Well we are the people and we say yes

The First Minister began her much anticipated statement to Holyrood by quoting from the Scottish Claim of Right which affirmed the sovereign right of the Scottish people to choose the form of government best suited to their needs. She went on, quoting the late Canon Kenyon Wright who was instrumental in drafting that historic document which affirmed the right of the people of Scotland to choose a Scottish Parliament. Canon Wright observed, but what if the voice from Westminster says : “We say no and we are the state.” The canon retorted , “Well we say yes and we are the people.”

Right now the issue of another referendum is, as the First Minister noted, mired in questions of process which only benefit the anti-independence parties. This allows the likes of Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar to focus on questions of process and the lawfulness or otherwise of another independence referendum and to side step questions on the substance of the matter. It is, as she correctly pointed out, vital to obtain legal clarity on the lawfulness of another referendum, otherwise all we get instead of addressing the actual issue of independence are anti-independence political opinions which the bulk of the Scottish media is only too happy to present as fact.

As a first step, the First Minister has written to Boris Johnson today in order to urge him to negotiate the terms of a Section 30 order with her in order to put the legality of the referendum beyond any doubt, the letter makes plain that Johnson’s actions to date “call into question the whole idea of the UK as a voluntary partnership.”

In order to avoid a long drawn out legal process, and to put pressure on Johnson, the letter also states that against the background of Johnson’s reluctance to respect the mandate given to the Scottish Parliament by the electorate of Scotland last year, ” the Lord Advocate has, following a request from me, decided to refer to the Supreme Court the question of whether Scottish Parliament legislation for such a referendum relates to reserved matters. The reference is being served on the Advocate General today.”

What this means is that the Conservative Government will be a party to the case and that Johnson and his allies cannot hide behind a case brought forward by some private individuals acting as British nationalist proxies. If the political pressure Nicola Sturgeon has now created forces Johnson to negotiate a Section 30 order, or if the Supreme court rules that the referendum bill is within the competence of Holyrood then all is well and good, the lawfulness of the referendum will have been put beyond any doubt and the referendum will take place on 19 October 2023 with the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

The fact that the referendum will be consultative does not diminish its standing, no matter what Douglas Ross might want us all to believe. In the UK all referendums are consultative. The 2014 referendum was consultative, as were the 2016 EU referendum, the 1999 devolution referendum and the 1979 Assembly referendum.

However if Johnson continues to refuse a Section 30 order and the Supreme Court rules that the Scottish Parliament does not have the right to implement the mandate given to it by the people of Scotland in a democratic election, this will be a ruling obtained by the Conservative government, and the Johnson government will stand revealed as holding the democratic will of the people of Scotland in contempt and of having destroyed the proud claim of traditional Scottish unionism, that Scotland is a partner nation in a voluntary union which the Scottish people have the right to end should they so choose. Scotland will have been told that it does not matter what it votes for, it is subject to the whims of a Prime Minister from a party which has not won an election in Scotland since the 1950s, a party with a mere six MPs in Scotland, four of whom have no confidence in the Prime Minister whom they want to hold Scotland hostage. This would change the nature of the independence debate at a stroke, it would no longer be a debate about what is the best form of government for Scotland, but would become a campaign to guarantee democracy itself.

Such a ruling will have seismic political effects. It will, as Nicola Sturgeon pointed out, not be the end of the matter, indeed as she said it would make the argument for independence in the strongest possible terms. The independence debate is a political debate not a legal debate. It is a debate which can only be settled with a democratic event, not with a court ruling. If the UK Supreme Court does indeed rule that it doesn’t matter what Scotland votes for, the anti-independence parties will be forced to defend a UK which explicitly denies Scottish democracy and we can add “a voluntary partnership of nations” to the long list of British nationalist lies along with Gordie Broon’s Vow, the Sewel Convention being given legal status, and the promise that only a No vote in 2014 could guarantee Scotland’s place in the European Union.

If the British state is foolish enough and arrogant enough to go down that democracy denying road then there will be consequences. The First Minister went further than many were expecting and made it clear that the people of Scotland will not be denied their say. If all routes to a lawful referendum are blocked off by a Conservative party which is running scared of the verdict of the people of Scotland then the next UK General Election in Scotland will become a de facto referendum on independence, a campaign which the anti-independence parties will have to fight having made it clear to the people of Scotland that they do not respect the will of the Scottish electorate. They will be standing on a platform of “Vote for us Scotland, you have no standing as a nation and we are going to ignore you.” It will be an election where the future of democracy itself is at stake, an election where what is on the ballot is Scotland’s very status as a nation with the right to decide its own future. Nicola Sturgeon’s announcement today made it plain that one way or another, Scotland will have its say, either in a lawful referendum on 19 October 2023, or in a General Election in which it will be clear that the union is dead and Westminster does not recognise Scotland’s historic nationhood in any meaningful sense.  Johnson and the UK Supreme Court can say no if they want to, well we say yes and we are the people.

Many thanks to everyone who kindly supported the annual fundraiser. It’s always a nerve wracking time, I’m literally asking people to put their money where my mouth is. I’m delighted to say that the target of £5000 wasn’t just reached it was smashed. From all sources, the Gofundme page, PayPal donations, and direct donations by cheque or into my bank account, the grand total raised was an incredible £11,094. In my wildest dreams  I could not have expected it to go so well and my deepest thanks to everyone who contributed.  It is heartening to know that so many people value my writing and that there is still an appreciative audience for a positive pro-independence message that concentrates on making the case for independence and debunking the arguments of the real enemies of Scottish independence, the Conservatives and their little helpers.  That’s what I will keep doing thanks to you.

albarevisedMy Gaelic maps of Scotland are still available, a perfect gift for any Gaelic learner or just for anyone who likes maps. The maps cost £15 each plus £7 P&P within the UK. You can order by sending a PayPal payment of £22 to weegingerbook@yahoo.com (Please remember to include the postal address where you want the map sent to).

I am now writing the daily newsletter for The National, published every day from Monday to Friday in the late afternoon.  So if you’d like a daily dose of dug you can subscribe to The National, Scotland’s only pro-independence newspaper, here: Subscriptions from The National

This is your reminder that the purpose of this blog is to promote Scottish independence. If the comment you want to make will not assist with that goal then don’t post it. If you want to mouth off about how much you dislike the SNP leadership there are other forums where you can do that. You’re not welcome to do it here.

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

Donate Button

146 comments on “Well we are the people and we say yes

  1. Aye, it’s no more missus nice FM.


    Nicola Sturgeon sets a date and question for proposed Scottish independence referendum

    Scotland’s first minister said “now is the time” for independence – and threatened to turn the next general election into a de facto poll on the question if a referendum is blocked

    As I said on the last thread, it’s impossible to stop Scots voting for independence if they want it. The only way to do that is to prevent them voting at all. This is why dictators rig elections or cancel them completely, arrest protestors etc.

    English / British racists that want to deprive the Scottish people of their basic human right to self determination better be willing to put boots on the ground because that’s ultimately what it will take to hold onto Scotland against the will of it’s people.

    See Hong Kong…Ukraine…Belarus…

    • Cook announced Tory Policy of the future by declaring that the UK Government would contest the conclusion that if Scots returned a majority of pro Self Determination MPs that Scotland had voted for Independence.
      Cook, you are a Talking Head…not a Government party Spokesperson.
      Cook doesn’t do democracy. He is fascist champion?
      (note the Q mark.)
      By Christos, they are really rattled.
      At least we don’t need to watch Distorting Scotland now.
      England Says NO.

    • So English folks voting Tory is a vote for the Tories, but Scots voting for the ‘Declare independence’ party is contestable?

      Man they are bricking it. Sounding more like Putin every day. And Scots are watching this. Watching the British/English trying to take their vote from them.

      About 70% of Scots are not in principle against indy support it. This is consistent in polling. the 20% are Scots, but just think the union is the better bet historically. Take away that choice from them, and they’ll back indy simply to keep it.

      Scots thought they lived in a democracy. Now they are starting to see that they don’t. Britain isn’t actually one, but apparently and English/British dictatorship. You can have any form of government you vote for as long as it’s English/British, and not e.g. Scots/Welsh/Irish…

  2. grizebard says:

    “Go on, call my bluff!”

    Actually, unlike BoJo & Co, she holds aces no-one was expecting, and she ain’t bluffing.

  3. Hamish100 says:

    Well played to the FM. Independence supporters have everything to play for and refusal by an “English loaded” court or an “ English loaded” Westminster will be easy for the undecided to see.

    I hope and pray our young people of Scotland will take on the naysayers and the deniers of democracy.

  4. deelsdugs says:

    Wow. Fab. Oor FM ☺️

  5. grizebard says:

    DRoss: “We used to pretend we were democrats when we thought we would win, but actually, we’re not because now we won’t”.

    Tories now even using the brutal Russian attempt to reassert its hegemony over Ukraine as a justification for their own abject defence of the hegemony of England over Scotland. Cognitive dissonance taken to another level!

    Sarwar: “Things are so terrible right now that we can’t afford to have a referendum that we would lose so we have to wait till things get better sometime so we can hope to win”.

    Never-ending Mitigation Hell, courtesy of Labour. The political quack doctor who keeps his patients in permanent dependence rather than ever effect a cure. (Not that he actually has a cure.)

    Cole-Scuttle: “Same as him, but with knobs on”.

    If his party was a product, it would fall foul of the Trades Descriptions Act.

  6. Hamish100 says:

    As to Westminster election, mrs thatcher no less, stated a majority of MP’s was enough for Scots independence. Maybe the FPTP system will now get changed!

  7. James Cook on the English news;- ‘Nicola Sturgeon will ‘try her luck’ with the Supreme Court.
    Grubby little attempt at a put down.
    He fronted the Brit message’s opening salvo….WM and the Judges will say No.
    Ciaran Martin confirming that the English lords will say No.
    ‘Try her luck’, Cook?
    You’ll get your Christmas Bonus all right.
    I wonder what English viewers thought about this?
    Scots need John Bull’s permission?

  8. Alex Clark says:

    There is a huge difference between being denied a Section 30 order by the Prime Minister of the UK because they have said “now is not the time” as May said or “You and your predecessor made a personal promise that the 2014 referendum was a once in a generation vote” as Johnson said and being denied one by the UK Supreme Court.

    Johnson and May could mumble all they liked but it didn’t prove anything, now the Supreme Court willl have to rule on whether Scotland is a willing partner in this Union, free to leave at a time of it’s choosing or rule that it is instead a prisoner held by Westminster, who would deny the people of Scotland their democratic right to make their own choice of their own future.

    That is where we are at after Nicola sturgeons statement this afternoon. The ball is now in Westminster’s court, literally.

  9. Karl says:

    Are we covered if a snap GE is called before 19/10/23?

    • Capella says:

      NS didn’t spell out what she would do in that case. The Tories might well decide to get rid of Boris Johnston (highly likely IMO) and then hold an election to confirm the new leader. But it would be very risky for them. Apart from The War, the Northern Ireland Protocol and pending trade war with the EU, the Cost of Living Crisis – have I missed anything out? NS could go ahead and make that the plebiscite election.

      • Karl says:

        The Scottish government is therefore not in control of when a plebiscite election would be held. Makes it vital we now focus on Constitutional changes and what that means for Scotland. Let process take care of itself now the way forward is known. Plebiscite or referendum makes no difference, it is the case for independence Scotland wins on. Always was, always will be..

    • yesindyref2 says:

      The UKSC can proceed quickly when it needs, and come to its determination as quickly as neccessary. From that point of view it knows the timescale – 19th October 2023, minus campaigning time, minus Electoral Commission time, minus ERO appointging time, mminis some other stuff, minus Queen’s Assent (not sure whether there’d still be a 28 day to challenge, though it seems unlikely, minus priority Holyyrood time minus debating and stages. And maybe even minus some time for any appeal.

      So probably by 19th October 2022 at the latest.

      • grizebard says:

        I’m not sure that the Electoral Commission has anything useful to add, ScotGov will simply quote precedent. As is already evident from The Question as reaffirmed today.

        • yesindyref2 says:

          It’ll still come under this I presume:


          (2)If the subordinate legislation is subject to the affirmative procedure, the Scottish Ministers must consult the Electoral Commission on the wording of the question before a draft of any instrument containing the subordinate legislation is laid before the Scottish Parliament.

          (3)If the subordinate legislation is subject to the negative procedure, the Scottish Ministers must consult the Electoral Commission on the wording of the question before making the subordinate legislation.

      • yesindyref2 says:

        Probably more like mid to end of August this year.

    • grizebard says:

      Remember what happened to May. She achieved a Pyrrhic victory in 2017 and soon enough had cause to regret it. Indy is much stronger now and the English Tories much weaker. Do the English Nationalists have a politico-constitutional death wish? This is a scary potential lose-lose for them.

  10. yesindyref2 says:

    Isn’t it absolutely pathetic that a supposedly “strong and stable” UK Government can’t even allow a democratic referendum?

    How weak and cowardly can you get? Cameron had much more courage than the weak-chinned Johnson back in 2012.

    The world used to wonder what happened to their village idiots; well, now they know. There’s 2 or 300 of them on the Government benches in Westminster.

    • Robert Oliphant says:

      Cameron had no courage, he just didn’t for one second think Yes would get anywhere near winning!
      That miscalculation was nearly his undoing, Brexit ultimately was!
      Now as we hear the starting gun fired, it’s 50/50 at worst and BoJo and his fellow clowns must do everything to avoid a battle they must fear is already lost!

  11. yesindyref2 says:

    Just to dot the i’s and cross the t’s:


    Contrary to opinion I saw elsewhere about whether the UKSC would accept the reference:

    This reference does not need to be granted permission by the Court for it to proceed.

    additional detail:

    The first step will be for the reference to be referred to the President of the Supreme Court, The Right Hon The Lord Reed of Allermuir for directions. He will decide whether there are preliminary matters to be addressed, when the case will be listed (heard), how many Justices will consider the reference, and which Justices will sit on the bench.

    At this stage, we cannot confirm when the case will be heard.

    We will announce further details via the UKSC website and Twitter account in due course.

  12. Not-My-Real-Name says:

    Indeed Paul

  13. Union Jock Murray on the radio asserted, “even if authorised by the Supreme Court, it would not be a legal referendum”. Yup. Makes Ffoulksakia sound sensible.

    The rest of it was the same script Annie Starwars has been reading from.
    Probably issued by Hi Jack.

    • grizebard says:

      If that piece of self-serving absurdist lèse-majesté of the SC simply translates in practice into “I will boycott IR2 and encourage all other Unionists to do the same”, then all power to the Union mascot’s elbow, I say. Because unless the Electoral Commission succeeds in inserting a 1979-style “poison pill”, all such abstentions just make it easier for indy to win.

  14. No, I’m afraid Glenn Campbell got it wrong, yet again.

    The UK GE will be on a FPTP basis. Johnson dragged the UK out of Europe on 43% of the vote. Only 17 million plus change voted Leave.

    Campbell states that only if the SNP got a ‘majority of the votes’ (he ignores the Greens of course) could they sustain an argument that Scotland had voted for Independence.

    So we Scots are not voting in a FPTP GE, but somehow in Campbell’s warped world, a ‘pretend’ referendum?
    They have lost the plot completely.

    If the English Court says NO, just watch the reaction from us serfs outside the BBC Stockade bubble, Glenn.

    Pathetic little piece, as Campbell well knows.

    If, say, the SNP returned a majority of MPs then that is a WM mandate to proceed with their stated manifesto.

    His phrase was ‘take her chances’ with the Supreme Court, adding that all knowledgeable opinion predicts she will lose.

    Campbell says NO.

    ‘Try her luck’, ‘take her chances’.
    See what Cook and Campbell are doing there? Campbell even used the word ‘gamble’, It’s reduced to a dodgy game of chance?
    The media will mercilessly vilify the FM from now until October ’23. It’s only Nicola Strugeon wno’s stopping the Brits holding Scotland fast as a colony of the Motherland.
    It will be ‘Nicola Sturgeon’ this, ‘Nicola Sturgeon’ that for the next 18 months.

    They really are rattled, big time.

    • grizebard says:

      Campbell himself is doing a fine job – as a reenactment of Monty Python’s Black Knight. “Tis only a scratch…” as he is forced to retreat from each ardent Unionist assertion (failed) to the next.

      What a tosser. But becoming more obviously partisan by the day.

  15. yesindyref2 says:

    This apparently from a btl on SGP is interesting (court – Quebec – Canada), but my brian hertz.


    Very interesting though that Sturgeon used the word “Clarity” or was it “Clear”?

    I did say my bri errrr

  16. keaton says:

    As a sceptic, I’m very happy to acknowledge that this announcement was a considerably bigger deal than I expected. I thought we’d maybe get a notional date, but having a Plan B of a plebiscite GE goes much further than that. The “#pretendyref” bullshit isn’t going to work against that one.

  17. yesindyref2 says:

    Ohmigud I don’t belieeeeve it, From the National:

    A Downing Street spokesman said: “… and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government’s Lord Advocate referral”.

    but from the Supreme Court themselves:

    This reference does not need to be granted permission by the Court for it to proceed.

    So the “Dowsing Street spokesman” doesn’t have a single solitary clue.

    • Alex Clark says:

      Proof positive then that this statement today by Nicola sturgeon has caught them completely off guard. They didn’t see that coming hahaha

      • yesindyref2 says:

        No they didn’t expect it at all, and they’re still flapping around in ignorance, the media and the so-called experts.

        For instance, they don’t see the difference between Keatings and the Scottish Goverment / Parliament, in terms of “hypothetical or academic” (51), but “such as where it is anticipated that the same question will need to be resolved in the near future”. or (52) “usurp or encroach upon a function which has been specifically conferred upon Parliament”.

        (53). “Where a bare declarator is sought, it must have a purpose. It must produce a practical result. ”

        (54) Context of Keatings compared to ScotGov / Parl very different, and (55) different circumstances.

        I’m not a legal bod, but it seems pretty straightforward to me – just about everything is different from the Keatings case.

        Click to access 2021csih25.pdf

        Carloway did make a comment which many have relied on, like Ciaran Martin, that even an actual Bill would liikely be unsuccessful in the Court of Session (and by implication the UKSC), but other analysis argues that as with Keatings, more opinions and arguments could come to light.

        Incidentally, I did note that the ScotGov withdrew to much abuse by the Sturgeon haters. Now we know WHY.

        Anyways, this was the thinking before, interesting to see if it changes over the next few days:


      • yesindyref2 says:

        Anyways, last opinion for the day, honest gov. All these things are relatively trivial but make it easier for a court to rule against, as there’s just so many reasons. I don’t think any of these apply or will apply, so it’s left to the court to decide “Does this relate to a reserved matter?” – and THAT is something they’ve been reluctant to rule on, and probably shouldn’t, as it is so close to a political decision it would have precedents for anyhing remotely similar applyng to their beloved UK Parliament.

        I’d say it’s 50-50, which greatly increases the chance of the UK Gov folding before going all in and losing their marbles.

  18. Golfnut says:

    Today’s announcement will be headlining across the world, not that we will get to hear of it from what passes for news outlets in the uk, at least not until they’ve managed to find some negative comments. Reaction in Europe is going to be interesting particularly if, and I think it’s a big if, the SC favours the UK gov.

  19. Hamish100 says:

    🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇪🇺Scotland back in Europe, Vote Yes!

    • grizebard says:

      Oh, that was a definite “come on” from the FM today: “if you want back into the EU, thwarted Remainer, whether you voted ‘yes’ or ‘no’ last time, indy is now your only chance to rewrite history”. (And for the others, “control of our own borders”.)

      No wonder the passive neo-Brexiteer Tailors’ Dummy was particularly agitated during his contribution to the proceedings. Not a single former core party policy remains standing, not least the EU one, being its supposed “signature”. Somehow I can’t see Verhofstadt getting behind them for this next referendum.

  20. brianmlucey says:

    Whatever about a UK general election if a supreme court strikes down the legalities of the independence referendum would the next logical thing not be to engineer a Scottish parliamentary election on a simple in or out party ticket with all pro independence parties coalescing for 1 electoral purpose?

    • grizebard says:

      See my response to your similar comment upthread. Your phrasing here is ambiguous, but a WM election is due soon enough after 2023 anyway, so no “engineering” is necessary. It also nicely stymies any attempt by Boris to {ahem} “engineer” a “spoiler” UKGE, since the SNP together with the Greens and anyone else can retaliate as just indicated anyway.

      All pro-indy campaigns would have to be on-page, with informal “understandings” where necessary (as seems to have happened in Tiverton and Wakefield recently), but unlikely I think to become one formally-unified campaign since that would pose unfair limitations compared to the Unionist parties, due to election rules. (Just my guess, though, and what do I know?)

  21. Dr Jim says:

    Until the unionists can show the law book that contains the legal text *now is not the time* and the case precedents we’ll just get on with what we’re doing

    Watch out for Labour, remember Lisa Nandy originally wanted to send the British army into Scotland, that’s how rabid and terrified that lot are, at least with the Tories we know they lie most of the time, but Labour lie all of the time and hate us the most because they’re down to one MP and Scotland found them out, there’s nothing more dangerous than a rat with its back to the wall, is there Mr Sarwar?

  22. Not-My-Real-Name says:

    And so it begins…again

    BBC2 Newsnight TONIGHT…

    Kirsty Wark ‘Live’ in EDINBURGH tonight..

    Lewis Goodall in Inverness TONIGHT to assess appetite for independence.

    Nicholas Watt in Edinburgh TONIGHT to assess appetite for independence.

    BBC News , ITV News , STV News ,Scotland Tonight, Channel Four News, Tory channel GB News , Talk TV, SKY News, Five News und t’others……SAME OLD SAME OLD

    BBC QT in Inverness Thursday……I sense…Plants.

    So with MY ADAPTION of ‘appropriately’ Bonnie Raitte’s classic ‘I can’t make you love me (WM and client journalists)’.

    For all of the media, political commentators and those t’others who , like in 2014, crawled out of their ‘concern’ boxes and listed verbatim same reasons why we, Scotland , could NOT have independence…..and quelle surprise not quelle surprise they are NOW at it again……so to all Indy peeps ( Turn down the bed, Turn down the light, Turn aff the telly (news), cause it will be (full oh Unionist) SH*TE)

    Message to Indy peeps on how to react currently to WM, Unionists politicians, media und t’others via adapted version of classic Bonnie’s song……

    Turn down the lights
    Turn down the bed
    Turn down the voices inside YOUR head
    Look down on ME
    Tell ME your LIES
    Just hold me (too) close
    And patronise….ME
    Don’t patronise ME

    Cause I can’t make you love me….when you don’t
    You can’t make your heart feel something it won’t
    Here in the dark in these final Hours ( up to 19 October 2023)
    I will lay down my heart and I’ll feel the power
    But YOU won’t, NO you won’t
    Cause I can’t make you love me if you don’t
    AND YOU DON’T…….

    I’ll close my eyes, then I won’t see
    The love you don’t feel when you’re holding (ONTO) me (like forever seemingly)
    Morning will come and I’ll do what’s right
    Just give me till then to keep up this fight
    And I will NEVER give up this fight

    Cause I can’t make you love me etc etc

    The End…..but unfortunately only the beginning for them ….

  23. Arthur+Thomson says:

    The Brits fail to understand that Nicola Sturgeon is by no means a woman alone. She leads with a group of mature, strong, level headed women who are measured in their words and deeds. Her response to every action of the forces ranged against her will be free of conceit – which is, of course, the Achilles Heel of the British. Ingrained misogyny will inevitably contribute to the Brits underestimating what they are up against. Our apparent weakness may ultimately prove to be our greatest strength.

  24. Capella says:

    The Scottish Independence Referendum Bill published today can be downloaded here:


    • The purpose of this Act is to make provision for ascertaining the views of the people
      of Scotland on whether Scotland should be an independent country.

      I cannot see how the supreme court could rule this unlawful, particularly give the laws governing the vote and franchise will be under the rule of the Referendums Scotland Act (2020), which allows the Scottish government to consult the electorate via referendum on any matter it sees fit to.

      And even if this happened, well ok, the next election becomes a pietistic. What then, England stopes elections? Ok, so we hold our own. What then, boots on the ground? This is what must be done if you want to stop voters expressing themselves. There’s no way around it.

      Unionists should focus on trying to convince Scots of the merits of the union / Brexit / Tory rule etc. That’s the only way to save the union. Trying to deprive Scots of their right to vote is not going to enamour them to the UK. ‘The UK is not a democracy’ is not a good selling point, while ‘Scotland can regain democracy under independence’ is a very good one.

  25. Melvin says:

    At least we have progressed the cause, I believe that the section 30 will be granted, as it’s Westminsters best chance, to keep control. This referendum, will save Boris’s ass and get the unionists behind him. I think this is what the SNP are going for now as keeping Boris in a job is great news for us. If he is in danger of being ousted after their poor performance in the recent elections, Tiverton, being the main issue in the swing . As the Tories will be desperate to keep their seats . Therefore Boris gets to keep his job .Boris is in danger right now and the referendum will keep him in a job, he only cares about Boris and this is cunning from the SNP. The Tories will need to focus on the referendum and infighting will be a distraction.

    If they wait until the SC ( which is against the treaty of union) then the potential for the world to see that Scotland is a colony will be laid bare. I’m betting that they approve the section 30 before the SC judgement.

    • Dr Jim says:

      It could work out better for the Tories in England if they did agree to the section 30, they could use it as a ridding themselves of another union that burdens them with paying for moaning Scotland and kill any chances of the do nothing Labour party ever winning again in England at the same time, Trump style good old fashioned politics of hate and race, maybe they’ll say they could build a wall, and with the breaking of international treaties Northern Ireland goes too England is saved for the Eng, eh Brit, UK, well whatever they decide to call themselves later

      It could be all win win for the British nationalist Tories

  26. millssandra says:

    As expected , and as in 2014 , the unionist media have personalised Scottish Independence as one woman’s vile attempt to break up the UK family of nations .

    I have not heard one single media report today that this is the Scottish Parliament ( representing the people ) seeking the wherewithal to carry out the mandate of the Scottish people as indicated clearly in the election last year .

    The Scottish people in a fair and democratic election ( in the face of the overwhelming Unionist media and various secretive Dark Money funded organisations ) elected a clear majority of Independence supporting MSPs .
    They are now fulfilling the mandate which the Scottish people gave them .

    They were not hypnotised by Nicola Sturgeon into doing something with which they
    did not agree .
    They were not lied to by Nicola Sturgeon when she presented her manifesto .
    They were not convinced by a lie on the side of a big red bus into voting for a referendum .
    There was no ”small print ” on the ballot paper which nullified the result if the Independence parties won a majority .

    The Scottish people have elected a Government which had as its central pillar the demand for another referendum . They achieved in what passes for democracy in the UK a clear mandate by winning a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament .
    Now we , the Scottish people , expect our democratic wishes to be acted upon .

  27. Alex Clark says:

    Glenn Campbells report for the BBC on Nicola Sturgeon’s statement in Holyrood today.

    • Alex Clark says:

      The video works and doesn’t look like that on Youtube?

    • Pogmothon says:

      Ya wee bawbag,
      exactly how have “the SNP not won a Westminster election before”.

      Off all Scottish MP’s the SNP hold the significant majority of the Scottish seats ego SNP repeatedly won West minster elections.

      Did Ye thing we widna’ julose ye conflating Holyrood wi Westminster even then at the last election the SNP won 50% of the seats.
      An under the last FM the SNP won a majority, something at was supposed not to happen according to the system designed by your masters. (and there is footage of the admission that the system was designed to keep the SNP out of power) (that’s when the arrogance really shows)

      So basically you have just demonstrated how much of a lying wee towrag, bamstick you are


      On a completely different subject Duggers

      How grateful are we that the dug barks on noo with his razor sharp political analysis and comment.
      And we are also grateful that Janey Godley has been given the all clear by the doctors. I am sure her razor sharp wit will be just as needed over the next 16 months.

      However we can only ask as much of them as they decide they can give us, don’t be greedy.

      • iusedtobeenglish says:

        “exactly how have “the SNP not won a Westminster election before”.

        Off all Scottish MP’s the SNP hold the significant majority of the Scottish seats ego SNP repeatedly won West minster elections.”

        In a way, isn’t that statement correct? And isn’t it the main point of the change?

        The SNP has sent an overwhelming majority of Scottish MPs to Westminster. But it doesn’t matter how many they send. Under the current set up it doesn’t make any difference to what Scotland gets because, even if the braying idiots shut up, Scotland’s representation isn’t heard.

        Other than that, I agree with every word!

  28. Alex Clark says:

    According to Newsnight, this could be in front of the Supreme Court in Sep/Oct with a judgment before the end of the Year.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      OK, first a quote from Aileen McHarg via a BBC interview:

      “This is quite an obscure process, but I think it is quite a clever way to avoid all those arguments that you would have expected about the lawfulness of a bill as the legislation is going through the parliament.”

      She says it’s a difficult call to suggest how the case would go.

      which is actually very encouraging, she doesn’t give her opinion lightly. But she also mentions one single previous case of referral by the NI AG (the NI government’s person – different naming from ours), where the referral was refused:

      Click to access uksc-2018-0030-press-summary.pdf

      and this had me a bit worried even though the UKSC item said ““This reference does not need to be granted permission by the Court for it to proceed.“, as perhaps that just meant it hadn’t been refused so far, but it’s a differnet kettle of fish, as:

      The Court notes that acts by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or by departments in Westminster do not come within the purview of section 24 of the [Northern Ireland] 1998 Act.

      whereas our one is this: “For a devolution issue to arise, it must be shown that an act or function has been carried out by a Northern Ireland minister or department

      I guess in our case, the act is the act of introducing the Bill to Holyrood – an act that the Advocate General is referring to the UKSC before performng it. But hence also it won’t fail on “premature”, or “able to amend”, as without the positive judgement it won’t get into Holyrood in the first place as it can’t be OKed by the competent officer who is the Lord Advocate of the Scottish Government – Dorothy Bain – who is also by a lucky chance, a Minister of the ScotGov.

      Phew! That was close 🙂

    • yesindyref2 says:

      Sorry Alex, that was supposed to be a new posting, not a reply to you which I’d started. My mistake, not some random wordpress one.

      • Alex Clark says:

        Doesn’t matter but I think you made a good point about the issue Aileen McHarg made (who ‘s opinion I respect) that

        “This is quite an obscure process, but I think it is quite a clever way to avoid all those arguments that you would have expected about the lawfulness of a bill as the legislation is going through the parliament.”

        Nicola Sturgeon has pulled the rug from under the feet of those that wanted to fight the referendum bill by potentially making it into a long drawn out process and sticking it instead right up front and centre.

        It is a direct challenge betwen the sovereignty of the Scottish people vs the sovereignty of Westminster.

    • Can the Scottish government ask Scots to walk down to the town hall and put an X on a bit of card and pop this in a box. These cards to be gathered, added up by normal procedures, and the government informed of the public’s opinion for the purposes of policy planning. Nothing to be changed in either Scottish law, nor the UK constitution as a result of the vote; just procedural repeat of 2014 and 2016 consultations.

      Tough one for the judges.

  29. bringiton says:

    At least this process,should it pan out as expected,will open Scots eyes as to the true nature of our so called union with England.
    The purpose of the Supreme Court was to ensure that Scots law would be subject to English law as determined by a government elected by English votes.

  30. Hamish100 says:

    Ross has just said on bbc 2 that Holyrood has more powers than any other Parliament on planet earth….No more powers then… that will upset his federalists cohabiters from lib no democrats and don’t mention socilalism labour.

    He forgot to mention that this powerful Parliament has so much powers it cannot hold a referendum as voted for by the Scottish electorate.

    He will support Boris Johnson as the best person to govern “ the country”


    • grizebard says:

      Does anyone take DRoss seriously these days, and especially of his opinion du jour of BoJo? Or anything else, for that matter? The BBC still give him a platform, but since even Federal “small print” Broon has given up on the utterly shameless “more powers” lie, he’s surely reduced to clutching at straws now.

  31. dakk says:

    Well done to the Scottish Government today with a shout oot for the Greens.

    Knew Nicola was the real deal!

  32. Hamish100 says:

    We know that. Unfortunately many don’t and the bbc will play the game of lies.
    I await the return of sarah smith and James naughtie just to prove the point.

  33. dakk says:

    Meeja have gone into yoon overdrive but they’re on a sticky wicket.

    The Scottish people have already spoken regards wanting a referendum.Won’t stop them doubling down I know.

  34. Alex Clark says:

    A surprisingly reasonably balanced opinion from Phillip Sim of the BBC on today’s developments in pursuit of Indyref2.

    The indyref2 questions facing the Supreme Court


    • Yet it is another ‘does he take sugar/’ piece. An Englishman talking to an English audience on the basis that he actually has the ultimate say on what we Scots are allowed to do under the English Law in relation to our sovereign right to opt for self determination.
      WE are in the room but expected to remain silent while our conquerors discuss our fate at their hands.
      Imagine if it were England which was proposing to ‘separate’ from the UK?
      Would Sim be arguing that the English ‘Nationalist’ Party could not hold a referendum?
      Not a bit of it.
      The Brexit Referendum was ‘de facto’ a UKIP, English Self Determination Referendum.

      We Scots, and the citizens of Norn Irn were forced out of Europe by the English.
      This was the tipping point.

      Clara Bow, the actress, was dubbed the ‘It girl’ in 1920’s Holywood.

      Last night, I dubbed good old faithful ProudScotBut champion of the Union Kirsty Wark the ‘IF Girl’.

      She anchored Newsnight huddled under a big brolly outside Holyrood.

      They are terrified now.
      NATO summit, Ukraine, the Senate Hearings into the Assault on Capitol Hill, all played second fiddle to the ‘most dangerous woman in the UK’ Nicola Sturgeon’s Declaration of Intent.

      BBC Jockland’s format is well established. Interview the SNP first, then spend the rest of the item parading a barrage of Jock Brit politicians and friendly experts telling the poor gullible English why it was illegal, London would prohibit this attempted outrage, to the accompaniment of a chorus of our tired old Jock MSPs shrieking about drug deaths education Covid disaster and A&E waiting times and CANCER DEATHS.
      No viewer Down There would even know who Sarwar od Dross were.
      Pamela Nash? Who she?
      Angus Robertson acquitted himself extremely well, towering over a frankly hysterical Wark as she launched into her litany of ‘Yes Buts’ and series of ‘ifs’ scenarios, from which she concluded that Scotland has no power to return to the status of an independent sovereign nation.
      The English will stop us Scots; ergo, we are a conquered colony of our larger brutal menacing neighbour.
      Robertson had the smile of a patient uncle, enduring the hysterical rants of a misguided niece.
      ‘There’s a lot of ‘ifs’ there, Kirsty’, he mused.

      So, there’s nothing else for it. Bow down to your Imperial Masters?
      By Zeus, they don’t like it right up ’em.

  35. Dr Jim says:

    Sarwar Bowie DRoss rinse and repeat the nonsensical *now is not the time* mantra because they cannot shout out loud that they mean NEVER to any democracy of any kind, because by doing so they are telling every single Scottish voter that the parliament they vote for, the parliamentarians they elect, the parliament they voted to bring into being for Scotland has no authority to speak for Scotland and that England is a unitary state controlling Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland and not in a union of equals but is a dictatorship and the rest of us are owned colonies

    The media will not press that question with the unionists because they too are under the control of the government of England, their licenses to broadcast depend on Westminster and can be removed by the stroke of a pen as we’ve seen already with the channel 4 fiasco and threats of selling their license to whoever has the most money which could very well be another GB news or even a Donald Trump type figure if not Donald Trump himself, and all because channel four disrespected Boris Johnson by sticking up an ice sculpture in place of his non attendance to a TV debate

    This is the UK of England in which we exist, a pretend democratic state devoid of actual democracy but as the smoke is clearing the hand of fascism is being seen held high through that smoke
    A monarchy that has directly interfered in Scotlands parliamentary legislation to make amendments to bills which they claim affected their right to increase their own wealth or to prevent climate change law from directly affecting their royal right to do as they choose

    Prince Charles receives bags full of £millions of pounds and English law says it’s legal, try walking through customs at any airport with bags full of cash and see what happens when it’s checked, it will be confiscated and you put under investigation for illegal transport of cash, and if you can’t prove it’s yours you lost the lot even if it is legal, not so for our masters the Royals or the Boris Johnsons and his ilk

    Tonight a lawyer on constitutional affairs said even if the Supreme court finds the Scottish parliament has the legal competence to pass a referendum bill Westminster will just disagree and create another law overriding the Supreme court and subsequently still denying Scotland is a country

    This folks is what it’s all about, what it’s always been about, Westminster cannot admit to Scotland that no matter what we say and no matter what we do England will never recognise Scotland as an equal or even as a country at all, we are not in a union, we never were, it’s a lie and always has been, Englands ownership of Scotland has been the best kept secret for 300 years and they’re refusing to give it up

    Now here’s the real question…………..WHY……… and if you can’t answer that question honestly then you’re not Scottish, you’re one of them

    • grizebard says:

      Tonight a lawyer on constitutional affairs said even if the Supreme Court finds the Scottish parliament has the legal competence to pass a referendum bill Westminster will just disagree and create another law overriding the Supreme Court …

      One can always find a lawyer to state a favourable opinion about almost anything, especially if you offer a big enough payment. And a Unionist-friendly one is a shoo-in to support Westminster. That doesn’t mean the opinion will, if tested in the relevant court, stand up.

      As for the fabled “absolute supremacy of Westminster”, that will ultimately also be tested in the court of public opinion. Heretofore London has wisely never dared pushing its luck too far where Scotland is concerned, because the potential democratic backlash could be terminal. For its precious assumed (and very mutely whispered) hegemony, that is. As it turned out in Ireland.

      Once the tipping point is crossed, when the word gets round even among the “Proud Scots But” that there is no “but”, when a critical mass of people are finally driven by unavoidable consequences into realising that there’s only two alternatives – either being owned, exploited and roundly ignored by another country, or standing upright on your own two feet and deciding everything for yourself – it’s “game over” for London.

    • Golfnut says:

      The cats among the pigeons now for sure, there’s a wee picture on FB of Nicola and John Swinney sharing a moment, deserves a caption and preserved for posterity. Phillip Sims article was indeed measured if more than a little westminster centric and doesn’t really deal with the core issue of whether the Supreme Court deals with this as a constitutional dilemma, which it is, or as a political issue, which it is.
      As I said previously, I came late to the party and the clip I viewed which was no more than a couple of minutes, was devoid of any of the drama and import played out in Holyrood yesterday. The significance of Nicola’s chosen process or route to independence will become clearer over the coming weeks and months, the wailing and gnashing of teeth only just starting among the propaganda units of the British state are as I write being set to malky.

  36. Hamish100 says:

    Dr Jim. Brill. Fire in your belly and rational thought.

  37. Bob Lamont says:

    Really enjoyed watching the FM’s statement yesterday, the reaction entirely predictable in both Holyrood and the media, outrage…
    Despite having stood variously on a platform of “Send the FM a clear message on no referendum” and losing handsomely, DRoss, Sarwar and Cole-Hamilton brayed their “not now/there is no demand” declarations yet again.
    Meanwhile the BBC in Scotland, notably James Cook and Glenn Campbell, set about framing it all as a huge gamble, hypocrisy on stilts given both had long gambled on an assertion which had no basis in law even when declared by SoSS Moore prior to the 2014 referendum.

    So the bluff is called – I would not be in the least surprised if the SC rules a referendum is in the competence of Holyrood, since they are ALL advisory or consultative, there is no direct cause and effect.
    Would that not be wonderful, a decade of outright lies and abuse of power exposed for all to see before Indyref2 happens.

  38. yesindyref2 says:

    From Macwhirter in the Herald:

    Ms Sturgeon made clear again yesterday that her proposed “consultative” referendum in 2023 must also be held under a Section 30 Order

    Did he actually listen or read? Would somebody have a word in his shell-like to stop him embarrassing himself? That’s not what she said at all, and the rest of his article is not even worth mentioning.

    • Stephen McKenzie says:

      He is just trying to set the “narrative” with nothing really of substance to back it up. Another journo marking time at the Herald.

      • From where is the Dark Money coming to keep this paper afloat? It’s certainly not sales, or Advertising revenue.
        Taylor, Macwhirter, McKenna, Royatt, Gordon, and ‘visiting’ Yoons like Wilson, and Fraser….the tired old Has Beens of the Brit Hack Pack.
        I see piles of their rag on shelves in late afternoon when I venture abroad…
        Somebody’s bankrolling this…

        • Stephen McKenzie says:

          In my opinion its not been viable for years as its daily circulation must now be about 12K. There will also be some on-line subscriptions, be really would many people really go out of their way for that?

          I suspect a Westminster / Scottish Office budget is being used to fund it direct to its owners, probably under the guise of “Local Reporting Sustainability”.

        • Capella says:

          The BBC was given a hefty budget some years ago to support these newspapers and pay for “local democracy reporters”. £10b IIRC. Also, the Scottish budget allocates a sum for newspapers – I think it covers SG advertising. Not sure of amount.

        • Tam the Bam says:

          If you think the hacks you quoted are just punting their usual tripe Jack..you should have heard Alan Cochrane of the Hootsmon on Times radio this morning.
          Jeezuz!….I swear the vitriolic froth started to dribble out the radio!!!

    • keaton says:

      As a rule of thumb, if Iain Macwhirter makes a claim, the opposite is true. He’s the Scottish Dan Hodges.

  39. Hamish100 says:

    Macwhirter has moved into the fantasy world of devolution plus + as his mate Gordy broon.

  40. There’s absolutely no reason Scots MPs could not stand on a ‘Declare independence’ ticket for a UKGE and then if they get >50% of the vote, have a majority of the Scottish Grand Committee vote to withdraw from Westminster ahead of Holyrood beginning negotiations. In effect, this is what Sinn Fein do at every election.

    If there are no Scots MPs in Westminster, it ceases to have an democratic mandate to rule Scotland. The Scottish people have withdrawn that. If it wanted to continue, this would have to be by imperial diktat, and require the closure of Holyrood, end of devo etc, with boots on the ground as per Spain and Catalonia.

    Of course that didn’t work in Catalonia, and the parliament there is back up and running with political prisoners pardoned (under pressure from the EU/ECHR), so Spain is back to square 1. All they succeeded in doing was hardening Catalans against Spain.

    • Naina Tal says:

      SS: Not sure why you say >50% of the vote? Surely in a FPTP vote, a majority of MPs would be enough? As I recall,even the witch Thatcher agreed with that. Of course, the usual suspects would bray “You didn’t get a majority!” So in that respect, yes 50% of the vote would be preferable, but I fear that it would be almost impossible to achieve.

      • As did Baroness Rape Clause, Naina.
        It used to be called ‘democracy’, before Johnson’s Fourth Reich.

      • Capella says:

        NS has said that it would have to be >50% of the vote. The election would be fought on only one question “Should Scotland be an independent country?” So everyone, whether Labour, Tory, Lib Dem or Alba, who supports independence should vote SNP. I’m not sure what the Greens would do as they would never get an MP elected so probably should stand aside unless there’s some kind of coalition.

        • Robert Oliphant says:

          I suppose that is the one problem with the fall back UKGE Plebicite referendum, getting everyone who supports/wants Independence to vote for one party (and that would have to be SNP realistically).

          It should just require SNP to win a majority of seats but I think we all know that will leave sufficient “wriggle” room for the Tories (or Labour should they win the GE in England?) to stall on the subsequent negotiations.

          I personally think it is possible for those from Labour or Lib Dems who actually want Independence to vote SNP, I am taking it as read that Alba, Greens, etc supporters will see the bigger picture on his occasion?

          Their time will come in the first election to a newly independent Scottish parliament!

          So SNP 50+ seats with 50%+ of the vote isn’t an inconceivable result?

          I’m working on the assumption that there will be no Yes votes coming from Tories, I’ll be happy to be proved wrong…..

          However, this is all pre-supposing that the SC blocks the referendum bill,
          that, no matter what unionist commentators, etc are saying, isn’t a given by any means,
          my gut feeling on this is the SC will not want to be seen to be political in its ruling,
          this is after all not a UDI we are talking about,
          I suspect they will rule that the holding of a consultative referendum isn’t outwith the competency of the Scottish Parliament.

          We would then be back in the realms of those negotiations with whoever is in power at Westminster….

          Bottom line, none of us know what the SC will rule,
          we are all just voicing our political opinions based on what we think/want,
          and right now I’m not sure how much they matter?

          • Capella says:

            Last time I saw a poll there were approx 30% of Labour voters who support independence and approx 10% of Tory voters – no idea about Lib Dems but the facts are out there somewhere!
            Things may have changed in recent weeks. 🙂

      • Because if it was not >50%, then it would not be the settled will of Scots, and they would likely vote to undo it at the next possible opportunity, such as by voting for ‘Re-join the union / cancel independence’ parties. That would be their right.

        Scottish independence without the support of most Scots at the ballot box would never work and would not be democratically acceptable. Scotland is not Britain.

  41. James Mills says:

    Had to laugh when Lt. Bowie RN ( failed ) , DRoss , and assorted Unionists were getting apoplectic about Nicola’s intention to use a General Election as a one issue ,Independence plebiscite .
    In every interview they were incensed that anyone , other than the Tories with ”Get Brexit Done ! ” , should attempt to ”Get Democracy Done ! ” by using the UK’s own FPTP system against them .
    Sweet !

    • Let’s get independence done. Vote SNP.


    • Pogmothon says:

      Every time I hear Lt. Bowie RN (failed)

      I visualise the Leslie Phillips character Capt. McDoom with the classic “left hand down a bit number one” line.
      Which usually resulted in the boat smacking into the breakwater, pier, pub, chip shop, NAAFI etc.

      My sincere apologies to Leslie Phillips memory and family for the abusive association.

  42. One_Scot says:

    If Boris Johnson, Westminster and the Supreme Court rule that there is no legal route for Scotland to leave ‘The Union’, then the Union could no longer be called a Union and would have to be referred to as ‘The Occupation’.

    • Golfnut says:

      Yes, we could refer to airbases and places like Faslane as military enclaves and garrisons.

      • ‘The Occupying Forces’; by now, all on here know my views on the current construct.
        The vast majority of the ‘armed forces’ billeted Up Here are English, on ephemeral tours of duty, who will return to their bases in England, or return to the Motherland upon discharge from their particular branch of the service.
        After yesterday’s media/ ‘legal experts’ and Brit Yoon political meltdown, we scots were left in no doubt.
        We are held fast as a militarily occupied colony of England.
        They steal our resources, lay waste our gorseland, and control most of our institutios, just like the Good Old Days of the Raj.
        Boy, have they got another think coming, that’s for sure.
        Free in ’23.

    • One_Scot says:

      It would also mean that the ‘Unionists’ would become the ‘Occupationists’.

  43. Golfnut says:

    Slightly OT, but there are just some occasions when the media highlight, despite their best efforts not to, just how inept the UK gov is.
    Ben Wallace ITV good morning whatever ‘show’ bemoaning the fact that Boris won’t increase his military budget at the same time as the headline runner across the bottom of the screen is telling us that Boris will urge NATO member govs to ‘ increase their defence budgets ‘.

  44. Not-My-Real-Name says:

    The word is …..for Unionists ……is that you CANNOT say Independence Referendum….WITHOUT using the PREFIX…DIVISIVE……as it cannot work as a Unionist (obvious) slogan otherwise……..personally I think it will go down in the same way as Theresa May’s ‘Strong and Stable’ GE slogan (where she LOST seats)…..in that it will be SO overused by Unionists when discussing independence (as in said every time) that it will be ridiculed and highlighted as an obvious Pro Union WEAPON that they are deploying …….#Fail.


  45. Dr Jim says:

    To our representatives forced to appear on English TV

    One of the first things that must be explained to the people of England is Scotland like Wales is a country, not *the country* as in go for a walk in the country, and that they the people of England don’t own Scotland like Nottinghamshire or Bingley on the Bottoms, so that when they begin chirping away at the media driven notion that somehow they the rest of the UK should also get a vote on Scotlands Independence that notion should be squashed immediately by saying the people of the EU didn’t get a vote in the referendum for the UK leaving that union, the people of England need to be pointedly reminded that in this they count for nothing, they have no locus in the discussion, stay out of it

    Some people might think this is a wee bit heavy but the point I would make is the media use the stupidity of people to drive their agenda then present the results as valid just like they present the results of *opinion polls* as surefire results of future elections, in fact they’re doing it now by using dodgy polls by different organisations and presenting the results as political certainties, the media don’t just report the news they create it

    • iusedtobeenglish says:

      Would the people to whom you refer be the same ones who want the Scots to have no say in English matters?

      • 07.00 am, 19th September 2014, David Cameron face the Press and salivating broadcast media outside No. 10 and triumphantly announced, now that the Jox we back in their Box, that his Government would set in motion legislation to introduce an English Votes For English Laws Bill, EVEL, for short. Scots MPs do not vote on matters relating to English Education, Health, Police and such. Conversely, English MPs get to decide how much of our own money that we Scots get back to fund our Education, Health, Police, and such.
        To the victor the spoils.
        Fast forward to the UK Internal Market Bill and the ‘power grab’. Out of the EU, England took control of over 100 areas of Scots life..because they can.
        And now ‘levelling up ‘wheeze’ to quote Union Jack.
        The Tories in England drive a coach and horse through devolution by bypassing our Parliament and deciding what we are allowed to spend our tax dollars on, with a Union Jack branded on the end products.
        I’m done with this.
        We are taking our country back.

  46. yesindyref2 says:

    I cast my eye around the forums last night and early morning, below the line, and there are a few who are still kicking, some of them even genuine Indy supporters, though some fakers stand out like the fakers they are and always were. But people are entitled to our different views, and criticism is often healthy – if it’s to a purpose, and at times, even if we don’t agree with that purpose!

    Can we all unite around Indy Ref 2 on 19th October 2023? Well, it seems very promising to me. I noticed his very favourable response on twitter yesterday, and here’s his article:


    Friends, rally round. It is time to unite.

    Indeed 🙂

  47. Alex Clark says:

    Nicola Sturgeon puts Kay Burley straight on a few points.

  48. Gordon says:

    Just had a proper look at what NS said, and shes playing a clever game here.

    She has not waited on Johnson legally challenging it, she has referred it to the SC herself.

    This gives WM a major problem, especially if the SC says Holyrood hasnt got the power (when they clearly do, via the HRA).

    If the SC says no, then we go to a plebescite GE, and use the reasoning of ‘Scots are being denied democratically mandated choice by WM’ to use at the UN etc.

    If WM were bluffing about taking court action, and i really think they were, because Scotsgov would simply have used 2024 GE as a plebiscite one issue election anyway, then they just lost their empty rhetoric ‘threat’propoganda line.

    If the SC says yes, the HRA indyref IS legally legitimate (and they really have to if they believe in Scots Law as governed by the treaty of union) then WM are double fucked.

    1. The SC will have just told them (WM) there is no need for a s30 for a HRA indyref.

    2. Because of point 1, the Scotsgov could simply tell WM to fuck off, shove their s30 up their ringpiece and set fire to it, and invoke UN Charters on Rights to self determination, and demand UN oversight to ban WM and ALL AND ANY agent of WM (Non scots domiciled media/BBC/SKY NEWS) from interfering with OUR RIGHT under said charters, to decide on self determination.

    An s.30 is the ONLY way WM can legally interfere in an indyref.

    So if WM were bluffing over ‘granting’ one, Nicola just holed their boat below the waterline by referring the HRA indyref to the SC and DARING both them and WM to try stop us.
    If they (WM) were not bluffing, then NS just called it in no uncertain terms !

    Its a rather well executed trap. 👏👏👏👏

    • raineach says:

      She has taken the fight to the other side. A very good opening move and it has caught the yoons off balance

    • Dr Jim says:

      I think what the FM is really doing is pointing out very clearly that if the Supreme court says NO, if the UK government continues to say NO then Scotland is not in a union of countries and never has been, we are prisoners of a dictatorial regime no different to Russias attitude to any territories it decides belongs to them, this behaviour by the UK government also applies to Wales should they ever decide they might want the same thing as Scotland

      The UK government parades itself around the world proclaiming its democracy and defence of others rights except for the country next door to England, oh and Northern Ireland, eh and Wales also

      Three of the constituent parts of the so called UK are 100% not Tory, SNP in Scotland, Labour in Wales and should be Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland but their democracy cannot be achieved because of a sister branch of rabid lunatic Tories called the DUP who lost the last election yet still are preventing the functioning of that country by refusal to accept democracy exactly the same as England is doing with the EU and every country they have ever dealt with

      So when England loses they throw their toys out of the pram and invent rules to say they had a legal right to do that

  49. jfngw says:

    We will soon find out if the Supreme Court is a court of law that respects a parliamentary election or a political wing of Westminster. The SNP have mandates in both Holyrood and Westminster for a referendum, is this court going to over-rule the politics and in effect tell Scotland it is no more than an occupied country with no right to chose (effectively ripping up the claim of right, despite it being upheld in Westminster).

    If there is no section 30 then the referendum should be run elusively in Scotland, no unelected politicians from outside Scotland should be involved (they shouldn’t be anyway but they seemed to have carte blanch last time). Politician political debates should only involved elected representatives from Scotland. The media will be a huge obstacle with the country you are trying to leave in effective total control of nearly every outlet.

    We should go with the system which the parliament is based on, Westminster is majority of MP’s based on FPTP, if it gives them a mandate with a less than 50% vote (it nearly always has) then it is good enough for us.

    • Dr Jim says:

      If we had FPTP in Scotland the opposition to the SNP would number around 6 MSPs then instead of agreeing that Holyrood had exactly the same voting system as Westminster they’d squeal even louder

  50. Capella says:

    Cat is definitely among the Westminster pigeons.

    Andrew Tickell: Referring indyref bill to Supreme Court is a major curveball

    When the First Minister announced she’d give an update to Parliament before the summer recess on progress towards a second referendum, nobody expected a bill would be published and papers served on the UK Government to propel the case immediately into the Supreme Court…

    After the First Minister’s statement yesterday, that timeline and those assumptions have been blown to smithereens – catching the opposition, the UK Government and the Scottish media entirely off guard. What we all missed was an unloved, unused – but powerful – provision in Schedule 6 of the Scotland Act.

    This part of the act is concerned with what are called “devolution issues” and how courts resolve them. Broadly speaking, these are disputes about the legal powers of the Scottish Parliament and Government under the Scotland Act.

    Devolution issues usually pop up in civil or criminal cases. But paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 adds another way for disputes over “devolution issues” to reach the courts.

    It is a simple pow


  51. Capella says:


    It is a simple power. It says that the Lord Advocate “may refer to the Supreme Court any devolution issue which is not the subject of proceedings” for adjudication. In essence, this means any devolution issue which hasn’t cropped up in the context of a civil and criminal case can nevertheless be referred to the Supreme Court for resolution. And this is precisely what Dorothy Bain QC has agreed to do with the indyref2 proposals.

    As the Supreme Court confirmed yesterday afternoon, this “reference does not need permission for it proceed” – nor can the move be vetoed by the UK Government or its law officers, who now face the prospect of a full UK Supreme Court hearing sooner rather than later – with no opportunity to duck the issue or for a friendly pro-Union litigant to take the political hit on their behalf.

  52. davetewart says:

    It’s started already
    Hoey ex lab Northern Ireland says NO
    Oliver GBnews says NO
    K burley sky news says NO
    Ebc says NO
    Daily reker says NO
    Herald says NO
    The sun says NO

    Loved the ebc video of the disrespect of their boy presenter put in his place.

    As we’ve all pointed out before, they are so loving to us they have to lock us up by threats and misery.

    • Dr Jim says:

      They love us till death us do part, like all abusive spouses who end up in prison say

  53. andrewgscott says:

    Excellent article.

  54. English folks watching should well remember….

    First they came for the Scots, but I did not speak out because I was English.
    Then they came for the English…

    The UK government’s disdain for democracy does not just apply to Scotland. If they are willing to legally stop Scots voting to retain power, they’ll do the same in England.

    It’s already happening. The Scottish example is just one of many recent actions against democracy and human rights.

    • Dr Jim says:

      The so called UK government couldn’t manipulate people if they didn’t have the media to promote their propaganda
      When Nicola Sturgeon said a few years ago “don’t complain about the media become the media”
      she was correct, but the media controlled by a government of a country in the promotion of an agenda under pain of license withdrawal is no media at all and just one giant amplifier from one giant microphone

      The impartial free media claimed by those people is a lie when personal opinion by presenters or writers becomes as important or as prominent as the actual event driven news
      Who could have imagined that people would take for granted and accept the notion that *the news* suddenly changed from being that which reported on current events turned into *The Kay Burley show* or others that now present the news under the banner of *a show*

      The presenters and newsreaders have now become the news, how else could any nation on earth possibly just report the news 24 hours per day when there isn’t that much new news to report but for those rehashed opinions of those who present it, press preview shows with the journalists who wrote the newspapers promoting their personal opinions of themselves and others who write the same thing on the TV as *a show*

      When why and how did this all happen and yet is accepted by the population

      • davetewart says:

        Agree that they’re only pushing the briefing notes delivered from the glorious leader’s office.
        The burley ‘SHOW’ just asks the agreed questions and don’t attack the lower orders as hardas the opposition.

        Big Phil has advice for women wanting to walk themselves in london, carry a loundspeaker and you will be escorted by 20+ met SS officers, but run like hell if it’s a single polis, you might get murdered.
        The case was pointed out by raynor, demonstrator arrested before he even madea noise by 20+ ss and his kit stolen.
        The quip from raynor was that 300+ tory mps were making much more noise to drown her out but no polisarrests.

      • England, the 51st State.
        Any who have visited the US in the past 20 or 30 years and watched their TV output now can draw parallels with the mind numbing drivel we are served up on Brit TV with the crapola churned out by Fox and others in the good ol’ US of A for decades.
        College fees, private medicine, Netflix, Amazon, SKY….the Americanisation of England.
        We are in the fight of our lives.
        Scotland; my country shall prevail.

        • davetewart says:

          Aye Jack, do you mean the adverts that are interupted by bits of programmes?
          I only get to see some when I visit my brother.
          Don’t see much payday loan companies but was surprised to see the Pawnbroker trying to reduce their stock levels.
          Reading a tory mp wants to talk about changing the law on abortions.
          From America the comments are ‘Will you support these children that are born through to they finish their education?’
          Answer NO WAY, you ladies are on your own BUTT we defend the right of someone to enter their school and shoot them.
          I’m afraid the world has gone daft.
          Remember half the population are below average intelligence, seems like the tory party and unionists have collected all the loose ones and given them membership of the englander political parties.

  55. Hamish100 says:

    Some English folk -some relations, have the view we should do as we are told.

    It has put the Labour Party in the dock too. Do they say Scotland has enough powers and no more, stick with the tories in England, do they promote an Eu type deal like NI for Scotland, who is disadvantaged? Like many of its members the support the Republic of Ireland do they ask them to return to the English yoke , lol
    Is there a Vow 3 on its way from the daily retchet?

    • Robert Oliphant says:

      Which sadly you can vote more than once in,
      I found this out as the only way to see the updated results is to vote again,
      it lets you!

      So although it’s currently 61/39 to Yes,
      not sure of its validity?

      • Capella says:

        Vote early Vote often. You’re right – I just vote twice and it’s now 63% YES.

        • Robert Oliphant says:

          Don’t worry Scotland in Union will have a real poll out tomorrow with Yes at -10% and No at 125%,
          so that’ll be it definitive,
          case closed, move on!!!

          • davetewart says:

            Really impressed by the performance of the unionists and the Royal Mail.
            The daily hail has SIX letters telling us all the usual points, illegal, no mandate, waste of money, no evidence.
            Not one actually said why we should not have a vote.
            Amased at the performance of those first class stamps, not one of the ‘Letters’ said by email.
            Their propaganda knows no limits.
            My neighbours, englanders, get the hail delivered, it’s poisoned their minds, most is just the englander hail with a few small inputs, a faily big article saying ‘Desperate Gamble’

            • keaton says:

              Isn’t it a given that letters to the editor are sent by email? I doubt there’s a shortage of Daily Mail readers eager to espouse such views.

              • davetewart says:

                Indeed I’m using same to respond here but the other ‘Letters’ two are marked as by email, these 6 are not.
                I recognise two of the writers as having letters in the torygrafh, the mirror and the express.

        • yesindyref2 says:


          Readers vote
          Poll closes 1 July 2022
          How would you vote in a Scottish independence referendum?

          Yes – I would vote in favour of Scottish independence 89%
          No – I would vote against Scottish independence 11%

          Votes cast: 14741

          A totally genuine poll of course.

  56. Not-My-Real-Name says:

    Are most women in Scotland now just sitting at a kitchen table with a cup of tea saying ‘Oh I don’t know I just cannae decide…..so many promises about independence…and me a wee wifie….is this no better men fowk decide…..then eventually they, as wee wifie’s, all come to a decision, as their wee woman sized brains cannae cope wae BIG decisions and everything else …..the decision being that they will be voting against Independence….I believe that was how it worked in 2014 was it not according to THE now infamous BT advert ( propaganda promoted for stupid people susceptible to nonsense aka NO REAL ARGUMENT for the UNION ).

    Funnily enough as a wee wifie I just could NOT identify wae their (BT’s) wee wifie…..perhaps that was their , BT’s, vision of WOMEN and how they view WOMEN as lacking the ability to cope with making big decisions , understanding them and needing a wee cup of tea to help the process along…where as WOMEN like me were engaged in the debate, kept myself informed and weighed up the REAL benefits and potential an independent Scotland would offer to ALL who lived here and even sacre bleu had discussions with…MEN (REAL ones)…about independence …..no patronising needed via YES side just an inclusive and welcoming environment where women’s opinions were respected and noted……plus I don’t drink TEA .

    Sure many women (and men) can identify(women) and agree(men) with the above.

    • grizebard says:

      Many no doubt will recognise what you say, but please understand that Cereal Woman wasn’t merely some patronising faux-feminist waffle (“be your own women, stick to the real and don’t let yourself be hustled by your menfolk and their boring nerdy obsessions”) that came out of nowhere, it was carefully designed to target women whose attitudes they had already picked up in focus groups. It was that cynical. However well it worked I have no idea, but sad to say, given that it validated pre-existing views, it may well have succeeded with at least some.

      It’s all about “incremental gains”, especially when it’s a close-run thing. Last time, BT were far better at tapping into people’s fears than we were at motivating people with hope. Which left some no’s with instant buyer’s regret, feeling that they had just betrayed a precious dream because of their own lack of confidence.

      Next time we need to up our PR game considerably, including scaring the bejasus out of people about what the Union will do to them next if we are cowardly enough to say “no” again. Because it will.

      • Not-My-Real-Name says:


        It was not well received by many of those from either side.

        It was considered crass, insulting and contrived .

        As to whether it was something , via attitudes, that they had picked up from “focus groups” well who knows…….the problem with so called focus groups is, obviously, they only focus on i.e. reflect the opinions of those who are in them and do not reflect all opinions of others outwith that focus group (yes I know stating the obvious) ……a snapshot…..like polls….and thus those who exploit their fears and opinions forget that not all of their targeted audience is as naïve or receptive to blatant propaganda as dictated by them in order to try and achieve THEIR goal…..I suspect this advert had no REAL impact or influence because it was not an exercise in engaging people but in alienating them……it was actually more a call for apathy than a decisive vote for NO….and the fact they chose a housewife supposedly bogged down with the chores and complexities life throws at her (us all) in her day to day life….thus no time to think too deeply on what she thought was something riddled with uncertainty ( while quoting verbatim NO side arguments against Indy) ….was insulting and obvious in it presenting a stereotype perception of a housewife ….one with more to do than bother about INDEPENDENCE for her country…..a sub standard production courtesy of amateur night.

        Reminds me of John Reid saying to people in 2014…Look if you cannot decide just vote NO.

        Yes next time we need to up our game…..be on the offensive not be so defensive as tis they who should be defending their case NOT us….that will be some mountain for them to climb in the way of defending their record and broken promises and assumptions as to what LIFE for us in Scotland in their UK , according to them, would be like if we voted NO …..seems to be the opposite in many, if not ALL, cases re examples they used via what they predicted…….

        Have a nice evening


  57. Not-My-Real-Name says:

    Ian Murray ONLY Labour MP elected in Scotland (by Tories) tweeted yesterday :

    “The FM “we must rid our country of this Tory govt”.


    We will use the next GE to keep them in power.

    She’s given the game away”

    Neil Findlay (Ex Labour MSP) tweeted this today:

    “This is outrageous – 2 principled councillors refuse to vote in Tories and are suspended – those who voted in the Tories are rewarded .Shameful ⁦@AnasSarwar with senior positions Labour councillors suspended after abstaining on vote” . (This was in Edinburgh Council).

    A tale of TWO Labour camps in Scotland stories……who to believe…..who to believe indeed…mind you there is also TWO Labour camps in OTHER countries in THEIR UK too…..we all know what camp Murray is in…..Blairite Starmer’s.

    • grizebard says:

      Yes, for all Sarwar’s bleatings in Holyrood, BT is still alive and pustulating in the councils. The Labour “leadership” across Scotland is still so obsessed with their frustrated self-entitlement that they would rather see the country go down with the Tories than concede an iota to the SNP, no matter how beneficial.

      To accuse the SNP of “keeping the Tories in power” after a future UKGE in which Starmer has already ruled out any deal with them is not only perverse, it’s stunningly hypocritical. Nothing comes for free in politics, as well they know, but Labour is now so struggling for ideas and support in England that they can’t afford to give voters there even a hint of compromise with the “separatists”, that’s reserved for the “slightly nicer Tory” (but safely English) FibDems.

      As for Ian “Plastic Tory” Murray, the only camp he is in, as far as I can see, is his own. He certainly doesn’t represent Scotland, whatever WM honorific London Labour have chosen to bestow upon him. (Not that they had any choice.)

  58. Not-My-Real-Name says:

    The usual unique Unionist spin in relation to the constitutional question is still alive and revolving around every election win and gain for the SNP and the Greens against the losses for Unionists political parties.

    Where , we the citizens of Scotland, are expected to not believe the actual results but instead are expected to base the actual outcome of every election on any meagre ‘win’ for some Unionist political party/s against the actual winning of elections in Scotland for the SNP and gains for the Green Party thus via this we are then expected to conclude that the Union is more supported in Scotland than independence and the parties who support it.

    While this non argument is raging and driven very much by Unionist political parties and their supporters we, the citizens of Scotland, are also expected to ignore the Tory cost of living crisis, Brexit, Starmer embracing Brexit, Ed Davey accepting Brexit, Tory corruption on PPE, Boris Johnson as PM etc etc and the three weak branch office parties in Scotland whose allegiance to their respective HQ’s is more important to them than the actual citizens who live in Scotland…as is their combined support for a (non) Union that is destroying Scotland’s economy and indeed the mental health of it’s citizens with ALL of the uncertainty , instability and overall Sh*tshow we have to endure with being forcibly TIED to it and TOLD we are NOT ALLOWED to leave it….so NOT a Union but a prison then….with them as our Unofficial but also actual official Jailors.

    Who determines when and how one is allowed to support your country being independent ? Why is it acceptable for Unionist politicians to make speeches while positioned either side of them there are two flags that represent British Nationalism yet the flying of the Saltire or seeking independence for Scotland is presented as flag waving Nationalism and thus toxic and not worthy to represent or even be allowed to identify as a symbol for Scotland as an actual country.

    Also being proud of your country and it’s people, it’s achievements, it prospering, being innovative, caring and welcoming to others is not a message that is insular and considered by some as a “disease of nationalism” but instead it represents a country that prides itself on wanting to be the best it CAN BE but NOT at the expense of others outwith it’s country being impacted negatively or to demonise other nationalities just because they are other nationalities…..we naturally want to be better as a country but do not assume that we are better than other countries which is what British Nationalists arrogantly assume of their Great ‘but not really’ Britain….and when they include NI also assume as the UK….disunited NOT United.

    The more REAL confidence and not FAKE contrived confidence you have as a country the more you empathise, understand, care and want to help those others within your OWN country and other countries too who are less fortunate and thus welcome all to share the positives associated with your country by being open to them coming to live and work in your country. Now that is another justified and reasonable reason to leave the current UK because the current environment within their UK is one that seeks , via it’s Tory government, (AND let’s be honest the other Unionist opposition parties seem fairly reticent in their objections to ‘other’ nationalities coming to the UK) an environment, via a supposed UK , that as a (fake) country presents itself as one that is most unwelcoming to so many other nationalities who are wanting to come here to work and live….indeed it has become a most hostile place to live in and to WANT to move to for other nationalities…hostile TOO for it’s OWN citizens.

    There should be no complication, no challenges, no impediments, no mysterious reason(s), no barriers erected, no supposed secret agendas, no driven by Hate false accusations and no confusion as to why many Scots seek self determination as an independent country when tis a status enjoyed by many other countries within the world…..however that seems to be the position Unionists from all over the UK seem to want to present as the reality…as in it being too challenging, creating barriers, opposing it, promoting mendacious reasons against it, driven by Hate, trying to make it appear too complicated a journey to independence for Scotland and beyond……..and they do this while simultaneously presenting their version of their fake country the UK as currently one that is a free, democratic and thus an independent proud country which is so far removed from reality it is tantamount to obscene and farcical……

    Turn down the bed, Turn off the light, Turn off the Telly, cause they’re all talking SH*TE.(Unionists that is).

  59. Dr Jim says:

    It’s indeed puzzling how on the one hand the UK government are doing their level best to rid themselves of the Northern Irish by insulting their intelligence lying to them and breaking EU law and yet the unionists there still refuse to pay attention to that
    The same thing is happening here in Scotland except the UK government definitely don’t want rid of Scotland, they’re just doing the insulting mocking thieving things they’ve always done, yet still their tame unionist royal squad of fanatics would rather die at the feet of Englands dictatorship than stand up for themselves on their own two feet

    Both Scotland and Northern Ireland are stuck with such cowardly weasels who declare they’d die for their football clubs but refuse to defend one inch of their country

    Stomach churning

    • Not-My-Real-Name says:

      Indeed Dr Jim….Dominic Raab in HOC today told Patricia Gibson SNP MP that ‘There is HUGE assets right across Scotland and that’s why we think we’re stronger together in delivering for the people of Scotland”

      Taxi ( or jotters) for Raab…..

  60. According to some ‘real independence supporters’#, the SNP should have told everyone about these plans in detail months ago rather than pulling a rabbit out of tartan bunnet like this.

    #aka unionist concern trolls on yes blogs

  61. Golfnut says:

    Common guys and gals, if we were surprised by Nicola yesterday just imagine how screwed Goves union unit and the Scotland enclave, sorry, office are feeling. Scripts written, media primed, rehearsals finished, then Nicola goes and, well, screws them.
    A little understanding and sympathy for their predicament wouldn’t go amiss.
    They’re screwed, well screwed and don’t know how to get unscrewed.

    • TBH I have ignored all the siren voices telling me that ‘Sturgeon’s SNP don’t really support indy’ because I’ve never seen any evidence that’s the case, only that they wanted independence, not another failed referendum.

      So I’m nicely surprised at the live haggis she’s magically pulled from her bunnet, but not that surprised at she has pulled something from it now that it’s been decided that ‘it’s time’.

      You don’t get positive sat ratings 15 years into government unless you are pretty decent at your job.

  62. Hamish100 says:

    It’s easy, it’s Nicklas fault!🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

  63. Hamish100 says:

    Elsewhere some claim “ She’s played you all for fools again.”

    It must be a higher being that knows everything, which begs the question why they were unable to predict what the FM was doing. The truth is they didn’t know. The truth is they are beeling like the tories. Because they are the closet britnats pretending to be otherwise. 😁🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

    • grizebard says:

      Events are finding some people out. As well we knew they would. But why waste any more time and effort shining a spotlight on nobodies going nowhere? We have far more productive work to do now in support of a positive campaign whose masterly opening has already set the Unionists in confusion. People are readily able to draw their own conclusions about who they all are.

    • Dr Jim says:

      That’ll be the 2% crowd who predict all and know all yet still demand to be told all, then when they are told all, it’s the wrong all
      Now they demand that the former FM be involved more because apparently he sees all

      Well don’t worry 2% folks because part of the plan by the media to undermine the YES vote is to parade the second most unpopular politician in Britain all over our TV screens in the hope of shoving the YES vote down

  64. Dr Jim says:

    They’re a transparent bunch the media aren’t they, claiming to be whiter than white impartial reporters of events yet on every opening of the news where anybody is the media bring out their *experts* to inform us of the expected total failure of support for Independence ever being realised because they say “the UK holds all the cards so whit ye gonnae dae”

    Now if they were really the impartial media they claim to be they would have at their disposal another set of “experts” talking up the expectations of Independence success, y’know just for balanced reporting as they say

    But they don’t do they, and we don’t wonder why do we

  65. yesindyref2 says:

    I see Angostura has now turned its attention span to Pete Wishart. Again.

    That’s certainly going to be very helpful during the YES campaign. Sigh.

Comments are closed.