A democratic route to another referendum can’t exist if it’s a secret

democracy dies

Most of Scotland is now at the “Who cares?” stage in the parade of grotesques extremists, chancers and fools which passes for a Conservative leadership contest. All of them are vile, all of them enabled and all of them colluded in the corruption. lies, and law breaking of Boris Johnson, which not one of them had any problem with as long as they thought that Johnson was a vote winner for their party and the key to advancing their careers and ambition. Now all of a sudden they’re all about ‘integrity’ and are trying to appeal to the frothing zoomers who make up the Conservative party membership by trying to outdo one another in fantasy tax cuts and victim blaming.

All of the candidates are equally determined to block the operation of democracy in Scotland, and determined to fob Scotland off with one spurious reason after another for why Scotland really can’t be allowed the referendum that Scotland voted for in last year’s Holyrood elections. They are all insistent that Scotland really does, pinkie promise I swear on my expenses claim, have a democratic route to another independence referendum, but are all equally determined to side step any questions about how Scotland can exercise that right to self-determination that they keep telling us Scotland has. That’s because they don’t want to admit that if Scotland’s sovereign national right to decide its future for itself is contingent upon obtaining the permission of a British Prime Minister then Scotland does not actually have a sovereign national right to Scottish self-determination, All that the UK’s recognises is a Prime Minister’s sovereign right to determination, which is not the same thing at all.

The absolute best that any of them can offer is that they will be every bit as callous, anti-democratic, and inhumane as Boris Johnson, but will be more efficient at it. Meanwhile, while we are on the topic of the Prime Law Breaker, the Times has reported that Johnson has voted not to ‘fade into the background after his successor is appointed and has not ruled out making a come back should his successor’s government collapse. You can be quite certain that Johnson and his allies will be devoting their time and energies over the coming months to ensuring that his successor’s government will collapse, especially if the winner is Rishi Sunak, who is loathed by Johnson and his cronies. Johnson’s statement today is a signal that this Conservative leadership contest will solve nothing, the focus of a deeply divided Tory party will continue to be on internal party battles for the foreseeable future. Johnson is going to keep the Tories divided and fighting among themselves for years. So it’s not all bad news.

And let us not forget, these Conservatives, fighting with one another like rats in a sack, are the very same people who keep telling Scotland that Scotland can’t have another referendum because we should all be concentrating on recovering from the pandemic, the cost of living crisis, and the war in Ukraine.

On Tuesday what currently passes for a British Government made a legal submission to the Supreme Court, asking it to throw out the case brought by the Scottish Government which asks for a ruling on the lawfulness of the Scottish Government’s referendum bill in the absence of a Section 30 order. The British Government is seeking to have the case dismissed immediately, without any ruling on the substance of the issue, leaving the question in the same legal limbo where it has been for years. The British Government’s position seems to be that Holyrood has no right to hold a referendum on independence, even a consultative referendum, without the consent of Westminster, and that Holyrood does not even have the right to ask the Supreme Court to clarify the legal situation.

It looks as though the British Government is asking the Supreme Court not to rule on the case until after the bill has been passed by Holyrood, knowing that the bill cannot be put before Holyrood because the Lord advocate hasn’t consented to it, thus trapping the entire process in a Catch 22. Then they can continue to insist that there really is a democratic route for Scotland to hold another independence referendum while refusing to say what that route is. It’s a super dooper invisible magic route which is to be found at the end of a British nationalist rainbow.

This is because the British nationalists know that whatever way the ruling goes, they will lose control over the political process, Their entire strategy for avoiding another independence referendum rests upon maintaining the legal ambiguity which allows them to continue to assert that the union is voluntary while refusing to specify how Scotland might exercise its right to end it. But the truth is that democracy means the rule of the people and if a political party keeps the democratic route to another referendum a secret from the people, then it cannot exist.

A Supreme Court ruling puts an end to that fairy story and creates a concrete foundation. Either the court rules that Holyrood does have the right to hold a referendum without a Section 30 order, or it rules that it does not.

If the court were to rule that Holyrood could hold the referendum the anti-independence parties would be forced to contend a referendum that they had fought tooth and nail to stop happening. They’d be forced to explain to the people of Scotland why they refused to accept that Scotland has a sovereign right to self-determination. However if the court were to rule against the Scottish Government, as many observers think would be more likely, the political consequences for opponents of independence could be catastrophic.

Such a result would not spell the end for hopes of a vote on independence, it would merely trigger the conversion of the next UK General Election into a de facto referendum, and that would be the British nationalists’ worst nightmare. Although this development would give the British nationalists the advantage that it would be contested on the Westminster franchise, 16 and 17 year olds and non-British citizens would not have the vote, they would be unable boycott the vote, and would be forced to stand as individual parties facing a potentially united Yes campaign. Under Westminster’s first past the post system, a British nationalist wipe out is a distinct possibility.

Additionally the British nationalists will have been stripped of their beloved fiction that they are anti-nationalist unionists because the Supreme Court will have ruled that the generations long cornerstone of traditional Scottish unionism, that this is a voluntary union, has no standing in law and that a British Prime Minister that Scotland didn’t vote for has the absolute right to overrule the people of Scotland and the Parliament which they voted for.

It will effectively be a ruling that there is no union, there is no sovereignty inherent in the people of Scotland, there is only a unitary British state in which the Scottish Parliament has no greater legal standing than an English county council, both ultimately subject to the absolute authority of whoever leads the party with most seats in a Parliament where Scotland’s representatives are a small and permanent minority. No wonder it’s a ruling that the Conservatives don’t want.

With this farce of a Tory leadership contest and the British Government’s legal machinations, the UK’s democratic deficit has never been more starkly apparent. The issue of democracy itself will be crucial in the independence campaign in the months ahead.


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

127 comments on “A democratic route to another referendum can’t exist if it’s a secret

  1. Hamish100 says:

    Good points.

    Bottom line is this is about who holds power and the British Nationalists will not give up the resources of Scotland without a fight.

    The people of Scotland ARE sovereign and will have their rights exercised🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

    The FM is cleverly showing to the world what we always knew about the britnats. They are being pushed in an anti-Democratic corner.

  2. Dr Jim says:

    In legal terms I think they’ve got us where we want them

  3. Dr Jim says:

    Breaking news…….The oil’s running out again

  4. Bruce MacDougall says:

    If you were Nicola Sturgeon, would you contest a plebiscite GE on seats won (as Westminster does), or as she has indicated a majority of over 50% of all votes cast (which neither Holyrood or Westminster has ever achieved)? Puting us at a disadvantage without 16 and 17 year olds votes.

    • grizebard says:

      I would do it on seats won, because them’s the WM rules. Thatcher even made that explicit. Though a definite majority is good to aim for, since it is democratically unanswerable.

      With a plebiscite election / de facto referendum, it’s not at all clear how that might pan out, since the like has never been attempted before. Making a comparison with conventional WM elections (or Holyrood elections fought on a bodged version of that) likely isn’t relevant either. Your point about 16-17 year olds is a fair one. But a Unionist campaign pretending there’s not a constitutional elephant in the room might have such egregious arrogance and denialism justly rewarded (and not in a good way for them). Genuine unknown territory.

      It’s important though to realise that this is just one card in the hand. A card that might become more potent with the Scottish public if earlier cards are cleared. So let’s just get on with the SC contest first.

    • Dr Jim says:

      Well we’re not quite there yet but yes the youngsters are very strongly in favour by a high percentage so inclusion of them is definitely advantageous, but there are still other cards to play before we get anywhere near that decision

      If it’s seats won then Scotland wins decisively, however 50% votes cast plus one in a General Election is as you say virtually impossible for any government on the planet to achieve and not the position I believe the FM will choose

      At the moment next year is still on until we’re told differently remembering that “Now is not the time” isn’t a legal argument and has no precedent in any law of any country in the world

      • Tam the Bam says:

        Correct me if I’m wrong Dr Jim but hasnt the FM already stated in an interview that it would be ‘votes cast?’

        • Dr Jim says:

          I’m not sure if she committed to that as an active definite or a definitive action

          See how I body swerved that, which is what I think the FM might end up doing on that one, well at least I hope she’s not going to take such a gamble, she’s not known to gamble normally and I hope she doesn’t start with this one

  5. Mike Fenwick says:

    With the image of a casino chip with the word Scotland on it, I offer this as a post appearing on social media for consideration:

    ONE DAY … are we all waiting for just that ONE DAY???

    Why are we gambling with our country’s future by using just ONE day?

    We wait … and whether it is a referendum or a plebiscite – it will take place on ONLY ONE day!

    Just one bet. Win or lose!

    One spin of the wheel. All or nothing!

    No matter our efforts – might we fail by betting SCOTLAND on just ONE DAY, whenever it comes? Then what????

    “The Declaration of a Sovereign Scot” initiative is asking you to consider an alternative.

    An alternative which will use – EVERY DAY – until Scotland’s independence is regained! No waiting! And you won’t be alone, at every rally more and more Sovereign Scots ar becoming involved!

    It involves the use of International Law and avoids Domestic Law, with S30, and Supreme Court decisions etc etc.

    In Stage 1 (Repeat Stage 1 only) – it involves nothing more than a piece of paper and a pen – and these two questions.

    Will YOU exercise your Claim of Right as a Sovereign Scot and sign YOUR Declaration?

    Will YOU help establish – a LEGACY – one which – if necessary – all future generations can adopt and build on.

    The start of – A LEGACY – NOW and EVERY DAY from NOW!

    That is why a copy of each signed Declaration from our generation is currently being kept – to help create that LEGACY.

    This is still Stage 1 in this initiative (I want to re-emphasise that – I repeat this is still Stage 1 only) – it is an open invitation for all Sovereign Scots to participate.

    It ain’t complicated – the blank Declarations, and the pens have been and will be supplied at every rally. It simply awaits YOUR decision – will you sign?

    Faites vos jeux!

    (PS: I very recently started to reach out to Yes Groups to see if they wanted to participate so that those who cannot attend rallies have the opportunity to take part, for example at local Yes Stalls.)

    Ends … for background and more info head here:


    • grizebard says:

      There’s no harm whatever in getting people more involved, but collecting signatures is just another poll until you get as many signed up as would vote in that “one day” you mention. It’s a question of credibility. Until that point is reached – which could take years – it merely becomes a rod for our own backs. Quoted as a “fail” by every Unionist at every chance they get. Kinda like GERS.

      “It involves the use of International Law” This is the final stage in the process, not the enabling one. The international community won’t lift a finger until they see every internal democratic avenue explored and thwarted. And even then, who knows…?

      Step by step. Still too many people trying to run before too many other people are even ready to walk.

      • Mike Fenwick says:

        I may be wrong, in which case my apology, but have you perhaps reacted just too quickly?. My reference to Stage 1 can mislead.

        Later Stages involve a deep understanding of International Law, believe me that is not for the faint hearted- and already involves ongoing and detailed correspondence with the UN, as a prelude to the later Stages.

        Stage 1 simply asks whether individuals wish to sign a document which opens with these words:

        Exercising my Claim Of Right as a Sovereign Scot, I declare: I do not consent to the terms of, nor the continuation of, the Treaty of Union established through the Acts of Union in 1707.

        Why? Because the Treaty of Union – all Treaties – are the exclusive territory of International – not domestic – law.

        Stage 1 is to lodge all the signed Declarations centrally at the UN Secetariat, so that in a later Stage, they (and all the correspondence with the UN that happens as they are lodged) are then available to each of the 193 individual Members of the UN – many of whom gained their independence as a result of the Resolutions passed by the General Assembly of the UN, or as a result of the International Court of Justice and something called “jus cogens”.

        But for now – in Stage 1 – as above it is simply the open invitation is to ask this question:

        Do YOU consent to the continuation of the Treaty of Union?

        And perhaps to find out just how many Sovereign Scots don’t consent and far more importantly are willing to put their name to it and be remembered for doing so.

        • grizebard says:

          The intention is honourable, but you got off on the wrong foot, if I may say so, by presenting this initiative as an (impatient-sounding) alternative to the process that is already underway. When in effect what it may just possibly be is a last resort if all else fails. But there are two big IFs there: all else won’t necessarily fail administratively, for starters. And what might well fail is getting enough people behind the declaration.

          This has been the stumbling block to progress for independence all along – getting sufficient numbers of people engaged and supportive to convince the international community that there is a real case to answer. Somewhat shamefully, too many among us still seem so shackled by their own mental chains that we have so far been unable to demonstrate anything like enough popular support, something that (for example) every impoverished new country striving to emerge from colonisation could take completely for granted.

          That is perhaps the greatest asset of a referendum campaign. It finally gives us something near parity of media access and consequent exposure that otherwise we drastically lack. If you can find an equally-effective alternative to sensitise and awaken people, all power to your elbow. But the answer doesn’t really lie in the hands of generally passive and ineffective international bodies, it lies right here at home. And it always has done.

        • grizebard says:

          To put it in a very crude nutshell, you won’t get anywhere with international bodies by putting a case for independence that says “50% of us want independence.” (“And {ahem} the other 50% don’t.”)

          Though that same position would actually make a very powerful case for international support to get an otherwise-denied indyref. (Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that’s your intent.)

          • Mike Fenwick says:

            i suspect (genuinely) that if you and I sat down we would agree on many many, if indeed not most things..

            Politics as its narrowest is a numbers game, elections, referenda, etc – BUT – please do not see this initiative in that light, the initiative is not in way whatseover a form of petition, numbers to be either counted or verified. You are correct that is not my intent.

            I posted – in the main – to simply allow for wider awareness of the initiaive – particularly in light of Paul’s actual post. I appreciate your response, I could follow up in much greater detail but not for now – I am only focused on Stage 1 – but the link I posted can be used to folow matters as they develop.

            Saor Alba!

            • Tam the Bam says:

              I actually signed your petition Mike about 4/5 years ago outside Holyrood.

              • Mike Fenwick says:

                Hi Tam … this initiative started on the 6th April – 2021 – time travel?

                If it gains traction, and it is gaining increasing support all over Scotland, as far north as Golspie, as far south as Dumfries, and places in between – then I m reasonably confident you will become aware of it.

                May Inow please leave that as my final thought, and with an apology in advance to anyone else who seeks a response which will be consequently absent.

                Please us the link I posted if you want to follow up on more.


          • Tam the Bam says:

            A simple point well made.
            The FM is First Minister for ALL of Scotland…not just those who are in favour of Independence.
            Its unlikely..the 50% not in favour are going to partake in a declaration signing campaign.
            Why? The media would be across it in a shot and use it as some kind of ‘brainwashing’ operation designed to tug at the heartstrings of Scots.
            I agree with Grizebard its well intended but credible……ah hae ma doots.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      Mike, I hate to say this but after reading that I’m none the wiser. All this “Will YOU” stuff goes whooooosh.

      Keep it simple – is it a petition, what is it a petition for?

      And there may well be a time for a petition of some sort, or since petitions are usually to someone, a declaration. But it needs to be about 3 lines maximum!

      • Mike Fenwick says:

        See above reply to grizebard – it is NOT a petition. And apologies for all or any whooshes – I used a post without any form of edir (perhaps not wise in hindsight) but it was simply to raise awarness in response to Paul’s post.If it has done so whether positively or negatively,in the reactions which emanated maybe it has achieved that purpose.Poorly perhaps, so there I think I should finish.

        • yesindyref2 says:

          The “ONE DAY” is also unneccessary, sounds like the spam I occasionally look at to see what’s doing the rounds. And “Stage 1” sounds corporate or something. And “LEGACY”, jings, I don’t want to die yet and anyway my wife gets anything first and then the kids.

          I’m guessing it’s a declaration of sovereignty, perhaps something like this would be better and way way shorter:

          The Declaration of a Sovereign Scot

          If you think you have the right to choose the form of Government you want, then please sign this document. Copies of it will be lodged with the UN for use in any future campaign to help Scotland have the right to decide our own destiny.

          Thank You”

          • yesindyref2 says:

            It turns out I can look at the facebook link, and sadly it seems I did misunderstand, so I’m out.

            • Tam the Bam says:

              Is it Bruichladdich or Glayva yer on tonight YIR2?

              • yesindyref2 says:

                Morrison’s Everyday Tea, 1p a bag.

                Personally I’d be very wary of anyone who recommends people to pick a clause for a declaration that refuses to recognise the Scotland Act.

                I doubt any constitutional expert would want to tread there, it would be bye-bye Holyrood, bye-bye sweet caress, hello Westminster forever, I think I’m going to give up.

  6. Alex Clark says:

    I’ve no idea of course if the Supreme Court will or will not agree to rule on whether or not the Scottish Parliament has the right to have a referendum on Independence without a Section 30 order but I do think that the matter has already been considered and discussed between The Scottish Government and their law officers.

    I do think that refusal at this stage must have been anticipated as one possible outcome and the next step will already be in place.

    The submission to the Supreme Court said that “the Lord Advocate needs to have the necessary degree of confidence that a Bill would be within devolved competence” it further stated that in the present case that degree of confidence wasn’t there so she wanted the Supreme Court first to make that ruling.

    If they refuse to make a ruling because the Bill hasn’t yet been passed then it would seem that the logical next step for the Lord Advocate in order to obtain a ruling would need to agree that “in her opinion” the Bill was within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.


    Will the Lord Advocate do that?

    I think the FM already knows the answer to that question, no matter what it might be.

    • Golfnut says:

      Important at this stage to remind ourselves that the SG complied ( just a few weeks ago if I remember correctly )with the demand that they release their legal advice on whether the Scottish Parliament could proceed with legislation to hold indyref. I would suggest that advice in part at least came from the Lord Advocate.
      We are mere bystanders now, we played our part by ensuring our Parliament was given due authority/ instruction via our constitutional principal of popular sovereignty. It may well be that the SP will uphold that principal or it may choose to hide behind the Scotland Act. Our next involvement will be either indyref or a GE, meantime the Union is making a damn good case for independence.

  7. Golfnut says:

    involves the use of International Law” This is the final stage in the process, not the enabling one.

    Spot on.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      No harm in having a parallel process, not to invoke international law (whatever that is when it comes to trying enforcement), but at least to start preparing the box files.

      But I may have misunderstood as in “whooosh” 🙂

  8. Movy says:

    Could someone, anyone, please explain to me why the Supreme Court has any legal right to vote this down?
    The people of Scotland are sovereign, as recently confirmed by Westminster, and have voted in a democratic election for indyref2.
    No one has suggested that the 2021 Holyrood election was not democratic and fair.
    And mustn’t the iniquitous Supreme Court consider this under Scots Law?

    • grizebard says:

      On that last point, strictly they should. Whether they do or not will be the measure (or not) of their “iniquity”. {wink} But whatever they decide, it will provide a crucial revelation of the true nature of the Union. That’s not to be lightly dismissed. Something that all previous administrations in London have striven carefully to avoid, and for very good reason. So let’s just wait and judge the judges after their decision.

      (Though we’re all somewhat jaundiced, of course.)

    • Tam the Bam says:

      Movy …. this is where came in.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      Well, it was the House of Lords


      or was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council


      and that may have this effect:

      Secondly, the transfer of final appellate jurisdiction to an institution (the Supreme Court) that is not part of the UK Parliament eliminates one major obstacle to any legislative initiative by the Scottish Parliament designed to remove or alter the more venerable part of the London-based Scottish jurisdiction, namely appeals in civil cases. The UK Parliament is one of the subject-matters reserved to the Westminster legislature under the general heading of ‘The Constitution’ in the Scotland Act 1998, which established the present Scottish Parliament and Executive. With the relocation of the top court to a different venue that reservation is no longer a relevant consideration in determining which legislature is competent to legislate on final appellate jurisdiction.

      with the author of this being the notorious Neil Walker, who knows whether this is now a red herring, or the genuine caviar?

      I’ll get my coat.

  9. Alex Clark says:

    If you start with the assumption that the Scottish people are sovereign then that means ALL of the Scottish people and not just those that support Independence.

    We will need that settled democratically and definitively before any other country will accept the Scottish people’s claim to be an independent country, based on the evidence that the sovereign people of Scotland have spoken and made clear their wish to be Independent.

    That much is obvious.

  10. Dr Jim says:

    The crux of the matter will come down eventually to the legitimacy of the so called *union* as to whether Scotland is indeed a country in said union or an acquisition territory of the English Crown
    I believe “Now is not the time” is the only tool the UK have in their box to use for their avoidance of admitting that, because if and or when they do that’s when the game is up and complete proof that the union is and always has been a lie perpetrated on all the people of Scotland, unionist and nationalist alike, and then what kind of big shit hits the big fan for everybody, this is why in the end I think they have got us where we want them, is this the plan of the FM ? no union to have a referendum over and merely a colony seeking freedom ? which does not come under the law of any court in England at all but is an international issue of human rights to which the so called UK is a signatory under the auspices of the UN

    I’m probably writing stuff I shouldn’t but I cannot draw any other conclusions from the English governments behaviour and Nicola Sturgeons response, which so far has been as cool as a cucumber

    Ach I’m probably safer writing scripts for the telly, *The life and death of the parliament that never was*

  11. Alex Clark says:

    Labour in the Lords tonight show their true allegiance to the poorest during the cost of living crisis by abstaining in the vote for free school meals for all children whose parents are receiving Universal Credit.


    The FM should throw that back in Sarwar’s face next time he raises the subject of doing more for children in poverty in Scotland where the Scottish government has already ensured that every child this summer (and every other holiday period) whose parents receive benefits will get free school meals.


  12. yesindyref2 says:

    I guess I do enjpy this constitutional shite, here’s a page which has been recently updated – Commons library, constitututional researcher Cowie:


    interesting to see this:

    Can draft legislation be referred to the UK Supreme Court?

    As explained in another Insight last week, the Lord Advocate (the Scottish Government’s chief law officer) has referred the draft Scottish Independence Referendum Bill to the UKSC as a “devolution issue”. She is asking the Court to decide whether the legislation, if introduced and enacted, would be within Holyrood’s competence.

    It remains to be seen whether a “devolution issue” reference can be used to refer draft legislation in this way, and there is no precedent for this alternative approach.

    See that – “and there is no precedent for this alternative approach”. So much for the “But Keatings …” argument.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      And a biggie by Cowie:

      Click to access CBP-9536.pdf

      for instance page 29

      Devolution issues jurisdiction

      When the Scotland Act 1998, Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998 were passed, they created a new type of legal challenge, known as the “devolution issue” jurisdiction. This type of challenge allowed for questions about the competence of devolved institutions to be dealt with under a reference procedure. The intention was to ensure UK-wide consistency in the application of similar statutory rules about legislative and executive competence.

      Originally, this jurisdiction was overseen by the JCPC, rather than the judicial House of Lords. This reflected the approach previously taken to similar arrangements in the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Part of the reason for this approach was the sensitivity around the Treaty of Union 1706, and the idea of cases from Scottish courts (especially its criminal courts) being determined by the House of Lords.

      The JCPC handed down between zero and four devolution issue judgments each year between 2000 and 2009. It never had a bill of a devolved legislature referred to it prior to Royal Assent.

      When the UK Supreme Court was created, the devolution
      jurisdiction was transferred from the JCPC to it.

      Co-location with the UK Supreme Court

      Prior to 2009, the JCPC would typically meet in the Privy Council Chamber in Downing Street. It now shares the former Middlesex Guildhall with the UK Supreme Court, and pools administrative resources. There are three main court rooms in the shared facility, two of which are usually used for Supreme Court business, and the other for JCPC cases.

      which at least provides a background for Neil Walker’s 2010 comments. Which is probably all very interesting, very interesting indeed.

      Part of the reason for this approach was the sensitivity around the Treaty of Union 1706

      It never had a bill of a devolved legislature referred to it prior to Royal Assent.

      Indeed. Mmm, Treaty of Union 1706 not Act of Union with England 1707. Mmm. Interesting.

      • Tam the Bam says:

        You have just highlighted what I said to Mike Fenwick.
        In essence……Joe Bloggs doesnt pay attention to prepared long documentational evidence as to why its our ‘Claim of Right’…….despite the fact it is.

        ” Should Scotland be an independent country?”
        YES or NO.
        That tends to get his attention!

      • Golfnut says:

        Excellent stuff. Treaty law is outside the jurisdiction of the SP and the westminster union parliament, because Treaty law is International law. Treaty law makes domestic law, domestic law can’t change a Treaty law.

      • Legerwood says:


        The Terms of the Treaty of Union were agreed in July 1706. The Treat or Articles of Union were then ratified by the respective Parliaments in the Acts of Union – note Acts plural.
        The Treaty of Union then came into effect on 1st May 1707.

        Read about it here

    • grizebard says:

      I had never before heard anything about this “JCPC”, so I looked it up. According to Wikipedia:

      The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is the highest court of appeal for certain British territories, some Commonwealth countries and a few UK bodies. Established on 13 August 1833 to hear appeals formerly heard by the King-in-Council, the Privy Council formerly acted as the court of last resort for the entire British Empire (other than for the United Kingdom itself), and continues to act as the highest court of appeal for several independent Commonwealth nations, the Crown Dependencies, and the British Overseas Territories.

      So until the creation of the SC, this imperial relic, which is still used to perform judicial functions for the remnant of the British Empire overseas, was also used to mediate on devolution issues. Since we were in effect also just another remnant of the (English-as-)British Empire.

      • Legerwood says:

        No, I do not think it was. The relevant section states ” as the court of last resort for the entire British Empire (other than for the United Kingdom itself),…””

        Law Lords, sitting in the HoL would be the Court of Appeal for any matters relating from devolution. The Supreme Court was not formed de novo. It took the Law Lords out of the HoL to sit in another place to carry out their centuries old functions with some added bells and whistles. The actual legal lord justices still have seats in the HoL but not filling their legal duties there.

        Have to say I find the new arrangement more transparent and accessible than when this function was sequestered within the Houses of Parliament.

        • grizebard says:

          Read what yir2 quoted upthread: “The JCPC handed down between zero and four devolution issue judgments each year between 2000 and 2009”. So it clearly was involved before the SC came into being.

          • Legerwood says:

            So why did you quote something that contained misleading info? I rightly pointed out that the information in the quote you gave did not support what you were saying. One of yesindyref’s links did contain the correct information.

            Wikipedia is not always a reliable primary source as has been demonstrated here.

            • grizebard says:

              Sorry, I thought you were objecting to my statement rather than the quote. Which latter I provided in good faith since I assumed that I was not the only one entirely ignorant heretofore of the presence and purview of this body. (But maybe not?!) And the quote was of course entirely correct regarding pre-devolution arrangements.

              Rather than focus on a petty quibble, though, surely the most illustrative aspect remains that it was the “other territories” JCPC who initially got the job of overseeing devolution rather than the (then) Law Lords (who had inherited from the Treaty of Union an established Scots Law dimension)?

      • raineach says:

        The Judicial Committee was exactly the same body as the House of Lords court but was accessed by non UK territories even after their independence. So it was the same people doing much the same thing

        • grizebard says:

          Interesting. Just given a different label because they were “others”, not “us”. Interesting therefore that devolution matters fell under their jurisdiction also, at least initially. A tacit recognition that so far as devolution was concerned, it wasn’t just “UK business as usual”. And no wonder. Because of Scotland’s treaty-guaranteed legal quasi-independence, there is no such thing as “UK law”.

        • Welsh_Siôn says:

          Having studied English [sic.] Law for my first degree, I concur with raineach and Legerwood.

          One of the leading cases to establish criminal liability for murder when there is more than one party involved and that there is alleged to be no liability when the Defendant had no mens rea (‘guilty mind’) when the victim died is Thabo Meli against the Queen, 1954.

          I believe the case originated in British Malaya, but was ultimately heard in the final court of appeal for that country at the time, the JCPC.


  13. Tam the Bam says:

    Completely off topic:

    All of you (those that have access to i Player) must watch David Pratt’s prog:The Balkans.

    A lot of stuff I didnt know apart from the fact he pops up now and again on ‘Shereens’ prog on Sat morning.

    Award winning stuff David.

    (he’s also pro-indy I believe).

    • Golfnut says:

      I haven’t, thanks for the pointer. A lot of lessons can be learned from studies of Balkan conflicts, particularly very late 19th century through to the start of the First World war. The Austria Hungarian Empire, Russia and the Ottoman Empire dominating the area.
      Interesting snippet. Austria Hungary trying to bring Serbia to heel first threatened Serbia with a trade embargo, Serbia had an agri economy, exporting most of its crops and livestock to the Empire, sound familiar. Eventually AH closed the border forcing Serbia to find other markets, which it did, increasing its export value considerably and doubling its income within four years.

  14. yesindyref2 says:

    Gonna be very busy earning money I hope, so meanwhile:

    28 June 2022 – Reference by the Lord Advocate to the Supreme Court

    UK Gov has 14 days to submit intention to intervene

    12 July 2022 – UK Government submits intervention and asks for refusal

    Preliminary stages where referral could be rejected, but otherwise

    UK Gov has 28 days to get their submission in order, which means

    9th August 2022 – UK Gov should do this, though perhaps that’s after the preliminaries. Meanwhile, UKSC goes on its summer hols, if they’re orf to the costa del sol they’d better take SPF 100 sun cream.

  15. Ken says:

    Scotland is one of the oldest nations in the world. 900 formation. Influencing world democracy. The Declaration at Arbroath. One person – one vote. The Enlightenment. Democracy. Scottish invention and discovery shaped the modern world. Leading on to the internet. innovation in medical science and technology etc.

    Under UN/International Law. Any country has the right to self determination and self governance if the electorate/people vote for it. Or sanctions can be applied.

    The UK as members of the UN have to abide by its rules and principles. Or the membership is in doubt. Breaking International Law again. Or sanctions can apply.

    The illegal settlement of Union comes apart and Democracy transpires, Universal Suffrage 1928, Devolution 2000. Independence 2023. Nearly 100 years later 2028.

    Scotland has never been equal as per the terms of the Act, The Jacobite Rebellion, the Clearances, migration. Higher unemployment. Resources wasted by Westminster. Inequality and hardship.

    Scotland has a 40 Million diaspora and friends all over the world. To give support and investment. In the struggle towards self governance and self determination. It will be won.

  16. Bob Lamont says:

    I note the BBC in Scotland posted a “UK government asks Supreme Court to dismiss indyref2 case” article in prime spot on both their Scotland and Scotland/Politics web-pages, 16 hours old now at the time of writing. It is also the only mention on the UK page.

    The classic giveaway this is a propaganda piece is the Comments flag, a “Nicola ate my hamster” response within minutes of publication, and 3,412 accumulated comments before closing.

    The “Analysis by Phiip Sim” is interesting in that he frames the referral as a political game rather than verifying where the Law stands on a referendum, despite the S30 itself having been a political game which long preceded it.

    It’s fairly clear the referral to the SC caught HMG entirely by surprise, but their attempt to have it declared “premature” is a strange one in that the legal clarification requested of it by the LA is a legitimate process enshrined in Law.
    Interesting times ahead…

  17. Capella says:

    Kevin McKenna gets with the project and summarises the mess were in – or should that be “they’re” in.

    Kevin McKenna: Tory leadership race is one big advert for independence

    The SNP ought not to spare the horses on this one – it should be a feature-length production. May I suggest some bleak footage of a dystopian wasteland and John Carpenter’s portentous orchestral theme for Escape From New York?

    Near the start of the millennium the phrase “race to the bottom” was coined and, like most other dapper idioms, became ragged with over-use. Yet no other arrangement springs to mind when you behold this assemblage of right-wing extremists, reactionary tub-thumpers and outright psychopaths.

    It’s as if they all know the party is nearly over and have thus decided to go full Tory, six-fingered banjo-playing tonto. The masks are being discarded and we are seeing the true nature of the ultra-Conservative beast.


  18. Capella says:

    Some good comments under that KM article which you won’t see with the archived version. Here’s one from Thom Muir – I hope he doesn’t mind me quoting it here:

    Time to wake up Scottish Labour voters . . . unless that is, you willingly accept decades of Tory harm inflicted on the people of Scotland.

    1951 – 1964 : 13 years of Tory PM
    1964 – 1970 : 8 years of Labour PM
    1970 – 1974 : 4 years of Tory PM
    1974 – 1979 : 5 years of Labour PM
    1979 – 1997 : 18 years of Tory PM
    1997 – 2010 : 13 years of Labour PM (Labour in name!)
    2010 – 2024 : 14 years of Tory PM . . . maybe longer!

    49 Years of Tory PMs vs 24 years of Labour PMs.

    Taking the long view, the UK is a Tory State, Scotland is not! Then when you learn that Labour councillors in Edinburgh are being disciplined by Labour HQ for not voting with the Tories, you’ve got to wonder how much of a change a Labour government would make!

    i.e. Labour in Name Only or LINO

    • Dr Jim says:

      Scotland doesn’t vote Tory, nor Wales nor Northern Ireland, so all three of our countries are dictated to by what the voters of England choose and given England is a right wing country and the other three are not yet have that ideology imposed upon us it’s obvious the UK is not a democracy

      There shouldn’t be the slightest question about this in people’s minds and yet there is, so why is it in all three of our countries who don’t want the first thing to do with the politics of this fake imposed union are people putting up with this?

      None of what is happening makes any sense, are people so stupid they don’t understand they have no say, they don’t even have a vote that counts, every word they’re told by Tory Labour and Liberal Democrats is a lie, there is no working together, there is no co-operation, there’s only dictatorship wrapped up in a fake invented flag with a fake invented Monarchy waving at us to keep us happy and smiling as we drone away for the British state that doesn’t allow three of our countries to take part or receive the benefits from our work

      Take a look around the world what happens when the people of any country find out they’ve been conned, they don’t like it, and they don’t like it a lot in many cases, none of us in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland should be standing for any of this shit

  19. Hamish100 says:

    Will all the Brit nats leaving Scotland when we win independence be sent to Rwanda first?

    Asking for my mother-in-law 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿😂

    I see that Jackie Baillie can head to Portugal with her dual Passport I believe.

  20. Dr Jim says:

    So our next PM Penny Mordaunt made her pitch this morning and if you’re a Tory voter she’s the gal you want to vote for because her speech was right up the conservative back alley slimy dangerous dark places they want to reach
    Obsessed by the fact she’s a woman, and for a politician a good looking poster girl with big hair as one journalist remarked, she made one announcement that none of the obsessed with her looks journalists seemed to notice but I did and my ears shot up like Bugs Bunny being hunted by Elmer Fudd as she said “We task the military with things they shouldn’t be doing so I intend to set up a civil defence force to do the jobs the military shouldn’t be doing”

    *Civil Defense force*, that’s a private army under the direct control of politicians and not the military

    There’s your Tory winner right there folks, be afraid be very afraid, because if she makes the final two Englands Tories will put her in number ten with overwhelming support

    • Legerwood says:

      Invoking the ‘Dad’s Army’ spirit is she? But with the potential for more sinister outcomes underlying that WWII home guard patina of nostalgia for times past.

      • They are heralding in the Fourth Reich. Mordaunt’s ‘civil defence force’ was better known as ‘Schutzstaffel’ in Hitler’s 1000 year fantasy. The SS, to thee and me.. It literally means ‘Protection Squad’. It too did all the nasty things that the German regular army didn’t do.
        Sounds like a job for Sub-Lieutenant Bowie to organise, what with his vast experience ‘serving’ in HM Navy.
        I’m disappointed Barclay didn’t join the fray. Cupboard and skeleton comes to mind.

    • Alex Clark says:

      Sounds exactly like the Spanish Guardia Civil who were used to stop the people from voting in the 2017 referendum with violence.

      We don’t want any force like that ever getting off the ground, she’s saying this at the same time as the MOD are planning to cut the number of soldiers and the police in England need more money for more officers. She’s no doubt got plans for them to prevent demonstrations and any event where the public gather in large number to aim criticism of the government. Will they all be armed when out on the street?

      These potential leaders of the Tory party and the next Prime Minister have totally lost the plot in their desperation to be more extreme and to outdo each other in the fascism stakes. It’s really getting dodgy now and where will it end?

      • Dr Jim says:

        I have an idea Penny Mordaunt’s *Civil Defence Force* will not likely be terribly civil or armed only with wee whistles

  21. Tatu3 says:

    PMQs delayed due to Alba idiots

    “The start of PMQs has been delayed after the two Alba MPs Neale Hanvey & Kenny MacAskill managed to get themselves thrown out by screaming non-stop at Boris Johnson about Scottish independence.”

    That’ll help the cause … NOT 😡

    • Tatu3 says:

      “Two Alba MPs ordered out of Commons chamber for being disruptive during PMQs

      The two Alba MPs, Neale Hanvey and Kenny MacAskill, are ordered out for being disruptive. They are former SNP MPs; Alba is the party set up by Alex Salmond.”

      • Dr Jim says:

        If it had been an actual political party walkout instead of two grumphy guys who stole their seats by thieving the electorates votes from them it might have been seen as a legitimate action, but as no one has any respect for either of these two the only folk that’ll make a noise about it is them

    • Statgeek says:

      No mention of it on the Beeb. Interesting. What’s their stance on publicising Alba in WM (regardless of how Indy folk view them)?

    • grizebard says:

      A storm in a thimble that had a few seconds on the news and that was that. Achieved absolutely nothing except briefly highlighted their irrelevance.

  22. Alex Clark says:

    Speaker Lyndsey Hoyle loses his voice as he orders AlBa MP’s Kenny MacAskill and Neale Hanvey ot be removed from the House of Commons.

  23. They don’t want us voting because the data says that it is most likely Scots would vote Yes as that is becoming the settled will of the people. It’s the long term, multi-decadal trend. There a waves on a rising tide, but the tide is coming in and has been for a century as the empire recedes to starting point, just as it has for all former empires.

    Latest polling picture.

    There’s a lot of effort put into averaging, however, there’s an inherent danger in that if you just use a handful of the latest polls. That might give you the real value, but it could also give you something totally off by a few%. Hence I have been talking the average of every poll in a year. That was 52 last year, and with no pollster bias. Ultimately, independence is not just for Christmas, so the big picture must be looked at to understand what’s happening.

    As for 2022, well, we’ve had a lot less polls this year. 2021 gave us 1 a week on average. This year it’s only been 1 every 2 weeks, meaning the accuracy is likely to be much lower in averaging, hence I’ve avoided putting a point, even for the first half of the year.

    It’s important to understand the weakness of averaging. Let’s say the real value is 50%. If Skier polling ran a series of polls, I could get 47%, 47%, 47% almost as easily as 47%, 53%, 50%. The polls are independent of each other. What the last one shows does not affect the next. If I ran tens…hundreds of them, then I would start to see a gaussian distribution develop with the mean of 50%. But if I only run a few, the average could be notably above or below the real value.

    Now let’s say Yougov’s methods mean they are bit pro-union leaning, and if the real value is 50%, them running many polls would yield a mean of 48%. 45% would not be uncommon in individual polls though. As there’s a 95% confidence, some (2.5%) will be even lower.

    So in many respects it’s better to look at the range of all. We are looking at a scatter gun outcome, but it has upper and lower limits. The real value is quite likely to be in the middle of the range, at least in terms of the 95% confidence interval. Of course outliers (outside the 95% confidence) will affect this, but they tend to outlie, so you could pick then out. The recent low Yougov positively screams outlier.

    Do this and the data do suggest %Yes has dopped back from 2020, but bar one recent outlier from Yougov, is within the same range as 2021, and the underlying (lower bound) is still apparently rising. Averaging 2022 will give you something close to 48%, but that could simply be the scatter gun effect of sampling based on a low number of data points. Putting in a linear fit (see plot) and it’s been rising through 2022 and is now 49% Yes. Looking at the range and it’s 49.5% to 50.5% depending on whether or not you include what looks a lot like an outlier.

    So that’s why Curtice is cautious and says statistically, it does look like a dead heat, even if No has been a few points the right side of the line (for unionists) more often than not recently. What is bad news for unionists is that the upper bound could easily be 55% right now.

    This is why we are not allowed to vote. If polls start showing a sustained Yes lead, the pressure will become immense as the ‘But scots don’t really want indy / an iref’ approach based on polling falls apart. And the data says this will happen. Panelbase is likely a straw in the wind of this happening now a date is set and people start to think what they will do.

    And attempts to block the vote will only drive Yes up.

    • Stephen McKenzie says:

      Scottish Skier: Thank you for all the hard work and the explanation on the polling figures and trends you have recorded over time.

      Much appreciated.

    • Thanks Stephen for your post. It’s my little contribution to the cause in the face of such propaganda from the UK press,

      Hope it helps folks understand where we are on this topic

  24. Welsh_Siôn says:

    Tory Leadership result – 1st Round:

    Rishi Sunak – 88 votes
    Penny Mordaunt – 67 votes
    Liz Truss – 50 votes
    Kemi Badenoch – 40 votes
    Tom Tugendhat – 37 votes
    Suella Braverman – 32 votes

    Hunt and Zahawi eliminated as did not get 30 votes.

  25. Hamish100 says:

    Later the Truss votes will transfer to Mordaunt- Sunak could be in trouble

  26. Och lol.


    RISHI Sunak suggested holding a Scottish independence referendum after Brexit as he admitted it would be “hard” to block another ballot, unearthed comments from just five years ago have revealed.

    Politically, it will be an epic disaster to stop Scots voting and end the union guaranteed. Do not take Scots polling saying ‘Och, maybe leave it a year or two until things are more stable with the economy’ etc as meaning ‘England should take the vote off us’.

    The Brits/English never learn.

  27. Alex Clark says:

  28. #Britishnationalism


    Condemnation of hanging effigies of female politicians on bonfire

    …Effigies of female politicians on a County Antrim bonfire have been condemned as “sheer vileness” by Justice Minister Naomi Long.

    An effigy of her was among those hanging from the bonfire, along with representations of Michelle O’Neill and Mary Lou McDonald.

    Bonfires are lit in some unionist areas on 11 July each year as part of Battle of the Boyne commemorations.

    Police said they were aware of images of the incident and were investigating.

    Alliance Party leader Mrs Long said pictures of the Glenfield bonfire in Carrickfergus had been shared with her.

    “It made me sad and depressed that there are people in our community that harbour such vile hatred of anyone else,” she told BBC News NI.

    It is the same people trying to prevent Scots voting for the government that best suits their needs.

    Keep on marching folks, for the march of a nation cannot be stopped.

  29. James Mills says:

    Tory PM election news:

    I see that Hunt has been eliminated and so has the former Health Secretary!

    • Welsh_Siôn says:


      What you mean is that a former Health Secretary in England has been eliminated and so has a former Health Secretary in England.

      As allegedly knowledgeable about English Health, could they tell us if this is catching?

  30. grizebard says:

    Another little bit of insidious framing on Misreporting Scotland earlier this evening. In connection with the current game of Tory musical chairs in London, the channel’s man there sneakily referred to “our Prime Minister”. Well, the last time I looked virtually nobody here in Scotland is being given any say in the matter, and I would be willing to bet every last penny plus the shirt on my back that the vast majority of people in Scotland wouldn’t choose any of them if they were.

    “Our” indeed.

  31. Dr Jim says:

    I bet not many folk noticed David Davis being interviewed on SKY news earlier this evening supporting his candidate for PM Penny Mordaunt and was then asked about her opinions on Scottish Independence to which he gave all the normal responses

    Except for one last thing when David Davis said “I believe the Scots are canny people who will vote to stay in the UK”

    Now there’s funny isn’t it, as our Welsh pal WS might say, because they’ve all been saying no nay never to Scottish independence yet David Davis expects there to be a vote

    • Golfnut says:

      Is this the guy who thought getting a deal with the EU would be a doddle, so easy he didn’t turn up for meetings and forgot his notes when he did.

    • Welsh_Siôn says:

      Now there’s funny, isn’t it, look you, I never speak like that – and never have. 😀

  32. Hamish100 says:

    Brit unionism – shows it’s nasty side https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-62153571

    Unfortunately a friend on the west coast chatted to me last night saying they had a bonfire 🔥 in their area. The Ulsterisation of parts of Scotland must be called out and rejected by the unionist parties in Scotland.

    • Dr Jim says:

      Murdo Frasers Tory storm troopers

    • It’s not unionism, it’s British nationalism.

      About 40% of the N Irish population self identify as British only. They are not Irish + British or N. Irish + British, i.e. unionists, but British nationalists. Britain is the country and N. Ireland a mere region of it.

      The mistake the British nationalists in Scotland (and London) are making is thinking that Scottish unionists are firmly in their camp. Scottish unionists are Scottish and believe in Scotland’s right to self-determine, even if they feel the union was the safer option back in 2014.

      Scottish nationalists + Scottish unionist voters joined together in 1997 to deliver 74.3% Yes to Scotland being a country and governing itself again, at least in part.

      There is little doubt that the 2022 census will show Scotland is now more Scottish and less British than it ever has been.

      Blocking a referendum will just turn Scottish unionists into nationalists, just as Thatcher / Major doing that turned Scottish unionists into Scottish devolutionists.

  33. davetewart says:

    The buffoon’s mastermind on brexit,, frosty the no man, has just
    smeared mordaunt on brexit and Northern Ireland.

    Dirty tricks campaigns in full flow.

    There’s a leadership raffle on, we’re too busy to govern the country.

    Water shortages in the whole uk
    National health under pressure.

    There’s a war on Scottish People, you can’t be serious about a referendum.

    New leader raffle to be decided at Warp Speed, maybe Late September.

  34. Dr Jim says:

    This morning I watched Scotlands FM give her speech on independence and introduce the latest in a series of papers containing the reasons for it, then came the questions from the media journalists who every single one asked questions relating to the UK governments refusal to recognise democracy and if and when such democracy was refused what would the FM do about it

    The FM patiently answered these questions in her usual composed manner while pointing out very clearly that the refusal to recognise democracy is the question that journalists should be putting to those who refuse it and not her

    Undaunted the media carried on posing scenarios in which the UK government would just keep right on denying and refusing to co-operate as though it was their right to do so and continued to ask what would the FM do about other peoples intent to break and deny every norm of international human rights to the people of Scotland, still the FM was polite to the point of weariness at the infantile behaviour of the journalism paraded in front of her

    Many countries around the world experience turbulence from time to time, some have such heated protests that violence breaks out such is the desire for democracy in such places, usually when it becomes too much for the badly behaved politicians of these places they flee the country or go into hiding in fear for their lives

    In Scotland I don’t believe much of that would ever happen, but if it did I don’t think it would be the politicians who’d need to flee the country or run and hide in fear for their lives, in Scotland if outrage and protestations became such the people who’d need to fear for their lives would be *journalists*

    Who’d miss them ? c’mon !

    • Bob Lamont says:

      Nailed it

    • Violence from an electorate seeking democracy is only ever a last desperate resort in the face of violent repression of democracy.

      The UK, along with the allies, used violence to restore democracy in Europe following the invasions of the 3rd Reich. Perfectly justifiable, but it was a last resort after many attempts at stopping German government aggression through negotiations.

      Using violence when it’s not justified only harms a cause, e.g. the IRA etc.

      Anyway, we don’t need 50%+ to take to the streets, just at most 3.5% to put there arms around our parliament in the face of British/English aggression.


      The ‘3.5% rule’: How a small minority can change the world

      Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.

    • In Scotland’s case, we need just 2.8 Murrayfield for our 3.5%.

      SNP membership would be enough alone to produce 2/3 of what’s needed.

      And mind this is only needed if England had already sent in troops to stop a vote or UDI after one. The Spanish understood the necessity of that.

      • ‘Sent in troops’ s-s?
        They’re already here.
        Think the North of Ireland in the early ‘seventies.
        The Northern Colony is garrisoned by English troops airmen and matelots now.
        Always has been since 1707.
        Yesterday the Brit Propaganda machine was despatched to NS’ presentation as a wrecking crew, to ruin any impact our FM’s speech would have on the public.

        One after one fired the same doomsday scenario Supreme Court/ ‘the Government’ (WM) will say no, so yet tea’s oot, at NS, to get today’s headlines in the Fascist Press and last night on a bumper edition of England’s Distorting Scotland, fronted by Old Torn Face herself, teamed up with Glenn Campbell and Douglas the Rev I M Jolly Fraser, that Sturgeon has blinked first and is prepared to compromise on Indyref2.
        Nothing about the content of the paper of any substance will appear anywhere in the Brit Jock Propaganda Machine.

        These men and a smattering of women are the Fourth Estate fifth Column…brainwashed from birth by the Jock Brit Establishment to swear thei allegiance to their Christian God, Queen, and ‘country’, that ‘country’ being England, and its Empire.
        I have the BBC Scotland list of staff, somwhere; I could dig it out.
        They are all recruited from the same background, and schooling. The ‘right stuff’, ‘good eggs’, church goers, hand picked individuals, ‘one of us’.

    • deelsdugs says:

      They’re the tokens of ‘democracy’ in torydom

  35. Capella says:

    I just listened to her speech on the Scot Gov Twitter account. Here’s the link – you don’t have to have twitter account to watch it.

    Dr Jim is right – NS was very calm and assured in her presentation and in answering the usual batch of silly questions from the press squad. She took the opportunity to lay to rest the canard that she had been prevented in introducing the Referendum Bill by the Lord Advocate. She made clear that referring the Bill to the Supreme Court was her choice.

    Clarity, dear journos, an alien concept I know.

    • Tatu3 says:

      Thank you. I had to be elsewhere earlier today and missed it live.
      She must leave the room sometimes and have a good old scream ! Some of the questions are truly awful

    • deelsdugs says:

      The flaring of the nostrils reveals more than the body postures. The FM knows what to expect from their biased rhetoric and speaks clearly and directly to the sitting, whimpering, bunch who merely mutter their stupid questions.

  36. Penny Mordaunt = Thatcher’s evil twin.

  37. Dr Jim says:

    There’s a concerted effort now being made to keep Penny Mordaunt from winning the Tory crown because they know she won’t give any of the existing lot jobs in the cabinet

    Tories are like Hyenas round a kill fighting with each other for the biggest bit, the funny thing about trying to get Sunak crowned king is he’ll lose the first General election he calls because England is a racist right wing country, and while they’ll talk non racist in public all their voting habits betray them in private as to the right wing racist policies they like the most

    As I said when this all began if the Tories want to win general elections Mordaunt is the one who can win them, England doesn’t care about management nor do they really care about the so called efficiency of the economy, remember Thatcher ? what England cares about most is Englishness and sod the rest

    Oops I forgot, they call it Britishness now don’t they, comical shower that they are, like a holiday postcard from Brighton

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s