will publish a draft referendum bill, setting out the proposed terms of an independence referendum, including the question, subject to testing by the Electoral Commission, and the proposed timescale for the vote.”..


    YOU have the power!

    ‘Let’s write the next page in Scotland’s history.’ Video

  29. hoplite39 says:

    I assume it must be a lot easier to commit voter fraud with votes from outside Scotland.

    • Hamish100 says:

      On Netflix a programme about Benfords Law. Let you look it up.

      However the interesting part for me was how it is used to detect fraud, financial as well as electoral. It can also detect bots.

      Postal votes in the Reverendum I am certain were interfered with. The response was extremely high from memory and a lot off 2nd home votes.

      I think we should be prepared for the next one to put off the possibility.

    • There is no organisation that checks and confirms that a persons address is actually where they live
      To vote you just fill in a form ( with a warning ) then you give it to the local authority who register you as a voter
      The local authority do write to the householder and ask who lives in the household at the address you have given but that householder could be you or a friend or relative it’s clearly so easy to lie about where you live and local authorities do not check applications by home visit .

      • Ken2 says:

        It’s not. It follows the Council tax. Council tax records show residency. Most people would prefer not to pay extra Council tax to be able to vote. Plus fines if caught out.

        • Ken2 says:

          Social security records. Council tax rebates. Student details exemption. Inter connected bureaucracy. Big brother spies.

          • Ken2 says:

            Paye. They even do home visits. Concerning council tax fraud. Go out and check according to records.

        • Eilidh says:

          Council tax records do not show the name of every adult in a house it merely shows the name of the owner or tenant and any joint owners or joint tenants. It is only if you apply for council tax reduction details of all adults must be declared

        • Ken2 you are wrong, only the householder pays council tax
          If you are a non householder you do not pay council tax

  30. Petra says:

    And just before I go ….. for the night. One of my favourite videos. See you all again tomorrow 😀.

    C’mon folks we can do this if we unite and everyone focuses on converting just one other person to supporting Independence. No going into bl**dy battle for us and being hung, drawn and quartered if captured. Unite, convert and put a cross in the right (YES) box. The alternative now, under the Westminster fascists, is far too horrendous to even contemplate.

  31. Mbiyd says:

    Presumably, PM will agree with the PM the terms and conditions of the next plebiscite.

    When does PM propose the next plebiscite should be.. then we discuss the terms of such.

    • Tam the Bam says:

      ‘Presumably the PM will agree with the PM ‘

      a fascinating concept.

    • weegingerdug says:

      Mbiyd: re your deleted comments, if you want to tell everyone how Nicola Sturgeon “doesn’t really want a referendum” you’re on the wrong site.

      I’m not telling you again and I am past caring if you think you’re being censored. I’ve been too tolerant of this conspiracy theory nonsense for too long.

      • Capella says:

        Good call. Cut them off at the pass. Why allow unionist trolls to dominate a pro indy site.

  32. “Nine-year-old Oliver is a resident in the parish workhouse where the boys are “issued three meals of thin gruel a day, with an onion twice a week, and half a roll on Sundays.

    The room in which the boys were fed, was a large stone hall, with a copper at one end: out of which the master, dressed in an apron for the purpose, and assisted by one or two women, ladled the gruel at mealtimes.

    Of this festive composition each boy had one porringer, and no more–except on occasions of great public rejoicing, when he had two ounces and a quarter of bread besides.

    The bowls never wanted washing. The boys polished them with their spoons till they shone again; and when they had performed this operation (which never took very long, the spoons being nearly as large as the bowls), they would sit staring at the copper, with such eager eyes, as if they could have devoured the very bricks of which it was composed; employing themselves, meanwhile, in sucking their fingers most assiduously, with the view of catching up any stray splashes of gruel that might have been cast thereon.

    A council was held; lots were cast who should walk up to the master after supper that evening, and ask for more; and it fell to Oliver Twist.

    Child as he was, he was desperate with hunger, and reckless with misery. He rose from the table; and advancing to the master, basin and spoon in hand, said: somewhat alarmed at his own temerity:

    ‘Please, sir, I want some more.’,
    I beg your pardon, sir!

    Oliver Twist has asked for more!’

    There was a general start. Horror was depicted on every countenance.

    ‘For MORE!’ said Mr Limbkins. ‘Compose yourself, Bumble, and answer me distinctly. Do I understand that he asked for more, after he had eaten the supper allotted by the dietary?’

    ‘He did, sir,’ replied Bumble.

    ‘That boy will be hung,’ said the gentleman in the white waistcoat. ‘I know that boy will be hung.”‘

    The above is an abstract from Oliver Twist.

    It is clear that Jacob Rees Mogg , the smug arrogant poseur toff considers Scotland to be the poor house, an establishment set up by imperial England to keep the colonial pau[ers in penury and starvation.

    This from the report yesterday:

    “Rees-Mogg said Nicola Sturgeon’s party was “modelling themselves on Oliver Twist”.

    Speaking in the Commons, the House leader took umbrage at comments by the SNP’s Tommy Sheppard that devolved administration would never back the government’s internal market bill, which is seen as taking away powers from Edinburgh and Cardiff.”

    So these are the images going through this Fascist man’s head. He sees Scotland the lowest of the low, the ungrateful scruff holding out a begging bowl.

    This is his genuine belief.

    We are a Victorian colony, an impoverished backwater, who subsist from scraps from mighty England’s table.

    We ask England’s permission for nothing, certainly not to hold a referendum on ending their farce of a Union.

    There is no way back.

  33. DonDon says:

    Paul, I am a Scot resident in an EU country for most of my adult llfe.

    I voted in 1979, and one way or another I have been virtually disenfranchized ever since.

    Everything you say is true.

  34. Dr Jim says:

    You can stick a Saltire over the Union flag on your driving licence because when Police Scotland were asked about people doing this they said they had better things to do than enforce the defacing of driving licences, Police Scotland went on to say as long as none of the relevant details are not obscured they weren’t interested

    My driving licence has a wee Saltire exactly the same size as the Union flag stuck over the top, my car number plates have a similar thing front and back, I still wear my YES and Saltire badges on my jackets and my face covering is one large Saltire

    Folk don’t have to look twice to know what my allegiances are and I’ve only ever received a couple of behind the mask ugly stares, most of the time I’m met with thumbs up and smiley eyes, I always smile and am always polite because I feel like I’m representing

    As to the UK of England’s wee voting wheeze, not a chance of happening, and for those snarling about remaining British maybe I can remind them of the massive rush to obtain Irish Passports at the beginning of Brexit for all the obvious reasons, there’ll be a boom in the sale of Scottish passports post Independence and everybody from John o Groats to Kingdom come will be searching their heritage for Scottish grannies

  35. Potter says:

    Re Margaret Ferrier, in the UK is it illegal to go to work after having a Covid test, and to travel home if it is positive?

    • Bob Agassi says:

      I’m not sure if it’s illegal but the Margaret Ferrier ‘pileon’ is nauseating in the extreme. Aye she shouldn’t have done what she did but ffs does she deserve all this ‘burn the witch’ especially from her own side.

      The woman will lose her job, as will her staff, and she will probably never hold political office again. I’m not in to the whataboutery about Cummings though, but it does bug me that those of us who pursue self determination for our country are somehow bound to be held to a higher moral code than our opponents.

      • Potter says:

        Strange, is it only Scots who are not allowed to go home after testing positive?

      • Tam the Bam says:

        I suspect its concern for her staff that results in ……..’ no news of a hangin’ yet’….from the MSM.

      • Ken2 says:

        Keep safe, follow the rules and save lives. Simple

        Giving a speech on constituents health?

        They should all resign or be fined. Johnston, Cummings, most of the UK cabinet, Johnstone father, Corbyn etc, etc. For being responsible for people dying.

      • Julia Gibb says:

        Put everything else aside…She got on a train knowing she was Covid positive. She did not alert the House of Commons delaying response. That makes her guilty of incompetence and reckless endangerment of lives. Don’t defend this please.

      • stuartm99 says:

        Although I was born in Scotland my family emigrated when I was a bairn so consequently I’m not up on all the factions in the SNP. Nicola Sturgeon’s demand that Ferrier immediately resign seems odd compared to her originally lenient attitude to her medical advisor. Not to mention that Leslie Evans has suffered no consequences for conducting the Alex Salmond witch-hunt …er… complaints process that was found to be biased and unfair and cost the Scottish taxpayer millions of Pounds.

        Would I be right in thinking that Ferrier is not one of NS’s disciples and possibly even an opponent? After all, while unwise there’s no actual evidence that Ferrier infected anyone. I’d point out that in my experience a long-distance train while technically public transport is not nearly as crowded as a commuter train or bus during rush hour, more akin to sitting in a cafe in regard to proximity to other patrons. The level of outrage seems over the top.

    • jfngw says:

      What she did was inexcusable but the pile on from the media is just unwarranted, I’m pretty sure on Friday if you add the network and Reporting Scotland coverage it was about 25% of the hours output. More like a witch-hunt.

  36. Mbiyd says:

    What EU country? I want to escape to that utopia.

  37. Alex Clark says:

    O/T The number of daily new Covid-19 cases in England has been being underreported in the last few days, they were basically stuck at around the 7000 mark.

    No longer, “technical issues” apparently have meant that almost 13,000 cases have been reported for the last 24 hours.

    Figures released five hours late by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), show a total of 12,872 new infections. The figure is almost double the 6,968 cases recorded yesterday…

    The Department of Health has also today warned the infection figures could be higher ‘over the coming days’ after ‘technical issues’ meant thousands of cases were missed off the official figures.

    In a statement on the department’s website, it said: ‘This means the total reported over the coming days will include some additional cases from the period between 24 September and 1 October, increasing the number of cases reported.’

    • Legerwood says:

      This is not the first time that testing and the reporting of test results in England have been beset by ‘technical’ issues.

      Basically it means they have not got a clue as to what is going on. Despite that stories have appeared over the last day or two that the rate of increase of cases in England is gradually slowing!!

      • Alex Clark says:

        Expect the restrictions to increase in more areas now due to this “shock” news, which as you say is as a result of shoddy reporting for the past week, which did look dubious. I wish that Scotland had complete control over it’s own testing facilities.

        Having to rely on the Lighthouse lab results for our own figures is not what I would have liked to have seen. The Scottish government should be given charge of the Glasgow facility and remove control from Deloitte in this crucial public health issue.

        • grizebard says:

          I agree. This is another dependence on the UK we could well do without.

        • I agree
          You can’t be certain about figures of some private company in England is calculating them for Scotland

        • Legerwood says:

          Scotland is not wholly reliant on the Lighthouse lab – the Pillar 2 system – for test results. NHS hospital labs in every health board in Scotland carries out testing for coronavirus and that has been the case since May. Originally back in mid-Feb it was just 2 NHS labs that were carrying out tests – at Glasgow Royal and Edinburgh Royal Infirmaries.

          Scotland, thanks to it’s prettyextensive Life Sciences sector has also set up it’s own procurement chain for the test reagents.

          • Alex Clark says:

            I realise Scotoland is “not wholly reliant on the Lighthouse lab”. However, Deloitte is in charge of the majority of testing taking place in Scotland where the are responsible for the drive through centres, mobile units and home test kits.

            I can’t find the exact figures but believe Pillar 2 tests were around twice as many as Pillar 1, I see no reason why the Scottish government shouldn’t take responsibility for undertaking Pillar 2 tests as well as Pillar 1.

            In fact, no testing should have been awarded to private contractors to set up from scratch, it should have gone to the NHS and Local Council Public Health departments and so should the funding in my opinion.

            • Legerwood says:

              Alec at 1.19pm
              Deloitte was awarded the contract for setting up and sampling centres throughout the UK. So far no one seems to know the exact value of the contract. It does have a role in the Lighthouse labs but that is mainly to do with test reports. The partnership that set up the Lighthouse labs included the DHSC and the University of Glasgow.

              Overall this ‘privatisation’ of the sampling and subsequent testing has left the NHS lab network particularly in England underused. The NHS labs in England have also suffered over the past decade from underfunding due to creeping privatisation.

              I agree with you that the money would have been better spent within the existing NHS network of labs in the 4 nations but that would have run counter to the ideological belief in privatisation of the UK Gov.
              The link to the Scot Gov article in my original reply gave the testing figures for the two lab systems back in May when they were dealing with more or less equal numbers. The Spice paper below gives a more up to date breakdown which seems to be 3:1 Pillar 2 to Pillar 1.

              This article gives figures for the division of testing between the NHS labs and Lighthouse labs. Note Lighthouse labs because Pillar 2 samples collected in Scotland are not necessarily processed in the Lighthouse lab in Glasgow but may be sent to one of the Lighthouse labs in England if capacity is an issue in Glasgow.


              And from the BMA a very good article covering areas such as PPE procurement and distribution as well as sampling and testing


  38. Ken2 says:

    Democracy will prevail. More illegal journalism’. To try to cause even more trouble. Lie after lie after lie. Trying to gain more advertising revenues.

  39. Ken2 says:

    It would be impossible to organise a Ref including people from Scotland resident all over the world. Absolutely impossible logistically and logically. They are not registered on the voting register or electoral roll. It would be impossible administration.

    There are 800,000 (England) . + 50,000 (Wales/NI) in total in the rest of the UK/NI. Less those not eligible to vote. (ie children). They are not allowed to vote in Holyrood elections. They cannot have two votes. One in the rest of the UK. One in Scotland. People have to be registered to vote. Where they are resident. That is where they receive there application registration.

    Migrants resident in the UK were not allowed to vote in the illegal EU Ref. They pay tax etc.

    No taxation without representation.

  40. Dr Jim says:

    Frankie Boyle says the UK government don’t exist to govern and wouldn’t know how anyway, all they exist for now is to transfer assets into the private sector and those of their mates

  41. Alec Lomax says:

    Off topic but…Trump walks into the clinic with a huge toad on his head, the Doctor, taken aback, says ‘whoa, how did you get that?’ the toad explains ‘well, it started out as a big ugly boil on my butt’

  42. Alfred John Baird says:

    There is clearly a lot of confusion over a national voter franchise, in the article, comments, and also at Scottish Government level.

    In practice it matters less where a person is born; rather, nationality is normally determined by parental descent.

    The Scottish referendum franchise in 2014 based on residence (and not parental descent) was therefore highly irregular (if not corrupt) and is not reciprocated in any other country. In other countries a residence-based franchise is only ever used for minor local and municipal government elections – a residence franchise is never ever used for national elections or referendums.

    Scottish people resident in other countries are not permitted to vote in national elections or referendums there unless they hold national citizenship of that country. This confirms that the Scottish franchise is both irregular and is not reciprocal.

    The self-determination of ‘a people’ refers only to ‘a people’ as defined by specific aspects and accepted international norms such as: a common culture, heritage/history, language, ethnicity, sense of belonging, and common suffering. It does not mean those peoples from many other countries and holding to different national identities who happen to have an address in Scotland; most of the latter ‘peoples’ already benefit from having their own national independence/self-determination.

    What Scotland should do/have done is first identify who the ‘national’s of the country would be if the country were already an independent nation. And here the parental descent rule and norm would be decisive. Thus, if one or more of your parents are Scottish and you live in Scotland you get a national vote. Simple, clear, decisive, and the international standard.

    As the author James Kelman said, if you want to know your national identity look at who your relatives are!

    After independence is secured, residents in Scotland who come from other countries may then apply for Scottish citizenship if they wish, much as they would need to do in any other country. However people from other countries and therefore holding different national identities cannot be forced to take Scottish citizenship, and neither should they be invited to block Scottish citizenship/nationality for Scottish people by being given a national vote prematurely (ie without applying first for Scottish citizenship, which can only lawfully be done after independence).

    In summary, the Scottish franchise is a mess and primarily serves to inflate the ‘No’ vote.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      Oh good grief, please don’t let this blog be taken over by a blood and soil nationalist.

      Bad enough in the other place and btl on the National at times.

      • Don’t be stupid yesindyref2
        Flinging about the idiotic phrase “ blood and soul nationalist” is insulting.

        Whether you like it or not or agree , where you were born and where your parents were born is of significant importance in determining nationality and citizenship

        Nationality and holding a passport does not give you automatic rights to vote in elections.
        There are many many people who have a British passport but are not allowed to vote.

        Citizenship is a separate issue.
        British citizenship allows you the right to vote .

        Residence is not always a requirement to vote it is certainly not the defining feature in fact where you were born is more significant than where you live in determining entitlement to a passport

        Countries around the world have differing rules for citizenship and for passport entitlement
        Ten million people in the world have no nationality

        Many people use the words nationality and ethnicity as if they are the same
        They’re not now
        But a long time ago when people rarely travelled to other countries it was common

        Being born in Scotland

        having one or both parents born in Scotland even if you yourself were not born in Scotland

        and perhaps ,having a grandparent born in Scotland even if you were not born in Scotland and your parents were not born in Scotland

        might be a feature of independent Scotland’s passport rules

        Absolutely and most certainly , where you were born and where your past relatives were born will be a feature of independent Scotland’s passport entitlement make no mistake about that and if you call that blood and soil nationality you are daft , no blood or soil is involved just pure common sense.

        Now when it comes to citizenship that’s different
        Nationality and citizenship are not the same even though many people think they are

        Nationality determines passports for travel purposes not for residence rights
        Some British passport holders do not have automatic residency rights

        Citizenship has different rules
        In U.K. you have to live here for five years and have knowledge of british history and the royal family you also have to be able to speak English and you have to swear allegiance to the queen to get british citizenship and then if you pass those tests you can apply for a british passport

        During that five years before citizenship you don’t have full voting rights

        Blood and soil ….pah….talking nonsense

    • grizebard says:

      In summary, your kind of tortuous thinking is a unmitigated unworkable mess and primarily serves to confuse an issue that’s actually perfectly simple, was sorted quite some time ago, is optimally easy to operate and is now fully incorporated in Scots Law. End of.

    • weegingerdug says:

      Right, so everyone is confused except you and your ethnic nationalism Alfred.

      No one is interested in a racist definition of Scotland.

      • Alfred John Baird says:

        Aye, people are certainly confused about franchise norms globally, and made intentionally so, I expect. Independence is never merely about better governance (which can seldom be guaranteed anyway). Independence is about the liberation of a people and their national culture (Fanon 1967). Scottish independence and the creation of a sovereign Scottish State by the Scottish people is hardly a local government level issue, is it – so why did/is ScotGov using a local government election resident-based franchise? You wrote the article on this subject so I assume you can answer a reasonable question on it.

        • weegingerdug says:

          Scotland isn’t independent. There is currently no such thing as a Scottish citizen in law. Such a concept can only be defined by the parliament of an independent Scotland. A devolved parliament in Edinburgh doesn’t have the right to prejudge that issue.

          In any event, it’s a fundamental tenet of modern Scottish nationalism that we seek a civic definition of nation, not an ethnic one. It represents the more inclusive open and accepting Scotland that most of us seek to build. I want independence, in part, because I want to get away from the xenophobic regressive ethnic nationalism of the British state. It’s because I believe that Scottishness has not so much to do with where your parents are from, and a whole lot more to do with where your heart and soul is.

          You may also have noticed that the media in this country is overwhelmingly anti-independence. Using an ethnic definition of Scottishness as you suggest merely plays into the “regressive divisive nationalism” trope so beloved of the Scottish media and opponents of independence.

          You cite Frantz Fanon. He was a great writer, but he represents the thinking of the 1940s and 50s. The world has moved on.

          • Alfred John Baird says:

            I’m not sure this answers my question as to ‘why did/is ScotGov using a local government election resident-based franchise?’ for a national referendum and indeed also for national elections, which is in fact both irregular and non-reciprocal worldwide.

            • weegingerdug says:

              It’s the only answer you’re getting. I have other things to do.

            • yesindyref2 says:

              Two reasons I can see Alfred.

              One is they had a nationwide consultation just last year:


              “The Scottish Government’s consultation on Electoral Reform revealed that there was general support amongst organisations and individuals to extending the electoral franchise for devolved elections to everyone who is legally resident in Scotland, with 78% of those who responded agreeing to this proposition. ”

              “everyone who is legally resident in Scotland”

              So you’re outnumbered by nearly 4 to 1, and I’m sure you’d agree that in a democracy your vote is not worth more than that of any other person.

              And secondly this is done and dusted, as per the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 which received Royal Assent in January this year, and isn’t going to be changed with the 5 year delay you seem to want because one person isn’t happy with the dreaded English being given a vote in the country they live in, contribute to in so many ways including having kids and therefore future residents to pay our pensions, work for, support, and are legally resident in.

              • yesindyref2 says:

                I should point out as well that the 22% who it seems disagreed would have done so for a variety of reasons, not restricted to wanting only Scots to vote – including probably some who’d want Scots all over the UK to be able to vote – and even all over the world.

              • Alex Clark says:

                Thanks for that, a fact that is well worth knowing.

              • Alfred John Baird says:

                The consultation rather failed to inform people that adopting a local government election residence-based franchise for use in national elections and referendums is illegal in most if not all other countries. This is primarily because a residence-based franchise deployed at the national level represents a dangerous dilution of national sovereignty; i.e. anybody from anywhere who just happens to have a postcode in Scotland can vote your nation out of existence, or in our case stop it from existing, much as occurred in 2014. I suspect the SNP ScotGov promoted and used the local gov franchise because it meant they don’t need to do any extra work creating a proper national election/referendum franchise – and if it prevents independence so much the better for Whitehall’s finest (who are still sent north to run Scotland). Ever feel you’ve been duped?

                • weegingerdug says:

                  Catalonia, Quebec, and Puerto Rico have all used a similar franchise to Scotland in their independence referendums.

                  • Alfred John Baird says:

                    My understanding is that only national citizens are permitted to vote in referendums in these countries.

                    • weegingerdug says:

                      And your understanding is wrong, as I have already pointed out to you in respect of Catalonia. EU and EFTA citizens were able to vote as well as Spanish citizens from anywhere in Spain.

                      National citizens in the other countries does not mean “only citizens of the territory holding the referendum”. Non-quebecois Canadian citizens could and did vote in the Quebec referendums. Non-Puerto Rican US citizens could and did vote in the Puerto Rico referendum.

                  • raineach says:

                    it was also the same franchise as used in the 1999 referendum and so labour couldn’t complain about it

          • Alfred John Baird says:

            Fanon’s ‘Wretched of the Earth’ (1967) rather well explains Scotland’s socio-political predicament today, and especially the position the solitary National Party finds itself in, as ‘the pampered bourgeoisie seek to make an accommodation with colonialism’. Independence is still essentially about the liberation of an oppressed people and the survival of a national culture, much like Irvine Welsh’s Mark Renton fae Leith described so eloquently on a Scottish hillside. Fanon is a great deal more than ‘the thinking of the 1940s and 50s’.

            • weegingerdug says:

              The Wretched of the Earth was published shortly before Fanon died of leukaemia in 1961 (not in 1967). He was a great thinker, but his work inevitably represents the thinking of the 40s and 50s. He wrote before the civil rights movements of the 1960s and 70s about which I am sure he would have had a great deal to say had his life not been cut so tragically short.

      • Race and ethnicity are not the same thing

        • weegingerdug says:

          Racism is a common term for discrimination based upon ethnicity. According to the Oxford dictionary racism is : prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group.

          • Alfred John Baird says:

            How would you describe the active blocking (by one or more ethnic groups) of another ethnic ‘peoples’ right to enjoy their own nationality and citizenship?

    • Petra says:

      Interesting post Alf. You say, that ”The Scottish referendum franchise in 2014 based on residence (and not parental descent) was therefore highly irregular (if not corrupt) and is not reciprocated in any other country.”

      Does anyone on here have a list of countries that have held a referendum relating to independence to enable me to check out what’s been going on elsewhere? If not I’ll just have to do the legwork myself 🙄 😛.

      • weegingerdug says:

        In the Catalan referendum of 2017 Spanish and EU citizens resident in Catalonia were eligible to vote. The franchise for that referendum was defined by the Catalan parliament as being everyone who is entitled to vote in elections to the Catalan Parliament. There was no provision to restrict the vote to people born in Catalonia, nor to extend it to people born in Catalonia who lived elsewhere in Spain.

        In the Quebec referendums, my Quebecois in-laws tell me that all Canadian citizens resident in Quebec were eligible to vote. There was no provision for people born in Quebec who were resident elsewhere to vote. Which is why my husband’s step-mother couldn’t vote. Neither was there any provision restricting the vote to people born in Quebec or who had parents born in Quebec.

        In the Puerto Rico status referendum of 2017 (which offered a choice between independence, becoming a US state, or the status quo) I believe that all US citizens resident in Puerto Rico were eligible to vote. Puerto Ricans living elsewhere in the USA didn’t get a vote.

        • Petra says:

          Thanks for that info Paul.

        • Alex Clark says:

          Some further facts well worth knowing.

        • Alfred John Baird says:

          My understanding is that national elections and referendums in Catalonia are restricted to Spanish nationals/citizens living there. I know a Scot who lived there but who could not vote there (other than EU elections), nor could he vote in Scotland at the time (was effectively disenfranchised), whilst a Catalan living in Scotland got to vote on both Scottish and Catalan self-determination.

          (under Transitory Provision Fourth of the 1979 Statute, supplemented by the provisions within the Organic Law of General Electoral Regime.[c] Voting for the Parliament is on the basis of universal suffrage, which comprises all nationals over eighteen, registered in Catalonia and in full enjoyment of their political rights. Additionally, Catalans abroad are required to apply for voting before being permitted to vote, a system known as “begged” or expat vote (Spanish: Voto rogado).[12)

          • weegingerdug says:

            National elections in Spain are restricted to Spanish citizens. Just as national elections in the UK are restricted to UK citizens. However EU citizens resident in Spain are eligible to vote in elections to the parliaments of the autonomous communities and to vote in local elections.

            I lived in Spain for 15 years. I voted in local elections and in elections for the Valencian Cortes – the autonomous region where I lived – as well as EU elections.

            The Catalan Parliament explicitly ruled that the franchise for the referendum was to be the same as the franchise for elections to the Catalan Parliament. EU citizens were eligible to vote in the Catalan referendum of 2017, so you are mistaken.

            There was no provision for Catalans resident abroad to vote in the referendum because even if there were it could only have been facilitated by the Spanish Embassy in the country of residence. Madrid was not going to cooperate with that.

      • Alfred John Baird says:

        Plenty national election/referenda franchise info available online. I looked at 30+ nations (in my book ‘Doun-Hauden’/amazon) including Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, USA, Malaysia etc and in all countries only nationals/citizens of that country are permitted to vote in national elections or referendums. There is a reciprocal arrangement between UK and Ireland where both nations citizens can vote in national elections in the country they are resident in but NOT in national referendums. On the basis of international evidence it is difficult to view the use of a local government election franchise for a Scottish independence referendum as anything other than grossly incompetent, or worse; it would certainly be illegal in most if not all other countries. Arguably this was most likely the main cause of failure to secure independence in 2014, and may also result in loss in any future referendum.

        • weegingerdug says:

          You are talking about countries which are already independent and which have already been able to establish for themselves who is or who is not a citizen – and crucially in this context, have recognised processes of naturalisation by which a foreign resident can become a citizen. Scotland is not, yet, in that situation.

          I’ve now cited you three examples of nations holding recent independence referendums who have had similar franchises to the one in Scotland, yet you’re still arguing. I am not spending any more time on this – I do actually have other more important things to do today.

    • Eilidh says:

      So are you saying relative of mine who was born in Scotland and lived her whole life here shouldn’t have got a vote in Indy Ref as her mother was born in Northern Ireland and dad in Poland. What utter garbage!!!

    • Lizzie says:

      Alf Baird, you’re a fraud. I bought your book and was horrified to find how sloppy it was:

      – you say you were a professor, but you give no credentials

      – most of your test is pure waffle, though with copious references

      – none of your references support your waffle.

      If you want to take this further, I’m happy for WGD to give you my email address. Till then, piss off back to Wings Over Scotland.

      • Lizzie says:

        …most of your text…

      • weegingerdug says:

        I have no reason to doubt that Alfred is who he says he is. Although that said I still don’t accept his arguments.

      • Alfred John Baird says:

        Lizzie. Several professors and numerous other intellectuals disagree with you, much as do I. In my opinion my book ‘Doun-Hauden’, which is Scots for ‘oppression’, may come to be regarded as possibly the definitive work on the subject of Scottish independence. It covers a number of important and indeed critical aspects, several of which most commentators have tended to ignore, hence arguably offers an important new addition to the literature. Perhaps this blog might care to do a review? There are not that many books offering a research-based scientific analysis of the phenomenon, after all. Your initial critique appears to be rather crude and ignorant, if you don’t mind me saying so.

        • grizebard says:

          Well, that’s a cheap shot, invoking the support of a shadow army of supposedly clever people, none of which you substantiate. I don’t know about your book, but you certainly don’t suffer from an excess of modesty, and promoting it does provide a handy pivot from the (frankly) unsustainable nonsense you have tried to assert on here, while simultaneously patronising us. (Assuming it is in fact a pivot, since otherwise I might well directly agree with Lizzie!)

          • Alfred John Baird says:

            I can appreciate that the book will probably be of less interest to those who are neutral or opposed to securing Scottish independence, or in wanting to find out the real reasons why Scotland is not yet independent, however uncomfortable such analysis and explanations may be. You don’t have to read it if you don’t want to. However, there are actually relatively few in-depth academic works on the subject of Scottish independence, most texts tend to be written by political commentators, or historians. Partly this may be due to the nature and emphasis of Scotland’s universities, which do not always operate in the interests of Scots, or Scotland, and this is also a topic covered in the book.

  43. Alex Clark says:

    This is something else a statement just issued on video by Donald Trump on twitter. I won’t comment, make your own minds up.

  44. malkymcblain says:

    I just had to share this.

    • Alex Clark says:

      That was great 🙂

      Not enough got the message at the time and we are where we are, he really doesn’t like Johnson though, does he hahaha

    • diabloandco says:

      I am a great fan of Jonathon Pie – he makes me think that some broadcaster ,somewhere might have the courage to emulate him .

    • Petra says:

      Brilliant. Anyone else reckon that Jonathon Pie would make for a great PM? 😀

  45. Statgeek says:

    Just a general comment (rant, perhaps?). Not aimed at WGD.

    Born in Scotland. Lived in Scotland all my life, with the exception of a dozen holidays and a couple of business trips.

    Scotland’s vote was stolen in ’79 by Westminster’s mendacity.

    Scots-born folk narrowly voted for Indy in ’14

    From my own perspective (and it’s as valid as any other), I want Scots to vote, both those born here and the naturalised ones. Quite frankly, I’m sick of votes being stolen by people that didn’t grow up in Scotland, and people that won’t be forced to live with the result of referendum (i.e. Scots who moved away and think they should get a vote).

    They want Scotland to stick around, because it’s in their interests. I want Scotland to get the hell out, because it’s in Scotland’s interests.

    Any comments regarding ‘blood and soil’ and go stand over there, next to the Better Together people that use any underhanded excuse to win a vote. This isn’t some form of racism. This is a referendum that cannot afford to be lost. The referendum is all that matters. After that, we can be as welcoming and pleasant to people from all over the world as we please, rather than Westminster’s version of blood and soil, which alienates pretty much everyone. Our behaviour after winning will be what people remember.

    If you thought growing up (as I have) under Thatcher et al was bad, try growing up in 2020-2030 under Johnson and whoever inherits his job. There’s less oil, no national industries to sell off (other than the public sector), and when the power cuts come, do you think they’ll come to London first, or Scotland?

    Which networks get all the infrastructure first? Rail, road, broadband. Where are the logistics hubs? The travel hubs? The HQs? London-centric isn’t a meme or a misnomer.

    Our oil industry is being devalued by politicians we didn’t elect. The oil is always running out before a crucial vote, and then new fields are discovered just after they win it.

    Where are all the dumping grounds? Beaufort dyke. Rosyth Dock. Faslane. Radioactive beaches. Weapons testing over the islands. If Scotland’s a dump, it’s because the people living there allow it to continue by voting for Westminster parties.

    I refer you to some of the demographics of the 2014 referendum (courtesy of the Beeb, no less):

    Take note of the final two paragraphs. New powers and fair share of resources. None since 2014, and existing ones at threat. Resources being drained, while being accused of creating half the debt. Inequality soaring (EVEL the day after the referendum). Budget cuts…

    Northern Ireland will get ‘interesting’ in any number of ways in the next 5 years. Imagine if NI decided to get out, and we didn’t. Imagine if the nasty stuff starts up again and we’re still in the Union. Another 20-30 years of wall to wall news on that, with more Scots lads patrolling there. Either way, I don’t want anything to do with it. It’s a problem for the Northern Irish (and/or Ireland/Westminster). It’s time Scotland cut loose and let other people deal with their problems and let Scots deal with Scottish problems. It’s been 313 years, and the results are in. The Scots ain’t impressed.

    This is where I should say “rant over”. I’ll stop ranting the day Indy happens. 🙂

    • Ace, statgeek.
      I note that the ‘bumbling buffoon’ is to appear on Marr today.
      Doubtless the Linesman Dross will feature in a now standard format for Brit Nat interviews, pre recorded ‘interview with Yes But Hanng On A Minute Brewer’s Sunday Better Together, with clips/highlights from Marr’s interview with the serial womaniser, indiscriminate father of many, praising Johnson for his wisdom,leadership, and resolute defiance of the Johnny Foreigners across the English Chanel, oops, Channel.

      Just To Be Clear will make sure that his audience know that Dross will not allow Indyref2 when he becomes FM.
      The Ferrier woman will of course feature.

      BBC Breakfast, as befits the 51st US State broadcaster has featured England’s real leader The Donald, plus the ‘London’ marathon, plus English footie and cricket. Beamed straight in to Scottish homes.

      I look forward to the day when the MSM and broadcasters Up Here have no reason to flood our screens and Dead Tree Scrolls with Brit Nat vile hegemony and lies.

  46. Ken2 says:

    Less than 100 years. Universal Suffrage Less than one hundred years ago when people could do something about it. Been given the vote.

    Devolution 2000. 20 years before people could do something about it. 2021. No need to rage about it. Just vote them out, everyone. Vote out all the unionist representation. Then another Ref. Unstoppable. There will be no one in power to object. When the time is nigh.

    The Tories will be voted out. Tanking. Losing all support. Their usual total mess and shambles. Johnston will be gone soon. Along with the rest of them. Who wants the poison chalice.

    Another day, another mess. They are contemptible. Killing people they are supposed to protect. Skipping the rules. Breaking the Law. They think they are above the Law, until the Courts have to put them right. Sort out their criminality and their mess. The Tories think they are privilege above everyone else. They try to hid under the Official Secrets Act and ‘D’ notices. Trying to cover up.

    Support for SNP/SNP Independence rising. When the time is right to succeed. Demographically. Another Ref to be won. Just vote for it. Vote SNP/SNP. Vote for Independence. Now There is no alternative. Swim or sink,

  47. Ken2 says:

    Tory Conference being held in a phone box. Out of touch The internet is crashing. The average member male and over seventy. They will soon be gone. Under Tory rule life expectancy is falling. Vote Tory to die younger. Out of touch and out of time. Nothing is working.

  48. Bailey says:

    What the BBC and British Nationalists are suggesting is contrary to the world norm. In most countries any vote on the constitution is restricted and based on line of parental descent. Whether people like it or not Alfred Baird at 12:06 am is correct. The 2014 franchise and the new 2020 Act are unique in the world in allowing people born outwith the territory attempting to “secede” to have a vote. The UN upholds the right of self-determination of indigenous people. There is no corresponding right for persons from the country that the territory is attempting to “secede” from to thwart the rights of the indigenous and that is what happened in 2014. That would not be allowed anywhere else in the world. The new 2020 Act enshrining the franchise in Scotland will lead to another No vote. A quick look at the demographics of the No vote in the first referendum show that.

    Whether people like it or not, Alfred’s view is factually correct and the UN upholds the rights of countries to restrict such votes and actually expects it.

  49. Bailey says:

    Incidentally, people clinging to the hope that the 2020 Act will stand and they will be saved from Scots living in England voting in any other referendum could find that Westminster tries to bulldoze a change through anyway. They don’t care about the Scotland Act 1998 or any other national or international law and may ride roughshod over Holyrood. Holyrood is being stripped of its legislative powers and the British State will do anything to thwart a Yes vote.

    • grizebard says:

      The UKGov could in principle try it, but it would signal its own complete failure to command the support of the people, and the attempt would blow up in its face. Around 8% of diehard BritNat reactionaries might cheer, but everyone else would be rank affronted. Even many decent English people would be appalled. There could be no pretence what was happening after that, and it would simply accelerate the break, and could even bring down any foolish government that tried it.

      (The problem with authoritarians is that they think that some superficial show of force is unanswerable, whereas history demonstrates that once an idea has taken root among the majority of a population, no amount of clampdown can succeed.)

  50. Hamish100 says:

    Since brewers return on bbc I have noticed the tories interviews are recorded- and therefore can be edited and the snp were live and can be pilloried. I wonder if it will be 3 out of 3 this week?

  51. Hamish100 says:

    Puke bag please! David Leask on the bbc radio scottisland “ National treasure Dani Garavelli…”. BBC bring in the Salmond trial… nice setup.

  52. Ken2 says:

    The Tories are refusing to go on news programmes. They cannot get any of them to answer for their policies. They are refusing to go on Panarama, Newsnight, Question Time, any ‘news’ outlets, They will not answer for their duplicity. Left with the dregs, of their policies. No one can defend the indefensible.

    They get recordings so they can have edit rights and can change or delete anything they do not like. The usual. Cowards. Johnstone gives retort refusing to answer any questions. Refused to be interview by Neil, illegal evasion. Supported Illegal tax evasion.

    Without a free and fair Press/Media, there is no democracy. Another Tory cop out. Trying to manipulate the transcript. Lies. Lie, after lie, after lie. With no questions defence or balance. Undemocratic. Decree.

    • Ken, Brewer will ‘interview’, that is teleprompt, every Blue Tory in a pre recorded set up.

      Check out the ‘so what you’re saying is’, ‘let me get this clear’, and ‘I get what you’re saying’, prompts Brewer goes through when interviewing gentleman farmer Jack, Linesman (never the referee, bless.) Dross, or Rennie or ‘Lennon’.

      I see it’s more important that Scotland tunes in to a London Marathon, with no runners for 3 hours this morning, so Brewer’s Sunday Politics Douglas Ross has been put back until the back of one this afternoon.
      More time to edit the Blue Tory’s ‘interview I suppose.

      BBC Scotland declares ‘Fuck You Scottish’ licence payers.

      The Empire’s Big Brother’s on for 3 hours this Sunday morn, with shots of London, and the capital of the Empire’s splendiferous towers of Mammon.

      Marr sort of tore in to ‘Bumpy Bumpy’ Johnson who spoke the usual babbling nonsense. He didn’t like it when Marr read out that the Linesman Dross argued that English Tories and Bumpy Bumpy Boris were doing more for the Independence cause than the EssEnnPee.

      Indyref 2? The answer will still be no even if every Scot votes for a pro independence party next May.
      And Johnson declared live on TV that if the EU do not accept England breaking international law, then No Deal it is, so there.

      Johnson truly is a bumbling fool; and he’s Jack’s and Ross’ boss.
      All hail the chief.

      • Dave tewart says:


        Have a listen to the radio interviews from the EBC.
        They re-use interviews with other presenters as though the presenter did the interview.
        This is high class propaganda.
        Interviews broadcast on their world service turn up on R4 in the following day.

        The doris is much better at pre-recorded interviews, closely edited, than he is with LIVE, so we can’t have that.

        Has anyone actually considered that there have been a huge number of False positives in the testing.

        No headlines in the media like
        ‘Virus numbers DOUBLE in a day’.
        Just technical problems with collection of the DATA.

        The doris is reported as saying ‘IF the EU don’t agree to englandland breaking the agreement, well a deal isn’t possible’.

        The EU gets the blame, propaganda in action.

  53. Postal votes for all are relatively new 1999
    Up until then it was application and restricted

    In 2017 U.K. general election eight million votes were postal votes

    Northern Ireland is an exception postal vote applications are not accepted automatically
    You can only do a postal vote if it’s impossible for you to vote in person
    you have to provide very good reasons supported by proof if you say you can’t vote in person

    And you have to provide proof of your national insurance number and date of birth and address to register to vote

    And you must provide proof that you have lived in Northern Ireland for more than three months before you can register to vote

    I think a review across U.K. is required

    • Petra says:

      I’ve mentioned the NIreland postal vote system before too, Terence, and would like to see us adopt it in Scotland. It would definitely cut out MANY of the ”anomalies” that we experienced in 2014.

      • yesindyref2 says:

        There was a consultation back in 2018, and it was widely publicised – including many times by posters on Wings including me when I wasn’t blocked for not being subservient! The results of the consultation have been analysed as in for example

        and put in to such as this:

        “Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020
        2020 asp 6

        The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 20th February 2020 and received Royal Assent on 1st April 2020

        An Act of the Scottish Parliament to enfranchise certain persons in respect of Scottish parliamentary and local government elections; to extend to certain persons the right to vote at, stand for election at, and hold office as elected members following, Scottish parliamentary and local government elections; and for connected purposes.”

        There’ll be another opportunity I guess, perhaps on a 5 year cycle in 2023, don’t know.

        Personally I’d prefer not to wait for Indy Ref 2 until 2025 or after, while people who had the chance already, failed to put in their consultations – or did and got “outvoted”.

        Sarcasm not aimed at you!

        • grizebard says:

          Yup, I was one of those who put in a response to that consultation. My guess is, though, that all these recent complainers never did.

          I still find it curious that there is an increase in this kind of thing right now, and expressing an attitude more commonly associated with the BritNats.

    • I tend to look at things in two ways
      In a fair and independent Scotland world I would like to see every person who is living in Scotland given a vote in all elections .
      I would like to see anyone who wants to take Scottish citizenship given a Scottish passport

      I would like to see all people living in Scotland being entitled to all benefits that are available no matter what their nationality or citizenship status is

      But as things are right now we have a bully of a neighbour with a population ten or twelve times the size of ours and it doesn’t treat us fairly now you might say that’s not the fault of those from our neighbours country even if they do vote for the government down there that inflicts this inequality on us but I do not.
      The longer this situation continues the bigger the percentage of our population will be from our bullying neighbouring country.

      I’m all for playing fair and by the rules but if your neighbour doesn’t then you have to consider changing your tactics

  54. Hamish100 says:


    • Ally says:

      Does the ScotGov have the devolved power to put this is place for the next Holyrood election and referendum?
      I hope so.

  55. Welsh Sion says:

    DRoss features on a Welsh website – whatever next:

    And Drakeford attacks Johnson:

    Drakeford’s four nations approach isn’t tenable when Boris Johnson insists on putting England first

  56. Petra says:

    Anyone else think that there’s a want wae these people? … Video


    Meanwhile the ”Scottish government is being criticised for ‘absolutely terrifying’ advert showing how coronavirus spreads.”

  57. Petra says:

    ‘New Caledonia votes to reject independence from France.’


    Well worth a read.

    ‘Crime and (no) Punishment.’

    ..”Last Saturday, a Scottish Limited Partnership (SLP) made it to top spot on the leader page of The Times. That’s another waypoint for a five-year campaign, led in the UK Parliament by SNP MPs Roger Mullin (2015-17) and Alison Thewliss, and, in Scotland, by Andy Wightman, Green MSP.”..

  58. Petra says:

    Professor John Robertson:- ‘Scotland Politics: 5 out of 7 reports about one woman who made a mistake.’

    ..”What’s the figure of speech – feeding frenzy, pile-on? This is way over the score. One woman makes a mistake but, in the wider context, by no means the biggest any politician or public figure has made recently.

    By their decisions, Boris Johnson and the university leaders have caused the infection of thousands. Many will get long-covid and some will die because of their actions. Margaret Ferrier may have infected a tiny number and some of them may get sick. Will her actions have killed even one? Unlikely.”..


    Matt Handcock another wee Hitler 👹.

    Matthew Thompson:- ”Bloody hell. Asked a fairly reasonable question in the Commons, Matt Hancock replies: “I will not have this divisive language. I will not have it.” You will not have Parliamentary scrutiny? Then you may be in the wrong job, sir.”

  59. Petra says:

    Hahaha brilliant.

    Janey Godley:- “The rules are easy, you can meet three people if two of them have been to a Barry Manilow concert” #janeygodleyvoiceover catch me on tour http://janeygodley.com


    Check out Ann’s latest links on the Indyref2 site.

  60. Julia Gibb says:

    Trump official photos

    Ostrower, editor-in-chief of aviation publication The Air Current, took a closer look at data embedded in the photos shared by the White House, and found they were taken just 10 minutes apart but showed the president working in two different places.

    “The photos released by the WH tonight of the president working at Walter Reed were taken 10 minutes apart at 5:25:39 pm and 5:35:40 pm ET Saturday, according to the EXIF data embedded in both AP wire postings that were shared by the White House this evening,” he said.

    White House reporter Andrew Feinberg also examined the photos and upon zooming into one of them, found that Mr Trump “appears to be signing his name to a blank sheet of paper”.

    Many people responded to the photos with mockery, with the word “staged” trending on Twitter on Sunday morning.

    Another film expert who analysed the official video says a “hiccup” is actually a video cut – probably a cough.

  61. Petra says:

    Mmmhh .. another one!

    ‘Taking back what was theirs: Estonia’s independence restored in August 1991.’

    ..”While the very proposal of a referendum incited political disagreements on issues such as the legal principle of continuity and the participation of non-citizens in the vote, Estonia’s referendum, in which all residents of Estonia, excluding active members of the Soviet Armed Forces located on Estonian territory, were allowed to participate, garnered a turnout of 82.86 percent.”..

    • Alex Clark says:

      Well found 🙂

      Another domino tumbles.

    • weegingerdug says:

      Here’s another example – the Montenegrin independence referendum

      “The referendum law stated that those eligible to vote in parliamentary elections also should be those voting in a referendum (i.e. residents). Expansion of the electorate to include those residing in Serbia was not recommended, mainly because these citizens already had voting rights in Serbia:

      Citizens of Former Republic of Yugoslavia born in Montenegro but permanently living in Serbia, in essence, have taken the citizenship of Serbia and vote in elections there. If they were also allowed to vote in Montenegro, they would be given a double franchise within the same participating State.”'s_'Postmodern_Diplomacy'/link/5a4f4b29458515e71b0923e1/download

      To correct my previous comments about the Quebec referendum, a person living outside Quebec could vote in the independence referendum as long as their legal residence remained in Quebec, that they were temporarily absent from Quebec, and it had been less than two years since they’d left Quebec.

      • Alfred John Baird says:

        I notice you don’t take account of Scotland’s rather different demographics, or other unique circumstances such as the fact of Scotland’s national sovereignty, nor indeed the existence of a treaty-based international alliance arrangement (the UK Union). On the subject of demographics, the census tells us that up to 100,000 new residents come to Scotland each year, about half from rest-UK, the latter having the highest propensity of any ethnic group (i.e. 70%+) to vote against Scottish independence. That’s a lot of people holding to a different national identity and sense of belonging, more especially over a period of 10 years, or even 20 years. This helps explain why perhaps as much as 50% of No voters in 2014 (i.e. one million) did not primarily hold to a/any Scottish identity; i.e. they blocked Scottish national independence primarily because they did not hold to a Scottish identity. One may reasonably deduce that such a phenomenon might itself be regarded as an ‘ethnic’ vote (i.e. actively voting to block and prevent another ‘peoples’ right to hold their own nationality), if not also colonial in its orientation. Soon after arrival new residents now receive a form from ScotGov inviting them to register to vote in a national election and a referendum. Given this, the reason the Tories are putting off another indyref for as long as they can is probably because they know that, helped by an irregular residence-based franchise, demographic change is likely to strengthen and further boost the No vote. It remains the case that Scotland (whilst in the UK) has no control over its borders and hence has little if any control over what happens to its population, much of which has been displaced (more than any comparable sized European country), and replaced, over time. This process of boosting/replacement appears to have been accelerating over the last 10-20 years, as the results of the next census may confirm. You will no doubt be aware of why demographics makes independence extremely unlikely ever in Wales, whilst in Northern Ireland changing demographics there makes Irish unification perhaps more likely; there are no longer many rest-UK residents making the move to Northern Ireland. This means that changing demographics and national identity, in addition to the specific voter franchise employed, represent critical determinants of Scottish independence.

        • weegingerdug says:

          Shifting the goalposts now because you lost the argument Alfred?

          You started off arguing that no country used a residency based franchise for an indy ref. After numerous examples of independence referendums doing exactly that were pointed out to you, now you want to tell us that Scotland is special.

          This topic is closed as far as I am concerned.

          • He makes good honest and relevant points though

            • Alex Clark says:

              His points are neither good nor honest, they are selective and do not provide the true picture but the one he wants to put which is false. That can not be described as “honest”.
              You choose to describe his comment that way because you agree with his view, nothing more, while the majority of Scots don’t agree with his view.

              Read the link posted earlier by Yesindyref2 and you will see that 78% agree that they are satisfied with the voting franchise as it currently is.

        • yesindyref2 says:

          “On the subject of demographics, the census tells us that up to 100,000 new residents come to Scotland each year,”

          It’s NET migration that counts, people migrate OUT as well as IN.

          “Scotland’s net migration

          The migration figures for Scotland to 30 June 2018 was

          This means more people arrived than left:

          In migration: 87,400
          Out migration: 57,100”

          “Average net migration from mid-2001 to mid-2017 was around +21,000 individuals a year (Figure 2.2). ”

          So far from your implied figure of “up to 100,000 new residents”, the figure is more like 30,000 per year now, and 21,000 average up to 2017, with a bit more from the rUK than the rest of the world.

          • Yes but if the INS most are not Scottish and won’t hold allegiance to Scotland , most of the outs on the other hand will be Scottish looking or going elsewhere to work and will hold allegiance to Scotland

            • yesindyref2 says:

              The majority of the net INS are under 30, and therefore in the age groups most likely to vote YES. So it’s a net gain for YES.

              The more, the merrier.

              • Alfred John Baird says:

                The net migratory rise or fall is not the point; the point is the ongoing and cumulative change in the national identity and sense of belonging of the voting population as a whole.

                Surveys post 2014 also found that younger people from rest-UK/rest-UK extraction likewise have a far higher propensity to vote No than younger people holding primarily to a Scottish identity.

                Culture and language, which together form the basis of identity, are the key features here, and indeed reflect the divide in the Yes/No vote, as is the case in Quebec, Catalonia, New Caledonia and in most if not all examples of self-determination ‘conflict’ anywhere.

                The reality is that the vast majority of Yes voters, as might be expected, are Scots who are culturally and linguistically Scots and who hold primarily to a Scottish identity and have a sense of belonging primarily to Scotland. This is also predominantly a working class vote and hence more socialist and left leaning.

                The No vote on the other hand is made up rather differently, being more Anglophone oriented and holding primarily to a British/rest-UK identity and sense of belonging. As Scotland’s meritocracy is largely Anglophone (and from rest-UK) this implies the No vote is therefore oriented towards the middle class and hence also more conservative.

                The vote on Scotland’s independence therefore reflects to a large extent ethnic identity and hence represents a cultural/linguistic divide; given many similar examples elsewhere this should not really be unexpected.

                In Scotland’s case, given prevailing demographic trends, a residence-based franchise coupled with zero (Scottish) controls over Scotland’s national population therefore seems more likely to serve to inflate the No vote.

              • Alfred John Baird says:

                The census actually tells you that EU citizens coming to Scotland tend to comprise younger age groups, however citizens from rest-UK includes older groups. EU citizens also tend mostly to live in the main cities, whereas many rest-UK folks head for more rural areas/communities, e.g. public sector posts, retirement etc. The census also tells us that, historically also, migrants from rest-UK are oriented towards the professional classes, teaching, managerial etc, which fits with the fact that Scotland’s meritocracy is predominantly Anglophone, privileged (see Elitist Scotland? report 2015) and hence more likely to be conservative/unionist – and anti-independence. For example, over half the teachers in some areas of Scotland (e.g. Borders, D&G) and close to half of those in many other areas are from rest-UK (census data).

                I think we can all agree that demographics is an important factor in the context of Scottish independence (it is people who vote after all!) and also in relation to the development opportunities of the Scottish people whom, some would maintain, remain oppressed, oppression often being a key rationale for independence. We are, after all, talking about a nation where close to half the population still live in or close to poverty and even more remain uneducated to higher levels. As well as an under-developed society (with underlying health issues) we also suffer the longstanding feature of under-developed and externally exploited economy. Oppression takes many forms, friends.

          • Capella says:

            If we accept the point that English people who move to Scotland are more likely to vote NO, then NET migration is irrelevant.

            If the 57,100 who leave are predominantly Scots (as is likely) and if we assume that Scots people are more likely to vote YES than NO. YES loses up to 57,100.

            If we further assume that the 87,400 who come in are predominantly NO voters with no particular attachment to Scotland’s culture, then, in effect NO gains up to 87,400.

            So the balance in favour of NO through migration could be anything up to 144,500.

            • Alex Clark says:

              Capella you have no idea of the ethnicity of those that enter Scotland from the UK or elsewhere and no idea of the ethnicity of those that enter Scotland from the UK or elsewhere sonce such information is not gathered.

              You surmise that the majority leaving Scotland every year are Scots which is clearly wrong else there would be far more from the rest of the UK living in Scotland than the last census showed.

              That was in 2011 but if 50,000 Brits replaced 40,000 Scots every year there would be no Scots left in just 10 years. The majority of incomers from rUK as stated in the report eventually leave. they are here to study and leave when that is over.

              There is insufficient data to say how many students from England for example actually voted in 2014 never mind what they voted. It is pure conjecture. This road leads to a dead end, there is nothing in this argument that benefits support for Independence. All that is in it is bad headlines and accusations on extreme nationalism. Not worth even going there.

              Have you noticed that we are actually winning, whether people from the rest of the UK will be voting Yes or not, focus our energies on that. Persuade one other person, be they English or any other Nationality. Our best chance of increasing the vote is to persuade those born in Scotland that voted No last time. That is a fact.

              • Capella says:

                Someone has done research, it may have been Lord Ashcroft, on voting patterns of English and Scottish born voters in the referendum. Sorry I haven’t got a link atm.

                You’re right, I am assuming that most immigrants from the rUK will be English.
                I’m also assuming most emigrants from Scotland will be Scottish, because there is a long established history of emigration and also, people who come here to work or retire are not likely to move away in a hurry.

                Students are, of course, an exception. Nevertheless they are able to vote while here so must be counted as voters.
                I’m not advocating ethnic nationalism. I agree with the residency rule although I think it will make achieving a “decisive” majority difficult. At the end of the day it boils down to numbers. And we also need to guard against gerrymandering as practised by Westminster.

                • Alex Clark says:

                  In the 2011 census, 4,411,884 gave Scotland as their country of birth from a population of 5,295,403 which equates to 83.3% and of those 459,486 were born in England or 8.7%.

                  In 2001 the figures were 4,410,400 born in Scotland from a population of 5,062,011 which is 87.1% and 408,948 were born in England which is 8.0%.

                  In ten years the English born population of Scotland increased by less than 51,000 or about 5,000/year. The largest increase in those 10 years came from outwith the UK and was mainly EU citizens coming to Scotland to work.

                  When we have the next census I see little reason for things to have changed to any great degree, it may be just as likely to have gone down than it is to have gone up due to the decline in the oil Industry in the last 10 years. I have no evidence for that and it’s just a hunch.

                  What is clear though is that despite 50,000 in the last 10 years or so moving to Scotland from the UK that number is closely matched by those leaving Scotland for elsewhere.

                  The net migration is more in line with the 5000 or so per year that the census proves, no more and no less.


                  • Alfred John Baird says:

                    The census you refer to is dated now, but is not the whole picture. It is not always where one is born that is decisive insofar as national identity and a sense of belonging to a people and nation is concerned. The BBC’s John Beattie was born in Malaysia but this does not necessarily make him Malaysian. Many Scots over the time of the union were born in former British colonies. We may also note Michael Hechter’s (1998) book on British industry and culture and what he described as the UK’s ‘internal colonialism’ structure comprising England as ‘core’ and its exploited Celtic Periphery, its resultant ‘cultural division of labour’ and with deprivation largely reflecting ethnicity across the internal colonies. The matter of ‘parental descent’ is important because we naturally develop feelings of belonging and a national identity from this relationship. Human geographers also refer to ‘extraction’ which is essentially ‘the ethnic origin of our family’. This means the number of people born in a particular country may well be X but post migration the numbers of people of that (ethnic) extraction will tend be far greater. The point Kelman makes is also relevant here in that if we want to know our identity then look at who our relatives are.

                    • Petra says:

                      When all is said and done Alfred, the polls indicate that around an average of 55% of Scots, born wherever, support Independence and that’s good enough for me 😀.

                • yesindyref2 says:

                  Yes, they have done research. From the independent Expert Advisory Group on Migration and Population:


                  e.g. “Return migrants account for 40% of migrants from Scotland to England and 25% from rUK to Scotland.” and


                  “since mid-2001, population flows from rUK have increased Scotland’s population by 137,000.” — but — “Most people who arrive in Scotland are in the age range 18 to 29. Migration from rUK has two peaks: one is in ages 18-20 and related to the student migration, and another in the late 20s and early 30s.”

                  Two things from that. We are only talking about 137,000 people net in total since 2001, minus the figures for return migration, so less than 100,000 net, and some sadly will have popped their clogs over the years. And secondly, most of them are in the age groups MOST LIKELY TO VOTE YES. (excuse my shouting).

                  So, as they say, “Come all ye”.

                • Capella says:

                  Alex and Yesindyref2 – I take your point that the exact make up of immigrants and their views on independence are not known – at least, to me. But you can surely accept that NET migration is irrelevant here.

                  Nor do I know the views of students who come to St Andrews from rUK except that they are charged huge fees to do so. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge went to St Andrews after all. They are young but are they in favour of Scottish independence?

                  If 1 million Scots emigrate and 1 million rUK voters immigrate then NET migration is precisely 0.

                  • Alex Clark says:

                    The census data show that between 2001 and 2011 the total population of Scotland who were born in England was an increase of 50,000 so 5000/year net migration from England to Scotland. Net migration is important if you are talking of population growth.

                    Between the census and Demographic Trends report the data suggests that in an average year, 50,000 people born in England arrive in Scotalnd and 45,000 leave for elsewhere.

                    Resulting in an population growth of English born people of 5,000/year, the fact that 50,000 English born people arrive in Scotland each year is irrelevant to poulation growth due to the number of English born people leaving that year too.

            • John Smith says:

              Except that is not necessarily a valid assumption.

              I hail from England, and have lived in Scotland since ’97.

              In the 2014 referendum, despite personally preferring NO, and arguing with people for that position, I chose not to vote. That is because in my view the right thing to do was for the Scots alone to choose if they wished to stay part of the UK.

              • Alfred John Baird says:

                This is an admiral and perhaps also moral stance, John, though regrettably an unusual one. But you are absolutely right, for one ethnic group to actively prevent and block another ethnic group from accessing the latter’s right to hold their own nationality and citizenship and run their own nation’s affairs arguably amounts to ethnic discrimination and hence racism. Moreover, my own research on this subject further suggests those Scots who themselves voted No in order to block/prevent their own right and that of other Scots to hold Scottish nationality/citizenship possibly reflects a degree of what is known as ‘internalized racism’, also referred to as ‘appropriated racial oppression’; we know this ‘condition’ better as the ‘Scottish cultural cringe’. In Scotland our understanding of racism is not really well developed as we generally tend to think of racism as only colour oriented, which it is not.

        • Alex Clark says:

          Here’s a link to the most recent data on population in Scotland including details of migration, you might want to read it.

          Scotland’s Population 2018 – The Registrar General’s Annual Review of Demographic Trends

          Net migration for 2018 from the UK into Scotland was around 10,000, net migration from overseas was almost the same at 10,900.

          The document includes this interesting observation (Pg 91).

          The peak age for moves to Scotland from the rest of the UK was 19 years, whereas the peak age for moves from Scotland was 23. This is largely due to students from the rest of the UK starting higher education in Scotland, followed by students leaving after they

          Doesn’t fit very well with the picture you paint of an invading hoard pouring over the border to steal the referendum result from us does it?

          • A lot of students do come to Scotland

            • Capella says:

              And while here, those students are eligible to vote.

              Many Tory students were prosecuted in 1979 (especially in St Andrews) for double registering students (also dead people, people who had moved house etc) to defeat the Devolution Referendum. It was narrowly lost although the majority of Scottish voters were in favour. It was lost because of the 40% of the registered electorate hurdle introduced by a Labour MP George Cunningham. I think he was Scottish but represented a London constituency – Islington I think. Hard to get that many if the register is full of missing persons.

              My grandfather had died that year so would have counted as a NO voter. We had moved house and my husband was a student so we collectively had 5 votes – our old house, the new one and my husband’s university town. (We obeyed the law but our 2 YES votes would have been cancelled by our 3 non votes which were counted as NOs)

        • Ken2 says:

          Independence support is rising demographically. (pro rata). Whatever the numbers? Keeps increasing as the population increases

    • Welsh Sion says:

      Happy reading, Petra!

      Plenty to be going on with there … 🙂

      • weegingerdug says:

        There’s a list of franchises for various independence referendums at the end of this document.

        Those where the franchise for the indy ref was not based primarily on residency are in a small minority. Of the former USSR republics listed (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine), only Lithuania had a franchise which didn’t include all USSR citizens permanently resident in the republic – and Lithuania already had in place a legal process by which USSR citizens resident in Lithuania could be recognised as Lithuanian citizens.

        It should also be noted that in two of the cases where the franchise was not based solely on residency – South Sudan and East Timor – the referendum had been preceded by decades of war which had resulted in large numbers of people fleeing and living elsewhere as refugees.

        The paper also has a table showing the majority that was deemed necessary – which is interesting the context of British nationalists who demand a supermajority. All but one of the independence referendums in modern times operated on the basis of a simple majority. The sole exception was the Montenegrin referendum of 2006, which had a 55% threshold.

        • Alex Clark says:

          I believe Lithuania might have required 50% of those eligible to vote rather than a simple majority of those that voted in the referendum.

          An independence referendum was held in Lithuania on 9 February 1991.[1] It was approved by 93.2% of voters. The number of voters voting “yes” was 76.5% of all registered voters, far exceeding the threshold of 50%.[2]

      • Petra says:

        FGS WS. I didnae mean right away 😀! Anyway I’ve had a look at your link and started with Malta. I’ve spent over an hour trying to find out who was eligible to vote, to no avail 🙄. I’ve read though their Constitution, Electoral Commission Malta and everything relating to (and pre) their 1964 Independence Act etc etc. Maybe it’s right under my nose but I can’t see it / find it.

        Anyway I’m exhausted now ☹ but found a couple of relative links.


        ‘September 20, 1964: Malta declares its independence from the UK.’

        ..”A referendum (consultative and non-binding) on this new constitution – which made the country an independent nation – was held in Malta between May 2 and May 4, 1964. (Turnout: 79.7%). It was approved by 54.5% of voters, and in September, Malta became an independent sovereign Commonwealth realm, with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state.”..

        ..”At nearly midnight, the Union Jack – which had first flown over the island 164 years previously, during the Napoleonic Wars – was lowered, and the flag of the new independent Malta was unfurled.”..

        (Ten years later, in 1974, Malta became a Republic when they bombed Lizzie out).


        Westminster as usual trying to screw things up!

        ‘Referenda in Malta.’

        • Welsh Sion says:

          Interesting you chose Malta, Petra.

          You’ve seen the % figures in that independence referendum?! 😉

          • Petra says:

            I chose it WS because of the links it had / has to the UK and the EU (plus yes, yes, yes, on the chart). And of course as you say they won their Indyref (consultative and non-binding) with 54.5% of the vote. That means that all going well we’re over the line already .. the line that’s been approved by old Westminster already in relation to Malta 😃.

            And then of course there was the EU result!

            • yesindyref2 says:

              Good example Petra.

            • Dirty tricks from England’s Westminster trying to get blank voting papers invalid voting papers counted as a vote against independence
              Where have we heard that before


              During debates in the Assembly, an important amendment supported by all the Opposition parties exept Pellegrini’s Christian Workers Party, would have allowed for blank votes to be shown separately in the referendum results and not treated as invalid. The intention behind this amendment was that such blank votes should
              be regarded as cast specifically against early independence.
              was mainly a Ganado idea, and in fact his Democratic Nationalists were later advised so to vote, neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’ but a vote nonetheless. The Nationalists rejected the amendment so it fell through; but there was nothing to stop at least the three small parties from issuing a common directive to the electorate so to vote, even were such votes to be counted as invalid. In the end, the Opposition parties split. Pellegrini and Strickland said: boycott. Ganado opted to spoil the vote. Mintoff (and the GWU with him) said: vote ‘no’. Borg Olivier of course said: vote ‘yes’.

        • This book page 228
          Shows that in Malta the people who wanted independence had zero newspapers supporting them
          and the church was against them too

          The Origins of Maltese Statehood

          For two months there was a barrage about the referendum in the newspapers. The most disadvantaged in this domain were the Nationalists, who had no mass circulation paper. Labour had easy access to the Union Press papers, which belonged to the General Workers Union, especially now the daily l-Orizzont. The ‘church’ or ‘centre’ parties – Mabel’s PCP above all – were given generous coverage in the Strickland House papers, the daily Times of Malta and Il-Berqa. Ganado and MPs from the ‘church’ parties also contributed articles to the church paper Lehen is-Sewwa. On the church side there were also Il-Haddiem which became a daily in 1964, and the MovimentAzzjoni Socjali’s Il-Qawmien. The smaller parties had their official organs, none of which were fully-fledged newspapers, although strident efforts were made to carry the message across in Pellegrini’s It-Tarka, Ganado’s Malta Taghna. Apart from her daily and Sunday national mass circulation newspapers, Strickland also had a strictly party publication, Forward ‘Il Quddiem. Although weakly organized Borg Olivier’s party had the advantage of being in office, and could make some use of the usual trappings of officialdom through national broadcasting, the Department of Information for photography and press releases, and also its freely distributed information publication Ir-Review. In a front-page article by Dr Benny Camilleri, the PN organ Il-Poplu lambasted the smaller parties for not knowing what they wanted: first they opposed Independence because it would bring hunger and misery; now because it would bring Russia and the sitt punti. Camilleri then emphasisied that the existing Constitution did not have the clauses “in favour of the Church” which the proposed Constitution would have. And it quoted verbatim in bold print the two clauses exempting the Church from the human rights provisions of the Constitution, in the exercise of her spiritual rights and duties, or with regard to any law enacted to protect the religion of Malta. 26
          In its 1st April issue, Ir-Review carried a front-page story explaining

  62. James Cheyne says:

    It would be wise not to disenfranchise voters like myself,( and there are a lot of us) that have lived in Scotland because our parents came to live here years ago, who belief that every nation should be independent in their own right, wether it be Scotland, Wales, Ireland or England.
    Many, many English people living in Scotland have voted for Scotland to become independent, and some of my relatives who live south of the border have said they would move here if Scotland gained its independence. As they have no possible escape from whom, or how they are governed, I remember in 2014 how many English people were texting that the border of Scotland should be extended to cover parts of England, so they could be included.
    Do not think for one moment that because your not born here we do not want to be with you, and I think there will be more now than ever before.
    Of corse propaganda media let you hear the no,s the loudest,
    But you seldom get to hear the yes voices outside your daily broadcasts.
    There are many marred to Scots or partners, there are many that have children or grandchildren born here, and many like myself where half of my parents children are born one side of the border and the other half born here in Scotland,
    How would or could you decide that I could not vote for Scottish independence after over sixty years living here,
    I think residency and being on the electoral roll must be of importance,
    But one of the most important things for me is that the Scottish people were friendly and open towards my parents when they moved here so many years ago, now I have children and grandchildren born here,
    I was not born here, I moved here when I was nearly two years old,
    If the generation of Scots before you could see that the population of Scotland could recover as new young Scots could be born here, then surely this generation could follow suit,
    Like many people in Britain my family history is Scots, Welsh and Irish.
    Let’s not be racist or you will lose as many votes as you gain.

    • Ken2 says:

      Aye. Scotland needs guid folk.
      Depopulated illegally by Westminster policies.


      More folk from Scotland voted No by a huge majority, then any newcomer group, . Last time? Not the next time? More hope.

  63. yesindyref2 says:

    There is actually a problem with only allowing people with even just one parent who’s “Scottish” to vote – how do you determine whether that parent is actually Scottish Or not?

    Ah right, at least one of THEIR parents must be Scottish. But wait, how does that parent prove they are Scottish? Ah right, at least one of THEIR parents must be Scottish … repeat, repeat repeat 10, 100, 1,000 generations. Not only that, see what’s happened to Scotland’s official records at times, such as they were anyway for common plebs, things like fire and deliberate destruction.

    Interestingly Robert the Bruce was actually Robert De Bruys, and his family came over from France. If fighting for Scotland was limited to those of Scots parentage, he couldn’t have led or fought – or been King. Shut up Robert and eat your pate.

    Ooops, suddenly there’s not even a Scotland, let alone any “Scots” here!

    2021 Indy Ref 2
    Eligible to vote: 0
    Turnout: n/a
    Question: “Should (noname) be an Independent Country?”
    Toal votes: YES 0, NO 0.
    Result: No change

    People really don’t think these things through logically, Spock would be disgusted.

  64. Hamish100 says:

    The Bruce’s mother was Scots/ Celtic.

    Still we had a reverendum. Who was allowed to vote was agreed.Same again.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      Are you sure? Did she have at least one Scottish parent going back 100 generations?

      Was Wigtownshire always “Scottish” or was it perhaps something to do with the Isle of Man, Ireland and indeed Norse if not even Welsh? Perhaps even France, Spain or before that, Italy and even Germany!

      Can you, hand on heart, say that any of Bruce’s mother’s antecedents back in, say, 500 AD, were “Scottish”? And more to the point, can anyone PROVE it to the satgisfaction of a thorough election registration official, with “birth certificates” going back 700 years?

      • Golfnut says:

        The Bruce’s mother was the Countess of Carrick in her own right. Pure Celtic Nobility, Bruce’s father ( Lord of Annandale ) was her second husband. Sir Thomas Randolph, Bruce’s nephew from the Countess’s sister, was pure celt, no Norman blood at all. Even so Bruce was Gael than Norman.

        • yesindyref2 says:

          Sure, but go back another 2, 3, 4 8, 12 generations.

          The point is if you go far enough back, nobody can claim Scots parentage. Which makes a nonsense of “at least one parent Scots”.

        • yesindyref2 says:

          Oh, and Golfnut – celt is not the same as Scottish, and the context is “only allowing people with even just one parent who’s “Scottish” to vote”, not a celt.

          My wife is a Celt, but not Scottish. I’m a Celt and born in Scotland, but my parents were Welsh not Scottish.

          So that would be my kids, born and bred and still living in Scotland – barred by that poster’s extreme ethnic nationalism from voting. As well as me and my wife, And that’s just one generation back – imagine if you go back dozens, to before Scotland was even named Scotland to take it to extremes, when there were no “Scots” at all.

          Any knowledge of history makes “pure” ethnic nationalism a paradox.

          • Ken2 says:

            Alba 900. 1300 years ago,

            40Million diaporia.

            Quite a lot of administration. Half way around the world, and back, to vote. Impossible admin. Where would all the ballot boxes go? Vote on the internet would take quite some time. A couple of years. .

      • Hamish100 says:

        Actually yesindy does it really matter now?

  65. Ken2 says:

    The residents should vote, same as the electoral roll or with qualification. A residency time qualification. 3/4 years for people passing through.

    Otherwise the logistics, logic and administration. Make it impossible. Unrealistic.

    Robert the Bruce’s had a foot in both camps. Lands in Scotland and England. Interests in the Scottish and English Courts. On the death of Alexander 111, Maid of Norway. The Bruce’s has a claim on the crown (look it up). Bailliol was appointed Edward 1 Hammer of the Scots. Died trying to control, conquer Scotland. At Alnwick very ill. ‘Sent him homewards to think again.’

    Robert Bruce (1?) wanted the land in Scotland divide into 3. Handing a third to each contestant to the Scottish crown. (Look it up) Robert Bruce had vast lands in Aberdeenshire etc (common good fund to this day). Stirlingshire and Northampton.

    The English, French (Edward) vast lands in Normandy etc, and Scottish crowns intermarried. Fought in foreign wars, Middle East crusaders etc. The Crown the link with God in heaven. The representative on earth. (Pope eg).

    ‘The Divine right to rule’. Be good on earth to find eternity in heaven, Or purgatory, or hell. Be good on earth or go to hell. A form of state control, religion used as a form of State control. Violent times, plague, early death.

  66. Ken2 says:

    Average life expectancy 40/50. Disease

    Married or betrothed young. Mary, Queen of Scots and Dauphin. 9 – 11? Mary brought up in France. Dauphin died young. Came back to Scotland. French mother. The Auld Alliance,

    In Victorian times. Half of the children born died before they were 5. Lefty of disease. Included contaminated water. They drunk alcohol. More heathy than contaminated water. (The dangers of alcohol were not know. Medical science advances). People half canned all the time. Commodes Happy crappy. Risqué in some quarters,

    • Petra says:

      ..”People half canned all the time. Commodes Happy crappy. Risqué in some quarters.”

      Sounds like Westminster without the coke.


      • Ken2 says:

        With the coke. Not cola

        £Millions spent on the Westminster bar. Public funded. Total waste of time, space and monies.

  67. Ken2 says:

    Lots of disease. Contaminated water.until municipal improvement. Social Acts advances. Philanthropy

  68. Alastair says:

    O/T I know, but I just watched the medical press conference from Washington. Seven doctors all wearing white coats! Cannot remember when I last saw a doctor wearing a white coat? Thought white coats had been replaced by ‘scrubs’. Were they specially attired for this presentation?

    • weegingerdug says:

      I’ve always wondered why it is when Americans do a press conference that the person speaking needs to be surrounded by a dozen other people who do nothing but stand there and nod.

      • Ken2 says:

        To try to make them look popular. Like Instagram. Tiktok. Tick tock till voting time. Trump on the mend? Actors and pretence.

      • Statgeek says:

        Two-fold. First, it provides the speaker with an air of company and agreement to push as a group consensus. Secondly, it prevent them being surrounded by media types, who might try the old camera up the nose tactic.

      • Strength

        But it is very odd to see it as you say

    • yesindyref2 says:

      They were probably actually rocket scientists from his Space Cadet Corps.

  69. James Cheyne says:

    The point is there are many with you on independence for Scotland, and they are from around the world, you do not stand on your own,
    Those people would want their own countrymen to be in the position that we are in,
    If, and it’s a big if, that gerrymandering is in the Scottish election or referendums, from south of the border does happen, Westminster may get a big shock just how many people vote with us, for at least two reasons,
    1: almost nobody south of the border is happy with tories, extreme austerity, one rule for elites and a different one for ordinary people, bungled covid crises etc.
    2: the extreme brexitiers have been fed so much propaganda that Scotland keeps on begging cap in hand, those voters, think its true and therefore quite possibly would vote to let’s us go.
    What plans they may have to gerrymander Scotland’s voting could seriously backfire on them,
    All Scots must remain open and friendly to the growth of people and prosperity that may bring, and of corse those of us like myself whom are new Scots,( been here less than a hundred years) have Scottish born children and grandchildren. And some of us are more loyal to Scotland than the Gove’s, Davidson’s, and Browns that claim to be Scottish.

    • Bob Lamont says:

      “All Scots must remain open and friendly to the growth of people and prosperity that may bring, and of corse those of us like myself whom are new Scots,( been here less than a hundred years) have Scottish born children and grandchildren. And some of us are more loyal to Scotland than the Gove’s, Davidson’s, and Browns that claim to be Scottish”
      Well said and expressed James, your final remark particularly

  70. James Cheyne says:

    My family advice to anyone coming to live in Scotland.
    Come with the purpose to join in and adapt, and not to take over,
    The Scots will welcome you,
    Thanks to all for accepting newbies like myself and your support for nearly seventy years.

  71. Arthur Thomson says:

    Re Margaret Ferrier – it is heart warming to see that the Brits continue to do the heavy lifting for us. Anyone in Scotland who would ever, in any circumstances, vote for independence will be as appalled as we are by a witch hunt. Witch hunting is exactly the type of behaviour that the Brits specialise in and is based on the same hypocrisy, self righteousness and cynicism that civilised people reject.

    More grist to the mill. A human being made a tragic mistake. The effects have to be mitigated and the consequences faced in a civilised manner. But the Brits don’t do civilised because they are deliberately not civilised. Normal people will be further enlightened as to their nature and why we should reject their way of life.

  72. Andy in Germany says:

    Funny how British unionists were less interested in allowing EU/UK migrants to vote in the Brexit referendum, even though that would affect us more.

  73. Petra says:

    FGS just when you think that they can’t go any lower!

    ‘Priti Patel slammed for refusing to deny Home Office made plans for wave machine to deter migrants.’

    ..”Priti Patel has been criticised for refusing to deny that that Home Office made plans to install a wave machine in the English Channel to deter migrants.The home secretary said in an interview with The Sunday Times that it would be “remiss of us not to look at all the options” in reference to reports the government was planning to build new detention centres to house migrants.”..

    • P Harvey says:

      It’s unbelievable that any politician in the UK would stoop so low
      But it is the Tories!
      We should expect nothing less from them
      The sooner we are independent, the better

      • Petra says:

        Who knows maybe they’ll stoop even lower, P Harvey, by getting individuals to pay to go out to sea to watch them struggling to survive … for a laugh. Nothing, but nothing, would surprise me about this lot … of fascists.

        And yeah the sooner we get out of this the better.

    • grizebard says:

      OMG. What a mentality. It’s back to 1940 and “we’ll fight them on the beaches” once more. Maybe they should resurrect that flamethrower pipe installation thing again. That’ll sort the invaders!

      Priti Patel is behaving more and more like the bonkers Sir Henry at Rawlinson End by the day.

  74. Capella says:

    Alex posted a link to a paper on referendums which explains the Montenegro vote and why the EU imposed a 55% limit i.e. to deter unionist boycotts.

    In response, the EU imposed the Act on Referendum on State-Legal
    Status of the Republic of Montenegro (Independence Referendum Act),
    which prescribed a minimum turnout and a higher burden on the
    “secessionists.”60 Under this formula, the constitutionally entrenched
    mechanism for secession would be triggered by 55 percent
    of all votes being cast for secession, with a turnout of at least 50
    percent plus one of eligible voters.

    Such a majority was designed to give the “unionists” a reasonable hope of winning the referendum and thus averted their boycott.62 Greater legitimacy was also achieved by avoiding the prospect of Montenegro becoming independent by a close 50 percent vote. Independence was in the end supported by a narrow margin of 55.53 percent of all votes cast with a turnout of 86.49 percent of all those eligible to vote

    pp 298 -9 of The Scottish Independence Referendum in an International Context by Jure Vidmar

    • Capella says:

      Sorry about formatting – it was from a pdf and looked OK in the comment box. There is no preview facility so I can’t see how the formatting will look in advance.

  75. James Cheyne says:

    Thanks Petra an everyone else,
    On the subject of migrants, did anyone else read that uk were thinking of using a Scottish island, for either migrants or prisoners,
    I think it was within the last week I read that, I am trying to remember which paper it was, as I review so many to gain a worldwide prospective, I think it was a uk one.
    Scotland’s Alcatraz?

    • Petra says:

      Maybe if Westminster would cut out selling arms to despicable regimes like Saudi Arabia, invading countries like Iraq and Libya and having British troops covertly fighting in places like the Yemen leading to the death, famine and destruction of millions of innocent civilians, in particular children, they wouldn’t have such a bl**dy ”problem” to deal with. They make me sick to the pit of my stomach.

      ‘UK to resume arms sales to Saudi Arabia despite ‘possible’ war crimes in Yemen, government says.’

      ”Britain is to resume selling arms to Saudi Arabia despite assessing that the country could be using them to commit war crimes, the government has announced.”..


      And James ….

      ‘Priti Patel ‘looked at sending asylum seekers to tiny volcanic islands.’

      ..”When asked whether a remote Scottish island could be used, the spokesman said: ‘There is nothing more that I can add than to say the work is ongoing and when there is more to say on it then we will do so.’’

      ..”There are many sparsely populated islands off the west coast of Scotland, but Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP government is almost certain to explode with fury is such a location was mooted.”

  76. Petra says:

    ‘Nicola Sturgeon hits out at ‘cattle in a pen’ migrants proposal and vows ‘strongest possible opposition.’

    ..”Nicola Sturgeon today accused the government of treating humans “like cattle in a holding pen” after plans emerged to process migrants off the coast of Scotland.”..

    ..”She tweeted: “They can rest assured that any proposal to treat human beings like cattle in a holding pen will be met with the strongest possible opposition from me.”


    Wales isn’t exempt either.

    ‘Welsh Secretary discovered army camp used for asylum seekers ‘by accident on Facebook.’

  77. Petra says:

    Definitely O/T

    I hope you don’t mind Paul. Just a couple of cheery Scottish articles 😀.

    ‘Scottish man is biking around the globe with stray cat by his side.’

    “If you’ve got a pet, you know what it’s like,” Nicholson said. “You’re never alone. It’s true companionship.”


    Imagine that, a bride standing in the middle of Glasgow in her wedding dress in the dark. Wooo scary 😱 😀

    No moaning from them about Covid restrictions either.

    • Petra says:

      Ooops meant to mention that Dean Nicholson has a saltire on his bike 😀 and there’s a video to watch.

      • weegingerdug says:

        And here’s one of the videos

      • weegingerdug says:

        And because this blog is officially bipetual (we love both dogs and cats here) – here’s another

        • Petra says:

          That article reminded me of you Paul and that wee ginger dug of yours. In this case a wee ginger cat who was also a stray. When you lose all faith in humanity, such as Westminster, you can always depend on the unconditional love of your pets 😺🐶. Fairly cheers you up, don’t you think? 😀

          • diabloandco says:

            Aye , but remember that ‘Wee Ginger Dug’ is no so wee and I can’t imagine Paul cycling off on a long haul adventure with Ginger on his shoulder or even in a basket!

        • Tatu3 says:

          What a beautiful and very lucky, cat and a lovely, kind man.

    • Tatu3 says:

      Two great stories there. Love the man with his biking cat. I’d be so scared it jumped off into traffic! Can’t imagine any of our cats behaving so well.
      And what a brilliant place for a wedding venue said my husband about the wedding in a distillery 🥃

  78. douglasclark says:

    James Cheyne,

    Think it must have been pretty widely reported because even I know about it!

    BTW, your post at 3:33pm was very impressive. It seems to me that residency is the criteria. My thoughts on that are that we should not exclude foreign students either, so a year?

    • douglasclark says:

      And a nanosecond if you are a refugee and stuck on St Kilda or the semi-deserted island of their choice.

  79. Students coming to Scotland for a year shouldn’t get a vote on Scottish independence
    In fact anyone coming here temporarily and intending to leave and not return shouldn’t get a vote on Scottish independence either
    But how do you enforce that ?

  80. If you want to see how England’s Westminster has treated the most recent country to get its independence….Malta


    From page 210 it explains how the referendum was organised
    You will see all the same old tricks being used by England’s Westminster
    Bribing unions
    Use the church
    Accuse Russia of interference
    All the newspapers British controlled
    The army
    Let us continue to have military bases in Malta and we will cooperate
    Threaten to boycott
    Demand the wording be changed
    Too wee too poor too stupid

    • Petra says:

      Malta just another example of what the Westminster dirty trick brigade is capable of, Terence 🤬.

  81. Anyone that wants a copy of this book sent by pdf just let me know


    The Origins of
    Maltese Statehood
    A Case Study of Decolonization in the Mediterranean
    Henry Frendo

    • weegingerdug says:

      It’s really not a good idea to publish your email address in a public place Terence.

      • OH..thanks
        No takers anyway
        Can you just delete it


        • Alfred John Baird says:

          Great book Terence, thanks. Malta as you may know has developed a major container transhipment hub – Malta Freeport – which today handles more than 10 times as many containers as Scotland’s biggest box port. I led a research project to develop a similar major container transhipment port in Scotland to serve northern Europe/Baltic/Scandinavia/Russia markets etc, and became adviser to state agencies seeking to develop it. We attracted the Maltese to invest in and operate the port – they had the right expertise and understanding. The entire project was dumped oddly enough by Scottish Ministers and their officials who instead gave the port facility/location away for testing a speculative wave energy machine. That initiative eventually went bust after wasting the taxpayer £50m+. The Maltese investment in Scotland was lost – it would have doubled Scottish international trade, also intercepting trade for many other countries, which is what international transhipment ports do! Interesting that a lot of former British colonies have developed their economies around global container transhipment hubs – Colombo, Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, Malta, Suez. Scotland could have joined that club!

  82. grizebard says:

    In the never-ending circular argument about who has the right to vote in IR2, one that has long been settled but nevertheless has repeatedly bothered the same small circle of obsessives elsewhere in the past, has it not occurred to anyone that in the event of a forthcoming referendum, the majority of arrivals in Scotland from England or Wales will be coming because they are specifically not deterred by the very realistic prospect this time of a win for independence? No-one in their right mind is going to up-sticks and move here with the specific purpose of thwarting independence, are they? Nobody is that motivated. Whereas, thinking about the recent change in liberal attitude towards us down south, one might expect that starting a new life in a new and more appealing political environment might be precisely the reason why a majority of new arrivals will want to come…

    • Alex Clark says:

      Sounds more plausible to me than vote moving specifically to prevent a vote for Independence.

      • yesindyref2 says:

        There was actually an article in the Herald I missed (busy) which says: “The study by the Expert Advisory Group (EAG) on Migration and Population found that, since mid-2001, people coming to Scotland from other parts of the UK had helped boost the country’s population by 137,000” where I got the data further up, which says 40% out migration to the rUK are returns, and 25% in are returns – but also most in are less than 30 years old, which makes them more likely to be YES voters than NO according to the poll findings.

        A comment below the line from someone claims it’s 50,000 people from rest-UK per annum, and therefore 1 million every 20 years, totally ignoring the 137,000 total since 2001 from the actual expert group, the EAG, it says in the article 😎

    • Bob Lamont says:

      Indeed, there are probably fewer of an anti-indy persuasion settling in Scotland from England pro-rata than persist in the original population.
      I don’t believe the ethnicity argument has any motive other than stirring things up or to potentially delay a referendum, hence Pacific Quay promoting it.

  83. Ken2 says:

    Saudi Arabia Military spending $78Billion Pop 34Million

    US military spending $780Billion. Pop 320 (1/3 of the world total spend. $1917Billion}

    Highest in the world pro rata.

    Bombing the world to bits.

    Westminster has been selling weapons to the Saudis illegally since the 1960’s. Harold Wilson. Keeping it a secret under the Official Secrets Act. Total bribery and corruption. Breaking International Law,

    Trump goes the mass killings commences. The reason the Americans voted for him. To stop illegal wars and mass destruction.

    The migrants and refugees are coming to Europe because of the illegal wars. UK/US. Patel is totally inhumane. A migrant family Tory attacking migrants. The Tories will be voted out. Appalling. Johnston is a migrant. Attacking migrants. Disgusting.

  84. Ken2 says:

    Trump’s German grandfather died in the 1918 flu epidemic

    Trump migrant family. Grandfather German. Mother Scottish. Isle of Lewis.

    Trump 14 points behind in the polls. Biden for President? Total lying hypocrite.

    Patel, migrant family, wants to dump people illegally on islands. Patel will be dumped. Right out of Office. Lying hypocrite.

  85. Petra says:

    ‘The twilight of the Union.’

    ”Richard Murphy on the aforementioned Spectator article.”

    Is the growing support for Scottish nationalism based on a wholly explicable desire for a decent government reflecting a decent society?

    • Of course it is.

      But once Scotland is independent England’s Westminster won’t stop what they are doing they will continue as they are now, they just won’t have Scotland’s participation

  86. Petra says:


    ‘Is the growing support for Scottish nationalism based on a wholly explicable desire for a decent government reflecting a decent society\/’

    • Capella says:

      Some great comments on this RM article. Colin Kidd is on the advisory group to These Islands as someone points out. Nevertheless, RM thinks he sees the writing on the wall for the Union and for the best of reasons – we want a decent inclusive country and there’s only one way to get it.

  87. Petra says:

    The ”devolved” Nations getting a boot up the backside again.

    Michael Matheson MSP:- ”Sadly the UKG have still failed to respond to any of the issues raised in this letter (no reply). This review is nothing more than a political campaign by the UKG to undermine devolution and the decision making process of devolved governments. It’s all part of the #powergrab.”


    Kirsty Hughes:- ‘Brexit, independence and transitions.’

  88. Petra says:

    Yeah time to waken up!

    ”The four Trident Dreadnought class subs will be constructed in a shipyard in England. No yard jobs on the Clyde but we get to host the risk and contribute £180M a year to the costs. Wake up Scotland! Minister offers boost for shipyard.”


    Check out Ann’s latest links on the Indyref2 site.

    • Welsh Sion says:

      Re: Petra’s 1st link – Here you go.

      Remember these?

      • Petra says:

        They shut our shipyards down, with our shipbuilders being known as the best in the World, and the latter have been duped by Westminster over and over again. No jobs for us on the Clyde however we’ve to pay at least £8% towards the costs of building subs in Barrow-in-Furnace and are left to live with the risks associated with nuclear submarines and trident missiles being ”housed” in Scotland. When are the Scots going to waken up, FGS!

        5000 people were employed to build nuclear submarines like Astute creating 35,000 jobs overall in the Barrow-in Furnace area with a population of 62,000 people. 373 merchant ships, 312 submarines and 148 naval surface ships have been built in Barrow to date.

        We were promised a major new outfitting hall to build new frigates for the Royal Navy prior to Indyref1 and guess what?

        Meanwhile £billions are being pumped into their ”outfitting hall in BoF.

        As of 2019, the following ships and submarines built in Barrow are active in service around the world with MORE on the way.

        Alborz – Frigate of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy (Commissioned in 1971)

        ARA Hércules – Type 42 destroyer of the Argentine Navy (Commissioned in 1976)

        HMS Albion – Amphibious transport dock of the Royal Navy (Commissioned in 2003)

        HMS Ambush – Submarine of the Royal Navy (Commissioned in 2013)

        HMS Artful – Submarine of the Royal Navy (Commissioned in 2016)

        HMS Astute – Submarine of the Royal Navy (Commissioned in 2010)

        Atlântico – Amphibious assault ship of the Brazilian Navy (commissioned in 1998 as HMS Ocean of the Royal Navy)

        HMS Bulwark – Amphibious transport dock of the Royal Navy (Commissioned in 2004)

        HMCS Chicoutimi – Submarine of the Royal Canadian Navy (Commissioned in 1990 as HMS Upholder of the Royal Navy)

        Sabalan – Frigate of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy (Commissioned in 1971)

        HMS Talent – Submarine of the Royal Navy (Commissioned in 1990)

        HMS Trenchant – Submarine of the Royal Navy (Commissioned in 1989)

        HMS Triumph – Submarine of the Royal Navy (Commissioned in 1991)

        HMS Vanguard – Submarine of the Royal Navy (Commissioned in 1993)

        HMS Vengeance – Submarine of the Royal Navy (Commissioned in 1999)

        HMS Victorious – Submarine of the Royal Navy (Commissioned in 1995)

        HMS Vigilant – Submarine of the Royal Navy (Commissioned in 1996)

        RFA Wave Knight – Fleet tanker of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (Commissioned in 2003)
        Inactive preserved vessels

  89. Petra says:

    And the latest from Professor John Robertson:-

    • Alan Howard Baxter says:

      Hi Petra. You are a dynamo for good! Together with the WGD, Dr Jim, Welsh Sion, Bob and too many other positive folk to list individually, all convince me that Independence is inevitable. I’m English and embarrassed to admit it. I moved to this wonderful country nearly 11 years ago – had a 6 month contract and decided to stay. I have been made welcome and hope to encourage others of my family to move north. I joined the SNP some years ago and feel privileged to be associated, however lightly, with our wonderful FM. Please keep doing what you are doing……

      • grizebard says:

        Hi Alan,

        There’s no need to be embarrassed, none of us choose where we were born! {grin}

        But we can choose our principles and where our allegiance lies, so welcome. (Though you clearly know that already.)

      • Petra says:

        Thanks Alan that’s really kind of you to say so, however there’s thousands of us working towards getting our Independence and you are one of them now. One of us 😀.

        And don’t feel embarrassed about being born in England. My maternal grandmother was born in Ashington and I’ve got a number of lovely relatives and friends born and / or living all over England. It’s Westminster that stinks not the country or the people. Anyway I’m glad to hear that you decided to move here and wish you all the best for the future Alan.

  90. skintybroko says:

    Ken, the majority of Americans are from migrant families, something they all tend to forget.

  91. Ken2 says:

    Migrant families are all over the world. Scotland diaspora etc. People from the UK/NI live all over the world. Just as many people from the UK live/work in EU/World as the number of migrants in the UK.

    The Tory/unionist Parties are liars. There is an equal number of people in/out. The absolute Tory shambles and mess is despicable. Inhumane.

  92. Julia Gibb says:

    Why seek Independence…..below is why!

    Look at some of the graphs for a clear understanding.

    Click to access SpiritLevel-jpg_0.pdf

    • Capella says:

      thx Julia – I see the USA leading the field in almost every graph with the UK not far behind.

  93. Capella says:

    Some stats of the 2014 referendum for info:

    Political scientist Professor Ailsa Henderson, who wrote the study (2015), told the Record it showed the importance of “Britishness” among voters born elsewhere in the UK in deciding the result. That may now have changed with Boris Johnston as PM. Who can be proud of “Britishness” now, no matter how many reruns of WWII films, fly pasts, Royal waves from the balcony, ceremonies and celebrations of the “Dunkirk spirit” we are subjected to.

    Also, those born outside the UK would mostly have been EU nationals who perhaps believed that if Scotland became independent we would be out of Europe. That will definitely have changed which is probably why Westminster says there will be no referendum. (unless they can fix it)

  94. Capella says:

    Talking of gerrymandering referendums, the UK Government has handed another lucrative contract without a competitive tender to one of Dominic Cumming’s associates.
    The only information that has been made public by the Cabinet Office about the meeting is that it was about “the Union and devolution”.

    A government spokesperson said official guidelines allowed it to award contracts to firms without a competitive tender during national emergencies. The research conducted by Hanbury had helped to make official messages more effective, it added.
    Hanbury has said its team included some of the UK’s leading experts in polling and data strategy.

  95. James Cheyne says:

    Ot, but a little concerning for independence supporters,
    I really,Really do not wish to have anyone arguing in the independence movement at all, especially with each other, so no harsh criticisms of another blogger would be wise, and no names mentioned.
    I am wondering where one of the other bloggers is going with some facts and vitriol against the snp,
    Firstly I do believe that if anything is amiss within the party it should come to light. We would call out the tories, labour, Lib Dem’s, or the greens if any of them could not answer questions
    If there is any corruption in our politicians for a new independent Scotland I would want it sorted because we do not want to follow in the footsteps of the very other government we wish to leave,
    We must have cleaner politics and politicians for the benefit of Scottish people,
    That said, timing is everything,
    If the snp disappeared into the ether, disband, break up or not enough snp to carry on as a parliamentary voice, right before an election, what is the out come for independence in the future?
    does the blogger have, or mention a alternative, to replace the parliamentary party,
    It is wise to destroy something that may be bad to some degree, but why burn your bridge before finding an alternative way to cross the river, would you not drown independence in an instant,
    I could and would be quite willing to get rid of rotten politicians, but not to the cost of the Scottish people so late on and before an election being in sight.
    We need to talk about this issue wisely and quietly with common sense.
    We need to talk about what would happen to us if they get destroyed by some treacherous inside work coming from outside.
    But let’s keep tribal opinions to ourselves other wise uk government win.

    • grizebard says:

      There is a wise saying: “the perfect is the enemy of the good”, and no more so than when the situation is so very critical as now. And there is no good whatever in amplifying imperfections for no visible purpose except to harm the cause of independence. Especially when it’s not down to any high principle but to petty personal grudges.

    • Dr Jim says:

      George Galloway the Daily Mail the Express and the Telegraph all say the same things almost word for word, funny that innit

  96. James Cheyne says:

    That’s my point. The Unionist are talking about it, while we ignore it, it’s spreading to their advantage,

    • grizebard says:

      Sorry, what “is spreading”? Whatever it is, you seem to be helping it. And if we don’t “ignore it” (whatever “it” is), would we not be helping spread “it” too?

      The only thing I see spreading, and organically at that, is support for independence.

    • Petra says:

      It’s not difficult to see how it’s ”spreading”, James. You don’t have to look too far to find the source.

  97. James Cheyne says:

    The headlines in MSM, give those whom are not converted to yes, doubts about joining the independence,
    If I try to persuade or encourage anyone to join us,
    How easy do think that job is, if they quote about infighting in Scottish Independence movement, and they saw it in the papers.?
    I have spent years trying, some with success and some not,
    We are already convinced, and it would be a lot healthier if we didn’t have to contend with this while trying to persuade others,

  98. Ken2 says:

    Support for SNP/Independence increasing. People have to vote for it. Another Ref coming.

  99. Ken2 says:

    People in glass houses should not throw stones. Neither should unionists, even more. Gigantic liars.

Comments are closed.